Why Aren't Disney Comics More Popular in the English World?

[poordonald]

I'm aware that this topic might have been discussed before, but I'm eager to hear the perspectives of the users on this forum.

Over the past two to three decades, especially from the 1980s to the early 21st century, Disney comics haven't seen as much success in their English-speaking birthplace as they have in continental Europe. A vast number of excellent Italian three-tier comics and Egmont four-tier comics haven't been introduced to readers in the English-speaking world (Sigh! Learning a new language is so challenging). Why do you think this phenomenon exists?

[That Duckfan]

Ah, yes. I find this a fascinating question, because I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. I have a couple of theories, but those are more based on vibes than hard evidence.

Part 1. How did Disney comics get so popular in Europe to begin with?
Disney comics had their first success in Europe in the 1930s. Comics were originally an American invention, and it was here that the medium first flourished. Being a tie-in of a universally adored series of cartoons undoubtedly helped to sell to sell the first Disney comics abroad. But their popularity really took flight after World War II.

There's a couple of reasons for this. First off, there was an economic and demographic boom, the baby boom. There were more kids and there was more money to spend on kids. Second, Disney comics were American, and the in post-war environment, everything American was considered extremely cool (even if authority figures didn't exactly approve).

Part 2. But why Disney comics?
The 1950s were an interesting time. There was a very puritan zeitgeist, and many comics were considered too violent and edgy for contemporary tastes. This is true for America as well as Europe, and this is the period when Walt Disney's Comics and Stories was America's most popular comic book. Very soon, comics in America received a reputation for being kids' stuff and totally uncool. The genres that recovered the best were superhero and Western comics: action comics featuring tough guys, appealing to a kind of can-do masculinity in American culture that the war-weary Europeans were less impressed by. (In this sense, I think the communal aspect of Duckburg really helped in selling Disney comics in Europe.)

That's not to say that Europeans didn't read other types of comics, but the important point is where they read them. See, unlike US comic books, which were tailored to whatever hero was on the cover, in Europe comics were published in comic magazines, offering a variety of material from different sources. This diversification allowed European comic magazines to tap into a wider audience, and it made their audience more widely-read in turn. These titles include such classics as Spirou and Tintin, but crucially, also Topolino and Le Journal de Mickey!

And even in Europe, not all countries fared equally. In place with a strong domestic comics tradition, such as Belgium or Britain, Disney comics ended up being outcompeted by the late 1950s. British colonies (current or former) often relied on material distributed from Britain and the United States, and thus roughly followed suit. This relationship between colonialism and comics distribution is one I find very interesting, but I can't fully make the case here. Generally speaking, smaller language communities have less production of comics and are thus more exposed to foreign material, whereas Anglophone and to an extent Francophone countries have the population to exist more within their own post-imperial cultural bubble.

Part 3. Why did comics decline in America?
During the 1960s, children's comics infantilized. Television had created a new market for cartoons, but executive meddling and budgetary constraints meant that these cartoons were a lot simpler and a lot more kid-friendly than those in the past. Comic tie-ins followed suit, alongside a general idea that it was better to target certain demographics specifically. "Funny animals" were for kids, and that was that.

In colleges, meanwhile, a new kind of culture was emerging. The first cohort of baby boomers graduated art school in the late 1960s, and gave the world underground and counterculture. Many of those artists had grown up on Disney, and embraced the recently-discovered Carl Barks as a counterculture icon. (I can only imagine what Barks himself must've thought of this.) In Europe, this led to a real flourishing of the comics medium, including in the Disney comic magazines. Disney comics had always been marketed more towards families than children, appearing in mothers' magazines and the like, but by the mid-1970s they really established themselves as intergenerational, enjoyed by parents and children alike. And they've been a mainstay ever since.

