The failure of Jon Kent & the Bros film
Comic Reviews for week ending 10/9/2022
Good morning, my friend,
By the time you read this, New York ComicCon will be over, and all the usual pundits, myself included, will have plenty of announcement fodder to chew over for weeks to come.
On Saturday, one of the many comic-related announcements is the end of Superman: Son of Kal-El featuring one Jonathan Kent. The announcement was a surprise only in its suddenness, but if you have even the slightest ability to read the room, you could see this announcement coming a mile away.
Sales for Jon Kent’s title never recovered to first-issue hype levels due to one very good reason. DC created a book that violates the Golden Rule of sales:
“Give customers what they already want, at a fair price, where they are.”
Much ado was made about Jon Kent’s sexuality flip, but in truth, his orientation is not why sales never recovered. In simplest terms, DC put the wrong character in the wrong book and marketed that book to the wrong audience. Breaking this situation down in terms of the Golden Rule:
Did existing Superman fans ask for an aged-up Kon Kent to take over his father’s mantle on Earth, spending most of his run engaging in ethically questionable activities, protesting social issues he could solve in a matter of days with his superpowers, and spending a significant number of issues focusing on his romantic relationship with his ethically questionable boyfriend? No. Therefore, DC was not giving existing Superman fans what they already wanted.
If existing Superman fans didn’t conceive of much less clamor for such a comic, did it make sense to charge a $3.99 cover price? No. Overpricing unwanted comics is foolhardy.
If there is an audience for Jon Kent’s slice-of-life comic, does that audience make up a significant portion of the population of LCS visitors where this comic is almost exclusively marketed and sold? More research is needed to say for sure, but odds are the answer is ‘No.'
Verdict: DC did everything wrong to nearly guarantee Jon Ken’t solo title would falter to where we are now.
Similarly but separate, Billy Eichner’s Bros film debuted to a dismal reception. It’s unlikely the film will break even, but the failure has less to do with the content - a gay-focused rom-com set against the backdrop of the Parental Rights Education Bill - and more with how the film was produced, marketed, and delivered.
The film was produced with a modest film budget ($22 million), which is unusual for an indie rom-com film. It was marketed to mainstream audiences and released to 3,350 screens on opening day. Again, the size of distribution is highly unusual for an indie rom-com.
Why bring up Bros? Because the film’s failure almost identically matches the failure of Jon Kent’s comic - a complete violation of the Golden Rule.
Is the majority of mainstream, film-going audiences - audiences comprised of a mix of male and female adults who have children - clamoring for a gay-focused rom-com set against the backdrop of the Parental Rights Education Bill? All signs would say this is highly unlikely. Let’s just say ‘no’.
Given the expense of the current movie-going experience, would a single adult or couple shell out the cash for a movie with limited-to-no appeal? No.
Is there a hidden population of moviegoers spread out all over the country that would be interested in this type of film? Possible but unlikely.
Bros didn’t fail because of its content. It failed because it was marketed to the wrong audience for the wrong price and in the wrong locations. Sound familiar?
If there’s a lesson Hollywood and Comics Publishers can take away from the events of this week, it’s that the Golden Rule can’t be broken. Let’s recap.
Jon Kent’s solo title and the Bros film both failed for one reason - they both violated the Golden Rule of sales and marketing
Give audiences what they ALREADY want. You can’t make something want something they don’t want.
Sell audiences what they already want at a fair price.
Bring what you’re selling to audiences where they are. Never assume they will come to you.
What do you think? What could DC have done differently to give Jon Kent’s title a greater chance for success (Don’t say “de-age him”. Everyone already knows that one.)? Let us know in the Comments section, and your reply may get featured in the next newsletter.
Now, on to the reviews of the week that was.
A LEGACY OF VIOLENCE #1 – Review
KILLCHELLA #1 – Review
SOMETHING JUICY (ONE-SHOT)- Review
SWEETIE: CANDY VIGILANTE #1 – Review
NYX #10 – Review
SIRENS GATE #1 – Review
UNBREAKABLE RED SONJA #1 – Review
GUN HONEY: BLOOD FOR BLOOD #2 – Review
BLADE RUNNER: BLACK LOTUS #3 – Review
GRIMM TALES OF TERROR QUARTERLY: RISE OF CTHULHU – Review
THE WEST MOON CHRONICLE #1 – Review
JUNIOR #1 – Review
ROUGAROU – Indie Review
BIG BANG ADVENTURES #17 – Indie Review
Show's End: The Second Coming #4 (Mad Cave Studios)
Isom #1 (Indie Submission)
Azza the Barbed #1 (Scout Comics)
Sherlock: A Scandal in Belgravia part 2 #3 (Titan Comics)
Atom: The Beginning (Vol. 1) (Titan Comics)
007 #3 (Dynamite Comics)
The Ninjettes #2 (Dynamite Comics)
Scarlet Sisters (One-Shot) (Dynamite Comics)
Vampirella Mindwarp #2 (Dynamite Comics)
Stan Lee's Alliances: Orphans (Dynamite Comics)
Unborn Fears #1 (Indie Submission)
Avalon #1 (Indie Submission)
That’s the shortlist for now. We’ll add more titles and adjust as time and resources allow.
Again, thanks for your support. Please share (the handy dandy ‘Share’ button is down below) this newsletter with everyone you can. Your support ensures we can keep bringing you great content for a very long time.
Also, follow us on all the socials (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) via @ComicalOpinions
Have a great day!