Thanks, you guys, for the insight yesterday. It's an informal poll obviously, but looks like everyone's into covers that are artistic on their own merits, but are also indicative of the art you'll find inside.
The reason I asked was because I'd been reading
this series of blog posts by Marvel editor Tom Brevoort about covers. It's a really interesting look at the history of Marvel covers and the thought that's gone into marketing comics through the years. It sounds like Marvel's
current thinking mirrors what you guys were talking about.
That's cool to know, because my own taste in comics covers is probably about
40 years old:
"These tended to showcase an explosive or gripping piece of artwork, and come covered with assorted bursts and blurbs proclaiming the greatness of the contents of that issue, often with a heavy dollop of self-effacing humor. This established the Marvel style right off the bat, and made those books stand out among the competition—they tended to be funnier and more engaging than the average, while at the same time being more exciting visually. It seems like such an obvious approach in hindsight, but most publishers of the day were still tentative because of the Senate hearings of the '50s, and so were reluctant to make waves by calling too much attention to themselves. Most other super hero covers focused on being pristine, almost sterile in a classy way. Rarely would a super hero break a sweat. The challenges tended to be intellectual and emotional, rather than physical. Not so on the Marvel covers of the day."
Although, I do find it really interesting that that kind of cover is one that Marvel came up with during a time when they needed to be especially competitive. Once things stabilized for the company and sales were up, "Stan (Lee) and Martin Goodman seemed content to let the artwork shoulder the burden of selling the magazine. Covers became a bit more graphic, propelled by the innovations of young artists like Jim Steranko and Neal Adams."
Also, "As the overall quality of the artwork rose, the emphasis moved more concretely towards having a strong, punchy, dynamic image. The amount of copy fell dramatically, typically only one box or blurb, most often highlighting the title of the issue or the central idea of the conflict."
It sounds like when sales were down, Marvel went for the "explosive," "gripping" covers with lots of hype captions that told you what the story was about. When sales are okay, they go for "strong," "bold," "dynamic" images that more or less carry the covers by themselves.
Logic tells me that if I really need to sell a book to people who don't already know about it, then I should maybe try some early '60s-style covers. But what I'm hearing from you guys (if I'm correct in the way I'm connecting the dots) is that maybe those Biff! Pow! covers may be too retro and give the appearance that a book's out of touch with modern tastes. Is that right?
I know this is all very unscientific and that I'm basing conclusions on four of my friends and a series of posts about one company's thinking, but right now it's all I have to go on. Not that I have to figure it out right this minute. I'm just trying to form a working theory that I can test for a while.