Newsarama’s Vaneta Rogers Does Not Care For My Stats OR Hey, I Got Mentioned By Name On Newsarama!!

An article where I get mentioned by name is totally on the main page of Newsarama, you guys!!  That’s super fun!!  Unfortunately, the article is called “The DCnU’s Female Troubles: Was Lack of Creators Overblown?” and the part where I get mentioned takes issue with my stats, so that’s less fun.

Now, I read Vaneta Rogers’ stuff all the time and I really like her work… though this latest article was not my favourite.  I’m not trying to start some sort of Kanye/50 Cent feud here or anything (though I call dibs on being Kanye!!)… this is just a polite rebuttal.

First, Rogers mentions that the 12% to 1% ratio of female creators before and after the relaunch has been making the rounds lately, most notably at ComicCon, and suggests that this is not an accurate comparison.  I completely agree, and was amusingly working on a piece about the same thing.  The amount of female creators has definitely fallen, but the two numbers are apples and oranges.  The 12% includes colourists, letterers, and editors, and is based on the credits listed in the comics, while the 1% is based just on solicits (cover artists, writers, and interior artists).

However, Rogers’ article doesn’t mention that the September stats article points out that these are different numbers.  I wrote:

Now, this is just based on the solicitations, so it’s only cover artists, writers, and artists… there may be copious amounts of ladies colouring and lettering and editing these books that we just don’t know about yet.

And then:

I’m sure the overall numbers in September will be a lot higher with all of the other categories factored in.

I think it was pretty clear that these numbers weren’t comparable.

Rogers also mentions that the 12% is for ALL of DC’s books (including Vertigo and the kids books and such) and that the 1% was just for the 52 titles.  Again, I completely agree… these are not stats that should be compared.  The monthly stats at Bleeding Cool (and the weekly ones here) have clear parameters set out in the methodology I link to in every single post, and the relaunch numbers were a special edition based on different criteria, as was specified in the pieces.  The numbers themselves are right, just misused.  So far, Rogers and I are on the same page… she just didn’t say that I had already mentioned in the article itself that these were different numbers. 

Next, Rogers decided to do her own pre- and post-relaunch comparison, which is fun!!  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that.  She looked at DC’s top 52 books in March compared to the DCnU 52, and found that the number of female creators dropped from 4 to 2.  I have some issues with how she got the numbers, but that’s beside the point.  She found a clear drop… the DCnU had HALF the number of female creators it had before.

I’ve been working on a similar before and after comparison to address the 12% to 1% inaccuracy (based on just cover artists, writers, and interior artists), and here is my information.  I looked at June 2011 and counted up only the books that were regular DC series, which totaled 34 comic books.  So no minis, no Vertigo… nothing but regular monthly series, just like the new 52 are going to be.  I got the following information:

6 female credits with 5 different creators (Gail Simone [she wrote 2 books], Kelly Sue Deconnick, Adriana Melo, Fiona Staples, and Nicola Scott)

So we’re pretty close here, 4 to 2 and 5 to 2.  But Rogers used 52 books while I used 34, so I could adjust my number to make it a fair comparison.  With a little math (5 is to 34 as X is to 52, solve for X) I get 7.6 female creators for the regular pre-DCnU series as compared to the DCnU.  7.6 to 2 is a steeper drop, but either way we can all agree that the DCnU is a step down for female creators.

Rogers, however, argues that this step down is not really a big deal since several female creators have upcoming projects at DC.  Creators like Nicola Scott, Amanda Conner, and Amy Reeder all apparently have books coming at some point in the future.  This is great, of course.  But while discussing the decline in numbers and percentage, Rogers writes:

But it’s all kind of moot when the women who “left” to affect that decrease didn’t actually leave. The percentage comparison from one month at DC to another month implies there were women let go from DC’s roster of creative women for the relaunch. When you examine the facts, that’s just not true.

They weren’t fired, that’s true… they still work for DC.  But I disagree that the fact they will have work at some point in the future makes the decline in September unimportant.  The relaunch is branded as “The New 52”, not “The New 52 (plus some minis and maybe a few new series down the road).”  There will be scads of ads and TV commercials and press touting these new 52 books as THE books for DC.  DC is making a HUGE move, in an eggs in one basket kind of way, and their 52 new titles, with their creators, are what they wanted to put in front of the whole world to sell it.  They are saying “THIS is DC”, and female creators are a miniscule part of it, especially compared to the months before.  More books with female creators may come later, but at the time when DC is the most visible, women are almost nowhere to be seen.

Rogers also refers to DC’s recent blog post promising more female creators and characters, writing:

What’s interesting is that DC has turned the whole thing into a PR win.