This did not happen in the United States. There was a Barks revival, alright, but none of it ended up in the comics of the time. Funny animal comic books went the same way as their animated counterparts, a steady stream of reprints and ever decreasing quality. By the time Western Publishing finally lost the license in 1985, the moment had passed. Culture had moved on.
I'm not sure why Barks wasn't picked up the same way in America. Maybe Western wasn't interested, or maybe there was a generational gap. It's worth noting that the Europeans received Barks' stories a few years after their original publication. Perhaps the original generation of artists that had grown up on Barks was just a touch older? Don Rosa, the most popular post-Barks American Disney comics artist, is of that same underground generation, but only read Barks when he inherited them from his older sister.

After 1985, Disney comics followed the general American comic book trends. Publisher Gladstone rode a relatively successful wave of comics popularity that appealed more to geeks and collectors than mainstream audiences, and it's been diminishing returns for the American comics market ever since. The amount of Americans that read comics today is vanishingly small. Comics are also more expensive than ever, in part due to expectations in things like paper quality, and in part due to the small demand. This means that American comics are above the price range of what many kids can spend, if they can even get to a store that stocks them. In theory, digital reading should make American comics more accessible, but there's so much else on your device that can grab your attention that requires even less effort.

[schizo]

The comic market is smaller in some European countries. In America there’s like several hundred new issues of various comics being published every month. The comic distribution is also different in Europe. In most Scandinavian countries you don’t have to go a comic book shop to buy them. You can find them at newsstands and grocery stores. In america there's more competition and the comics aren't as accessible.

[mousemaestro]

Western Publishing allowed its Disney line to decline. It caused irrecoverable damage. Also, outside of the early 1990s, the Disney company hasn't made comics a priority. It is perfectly satisfied to license out the lines.

[poordonald]

Sept 20, 2023 22:04:49 GMT That Duckfan said:

Ah, yes. I find this a fascinating question, because I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. I have a couple of theories, but those are more based on vibes than hard evidence.

Part 1. How did Disney comics get so popular in Europe to begin with?
Disney comics had their first success in Europe in the 1930s. Comics were originally an American invention, and it was here that the medium first flourished. Being a tie-in of a universally adored series of cartoons undoubtedly helped to sell to sell the first Disney comics abroad. But their popularity really took flight after World War II.

There's a couple of reasons for this. First off, there was an economic and demographic boom, the baby boom. There were more kids and there was more money to spend on kids. Second, Disney comics were American, and the in post-war environment, everything American was considered extremely cool (even if authority figures didn't exactly approve).

Part 2. But why Disney comics?
The 1950s were an interesting time. There was a very puritan zeitgeist, and many comics were considered too violent and edgy for contemporary tastes. This is true for America as well as Europe, and this is the period when Walt Disney's Comics and Stories was America's most popular comic book. Very soon, comics in America received a reputation for being kids' stuff and totally uncool. The genres that recovered the best were superhero and Western comics: action comics featuring tough guys, appealing to a kind of can-do masculinity in American culture that the war-weary Europeans were less impressed by. (In this sense, I think the communal aspect of Duckburg really helped in selling Disney comics in Europe.)

That's not to say that Europeans didn't read other types of comics, but the important point is where they read them. See, unlike US comic books, which were tailored to whatever hero was on the cover, in Europe comics were published in comic magazines, offering a variety of material from different sources. This diversification allowed European comic magazines to tap into a wider audience, and it made their audience more widely-read in turn. These titles include such classics as Spirou and Tintin, but crucially, also Topolino and Le Journal de Mickey!

And even in Europe, not all countries fared equally. In place with a strong domestic comics tradition, such as Belgium or Britain, Disney comics ended up being outcompeted by the late 1950s. British colonies (current or former) often relied on material distributed from Britain and the United States, and thus roughly followed suit. This relationship between colonialism and comics distribution is one I find very interesting, but I can't fully make the case here. Generally speaking, smaller language communities have less production of comics and are thus more exposed to foreign material, whereas Anglophone and to an extent Francophone countries have the population to exist more within their own post-imperial cultural bubble.

