What's up with Rob Liefeld? No CGC? 4 4

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, Logan510 said:

The analogy is based on a racist misperception, so I'm not sure it holds up under scrutiny.

But I get the point, I just don't agree with it. I fully understand how people can feel they're being segregated by the tired pricing.

If it were me, I wouldn't do it. But I wouldn't tell any of my colleagues they couldn't.

 

Nobody's told anyone they couldn't. 

I'm sorry that some people don't understand the issue. It's been explained dozens, if not hundreds, of times:

Charging different prices for the exact same service, the exact same effort, at virtually the exact same time, with absolutely zero consideration for that difference in price, is discrimination. Discrimination isn't always a bad thing, but discrimination based on the false idea that anyone and everyone doing Sig Series is "making money" is a foolish course of action.

Are people allowed to be foolish? Of course. But speaking out against foolish courses of actions is not wrong...it's a good thing. So long as creators continue to do this, they will lose customers, CGC will lose submissions, and collectors will be frustrated. 

Some people may not care about any of that...but I do.

[Logan510]

Maybe someone should take creators to court for discrimination if they feel that strongly about it.

If a restaurant charged someone more for food because of discriminatory reasons it would probably result in a lawsuit.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Maybe the goal isn't to force people to change...but rather to present an argument that is persuasive and compelling, and maybe they'll change on their own.

Forcing people to do what you want...? Yeah, no, that generally doesn't end well.

 

[kav]

 

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

Maybe someone should take creators to court for discrimination if they feel that strongly about it.

If a restaurant charged someone more for food because of discriminatory reasons it would probably result in a lawsuit.

Creators should be able to charge whatever they want for whoever they want as long as it doesnt involve race or something.  If they wanna charge one guy a buck and another guy a thousand bucks so what.  They should not be locked into some fee schedule devised but some totally random dude.

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by kav

[Logan510]

31 minutes ago, kav said:

 

Creators should be able to charge whatever they want for whoever they want as long as it doesnt involve race or something.  If they wanna charge one guy a buck and another guy a thousand bucks so what.  They should not be locked into some fee schedule devised but some totally random dude.

 

I understand the point though and I also understand where the creators who doing it are coming from, misperception or not.

As much as I wish Neal Adams charged less for his signature or artwork, I don't think I can make a compelling enough case to him ( not that I would ) to change his mind.

 

[kav]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I understand the point though and I also understand where the creators who doing it are coming from, misperception or not.

As much as I wish Neal Adams charged less for his signature or artwork, I don't think I can make a compelling enough case to him ( not that I would ) to change his mind.

 

[Prince Namor]

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Maybe the goal isn't to force people to change...but rather to present an argument that is persuasive and compelling, and maybe they'll change on their own.

Forcing people to do what you want...? Yeah, no, that generally doesn't end well.

 

 

And if I'm not mistaken this has really been the only thing you've advocated for from the beginning of this. 

Not sure if it'll work, at least not on a broad scale, but perhaps SOME creators might change their mind. The point is, I'd think anyone involved with the SS program or CGC in general or as a fan or as a sometime user of the service, would see this as important. It's NOT about getting them to charge less or the same as everyone as much as it is getting them to understand the program and CGC in general. That's a GOOD thing. 

In the time I slabbed books and got SS books done, I appreciated the program and even now, if I ran into, say Erik Larsen and he said, "That CGC stuff is just weird, I hate it, they take advantage of us", I'd feel compelled to explain how that just isn't true and some of the fallacies that artists believe. To be into the 2nd or 3rd year of this discussion on the forum and still have it turn into 'they can charge whatever they want' is just an example of people jumping into conversations to be contentious rather than have a discussion. It's not about that. It's never really been about that.

[Logan510]

Not worth it.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Logan510

[joeypost]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

I understand the point though and I also understand where the creators who doing it are coming from, misperception or not.

As much as I wish Neal Adams charged less for his signature or artwork, I don't think I can make a compelling enough case to him ( not that I would ) to change his mind.

 

You would if you had an agenda. Maybe most people don't, or its not worth the effort for them since the cost is passed on to the customers. An empty line IMO would be the best deterrent against this type of pricing, but we all know that will never happen. 

