Dear Marvel,
DeadLily
I don't need shiny paper. And your high prices prevent me from buying
more comics.
Just so you know.
scott34494
As long as you spend the same amount, I suppose it doesn't matter, now
does it, economically speaking?
Mike
"DeadLily" <lily...@aintitcoolmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117231867....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Marvel isn't really here, sweetie.
Martin Feller
"DeadLily" <lily...@aintitcoolmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117231867....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
For me it's not so much the price... it's just that the price is
finally at the point where back issues with better stories (IMO) are
now cheaper than new issues.
When I was a kid (groan) the fifty cent boxes actually cost 25% *more*
than the monthlies. Imagine if comic shops had "$3.75" bins these
days...
David
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 27 May 2005 15:11:07 -0700, "DeadLily"
>While the type of paper had a significant effect on unit price when
>comics sold in the hundreds of thousands, it doesn't anymore. The high
>price now is because they have to spread the cost of actually
>producing the comic over far fewer copies.
So is it the art costing a great deal and is it mostly unnecessary? I
would think except in a few rare cases people are buying the comics
for the stories.
Paul O'Brien
<diml...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>So is it the art costing a great deal and is it mostly unnecessary?
Well, it's a comic. If you're looking for something which saves on
artists, and provides better value for money, you could always try
novels instead.
This isn't an entirely facetious point. Books provide much better value
for money than comics. For example, just to grab the nearest paperback
I've got to hand, the history book COURTESANS by Katie Hickman cost me
eight pounds. I could get, what, four comics for that? Call it 100
pages. Hickman's book clocks in at over 300 - and it'll take me much
longer to read because there's much more there.
The economics are so out of whack these days that comics fundamentally
can't compete in terms of value for money. It's become an inherently
expensive medium, and it has to justify itself to buyers in other ways.
Purely functional art isn't going to cut it, really.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
David
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2b2i91hpr8g9o2pfs...@4ax.com>, David
><diml...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>So is it the art costing a great deal and is it mostly unnecessary?
>
>Well, it's a comic. If you're looking for something which saves on
>artists, and provides better value for money, you could always try
>novels instead.
>
>This isn't an entirely facetious point. Books provide much better value
>for money than comics. For example, just to grab the nearest paperback
>I've got to hand, the history book COURTESANS by Katie Hickman cost me
>eight pounds. I could get, what, four comics for that? Call it 100
>pages. Hickman's book clocks in at over 300 - and it'll take me much
>longer to read because there's much more there.
>
>The economics are so out of whack these days that comics fundamentally
>can't compete in terms of value for money. It's become an inherently
>expensive medium, and it has to justify itself to buyers in other ways.
>Purely functional art isn't going to cut it, really.
I can understand that if you pay $3 for something that may take 5
minutes to read then beautiful art is a big deal. But if they could
save money and lower the price to $2 or $2.25 (which would make comics
much more of an impulse buy) wouldn't people buy more comics? Or would
you say comic-book readers have become too sophisticated for
70's/80's-style drawings?
Ken_from_Chicago
pages of ads ... nyah, never work. Nope. Nevermind.
-- Ken from Chicago
Dan
<lily...@aintitcoolmail.com> wrote:
Yes, you really need shiny paper otherwise it requires a different
coloring style, swedish X-men is published on old style paper(no
pagenumbers but I惴 estimating 100 pages)
Morrisons New X-men isnæ„’ a problem with itæ„€ darker art but the
backup X-treme X-men has go from "shiny" to fuzzy.
Oh and 3 issues of New X-men and one of X-treme costs $5,21 collected
into swedish x-men. It can be found in about half of the newsstands,
if itæ„€ a supermarket the chance e is smaller if iæ„€ a kiosk itæ„€
almost 100%
Too bad itæ„€ bimonthly.
But 100+ pagers in the supermarket or direct-subscription that would
be something to try instead of being restricted to "comics-shops".
If the nordic market can keep the Phantom alive pretty much by it
self, then how come Marvel is always complaining about money?
Maybe the credits in swedish X-men explains it "Janne Eriksson,
swedish editor, translator and letter" and he is working from home....
Paul O'Brien
<diml...@yahoo.com> writes
> But if they could save money and lower the price to $2 or $2.25 (which
>would make comics much more of an impulse buy) wouldn't people buy more
>comics?
Probably not, frankly. Given the documented reluctance of newsstands to
support cheap comics (because they don't generate enough profit to
justify the shelf space), I think you're looking at a major format
change before you're going to come up with any sort of format that's
going to reach that wider audience.
David
Paul O'Brien wrote:
> In message <evnj9193d9ktrs7tt...@4ax.com>, David
> <diml...@yahoo.com> writes
> > But if they could save money and lower the price to $2 or $2.25 (which
> >would make comics much more of an impulse buy) wouldn't people buy more
> >comics?
>
> Probably not, frankly. Given the documented reluctance of newsstands to
> support cheap comics (because they don't generate enough profit to
> justify the shelf space), I think you're looking at a major format
> change before you're going to come up with any sort of format that's
> going to reach that wider audience.
But if the comics become cheaper to produce than it would also cost
less for the newsstands to buy them and the profit would remain the
same. And most people likely don't buy as many comics as they wish and
have to prioritize because of the cost, so cheaper comics could lead to
more sales and bigger profits all around.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> But if the comics become cheaper to produce than it would also cost
> less for the newsstands to buy them and the profit would remain the
> same.
Newsstands don't want to spend less, because that means they'd make
less. They can put a $2 comic (that they make about $1 on) in a
particular slot, or they can put in a $5 magazine (where they make more
than twice as much per issue), with the same amount of work on their
part.
> And most people likely don't buy as many comics as they wish and
> have to prioritize because of the cost, so cheaper comics could lead to
> more sales and bigger profits all around.
If people could buy more comics without spending more money, as you
suggest, then profits wouldn't rise for the companies; in fact, they'd
lose money, since they'd have higher costs for more separate titles to
make the same amount of money.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
David
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But if the comics become cheaper to produce than it would also cost
> > less for the newsstands to buy them and the profit would remain the
> > same.
>
> Newsstands don't want to spend less, because that means they'd make
> less. They can put a $2 comic (that they make about $1 on) in a
> particular slot, or they can put in a $5 magazine (where they make more
> than twice as much per issue), with the same amount of work on their
> part.
But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
> > And most people likely don't buy as many comics as they wish and
> > have to prioritize because of the cost, so cheaper comics could lead to
> > more sales and bigger profits all around.
>
> If people could buy more comics without spending more money, as you
> suggest, then profits wouldn't rise for the companies; in fact, they'd
> lose money, since they'd have higher costs for more separate titles to
> make the same amount of money.
I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't spend more money. Actually I
think they would. $2 is at a threshold of what a person would spend on
something without giving it any thought, so I think in the end a person
would end up spending more money. There'll also be more of a
willingness to be completist. If someone only buys 8 X-Titles a month
because of the prohibitive cost they may now be willing to buy all 15
or however many Marvel puts out.
