Archie Comics has been the source of some online controversy this week. And this time, it's not because they killed off Archie or turned Jughead into a zombie. On Monday the company announced a new Kickstarter drive aimed at funding a trio of new comics spinning out of Mark Waid and Fiona Staples' relaunched Archie series. That led to some significant backlash among readers and creators, resulting in the cancellation of that Kickstarter only five days in. The core argument is that Kickstarter is supposed to be an outlet for the little guy, not big companies. However, I think this situation serves as a reminder that when it comes to comics, everyone that isn't Marvel or DC counts as "the little guy."

Granted, there were and still are many valid concerns about the Kickstarter. I don't blame anyone for feeling outraged or taking the company to task. Why was a major publisher with its own resources and connections relying on crowdfunding? Why focus on expanding the rebooted Archie franchise now when readers haven't even had a chance to read the new Archie #1? Where was this money actually going, and were the creators themselves going to be fairly compensated? Perhaps most important of all, is it right to ask readers to donate significantly more money than they would pay if they simply bought one of these comics in a shop?With all of that in mind, the company was pretty diligent about addressing concerns and making the Kickstarter as transparent as possible. Archie's Publisher/CEO Jon Goldwater spoke to Comic Book Resources earlier in the week, where he discussed the real motivation driving the Kickstarter. In a nutshell, the company had diverted resources in order to take advantage of an opportunity for increasing sales presence in major retailers like Target and Walmart. That left these “Riverdale Reborn” books in a more precarious state. It wasn't a question of whether these new comics would be published, but how soon that could happen and whether the company could still take full advantage of the momentum from Archie #1’s July launch. Kickstarter emerged as the best solution to the problem, at least until it became clear the controversy was growing bigger than the books themselves.This highlights the difference between a publisher like Archie and a publisher like Marvel. Marvel and DC don’t have to worry about whether they have sufficient resources to focus on both marketing current books and developing new books. They’re both stable, large companies owned by much larger corporations. Archie isn't Marvel or DC or even Image. Looking at Diamond Comics' sales figures, those three publishers are responsible for roughly 70-75% of direct market comic book sales in any given month. Most other publishers are fortunate if they control 1 or 2% or the marketplace. Most of them are leaner companies with a lot fewer employees and a smaller pool of creative talent. And at that point, it’s no longer a question of “How many tie-ins do we want to publish for our epic crossover event this summer?” but “How many comics can this company support right now, creatively and financially?”.The problem is that, for all the good comic book-based movies and TV shows have done for increasing the exposure of these characters, there hasn’t been a huge trickle-down effect in terms of comic book sales. Certainly, overall industry sales are better right now than they were a few years ago, but even the best-selling Avengers comics will only move a fraction of the number of units as the latest Marvel Studios DVD release. There’s only a clear, demonstrable boost in very specific cases, such as the Walking Dead TV show driving sales of the graphic novels.

This cover probably didn't come cheap.

If anything, this Kickstarter really highlights just how sluggish the comics industry still is in the wake of these billion dollar superhero movies. The relaunched Betty & Veronica comic features Adam Hughes as writer and artist. Hughes is a huge name among comic creators. He's a fantastic artist, and his pinup-style comic covers are a huge draw for fans even when he isn't responsible for the actual contents of the comic. The fact that Archie was still compelled to seek crowdfunding for a series prominently featuring Hughes’ name is pretty telling. It’s really tough to stand out these days when Marvel and DC hog the lion’s share of the spotlight and Image’s trendy indie titles swoop in to devour most of what’s left.Of course, there are other business realities that complicate matters. Comic creators who work on company-owned projects, be they Spider-Man or Batman or Jughead, are paid a flat page rate as they turn in work. There may be further royalties based on sales figures, but this model ensures that writers, artists, colorists, etc. earn a (theoretically) decent wage for their work up front. And as you'd expect, page rates vary depending on the publisher in question and the creator's popularity level. For example (and I'm just throwing out arbitrary numbers here), Hughes' standard page rate may be $1000, while a small publisher like Archie may pay a maximum of $200 per page. At that point it's simply bad business for Hughes to be writing and drawing for Archie when he can be making more money at Marvel or DC or pursuing his own independent projects.Small publishers like Archie, IDW and Dynamite that focus on company-owned characters and licensed franchises need to attract these big-name creators when the franchise itself isn’t enough of a draw for readers. But they also need a way to pay these creators enough to keep them happy while still resulting in a profitable book. And frankly, the profit margins can be razor-thin when it comes to comics. Printing and distribution costs alone eat up a significant chunk of the cover price. Even many Marvel and DC comics can fail to turn a profit once printing, distribution, marketing and royalty costs are all factored in. So the notion that Archie Comics is some huge corporate monolith that lazily turned to Kickstarter despite having millions of dollars in liquid capital is completely ludicrous.The point is not that we should shed a tear for these smaller publishers, but that it’s a tough industry in which to stay competitive. Smaller publishers have to find new ways of doing business that don't necessarily involve the traditional direct market model. We've seen various publishers experiment with the growing digital market, to the point where some publishers like Monkeybrain and Panel Syndicate are pretty much exclusively focused on digital comics. Archie's Kickstarter drive was an attempt at exploring an Internet-driven business model that's worked pretty darn well for a number of other companies. The Kickstarter model can be boiled down to, "Hey, are you interested in this thing? Give us some money now and we can make this thing happen soon." It's a lot more direct and efficient than printing a bunch of comics and hoping that comic shops will be convinced to order them and readers will purchase them.

Obviously that didn't pan out like the company hoped. You can blame the backlash on the perception that Archie is too big and well-established to need Kickstarter, or that the rewards being offered for lower-tier donations weren't robust enough. But can you blame Archie for trying the Kickstarter approach in the first place? They're good people just trying to make good comics. Hopefully this incident won't stop them or other publishers from pursuing new avenues and opportunities in a tumultuous marketplace. The need to innovate is still there.

Jesse is a mild-mannered writer for IGN. Allow him to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket by following @jschedeen on Twitter , or Kicksplode on MyIGN