[kav]

9 minutes ago, joeypost said:

You would if you had an agenda. Maybe most people don't, or its not worth the effort for them since the cost is passed on to the customers. An empty line IMO would be the best deterrent against this type of pricing, but we all know that will never happen. 

Usually when someone wants people to do things differently, there's an agenda.  If no agenda, people tend to go 'who cares'?

[RockMyAmadeus]

37 minutes ago, joeypost said:

2 hours ago, Logan510 said:

I understand the point though and I also understand where the creators who doing it are coming from, misperception or not.

As much as I wish Neal Adams charged less for his signature or artwork, I don't think I can make a compelling enough case to him ( not that I would ) to change his mind.

 

You would if you had an agenda.

Yes.

And my agenda, as I've said from the start, is to pay what I think is reasonable. 

Everyone has an agenda. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. What matters, then, is whether or not people are honest about those agendas.

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the way...despite the attempt to, yet again, muddy the conversation...Neal Adams doesn't charge a different price for his signatures based on where he thinks they go, so the discussion isn't about what Neal Adams charges.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

To be into the 2nd or 3rd year of this discussion on the forum and still have it turn into 'they can charge whatever they want' is just an example of people jumping into conversations to be contentious rather than have a discussion. It's not about that. It's never really been about that.

Yes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes.

And my agenda, as I've said from the start, is to pay what I think is reasonable. 

Everyone has an agenda. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. What matters, then, is whether or not people are honest about those agendas.

Oh, and far more importantly, not being made to feel as if I'm doing something shady/unethical/immoral/scummy and/or "not a real fan" if I choose to participate in the Signature Series program. That's been the worst part of all of this.

[joeypost]

9 hours ago, kav said:

Usually when someone wants people to do things differently, there's an agenda.  If no agenda, people tend to go 'who cares'?

Personally, I think the SS program provides a valuable service. I have many unauthorized signatures that are near and dear to me. I also have many books signed by my favorite artists that are in CGC yellow slabs. They are also near and dear to me. Since they are my keepers iI don't care what I pay for the signatures (to a degree as I wont pay $500 for anyone's signature...even if Kirby or Kane were to rise from the dead) because they hold greater sentimental compared to resale value. Since I am not in the position of a CAW or do it for a living, I suppose I would be perturbed if there were tiers of pricing due to what I was doing with the book. Then again, I understand the cost of doing business, and sometimes that cost doesn't make sense but it is what it is. 

[Prince Namor]

27 minutes ago, joeypost said:

Personally, I think the SS program provides a valuable service. I have many unauthorized signatures that are near and dear to me. I also have many books signed by my favorite artists that are in CGC yellow slabs. They are also near and dear to me. Since they are my keepers iI don't care what I pay for the signatures (to a degree as I wont pay $500 for anyone's signature...even if Kirby or Kane were to rise from the dead) because they hold greater sentimental compared to resale value. Since I am not in the position of a CAW or do it for a living, I suppose I would be perturbed if there were tiers of pricing due to what I was doing with the book. Then again, I understand the cost of doing business, and sometimes that cost doesn't make sense but it is what it is. 

Absolutely. But as someone who does value the signatures you have, and has worked around many of the creators who do shows, doesn't it concern you the negative view that many of them have of CGC and the SS program?

[joeypost]

4 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Absolutely. But as someone who does value the signatures you have, and has worked around many of the creators who do shows, doesn't it concern you the negative view that many of them have of CGC and the SS program?

To a degree it does, but I don't have much of a dog in this fight compared to 5 years ago. Most of the creators I am interested in getting signatures from have passed or I simply get them through others and let them deal with the headaches. With that said, there HAS to be a reason why some creators have a negative view of the CGC grading and CGC SS programs. I don't think it would be a stretch that some of the witnesses are obnoxious when  plopping down a stack on books with nice little window bags already cut out for signature placement that get the artists upset when they have long lines, etc. Since the artist associates them with CGC (or possibly CGC employees) they take it out on CGC. Then again, some creators feel they have to have their hand in every cookie jar (to be fair and show both sides of the coin). Since the SS program is such a juggernaut for CGC they should invest more time and resources in educating (never a bad thing) the creators exactly what it is that they do and the services they provide to the collectors as well as those using it as their business model. I also feel that witnesses need to be evaluated each year to see if they are part of the problem, and either educate them or release them of their duties. 