Part 3. Why did comics decline in America?
During the 1960s, children's comics infantilized. Television had created a new market for cartoons, but executive meddling and budgetary constraints meant that these cartoons were a lot simpler and a lot more kid-friendly than those in the past. Comic tie-ins followed suit, alongside a general idea that it was better to target certain demographics specifically. "Funny animals" were for kids, and that was that.

In colleges, meanwhile, a new kind of culture was emerging. The first cohort of baby boomers graduated art school in the late 1960s, and gave the world underground and counterculture. Many of those artists had grown up on Disney, and embraced the recently-discovered Carl Barks as a counterculture icon. (I can only imagine what Barks himself must've thought of this.) In Europe, this led to a real flourishing of the comics medium, including in the Disney comic magazines. Disney comics had always been marketed more towards families than children, appearing in mothers' magazines and the like, but by the mid-1970s they really established themselves as intergenerational, enjoyed by parents and children alike. And they've been a mainstay ever since.

This did not happen in the United States. There was a Barks revival, alright, but none of it ended up in the comics of the time. Funny animal comic books went the same way as their animated counterparts, a steady stream of reprints and ever decreasing quality. By the time Western Publishing finally lost the license in 1985, the moment had passed. Culture had moved on.
I'm not sure why Barks wasn't picked up the same way in America. Maybe Western wasn't interested, or maybe there was a generational gap. It's worth noting that the Europeans received Barks' stories a few years after their original publication. Perhaps the original generation of artists that had grown up on Barks was just a touch older? Don Rosa, the most popular post-Barks American Disney comics artist, is of that same underground generation, but only read Barks when he inherited them from his older sister.

After 1985, Disney comics followed the general American comic book trends. Publisher Gladstone rode a relatively successful wave of comics popularity that appealed more to geeks and collectors than mainstream audiences, and it's been diminishing returns for the American comics market ever since. The amount of Americans that read comics today is vanishingly small. Comics are also more expensive than ever, in part due to expectations in things like paper quality, and in part due to the small demand. This means that American comics are above the price range of what many kids can spend, if they can even get to a store that stocks them. In theory, digital reading should make American comics more accessible, but there's so much else on your device that can grab your attention that requires even less effort.

Thank you for the well-thought-out response! I've spent a few days delving deeper into the context you brought up in your reply.

A follow-up question: The counterculture movements of the 1960s seem to be a significant turning point. Why did this lead Disney comics to become mainstream in Europe, but not in the U.S.? Is this primarily due to cultural factors, coincidental market dynamics, or possibly related to the point you mentioned about smaller language markets being more easily influenced?

[That Duckfan]

Sept 24, 2023 17:23:28 GMT poordonald said:

Thank you for the well-thought-out response! I've spent a few days delving deeper into the context you brought up in your reply.

A follow-up question: The counterculture movements of the 1960s seem to be a significant turning point. Why did this lead Disney comics to become mainstream in Europe, but not in the U.S.? Is this primarily due to cultural factors, coincidental market dynamics, or possibly related to the point you mentioned about smaller language markets being more easily influenced?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

There was a belief widespread among American executives at the time that kids' comics existed to sell TV cartoons, and that TV cartoons existed to sell breakfast cereal. And that was the end of it. I was recently reading some comments made by Barks around this time, who clearly didn't have a very high view of his editors at Western. But I think this points to a larger trend, where marketing/PR divisions seem to have much more influence in setting company policy in the US than in Europe. I imagine that Barks' editors were hamstrung, either by company policy or a general industry consensus to keep doing what they were doing.

Not that they didn't try! Some smaller US publishers tried to bring over some of the European comics, they couldn't gain a foothold in the American market. That's what my comment about smaller language markets was about: it's much harder to (re-)enter a market that's already saturated. Only Asterix managed to get popular, and even then it was incomparable to the massive success it enjoyed in Europe. Different folks, different strokes.

There's also the question of Disney. European publishers long benefited from being at arm's length from Disney, along with the language barrier, giving them a greater creative freedom than their American domestic counterpart. This might've played a tangential role in Western's course, but I mainly bring it up to try and contextualize the above paragraph.
The Disney studios were producing their own comics at the same time, the so-called S-coded (Studio) stories written for the international comics market. These are... mostly subpar, but there are some real gems among them, when an inspired studio artist happened pass by, and by the 1980s, they were employing European artists as well. Your opinion may vary, but I think that the Studio stories of the 1970s and especially the '80s are much better than their Western Publishing counterparts. This makes it hard to advance a case that the Mouse was keeping Western down, or something like that. No, Western did that all by themselves!

Ultimately, it might come down to cultural differences. The American comics scene of the 1960s and 1970s seems to have been much more segregated between mainstream and counterculture, whereas in Europe there was a lot more collaboration and variety. The career of a Dutch artist like Dick Matena or Daan Jippes was pretty varied: they might do some Duck comics for a while, then work on their own adult comic series, and then go back to Duck to provide a back-up comic based on classic literature. And sometimes those back-up comics might cross some boundaries, in the more permissable 1980s. Some, like Jippes, eventually ended up working for Disney Burbank for a while, so it's not like they were anathema or something.

I'm not sure what became of the American artists of that generation. Don Rosa's career is pretty well documented, as is his longstanding beef with Disney corporate. Jeff Smith did pretty well as an indie artist. His popular comics series Bone is the closest thing to Barks outside of Disney comics. Not sure about any others, my knowledge of American artists is somewhat limited.

But I think the most telling fact about the trajectory of American Disney comics is that Gladstone Publishing ended up having two artists on their payroll at the same time. One was Don Rosa, the other was Vic Lockman. It's hard to imagine two more different Disney artists, in terms of philosophy as much as in quality!

[Mesterius]

Oct 2, 2023 21:19:58 GMT That Duckfan said:

Not that they didn't try! Some smaller US publishers tried to bring over some of the European comics, they couldn't gain a foothold in the American market. That's what my comment about smaller language markets was about: it's much harder to (re-)enter a market that's already saturated. Only Asterix managed to get popular, and even then it was incomparable to the massive success it enjoyed in Europe. Different folks, different strokes.

Traditionally speaking, as far as I know, Asterix has never been popular in the United States. Nor has Tintin, Lucky Luke, Spirou or any of the French-Belgian classics... although Tintin has had a US publisher for many years. Tintin and Asterix are both very popular in the English language, of course, but that's through their getting published in Great Britain.

Asterix was actually relaunched in the US in 2020 by Papercutz. I don't know how well the new volumes have been selling, but I believe it's the first time in decades that an American publisher has done something with the series.

[That Duckfan]

Oct 2, 2023 22:25:45 GMT Mesterius said:

Oct 2, 2023 21:19:58 GMT That Duckfan said:

Not that they didn't try! Some smaller US publishers tried to bring over some of the European comics, they couldn't gain a foothold in the American market. That's what my comment about smaller language markets was about: it's much harder to (re-)enter a market that's already saturated. Only Asterix managed to get popular, and even then it was incomparable to the massive success it enjoyed in Europe. Different folks, different strokes.

Traditionally speaking, as far as I know, Asterix has never been popular in the United States. Nor has Tintin, Lucky Luke, Spirou or any of the French-Belgian classics... although Tintin has had a US publisher for many years. Tintin and Asterix are both very popular in the English language, of course, but that's through their getting published in Great Britain.

Asterix was actually relaunched in the US in 2020 by Papercutz. I don't know how well the new volumes have been selling, but I believe it's the first time in decades that an American publisher has done something with the series.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know. I was going off a comment Don Rosa made in one of his Don Rosa Classics volumes, where he mentions Asterix as one of the few European comics that were available during his college years. Apparently, one of his professors was also an Asterix fan, and they ended up dabbling in a comic strip based on classical antiquity.

So the situation was even worse than I thought. I guess it's just one of those unexplainable cultural differences!

[Ramapith]

In my own experience, Asterix and Tintin were both quite popular in the USA during my boyhood in the 1980s. Despite being published by different publishers (Dargaud for Asterix, Little Brown for Tintin), they appealed to, and were marketed by bookstores to, the same older-kids audience. Occasional large bookstores kept them on a display rack designed to look like the rocket in Tintin's "Explorers On the Moon."

Asterix and Tintin cartoons were easily viewable on the Disney Channel (Asterix features) and HBO (an animated Tintin series that began in 1991).

There was a major problem with Asterix, though. Dargaud only owned and published the first 24 albums. While pan-European publishers made deals to continue the series—adding the later Uderzo-only albums that were owned by Éditions Albert René—Dargaud in the USA made no such deal, and no other publisher stepped up. So while American kids were Asterix-conscious, there was no sense of ongoing, "new" Asterix constantly appearing to keep interest high.

Dargaud also refused to upgrade the color, format, and printing quality of the early books in the US when other publishers did—most notably Hodder and Staughton in Britain. 1990s American editions of Asterix looked indistinguishable from late 1970s ones...

...with one odd exception. Dargaud at some point decided that the books' sagging US sales might be due, I guess, to their not sounding American enough. Over several years (mid-1980s to early 1990s), they replaced five albums in the Goscinny run with new translations that were supposed to sound more American. They were clunky and dumbed-down, and gave the characters different names (Getafix became "Magicgimmix"). The other 19 albums remained unchanged, creating total confusion with the rest of the line.

It was especially frustrating when a European friend told me and my schoolmates about the new Asterixes appearing in Europe at the time, and the better color that was available there. All we had here were poor 1970s colors, poorer printing quality, and clumsy rewrites slowly replacing the hilarious Hockridge and Bell (UK) translations.

Smaller publishers eventually brought the later Asterix books here in limited quantities, but the damage was done. Rather than never being popular here (as is typically assumed), the characters had been fairly popular—until mishandling/mismarketing all but killed them.

I wish Papercutz well with their new editions, because I want the characters to be visible, but I'm sadly not a fan of their new translations either (which feel less specifically American, to me, than simply generic).

[poordonald]

Oct 2, 2023 21:19:58 GMT That Duckfan said:

Sept 24, 2023 17:23:28 GMT poordonald said:

Thank you for the well-thought-out response! I've spent a few days delving deeper into the context you brought up in your reply.

A follow-up question: The counterculture movements of the 1960s seem to be a significant turning point. Why did this lead Disney comics to become mainstream in Europe, but not in the U.S.? Is this primarily due to cultural factors, coincidental market dynamics, or possibly related to the point you mentioned about smaller language markets being more easily influenced?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

There was a belief widespread among American executives at the time that kids' comics existed to sell TV cartoons, and that TV cartoons existed to sell breakfast cereal. And that was the end of it. I was recently reading some comments made by Barks around this time, who clearly didn't have a very high view of his editors at Western. But I think this points to a larger trend, where marketing/PR divisions seem to have much more influence in setting company policy in the US than in Europe. I imagine that Barks' editors were hamstrung, either by company policy or a general industry consensus to keep doing what they were doing.

Not that they didn't try! Some smaller US publishers tried to bring over some of the European comics, they couldn't gain a foothold in the American market. That's what my comment about smaller language markets was about: it's much harder to (re-)enter a market that's already saturated. Only Asterix managed to get popular, and even then it was incomparable to the massive success it enjoyed in Europe. Different folks, different strokes.

There's also the question of Disney. European publishers long benefited from being at arm's length from Disney, along with the language barrier, giving them a greater creative freedom than their American domestic counterpart. This might've played a tangential role in Western's course, but I mainly bring it up to try and contextualize the above paragraph.
The Disney studios were producing their own comics at the same time, the so-called S-coded (Studio) stories written for the international comics market. These are... mostly subpar, but there are some real gems among them, when an inspired studio artist happened pass by, and by the 1980s, they were employing European artists as well. Your opinion may vary, but I think that the Studio stories of the 1970s and especially the '80s are much better than their Western Publishing counterparts. This makes it hard to advance a case that the Mouse was keeping Western down, or something like that. No, Western did that all by themselves!

Ultimately, it might come down to cultural differences. The American comics scene of the 1960s and 1970s seems to have been much more segregated between mainstream and counterculture, whereas in Europe there was a lot more collaboration and variety. The career of a Dutch artist like Dick Matena or Daan Jippes was pretty varied: they might do some Duck comics for a while, then work on their own adult comic series, and then go back to Duck to provide a back-up comic based on classic literature. And sometimes those back-up comics might cross some boundaries, in the more permissable 1980s. Some, like Jippes, eventually ended up working for Disney Burbank for a while, so it's not like they were anathema or something.

I'm not sure what became of the American artists of that generation. Don Rosa's career is pretty well documented, as is his longstanding beef with Disney corporate. Jeff Smith did pretty well as an indie artist. His popular comics series Bone is the closest thing to Barks outside of Disney comics. Not sure about any others, my knowledge of American artists is somewhat limited.

But I think the most telling fact about the trajectory of American Disney comics is that Gladstone Publishing ended up having two artists on their payroll at the same time. One was Don Rosa, the other was Vic Lockman. It's hard to imagine two more different Disney artists, in terms of philosophy as much as in quality!

Asterix is a great example to mention - it made me think of Marco Rota’s Andold Wild Duck series. Have you checked this one out? That is the first story it was depicted. inducks.org/story.php?c=I+AT++228-A. This series got that classic European vibe, a lot of very "European" humor and culture meme.

I can’t elaborate all the details, but there’s definitely a distinct feel between Euro and America comic styles. Taking Rota as an example again, his works often feature entire pages without dialogues, relying heavily on composition and paneling to convey the narrative. It’s a silent yet profoundly expressive form of storytelling that speaks volumes. Taking a look at Rosa's artwork instead, they are notably “full.” Every panel is rich with detail, a characteristic that is quintessentially aligned with American comics, reminiscent of the superhero genre.

Disney comics, though, they have this Barks's 10-pager vibe. They can not leave all space for those epic superhero sagas. In America, Donald’s superhero gigs in Italian stories just couldn’t quite fight against the heavyweights like Marvel and DC. For Barks's style, it found a second home with European artists. So, it’s like America missed out on two ends, don’t you think?

[Spectrus]

Oct 8, 2023 17:04:00 GMT poordonald said:

In America, Donald’s superhero gigs in Italian stories just couldn’t quite fight against the heavyweights like Marvel and DC.

Not to mention that it took ages until Donald's superhero persona was properly introduced to the US...

[napoleondecheese]

The most popular European comics characters in the United States would be the Smurfs, and even that is because of the Hanna Barbera series. Most Americans must have no idea they originated in Francobelgian comics.

[Spectrus]

I just stumbled over this bit in a Romano Scarpa interview:

www.romanoscarpa.net/articoli/intervista-scarpa-e-l-alchimia-della-disneyanita/

Although in the 1980s the American market opened up considerably to European artistic influences, it cannot be said that there is a desire to offer Italian Disney stories to the public. Gladstone's weak attempt seems to have gone almost unnoticed, apart from the enthusiasm of some readers. Because, according to you?

There has always been some indifference from our local publishing in trying to "break through" America. I remember often saying to Mario Gentilini “why don't you try to get our stories published here that have all this success?". Mickey Mouse had exceeded one million copies, we were in 1974-75, around the number 1000. But again, there was always some indifference, letting them take care of it, the Americans. In practice this is logical, because it is the Americans who hold the rights of the characters. It wasn't a deal from our publishers. It is the task of the Americans, if they wish, to take an interest in the publication of Italian stories. Today things are very different, but Mondadori, for example, certainly could not be interested in first person to make them publish ...

(Sorry for the clunky translation)

[quiof]

Uncle Scrooge was once one of the best sellers, I believe that the more competition there was with other media and then the creation of the direct market, sales would never be the same again.

www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/unclescrooge.html