I wouldn’t call that a PR win, though.  After the reaction to the relaunch, especially after ComicCon, this is a PR reprieve at best.  If DC follows through and we see more ladies, fictional and real, in the months to come, then DC will legitimately deserve credit for their response.  If they don’t follow through, then everyone who reacted strongly to the lack of women will do so again.  And we’ll all be watching, VERY closely.

So no, I don’t think the lack of female creators was overblown.  Someone at ComicCon compared some numbers that had different criteria, and it got spread around the internet a lot, but however you slice it there are fewer female creators in the relaunch.  Possible books down the road don’t change the fact that when DC unveiled their bold new direction for their company, they did so with a significant lack of women.

Thus ends the respectful disagreeing and polite rebutting.  I know an outraged reply probably would have been more fun to read, but I like Vaneta Rogers a lot.  Maybe soon someone less cool will write something about me I don’t agree with, and I can start a feud then!!

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Newsarama’s Vaneta Rogers Does Not Care For My Stats OR Hey, I Got Mentioned By Name On Newsarama!!”

  1. Roy Swan Says:

    I mentioned you too but in a short post…in a new blog…by someone no one’s heard of…or ever will.

    But hey, I mentioned you!

    http://oyswa.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/marvel-youre-invited-too/

    • Tim Hanley Says:

      Hi Roy,

      Thanks for mentioning me, and for the kind words about my blog and stats. You make an excellent point about Marvel… they’ve totally gotten ignored in all the DC/women hullabaloo, and their numbers are nothing to be proud of either. You may have seen the stats I just put up where Marvel had the worst week of the year for female creators… it was pretty bleak. Best of luck with your blog… I hope you keep at it!!

  2. Roy Swan Says:

    Hi Tim,

    Thanks for taking a look at my post! I have seen the new numbers…they were abysmal! DC had a good week however. I think it’s great you post these, the numbers for any one week or month have no context but when they are taken all together, it’s an excellent picture of how the Big Two are showing diversity. It will be very interesting to see what the numbers look like at the end of the year and how they’ve changed by next year’s con (which I didn’t get to buy tickets for because pre-sales sold out every day before I even got to the convention center). I look forward to more posts from you!

  3. Vaneta Rogers Says:

    Hey! I got mentioned in Tim Hanley’s blog! :D Thanks for reading my article! In hindsight (isn’t it always 20/20?), I should have made it clearer that 1) your stats were completely accurate and 2) YOU did not compare those two numbers. But I did link them, so people could check ‘em out (is that enough of a defense?? probably not…). As for your other points, I agree that the stats are still important to note. I used Laura Hudson’s quote to represent that. My article wasn’t really an opinion piece (I have a pretty strong opinion on all this, as you can probably imagine), although I had to walk a fine line, since I had few/no sources. Aaaaanyway… I’ll have more coming on the issue of women in comics. Want to be quoted this time? If so, email me. (I assume you can get my email from this post – if not, find me on facebook.) And thanks again! :)

  4. JohnV Says:

    “They weren’t fired, that’s true… they still work for DC. But I disagree that the fact they will have work at some point in the future makes the decline in September unimportant. The relaunch is branded as “The New 52”, not “The New 52 (plus some minis and maybe a few new series down the road).” There will be scads of ads and TV commercials and press touting these new 52 books as THE books for DC. DC is making a HUGE move, in an eggs in one basket kind of way, and their 52 new titles, with their creators, are what they wanted to put in front of the whole world to sell it. They are saying “THIS is DC”, and female creators are a miniscule part of it, especially compared to the months before. More books with female creators may come later, but at the time when DC is the most visible, women are almost nowhere to be seen.”

    Your first sentence completely invalidates the entire following paragraph. Those women work at DC. With all due respect, saying “yes yes, they still work at DC, they are working on DC books but it still doesn’t look good” makes you sound like an idiot. While it’s fine and well to marginalize those women who are not on the new 52 to make your non existent point the facts are the facts. What you’re doing is kind of like criticising a company for not having any women and then finding out that you based that criticism on one visit to that companys mens bathroom.

    • Tim Hanley Says:

      I disagree… to use your company metaphor, I think it’s like a company rebranding itself and showcasing it’s best inventions and brightest creators for the whole world to see, and it’s so male dominated in the showcase room that a visitor asks if the room is actually the men’s bathroom :) And then this visitor gets told “No, there’s TWO whole women involved right now, and there could be more down the road. But they won’t be in the showcase room when everyone’s looking at us and checking us out… that’s just for dudes. We’ll try to phase in a few ladies later.” And then the visitor is all “Not cool, man” and feels less enthusiastic about buying the company’s products.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 460 other followers

%d bloggers like this: