What's up with the VEI site?

[myron]

Funny. The job description contradicts itself in the first paragraph.

full time---part time----it's all unpaid...

[t_inkster]

I suspect Jedi is referring to the "growing" part?

edit: oops... now i see the full-time part-time thing. Sorry Jedi.

[jedimarley]

I suspect Jedi is referring to the "growing" part?

edit: oops... now i see the full-time part-time thing. Sorry Jedi.

[leonmallett]

Psst! The Negative Nellies might want to check this out.

The Faithful Fans might want to check it out as well.

Well I may be classed as a negative nelly, but reading the description indicates that VEI are looking to develop comic book content in the future, which pretty much contradicts the 'generating new material by the end of the year' statement we had last year, doesn't it?

Negative I may be perceived to be by some, but I think that not everything is as VEI have presented it, which is their choice. Yes they were the preferable choice to obtain the rights for most if not all of us, but I am sorry to say that I have a few growing doubts about them as a comic book publisher.

Those doubts are based on the following:
1. the lack of news announcements for a substantial period (9 months).
2. similarly the relative lack of press releases on the site (there may be some elsewhere).
3. focus of products - the hardcovers were nice, but there was nothing released to captitalise on the momentum (ie monthly books).
4. the relative dearth of products - is the focus on licensing opportunites rather than releasing new product?
5. the apparent lack of movement in appointing an EiC or filling the Creative Director post.
6. it has been 3-4 years since the rights were acquired; in that time there have been legal problems which have delayed publishing certainly, but may also have impacted on the working capital of the company, therefore potentially compromising it.
7. Diamond's punitive changes to its requirements to distribute and list books in Previews.

[Chiclo]

I wouldn't say that Diamond's changes are punitive. Who are they trying to punish?

Prohibitive to smaller/upcoming publishers, certainly. Arbitrary, perhaps. But not punitive.

[leonmallett]

I wouldn't say that Diamond's changes are punitive. Who are they trying to punish?

Prohibitive to smaller/upcoming publishers, certainly. Arbitrary, perhaps. But not punitive.

You described it better, mate. Agreed.

[Zaphod]

Its a marketing internship. Internships are a cheap way for a company to fill positions but marketing doesn't equate "monthly pamphlet" creation.

I think they should underline licensor in the first paragraph.

[leonmallett]

Its a marketing internship. Internships are a cheap way for a company to fill positions but marketing doesn't equate "monthly pamphlet" creation.

I think they should underline licensor in the first paragraph.

Two very good points.

[etos45]

Its a marketing internship. Internships are a cheap way for a company to fill positions but marketing doesn't equate "monthly pamphlet" creation.

I think they should underline licensor in the first paragraph.

It would make sense... It was said somewhere that the reason for the big delay on the A&A HC was that they didn't have the money to pay the printer. So, maybe they need to get out there and raise some capital before trying the push to monthly comics. I don't know what all they would license for... maybe trying for more movie options, or a game, or maybe figures? It just seems like all of that would be a hard sell when nothing is getting published on a regular basis.