• philipspace

    Member
    November 4, 2021 at 1:08 am
    make icon 69 Forum Points
    CBS Forum Member: Forum Acolyte

    I am sorry to hear that you have experienced a decline in revenue. Keeping a comic shop open is no small feat, especially nowadays.

    As far as the stipulations regarding diversity in the workplace, given what I understand about the workplace culture being fostered at Image as well as in Portland, OR where their corporate headquarters reside, I found that probably the least surprising of their demands. Essentially, it was already in line with their corporate as well as community philosophies. Like it or not, they have a right to request it. Will it change their sales figures? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they’ll find their audience the same way Fantagraphics did, or maybe they’ll go the way of Kitchen Sink Press, Eclipse, or Aircel. The market will ultimately decide, and if Image as a publisher isn’t sensitive to what their audience is willing to buy we already know what will happen.

    I feel like the call for empowerment to cancel offensive publications is already being well-tread elsewhere on the internet, and I’m not particularly inclined to discuss it at length here. It seems like something a lot of people are fixating on, and it hasn’t even been approved yet. <font face=”inherit”>If that request is granted by Image management (which I think is unlikely), giving staffers de facto authority over the ability of creators deemed to be problematic to be able to publish under the Image logo… well, it seems like a move toward mob justice. I feel that Image as a publisher is already pretty sensitive to the environment around their respective creators. It doesn’t seem like a necessary step to outsource or democratize beyond the group of people who already make those decisions, and probably won’t be. </font>

    <font face=”inherit”>But I could be wrong.</font>

    <font face=”inherit”>
    </font>