I can tell you from experience (some of the same experiences I know you have Chuck) that some of the witnesses follow the letter of the law, treat the creators with the respect they deserve and provide them financially even if nothing is asked for up front, while others do not, and it hurts the whole program. To wrap it up, I guess I am saying that complaining about the tiers of pricing (which is nothing more than a symptom) does very little, but getting to the root causes of why these programs are viewed negatively have to be addressed, and that requires the powers that be to get involved. Unfortunately, that requires a certain type of personality that can keep everyone happy, and they are not easy to find. Not impossible, but not easy. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by joeypost
Clarification

[RockMyAmadeus]

The root cause of why these programs are viewed negatively is why the "symptom"...tiered pricing...exists in the first place. They aren't independent of each other, the one is the direct response to the other.

About 3-5 years ago, some facilitators got it into their heads that they could create a monopoly of creators, that they could "stable" them as it were, and this...inexplicably...was tolerated by CGC (which it never should have been.) The way those facilitators managed to do this was by telling these creators that the CGC Signature Series program...about which most of them had no idea...was being used to profit off of them, and that they needed a piece of that. In fact, as far back as 2011-12, there were some facilitators who were actively telling creators they needed to "charge more" for CGC, because...and here's the crux of it:

1. That money wasn't coming out of the facilitators' pockets, so what did they care...? THEY (almost always) didn't have to pay the upcharge themselves, after all...and

2. It was an easy way for facilitators to convince creators to sign large numbers of books at one time: offer them large sums of money that they didn't have to take out of their own pockets.

This isn't supposition; this is straight out of the mouths of creators. "I have been told I have to charge more for CGC" is a statement I've personally heard from multiple creators. And why have they been told that? Because self-interested facilitators, in their effort to monopolize creators, have lied to them, and failed to explain CGC and what it is. And, as a result of those lies, many creators now look at everyone doing "CGC" and "slabbing" as someone potentially taking advantage of them. 

Except it is much more nuanced than that (the value of a book is determined by what it is, and its condition...signatures rarely add value to anything but the most key books and/or in the highest grades), and that nuance was never explained and completely ignored, because, hey, it's admittedly hard to understand. A signature added to a beat up copy of a non-key book...or even a decent copy of a key book...doesn't magically add value to that book. YES, a signature CAN add value to a book...but the reason it does so is because of the underlying book itself...not the signature written on it.

Have there been bad CAWs? Of course. But that isn't even remotely the issue. A bad CAW is a reflection on themselves, their facilitators, and CGC to an extent...but there are plenty of professional CAWs, who do things well, and about whom there has never been a complaint, who represent themselves, their facilitator, and CGC in a positive, professional light. And every CAW ought to consider that they do not merely represent themselves in the field. Most of them do that. The behavior of a handful of bad actors is not even remotely why creators have a bad view of the program, because, again...most of the creators don't understand the program, and often don't even realize when a "CAW"...a term I imagine 99% of them wouldn't know...is standing in front of them.

Time and time again, however, the phrase "I've been told I have to charge more for CGC" or "Is this for CGC/grading?" or "if it's for grading, it's a higher price"...none of which has much to do with CAW behavior...has been given, because the creative community is convinced that anything being signed and going into a slab means someone is profiting off of their signature...and, by the way, asking a question they have no business asking in the first place.

"Complaining" about tiered pricing is the only way that the problem can be resolved. Making people aware that it's a problem, and clearly explaining why it's a problem, isn't making the problem worse. THAT is the education that needs to be going on. It's easy to say "well, I already got mine, so too bad for everyone who comes after me. Not my problem." and then dismiss those who come after. And, of course, because collectors behave like addicts, and don't want to upset things, they tolerate it...and there are plenty of people willing to exploit that...and here we are.

Again: tiered pricing hurts creators (they don't get business that would help them), it hurts CGC (fewer submissions), and it alienates and frustrates collectors. It has created a wall of "second class citizenry" between creator and fan, with mistrust and suspicion on the part of creators that isn't justified. And that's neither healthy, nor can be sustained, in the long run, for anyone.

[seanfingh]

49 minutes ago, Discover Comics said:

#thickerskin

#ForEbay!

[joeypost]

2 minutes ago, seanfingh said:

#ForEbay!

That was the best...EVER. Well, maybe not for you.