Kurt Busiek
> But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
> so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
Lots of people think this, but there's no data to suggest that it's
true. There's a fair amount of data that suggests it's false, in fact.
And keep in mind that "more people" isn't enough -- it has to be enough
more people. If you had 250% of the number of people buying that $5
magazine buying the $2 comic, then you're only making the same amount
of money, and have higher costs, to boot because you had to print more
copies to make the same money.
> I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't spend more money. Actually I
> think they would.
It doesn't seem to work that way, though.
kdb
David
Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2005-05-29 17:20:51 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
> > so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
>
> Lots of people think this, but there's no data to suggest that it's
> true. There's a fair amount of data that suggests it's false, in fact.
>
> And keep in mind that "more people" isn't enough -- it has to be enough
> more people. If you had 250% of the number of people buying that $5
> magazine buying the $2 comic, then you're only making the same amount
> of money, and have higher costs, to boot because you had to print more
> copies to make the same money.
I admit I don't know anything about the comic book business but looking
at the April sales chart
http://www.newsarama.com/marketreport/04_05_marketshare.htm
the only comics out of the $2-3 range are "X-Men/FF" ($3.50 at #29),
"Shanna" ($3.50 at #48), "Strange" ($3.50 at #53), "Catwoman ($3.50 at
#67), "Spiderman Handbook" ($3.99 at #84) and "G.I. Joe" ($4.50 at
#96). The $5 books don't even chart. Doesn't that mean that the
$2.50/2.99 books are sold in so much greater quantities that they make
more profit than the $5 books?
Kurt Busiek
> Doesn't that mean that the
> $2.50/2.99 books are sold in so much greater quantities that they make
> more profit than the $5 books?
No, it means the hypothetical $5 magazine Johanna mentioned wasn't a
comic book.
It was an example of why mainstream outlets don't want cheaper comics
-- they would rather devote that shelf space to higher-profit items.
kdb
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> >
> > Newsstands don't want to spend less, because that means they'd make
> > less. They can put a $2 comic (that they make about $1 on) in a
> > particular slot, or they can put in a $5 magazine (where they make more
> > than twice as much per issue), with the same amount of work on their
> > part.
>
> But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
> so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
You'd think that, but most modern experiments show that they wouldn't
make enough money to even equal what they're making now.
In short, when prices go down, sales don't go up all that much.
For example, how many people here buy Beckett comics, which are
full-color and $2 an issue? That's the price point people are asking
for, it's out there, and the sales are in the low thousands per issue.
> I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't spend more money. Actually I
> think they would. $2 is at a threshold of what a person would spend on
> something without giving it any thought, so I think in the end a person
> would end up spending more money.
The comic industry in the direct market runs on people who buy lots of
comics. And many of them budget $x per week or month. There's no
evidence that people would raise that limit -- instead, they'd be
getting more comics for the same amount. Good for them, not good for the
companies.
Comics need to worry about value for money, not so much price points.
David
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> > >
> > > Newsstands don't want to spend less, because that means they'd make
> > > less. They can put a $2 comic (that they make about $1 on) in a
> > > particular slot, or they can put in a $5 magazine (where they make more
> > > than twice as much per issue), with the same amount of work on their
> > > part.
> >
> > But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
> > so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
>
> You'd think that, but most modern experiments show that they wouldn't
> make enough money to even equal what they're making now.
>
> In short, when prices go down, sales don't go up all that much.
>
> For example, how many people here buy Beckett comics, which are
> full-color and $2 an issue? That's the price point people are asking
> for, it's out there, and the sales are in the low thousands per issue.
It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
books. More people would drink Coca-Cola if it cost 75 cents but most
people are willing to pay $1.25 for Coke even though there are many
unknown brands that cost less.
> > I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't spend more money. Actually I
> > think they would. $2 is at a threshold of what a person would spend on
> > something without giving it any thought, so I think in the end a person
> > would end up spending more money.
>
> The comic industry in the direct market runs on people who buy lots of
> comics. And many of them budget $x per week or month. There's no
> evidence that people would raise that limit -- instead, they'd be
> getting more comics for the same amount. Good for them, not good for the
> companies.
I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
are getting good word-of-mouth. I bet many people aren't getting "Young
Avengers" or "Spiderman/Human Torch" because they're already buying 4
other Avengers or Spiderman books.
(But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing
sales. And in a perfect world the savings would then be passed on to
the retailers, making everyone happy.)
Kurt Busiek
> I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
> are getting good word-of-mouth.
UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN sold for a dollar, had characters people
liked and got great word of mouth, but didn't sell anywhere near as
well as higher-priced Spider-Man titles that were getting worse word of
mouth.
It's easy to say "I think they would," but the evidence suggests otherwise.
> (But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
> the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
> off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing
> sales. And in a perfect world the savings would then be passed on to
> the retailers, making everyone happy.)
You assume that _any_ higher readership would result in higher profits,
but you don't know that. Why would SPIDER-MAN selling a few thousand
more make Spidey a more valuable license? They already sell licensed
Spidey stuff to far, far more people than read the comic.
And even in a perfect world, retailers want profit more than savings.
Most retailers, when surveyed, want comics to be priced higher, not
lower, because they've seen that it doesn't make any significant
difference to sales.
Indeed, when STATIC dropped in price, sales went down. When HULK
dropped in price, sales went down. The correlation you're imagining
between lower prices and higher sales just doesn't seem to be there.
So there's no reason to assume that sales would go up, and no reason to
assume, even if they did, that licensing revenue would increase. Or
that whatever increased advertising revenue there'd be would be enough
to cover the shortfall in periodical profits.
It's not enough to just assume it'll happen. You need to be able to
show more than that.
When candy bar prices drop, do sales go up?
When soda prices go up, do sales go down?
The answers may not be what you assume they "should" be.
kdb
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1117400544.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So then maybe if for $1 you got 100 pages of content, subsidized by 200
> pages of ads ... nyah, never work. Nope. Nevermind.
>
Ah, good to see you're coming around.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1117400544.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > So then maybe if for $1 you got 100 pages of content, subsidized by 200
> > pages of ads ... nyah, never work. Nope. Nevermind.
> >
>
> Ah, good to see you're coming around.
>
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
Yeah, you'd need something like wi-fi tablets to download encrypted
e-comics to eliminate the cost of paper, shipping, transportation, etc.
The kind of wi-fi tablets Nokia, Microsoft, Apple and others are
making. After all web comics are a growing market and they are . . .
THE FUTURE!!!
Er, well, a possible future, if one can develop a pragmatic and
profitable business plan, marketing structure, consumer base, deal with
resistance from those in the middle, the paper supplies, cargo carriers
and various retailers with legitimate concerns about being made
obsolete--to say nothing of those who would rail about concerns of
piracy that have plagued the music, film and publishing industry (e.g.,
Peter David commented that the day after one of the Harry Potter books
had been released he had found websites with the whole book online,
that someone had went to the trouble of cutting off the bindings and
scanned the entire novel and posted it online).
Then there are those bibliophiles who love the physical form of books,
novels, graphic novels. I spose they could go to Kinkos, provided they
paid the printing fee to the comic book publisher granting them a
one-time printing option.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken_from_Chicago
... to buying 20-minute chapters, sold a month apart, that take a
season, half a year or a year to finish, with us seeking out the hard
to relatively few comic shops remaining since the comics bubble
bursted, adjusting our schedule to arrive the day of delivery before a
particular issue sells out. We're already set in our ways.
But what about a GENERAL MARKET? Might not they be more amenable to low
prices?
Then again they would have to KNOW said comics exist and that would
require boosting marketing to TV--because if you're not on tv or
getting media exposure on tv then you're dead to most of the
population.
Ask stage actors or musicians or stand-up comedians.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. It didn't matter that the Amiga computer was ten times the power
of IBM-compatibles or 5 times of Macs--because Commodore Business
Machines FAILED to market sufficiently.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> >
> > For example, how many people here buy Beckett comics, which are
> > full-color and $2 an issue? That's the price point people are asking
> > for, it's out there, and the sales are in the low thousands per issue.
>
> It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
> books.
Right, which shows that price isn't the most or only significant factor.
> > many of them budget $x per week or month. There's no evidence that
> > people would raise that limit -- instead, they'd be getting more
> > comics for the same amount. Good for them, not good for the companies.
>
> I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
> are getting good word-of-mouth.
I don't think there's any evidence for your claim and that existing
evidence suggests otherwise.
Regardless, now you're inserting more caveats.
> (But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
> the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
> off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing sales.
Mmm... I don't think so. If you look at the advertising packets the
companies put out, they're already claiming multiple readers for each
comic, thus effectively inflating the sales numbers.
And the comics have little effect on character licensing for projects.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> what about a GENERAL MARKET? Might not they be more amenable to low prices?
The general market isn't interested in the flimsy monthly issue. When
they buy comics, they buy book-format ones, which makes the price of
issues somewhat irrelevant.
David
Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2005-05-29 19:23:11 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
> > are getting good word-of-mouth.
>
> UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN sold for a dollar, had characters people
> liked and got great word of mouth, but didn't sell anywhere near as
> well as higher-priced Spider-Man titles that were getting worse word of
> mouth.
>
> It's easy to say "I think they would," but the evidence suggests otherwise.
>
> > (But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
> > the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
> > off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing
> > sales. And in a perfect world the savings would then be passed on to
> > the retailers, making everyone happy.)
>
> You assume that _any_ higher readership would result in higher profits,
> but you don't know that. Why would SPIDER-MAN selling a few thousand
> more make Spidey a more valuable license? They already sell licensed
> Spidey stuff to far, far more people than read the comic.
In terms of licensing it wouldn't help Spiderman but in theory an
across-the-board rise in readership should benefit the lesser-known
characters. And a higher readership of Spidey books would mean they
could charge more for advertising, have a better launching pad for new
characters and series, and probably find many other ways to capitalize
that I can't think of since it isn't my job but is someone's at Marvel.
> And even in a perfect world, retailers want profit more than savings.
> Most retailers, when surveyed, want comics to be priced higher, not
> lower, because they've seen that it doesn't make any significant
> difference to sales.
>
> Indeed, when STATIC dropped in price, sales went down. When HULK
> dropped in price, sales went down. The correlation you're imagining
> between lower prices and higher sales just doesn't seem to be there.
I can't speak of these titles though they'd probably make an
interesting case-study. But whether I'm right or completely wrong, the
cutting of prices on a few select books isn't comparable to an
industry- or publisher-wide reduction in price.
> So there's no reason to assume that sales would go up, and no reason to
> assume, even if they did, that licensing revenue would increase. Or
> that whatever increased advertising revenue there'd be would be enough
> to cover the shortfall in periodical profits.
But in my hypothesis there wouldn't be less profit. Originally I posted
about Marvel doing away with the painted art and computer graphics,
which I assume is largely responsible for the high publishing fee,
which would allow for the reduction in price. The savings would also be
passed on to the retailer so everyone's profits would remain the same.
David
Ken_from_Chicago wrote:
> Sales to a DIRECT MARKET--namely those of us already ... conditioned
> ... to buying 20-minute chapters, sold a month apart, that take a
> season, half a year or a year to finish, with us seeking out the hard
> to relatively few comic shops remaining since the comics bubble
> bursted, adjusting our schedule to arrive the day of delivery before a
> particular issue sells out. We're already set in our ways.
I don't buy that, but fine maybe I'm different. There are a number of
titles I'd be willing to try if they wouldn't increase my spending
budget exponentially. "Thunderbolts" and "Runaways" are two such
examples. I keep reading good things about them but don't feel like
splurging. And that's just Marvel. I'd be more open to a number of
independent comics as well.
Paul O'Brien
David <diml...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
>so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
It's a common belief, but not one that the retailers share. Low-priced
comics have been tried before; retailers refused to carry them.
It's also very debatable whether price makes much difference to sales.
Price rises never seem to make much impact. To use the economic jargon,
the demand for comics appears to be extremely inelastic (ie, moving the
price has a relatively tiny effect on sales). This isn't really
surprising considering that the audience is largely composed of hardcore
fans.
Fallen
So essentially you are saying that you have a certain comic budget and
are already giving it all to Marvel. Then you think it's a good business
practise for a company to give you 'more' for the same amount of money?
Fallen.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> a higher readership of Spidey books would mean they could charge more
> for advertising, have a better launching pad for new characters and
> series, and probably find many other ways to capitalize that I can't
> think of since it isn't my job but is someone's at Marvel.
Ok, let's take that logic a bit further: assuming that at least some
people at Marvel do know how to do their jobs properly, what makes you
think that they haven't already looked into this idea? If they thought
it looked promising, they'd be trying it.
> whether I'm right or completely wrong, the cutting of prices on a few
> select books isn't comparable to an industry- or publisher-wide
> reduction in price.
No... but it's all the evidence we have. And considering that you're
advocating a radical change, it's understandable that publishers
wouldn't be gung-ho about rushing into it without study.
David
It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
spending more money in the end.
(And, again, even if the case were that we would be getting "more for
the same amount of money" Marvel would still have ways to capitalize if
this led to increased readership.)
Fallen
Uhm, it 'would' be more for the same money surely? You are saying you
spend X on comics and if comics were cheaper it would allow you to buy
more of them for X.
That's probably a very common attitude so all Marvel would get for
making comics cheaper is the same amount of money but have to make more
comics for it.
Fallen.
Ralf Haring
>
>It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
>perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
>thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
>Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
>some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
>spending more money in the end.
So you're counting on *other* people to spend more to make it
worthwhile for publishers. As you stated in a previous message, you
yourself have a budget that you're not willing to exceed.
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Brian Henderson
<lily...@aintitcoolmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Marvel,
>
>I don't need shiny paper. And your high prices prevent me from buying
>more comics.
>
>Just so you know.
The paper doesn't make a bit of difference, going back to newsprint
and the printing quality of the 70s and 80s will reduce the cost per
comic 10-15 cents at most.
If you want to REALLY reduce the costs, you need to do the following:
1) Vastly increase circulation. Marvel gets big discounts the more
comics they print. If you can get 1 million people to read each and
every Marvel comic per month, you'll get them VASTLY cheaper.
2) Get rid of all the big name artists and writers. They cost a lot
of money. In fact, they probably are the biggest single cost of
anything in all of comicdom. Go back to people who can't get other
jobs and can hardly draw straight lines.
3) Find another hobby.
Those are really your only options. Just so you know.
Brian Henderson
>I can understand that if you pay $3 for something that may take 5
>minutes to read then beautiful art is a big deal. But if they could
>save money and lower the price to $2 or $2.25 (which would make comics
>much more of an impulse buy) wouldn't people buy more comics? Or would
>you say comic-book readers have become too sophisticated for
>70's/80's-style drawings?
No because the comic market has dried up. Cost has very little to do
with the number of people who buy comics, you could reduce them to $1
and you wouldn't have a large upswing in comic readership. What we
need to do is get more people buying comics, not the same old people
buying more comics.
Brian Henderson
>But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
>so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
But that's not the case. See, newsstands are not going to give space
to a $2 comic. Period. Comics cost less than that when the
newsstands got rid of them before. The economic reality is that a
retailer makes 20-35% of the cover price in profit, which means that
for a $2 comic, they would make between .40-.65 per issue. That's
nothing compared to a $5 magazine ($1-$1.75 profit), especially when
it's a magazine that vastly outsells comics on every level. Sorry,
but X-Men, even at it's peak, could never win out against Newsweek or
TV Guide.
There are a lot of other factors as well where comics simply cannot
compete.
>I wasn't suggesting that people wouldn't spend more money. Actually I
>think they would. $2 is at a threshold of what a person would spend on
>something without giving it any thought, so I think in the end a person
>would end up spending more money. There'll also be more of a
>willingness to be completist. If someone only buys 8 X-Titles a month
>because of the prohibitive cost they may now be willing to buy all 15
>or however many Marvel puts out.
That makes no sense. If a person has $50 a month to spend on comics,
they're going to spend $50 whether that's 10 titles or 25. A budget
remains a budget and most people live under one.
Brian Henderson
>It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
>books. More people would drink Coca-Cola if it cost 75 cents but most
>people are willing to pay $1.25 for Coke even though there are many
>unknown brands that cost less.
I think that kind of disproves your point right there though. Why
isn't Coke cutting it's prices down to 75 cents if it's going to get
them more sales? The fact is, it WON'T
I don't think you really comprehend business at all. There are
certain fixed costs for any business that exist regardless of their
sales price. Marvel has to pay the talent, pay the administrative
costs, pay printing bills, etc. These costs remain no matter what
they sell the end product for. If they reduce the cost per unit, they
have to sell a proportionally higher number of units to make up that
cost, plus make their shareholders happy. Trying to sell a $3 book at
$1 doesn't just mean that you need to sell 3x more books to make the
same profit, it becomes more expensive to produce the more books you
sell. It would be closer to 4x as many books and there just isn't a
market for that. There isn't a shred of data to show that there are
4x as many people out there willing to buy comics at $1 as there are
at $3. In fact, your response to the Beckett example shows that cost
really isn't a factor at all. People who like Marvel comics are going
to buy them no matter what the cost.
>I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
>are getting good word-of-mouth. I bet many people aren't getting "Young
>Avengers" or "Spiderman/Human Torch" because they're already buying 4
>other Avengers or Spiderman books.
More likely people aren't buying "Young Avengers" or "Spider-Man/Human
Torch" because they suck. My readership of Marvel keeps going down,
down, down, not because of cost, but because of bad writing.
>(But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
>the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
>off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing
>sales. And in a perfect world the savings would then be passed on to
>the retailers, making everyone happy.)
Marvel can't even get paying advertisers for their books now, what
makes you think anyone else would sign on? All the in-house
advertising (which is about 80% of what's in a Marvel comic) comes
because they can't GET ANYTHING ELSE!
Brian Henderson
>It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
>perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
>thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
>Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
>some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
>spending more money in the end.
It might be for you, but most people, at least financially successful
people, think nothing of spending $3 on anything. I think the only
people who this would affect are people on strict budgets and those
aren't the kind of people who are going to spend more money on comics
anyhow.
>(And, again, even if the case were that we would be getting "more for
>the same amount of money" Marvel would still have ways to capitalize if
>this led to increased readership.)
But it doesn't, it just leads to increased costs and no increased
revenue.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>But what about a GENERAL MARKET? Might not they be more amenable to low
>prices?
No, but that's already been explained to you, ad nauseum.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>So then maybe if for $1 you got 100 pages of content, subsidized by 200
>pages of ads ... nyah, never work. Nope. Nevermind.
Find us 200 advertisers and we'll listen. Until then, you're just
pissing in the breeze.
Keep in mind that Marvel can't even find 10 advertisers now.
Jim Connick
: > For example, how many people here buy Beckett comics, which are
: > full-color and $2 an issue? That's the price point people are asking
: > for, it's out there, and the sales are in the low thousands per issue.
:
: It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
: books. More people would drink Coca-Cola if it cost 75 cents but most
: people are willing to pay $1.25 for Coke even though there are many
: unknown brands that cost less.
Let's compare directly to Marvel then.
About, oh, six months ago a couple of the new launches in the Marvel Age
line launched at $1.75 and still didn't sell.
Adam Cadre
> But in my hypothesis there wouldn't be less profit. Originally I
> posted about Marvel doing away with the painted art and computer
> graphics, which I assume is largely responsible for the high
Is in really cheaper to do the coloring by hand rather than in
Photoshop? That seems to me to be comparable to saying, "Novels cost
too much. To save money, let's make the authors write them with quill
and ink, and then we'll print them on a Gutenberg press."
I also can't help but notice that in post after post, you keep
writing, "I would think" and "I assume" and such, as though the
economics of comic book publishing were something you could never
hope to investigate, forcing you to conduct thought experiments in
your armchair. There have been many, many threads on this subject,
in which some of the participants have been people who have worked
in comic book sales. (Some of these people have participated in
this thread to point out that observed fact directly contradicts
your assumptions.) You might want to at least browse through them
before pressing on.
-----
Adam Cadre, Holyoke, MA
http://adamcadre.ac
David
Ralf Haring wrote:
> On 30 May 2005 07:47:04 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
> >perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
> >thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
> >Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
> >some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
> >spending more money in the end.
>
> So you're counting on *other* people to spend more to make it
> worthwhile for publishers. As you stated in a previous message, you
> yourself have a budget that you're not willing to exceed.
I don't think I said that, though if I did it's not what I meant. I
have a budget just like most people have a budget. It's flexible but
I'm not really willing to give as many new/unknown properties a chance
at $3 a pop as I would at $2. It's just much easier to spend $2 on
something and in the end I'd probably end up spending more.
David
I think I would be spending more money in the end, plus I would be more
willing to try new things.
> That's probably a very common attitude so all Marvel would get for
> making comics cheaper is the same amount of money but have to make more
> comics for it.
I assume that like most large businesses it costs Marvel very little to
actually print the books since they do it in such massive quantities,
and especially if they drop the fancy art. But one way or another
they'd find a way to keep the profits same or increase them, through
selling more books, or more advertising, or lots of other ways. They
must have a whole department who gets paid to be all over an increase
in readership with moneymaking ideas.
David
Brian Henderson wrote:
> On 30 May 2005 07:47:04 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
> >perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
> >thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
> >Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
> >some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
> >spending more money in the end.
>
> It might be for you, but most people, at least financially successful
> people, think nothing of spending $3 on anything. I think the only
> people who this would affect are people on strict budgets and those
> aren't the kind of people who are going to spend more money on comics
> anyhow.
It's not an issue of budgeting or $3 being a lot of money, it's a
psychological thing. There's some amount of money that a normal person
would spend while giving it very little conscious thought and some line
after which the person would stop and consider for a moment whether
they really want to spend it. I don't know where that line is but
judging by the kind of impulse buys people make I'd guess it falls
somewhere between $2 and $3.
David
Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > a higher readership of Spidey books would mean they could charge more
> > for advertising, have a better launching pad for new characters and
> > series, and probably find many other ways to capitalize that I can't
> > think of since it isn't my job but is someone's at Marvel.
>
> Ok, let's take that logic a bit further: assuming that at least some
> people at Marvel do know how to do their jobs properly, what makes you
> think that they haven't already looked into this idea? If they thought
> it looked promising, they'd be trying it.
It may be too drastic for a big, successful company to want to try.
David
That's hard to believe, with all the companies desperately trying to
reach young people. Maybe they just have exclusive deals with the
advertisers they currently have.
David
Adam Cadre wrote:
> David wrote:
> > But in my hypothesis there wouldn't be less profit. Originally I
> > posted about Marvel doing away with the painted art and computer
> > graphics, which I assume is largely responsible for the high
> > publishing fee [...]
>
> Is in really cheaper to do the coloring by hand rather than in
> Photoshop?
I asked that question somewhere near the start of the thread and didn't
get a reply. I guess that yes the art does greatly add to the cost
since books with painted art (ie. "Secret War") cost more without
having much more story.
> I also can't help but notice that in post after post, you keep
> writing, "I would think" and "I assume" and such, as though the
> economics of comic book publishing were something you could never
> hope to investigate, forcing you to conduct thought experiments in
> your armchair.
The real-world economics can't necessarily be applied to the drastic
measure I'm hypothesizing about, though if there are any past threads
that would've helped they probably got buried along with the rest of
the newsgroup under the weight of three people sniping at each other.
Paul O'Brien
<BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> writes
>
>Keep in mind that Marvel can't even find 10 advertisers now.
Is it really that bad? Lessee...
Advertisers in EXCALIBUR #14, chosen as the nearest Marvel comic to hand
from last week's pile:
1. Skechers footwear.
2. Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith computer game.
3. Jamster, who are at least less irritating in print.
4. Batman Begins (!), the videogame.
5. Rise of the Kasai, videogame.
6. Full Metal Alchemist DVD.
7. Lords of Dogtown movie
8. God of War videogame.
9. Alien Planet show on the Discovery Channel (double page)
10. "The weed comes out and accomplishment is a distant memory..."
Dreadful teen prose: my anti-drug.
11. Marvel merchandise.
12. Psychonauts computer game.
13. Jade Empire computer game.
More than ten - although it depends whether you're prepared to count all
of the Playstation 2 adverts separately. I would, since they're
presumably placed by the developers, not by Sony. And it breaks down as
six computer games, one movie, one DVD, one TV show, some shoes, a
public service announcement, an in-house merchandise ad, and that
sodding frog.
How does that compare to DC, I wonder? Here's LOSERS #24, a fairly
typical Vertigo book.
1. The same Jamster ad.
2. The same God of War ad.
3. The same Jade Empire ad.
4. House ad for NEVERWHERE miniseries.
5. GameRiot expo.
6. DC merchandise.
7. The Longest Yard movie (8-page fold-out insert).
8. The same Batman Begins ad.
9. Xenosaga Episode II computer game.
10. Empire Earth computer game.
11. WE 3 house ad.
12. Advent Rising computer game.
13. War of the Worlds film.
Not a desperately inspiring list either. Admittedly, it doesn't look
like there's a huge pool of advertisers there - and the computer game
ads are dominant.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> It's not an issue of budgeting or $3 being a lot of money, it's a
> psychological thing. There's some amount of money that a normal person
> would spend while giving it very little conscious thought and some line
> after which the person would stop and consider for a moment whether
> they really want to spend it. I don't know where that line is but
> judging by the kind of impulse buys people make I'd guess it falls
> somewhere between $2 and $3.
Once you're buying lots at once, it's not a $2 impulse buy anymore. It's
"I have 6 comics here, which keeps me under $20 this week." If the price
fell to $2, then it would be "I have 9 comics here, which keeps me under
$20." (Gotta include the tax, you know.)
Fallen
>
>I assume that like most large businesses it costs Marvel very little to
>actually print the books since they do it in such massive quantities,
>and especially if they drop the fancy art. But one way or another
>they'd find a way to keep the profits same or increase them, through
>selling more books, or more advertising, or lots of other ways. They
>must have a whole department who gets paid to be all over an increase
>in readership with moneymaking ideas.
>
>
>
They 'have' found a way to keep profits the same. You're asking them to
do something different and then find a 'new' way to keep profits the same?
Fallen.
Toddy
message news:johannaNOSPAM-5E7...@news.uswest.net...
>
> The general market isn't interested in the flimsy monthly issue. When
> they buy comics, they buy book-format ones, which makes the price of
> issues somewhat irrelevant.
Isn't that too much of a blanket statement, though? Isn't the real culprit
here marketing? People bought millions and millions of cheap comics in
corner and convenience stores for 60 years before comics went to direct
sales. That's surely the biggest reason why comics are in such a steep
decline today. You can't point to social shifts, or marketplace changes, as
reasons behind the slump, because the characters are still wildly popular,
as indicated by all the recent blockbuster Marvel movies. There seem to be
consumers out there, but they're not being reached.
I'd imagine that the "general market" would lose interest in daily
newspapers too if the publishers decided to sell them only in out-of-the-way
specialty shops and crank the price up to $2-3 an issue.
Brett
Toddy
> Ok, let's take that logic a bit further: assuming that at least some
> people at Marvel do know how to do their jobs properly, what makes you
> think that they haven't already looked into this idea? If they thought
> it looked promising, they'd be trying it.
Big assumption, considering that you'd have to ignore the way that Marvel
has ran its business into the ground since the early 1990s, failed to
capitalize on a bunch of blockbuster movies, etc.
Toddy
news:200505291952522781%kurtbusiek@comcastnetherworld...
> On 2005-05-29 19:23:11 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
>> are getting good word-of-mouth.
>
> and got great word of mouth, but didn't sell anywhere near as well as
> higher-priced Spider-Man titles that were getting worse word of mouth.
Which is a real shame, btw, because you did a great job with that book,
Kurt. It's still my favorite Marvel series from the past 10 years.
Again, though, isn't the culprit marketing? Marvel didn't do a very good job
of selling that $1.00 line, simply because it looked A.) Like something for
kids and B.) Like a cutrate version of the "real" Marvel titles (which all
of the $1.00 line books were, actually, except for Untold Tales, IMHO),
because of the much lower price.
I'm sure a lot of people didn't get into Untold Tales because they thought
it was some kind of third-rate cheapie. It's the same reason why people
stick with name-brand cola, even though most wouldn't be able to tell the
different between Coke and that Brand Value stuff you can get outside
Wal-Mart for 25 cents a can. Perception means a lot.
Brett
Toddy
news:jemm91dm417pct7ov...@4ax.com...
> I think that kind of disproves your point right there though. Why
> isn't Coke cutting it's prices down to 75 cents if it's going to get
> them more sales? The fact is, it WON'T
But if this is a concrete fact, then why do companies hold sales,
occasionally slash prices on even their top-selling products? If there
aren't upswings in sales whenever sales are held, then why have them? Why
does a company like Wal-Mart do so well because of the way is cuts prices on
items like Coke? Price matters.
> I don't think you really comprehend business at all. There are
> certain fixed costs for any business that exist regardless of their
> sales price. Marvel has to pay the talent, pay the administrative
> costs, pay printing bills, etc.
Neither do you. There's more to selling goods than the bottom line. Again,
marketing is the biggest reason why comics are dying. Solve that problem,
get comics out to the masses again, and the pricing issue corrects itself.
And there's got to be a way to do this. People are still interested in the
characters. Look at the hype for the Spider-Man franchise, and the buzz
right now about Batman Beyond, arguably this summer's second-biggest picture
besides Revenge of the Sith.
Brett
Toddy
> It might be for you, but most people, at least financially successful
> people, think nothing of spending $3 on anything. I think the only
> people who this would affect are people on strict budgets and those
> aren't the kind of people who are going to spend more money on comics
> anyhow.
Brian, you're 15, right? Financially successful people are careful with
every expenditure, even the $3 ones. Also, we're not just talking about $3
here. We're talking about $3 X 10-15 books a month, on average. $40-50 a
month on comics that provide maybe two-three hours of reading pleasure is a
big expenditure for a good 80% of the population. Even people who aren't on
a strict budget are generally going to balk at that kind of expense, unless
they're really getting a lot out of it.
Toddy
news:mp5n919neginl8q2i...@4ax.com...
>
> Nope. Compare the number and variety of ads in a 20 or 30 year old
> comic to those in a present day one. Back then, comics had
> circulations of several hundred thousand, which is attractive to a
> wide variety of advertisers. Current circulations of maybe forty
> thousand on average indicate a niche market and just aren't as
> attractive. There's certainly no way in hell you're going to attracat
> 200 hundred advertisers with those numbers.
True, but the advertisers aren't signing deals based on the numbers in
specific books -- they're signing them based on appearing in books right
down the line. So most ads aren't just showing up in Ultimate Spider-Man,
for example, they're showing up in USM, UXM, Ultimates, Amazing, etc.
They're reaching at least a few hundred thousand readers each month, and
that's pretty good for today's publishing, where the day of the common
multi-million-selling mag has long passed. Also, comics do hit a key age
group, and demographics mean a lot when it comes to marketing, even if the
total numbers aren't all that thrilling.
Hate to bring this back to marketing again, but comics could be doing better
on the ad front, too. They've been publishing ads for the same companies for
years now, never even trying to branch out, even to hit companies who sell
to a youth market. Maybe this means that the companies aren't interested in
comics, but I'd be more apt to blame the ad sellers, seeing how ineptly
comics are marketed in every other way, and how companies are advertising in
other mags targeting younger readers.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:j0nm91l7gbuudl6bq...@4ax.com...
>
> >It wouldn't be more for the same amount of money. There's a big
> >perceived difference between $2 and $3. People spend $2 without much
> >thought on bottled water or things they see at check-out counters.
> >Psychologically $3 borders on how much people would spend only after
> >some thought. I think if comics were $2 people would actually end up
> >spending more money in the end.
>
> It might be for you, but most people, at least financially successful
> people, think nothing of spending $3 on anything. I think the only
> people who this would affect are people on strict budgets and those
> aren't the kind of people who are going to spend more money on comics
> anyhow.
>
Tell that to the unemployed student with no money (i.e. me).
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Peter Bruells
> "Johanna Draper Carlson" <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote in
> message news:johannaNOSPAM-5E7...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > The general market isn't interested in the flimsy monthly issue. When
> > they buy comics, they buy book-format ones, which makes the price of
> > issues somewhat irrelevant.
>
> Isn't that too much of a blanket statement, though? Isn't the real culprit
> here marketing?
No, I dont't think so. Single US issues are not nearly self-contained
- only very seldom they feature a filler story that can be read by
itself.
I can perfectly understand why the generic newsstand customers doesn't
got for that. Would you buy a single book chapter?
> People bought millions and millions of cheap comics in corner and
> convenience stores for 60 years before comics went to direct sales.
Because 60 years ago, comics didn't have to compete with cheap TV,
DVDs, computer games and the like.
> That's surely the biggest reason why comics are in such a steep
> decline today. You can't point to social shifts, or marketplace
> changes, as reasons behind the slump, because the characters are
> still wildly popular, as indicated by all the recent blockbuster
> Marvel movies. There seem to be consumers out there, but they're not
> being reached.
They are being reached - by movies, tv and computer games.
The problem's with superhero-comics is, that it's become comparativly
cheap to do superhero movies. The old adage, that you can destroy and
rebuild a planet with little cost on an inked page, but can't do so on
film, gets less and less true with each year.
Mathew Krull
newsstands, they were evicted. Comics were too cheap, so newsdealers
stopped carrying them.
Michael Alan Chary
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>comic to those in a present day one. Back then, comics had
>circulations of several hundred thousand, which is attractive to a
>wide variety of advertisers. Current circulations of maybe forty
>thousand on average indicate a niche market and just aren't as
>attractive. There's certainly no way in hell you're going to attracat
>200 hundred advertisers with those numbers.
See, the direct market has been killing comics steadily, surely, imao.
In the newspaper business, comics are usefull. Newspapers survive on
advertising too, but they use comics to get readers. People decide which
paper to buy on the basis of the features, and comics are in the
equation.
I think DC would do fairly well with Superman magazine featuring 220 pages
of five Superman stories with 200 pages of ads. Of course, then they are
competing on a whole different level. And Conde nast might take action
with their own character like Doc Savage, which DC likes to license from
Conde Nast...
--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Pat ONeill
Ken_from_Chicago wrote:
> So then maybe if for $1 you got 100 pages of content, subsidized by 200
> pages of ads ... nyah, never work. Nope. Nevermind.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
First of all because that's a completely unreasonable ad-edit
ratio--66-33? The standard for break-even on an ad-supported (as
opposed to cover-price supported) periodical is 50-50, and the tops
that any magazine aims for is 60%ad, 40%edit ratio (and that's
calculated over a year's worth of issues, not any single issue).
It also presupposes there's a market waiting for a periodical that
cheaply priced. There isn't. There isn't enough profit for the retailer
in a $1 magazine to justify the sales space given to it...not when he
could fill the same space with another magazine that retails for $3 or
$4 and make twice or three times the profit on the same sales space.
And volume doesn't make up for it--unless you're presuming that,
somehow, a $1 version of, say, Marvel Presents would outsell the $4
version of, say, Maxim that used to fill that space...and outsell it by
a factor of four or better. (Of course, the sales space isn't designed
to hold that many copies of a single 300-page magazine, either. In
general, it's designed to hold about ten copies of a 150-page
package...or any similar number of pages.)
But we've gone around and around on this issue before, haven't we?
Kurt Busiek
> Sales to a DIRECT MARKET--namely those of us already ... conditioned
> ... to buying 20-minute chapters, sold a month apart, that take a
> season, half a year or a year to finish, with us seeking out the hard
> to relatively few comic shops remaining since the comics bubble
> bursted, adjusting our schedule to arrive the day of delivery before a
> particular issue sells out. We're already set in our ways.
>
> But what about a GENERAL MARKET? Might not they be more amenable to low
> prices?
No. In fact, they're even more resistant to them. Newstand outlets
refused to carry Marvel's 99-cent line, some years ago, because it was
too cheap -- they pay a lot more attention to how much profit is
generated by how much display space then comics stores do.
kdb
David
<johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not an issue of budgeting or $3 being a lot of money, it's a
>> psychological thing. There's some amount of money that a normal person
>> would spend while giving it very little conscious thought and some line
>> after which the person would stop and consider for a moment whether
>> they really want to spend it. I don't know where that line is but
>> judging by the kind of impulse buys people make I'd guess it falls
>> somewhere between $2 and $3.
>
>Once you're buying lots at once, it's not a $2 impulse buy anymore. It's
>"I have 6 comics here, which keeps me under $20 this week."
I think the psychology only works on individual pricing. It's more
like "well it's only another $2. I may as well try this new book." And
if I'm calculating right it wouldn't take many more buys for Marvel
and the stores to be making more money.
Someone who buys 20 comics a month would need to be buying somewhere
over 30. That's only an average of 2.5 more comics a week which is
only another $5.
Kurt Busiek
> In terms of licensing it wouldn't help Spiderman but in theory an
> across-the-board rise in readership should benefit the lesser-known
> characters.
You keep changing your argument -- last time it was that sales would go
up if a book with a popular character and good word of mouth was
cheaper. They tried that, and sales didn't go up.
When the claims you make that can be tested turn out to be wrong, it
indicates that your assumptions about how people act don't bear out,
not that all the ones that can't be tested must be right.
> And a higher readership of Spidey books would mean they
> could charge more for advertising, have a better launching pad for new
> characters and series, and probably find many other ways to capitalize
> that I can't think of since it isn't my job but is someone's at Marvel.
Unless it was a huge upward surge -- and as past experiments indicate,
it's not going to be -- none of this will be a significant factor.
And if you can't think of enough ways to profit, why should someone at
Marvel who doesn't agree with your premise do it?
> I can't speak of these titles though they'd probably make an
> interesting case-study. But whether I'm right or completely wrong, the
> cutting of prices on a few select books isn't comparable to an
> industry- or publisher-wide reduction in price.
Every indicator we have says cutting prices don't cause comics sales to
go up. Why would anyone take that to mean that they'll go up if only
they cut all prices?
> But in my hypothesis there wouldn't be less profit.
But you have no justification for your hypothesis. Your only support
for it is "I think it would work."
> Originally I posted
> about Marvel doing away with the painted art and computer graphics,
> which I assume is largely responsible for the high publishing fee,
> which would allow for the reduction in price.
They're not. Most Marvel books aren't painted. Computer coloring is
actually a savings over mechanical coloring, because it eliminates (or
participates in the elimination of) at least two steps -- color
separation and film production. Color separation from computer files
is an automatic process; mechanical color separation is a
labor-intensive process. And digital files can go direct to press
these days; mechanically-separated files can't.
Computer lettering, similarly, saves on either time, production work or
both, depending on how the hand-lettering it largely supplanted was
done.
Computer prepress is cheaper than manual prepress. It's been a long
time since computer work was more expensive.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> said:
> Is in really cheaper to do the coloring by hand rather than in
> Photoshop?
No.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> "Kurt Busiek" <kurtb...@comcast.netherworld> wrote in message
> news:200505291952522781%kurtbusiek@comcastnetherworld...
>> UNTOLD TALES OF SPIDER-MAN sold for a dollar, had characters people
>> liked and got great word of mouth, but didn't sell anywhere near as
>> well as higher-priced Spider-Man titles that were getting worse word of
>> mouth.
>
> Which is a real shame, btw, because you did a great job with that book,
> Kurt. It's still my favorite Marvel series from the past 10 years.
>
> Again, though, isn't the culprit marketing?
No, the culprit was that it was a dumb idea from the jump. It was
aimed at newsstand markets, to catch the eye of new readers. However,
it was prices so newsstand markets wouldn't take it, which killed the
line right there. However, they pressed on, and proved that it was an
insurmoutable obstacle.
> I'm sure a lot of people didn't get into Untold Tales because they
> thought it was some kind of third-rate cheapie.
I think so too -- but that's another ding against the low price, not an
indication that it should have worked.
kdb
David
wrote:
>David wrote
>: > For example, how many people here buy Beckett comics, which are
>: > full-color and $2 an issue? That's the price point people are asking
>: > for, it's out there, and the sales are in the low thousands per issue.
>:
>: It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
>: books. More people would drink Coca-Cola if it cost 75 cents but most
>: people are willing to pay $1.25 for Coke even though there are many
>: unknown brands that cost less.
>
>Let's compare directly to Marvel then.
>About, oh, six months ago a couple of the new launches in the Marvel Age
>line launched at $1.75 and still didn't sell.
But those were kid comics. To sell kid comics you need to let kids
know they exist and get kids into comic shops. Either they didn't do a
good job with that or there's no market for kid comics beyond what
Marvel Age has sold.
David
<BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>On 29 May 2005 19:23:11 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>It's hard to compare an unknown publisher to Marvel and their roster of
>>books. More people would drink Coca-Cola if it cost 75 cents but most
>>people are willing to pay $1.25 for Coke even though there are many
>>unknown brands that cost less.
>
>I think that kind of disproves your point right there though. Why
>isn't Coke cutting it's prices down to 75 cents if it's going to get
>them more sales? The fact is, it WON'T
It may be a perception thing. People associate high price with quality
so since Coke is more expensive they may think it's better than
A&P-brand cola. If Coke lowers their price they may get more customers
but they'll lose their brand identity as the most quality product.
>I don't think you really comprehend business at all. There are
>certain fixed costs for any business that exist regardless of their
>sales price. Marvel has to pay the talent, pay the administrative
>costs, pay printing bills, etc. These costs remain no matter what
>they sell the end product for. If they reduce the cost per unit, they
>have to sell a proportionally higher number of units to make up that
>cost, plus make their shareholders happy.
But they will sell more books, and when you get into mass production
the cost per product isn't that big.
>Trying to sell a $3 book at
>$1 doesn't just mean that you need to sell 3x more books to make the
>same profit, it becomes more expensive to produce the more books you
>sell. It would be closer to 4x as many books and there just isn't a
>market for that. There isn't a shred of data to show that there are
>4x as many people out there willing to buy comics at $1 as there are
>at $3. In fact, your response to the Beckett example shows that cost
>really isn't a factor at all. People who like Marvel comics are going
>to buy them no matter what the cost.
>
>>I think they would if the books feature characters they like or that
>>are getting good word-of-mouth. I bet many people aren't getting "Young
>>Avengers" or "Spiderman/Human Torch" because they're already buying 4
>>other Avengers or Spiderman books.
>
>More likely people aren't buying "Young Avengers" or "Spider-Man/Human
>Torch" because they suck. My readership of Marvel keeps going down,
>down, down, not because of cost, but because of bad writing.
>
>>(But even if you're correct and people would be reading more books for
>>the same amount of money, Marvel would still be able to make more money
>>off the higher readership through in-book advertising and licensing
>>sales. And in a perfect world the savings would then be passed on to
>>the retailers, making everyone happy.)
>
>Marvel can't even get paying advertisers for their books now, what
>makes you think anyone else would sign on? All the in-house
>advertising (which is about 80% of what's in a Marvel comic) comes
>because they can't GET ANYTHING ELSE!
They may think that in-house advertising is a better value for their
money if it leads to higher sales for what they're advertising.
David
<BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>On 29 May 2005 17:20:51 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
>>so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
>
>But that's not the case. See, newsstands are not going to give space
>to a $2 comic. Period.
So if Marvel cuts prices across their whole product line the
newsstands will refuse to carry any Marvel product? See, that's the
problem with this argument. It's been tried with a few select books
but we can only hypothesize about what would happen on an
industry-wide or company-wide basis.
David
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 30 May 2005 13:54:07 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>Nope. Compare the number and variety of ads in a 20 or 30 year old
>comic to those in a present day one. Back then, comics had
>circulations of several hundred thousand, which is attractive to a
>wide variety of advertisers. Current circulations of maybe forty
>thousand on average indicate a niche market and just aren't as
>attractive.
But that's 40,000 people in a very specific age-group with very
specific tastes. If as an advertiser that's what you're looking for
than you've hit the jackpot, and for a very reasonable price since you
won't be paying for all the people who aren't likely to be into your
product.
David
Alan Chary) wrote:
>I think DC would do fairly well with Superman magazine featuring 220 pages
>of five Superman stories with 200 pages of ads.
I'm not sure that would work for comics. It works in certain magazines
because the ads complement the articles (ie. a guide to dying your
hair and ads for hair-dying products). With comics they'd just be an
annoyance interrupting the narrative.
Michael Alan Chary
I'm sure it would work if it were marketted correctly. Look at the gaming
magazines. The problem would be the new compeitition. As I said, there are
established magazine publishers like Hearst, Street and Smith and Conde
Nast which have their own characters to utilize for the same idea. PLus
they can license other characters like the Doctor or Battlestar
Gallactica.
David
<kurtb...@comcast.netherworld> wrote:
>On 2005-05-30 06:09:16 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In terms of licensing it wouldn't help Spiderman but in theory an
>> across-the-board rise in readership should benefit the lesser-known
>> characters.
>
>You keep changing your argument -- last time it was that sales would go
>up if a book with a popular character and good word of mouth was
>cheaper.
I believe you're referring to me saying that if people like a certain
character but aren't getting all their books they would if the price
were cheaper. I think that's true if someone already buys 4 Spiderman
books a month and Marvel comes out with a Spiderman miniseries. If
you're saying that it didn't help "Untold Tales" you have to admit
that it could be for a number of reasons. Maybe people wanted current
stories instead of someone filling in holes in the past.
>They tried that, and sales didn't go up.
>
>When the claims you make that can be tested turn out to be wrong, it
>indicates that your assumptions about how people act don't bear out,
>not that all the ones that can't be tested must be right.
I never said they were probably right. I said several times that I may
be wrong. I'm just trying to have a discussion.
>> And a higher readership of Spidey books would mean they
>> could charge more for advertising, have a better launching pad for new
>> characters and series, and probably find many other ways to capitalize
>> that I can't think of since it isn't my job but is someone's at Marvel.
>
>Unless it was a huge upward surge -- and as past experiments indicate,
>it's not going to be -- none of this will be a significant factor.
>
>And if you can't think of enough ways to profit, why should someone at
>Marvel who doesn't agree with your premise do it?
Because if sales went up it would be their job to capitalize on that.
>> I can't speak of these titles though they'd probably make an
>> interesting case-study. But whether I'm right or completely wrong, the
>> cutting of prices on a few select books isn't comparable to an
>> industry- or publisher-wide reduction in price.
>
>Every indicator we have says cutting prices don't cause comics sales to
>go up. Why would anyone take that to mean that they'll go up if only
>they cut all prices?
I didn't say they would, just that past evidence of a few select
examples, where there may or may not have been other elements in play,
isn't an indication of what would happen with a sweeping,
well-publicized industry-wide change.
>> But in my hypothesis there wouldn't be less profit.
>
>But you have no justification for your hypothesis. Your only support
>for it is "I think it would work."
>
>> Originally I posted
>> about Marvel doing away with the painted art and computer graphics,
>> which I assume is largely responsible for the high publishing fee,
>> which would allow for the reduction in price.
>
>They're not. Most Marvel books aren't painted. Computer coloring is
>actually a savings over mechanical coloring, because it eliminates (or
>participates in the elimination of) at least two steps -- color
>separation and film production. Color separation from computer files
>is an automatic process; mechanical color separation is a
>labor-intensive process. And digital files can go direct to press
>these days; mechanically-separated files can't.
>
>Computer lettering, similarly, saves on either time, production work or
>both, depending on how the hand-lettering it largely supplanted was
>done.
>
>Computer prepress is cheaper than manual prepress. It's been a long
>time since computer work was more expensive.
Well that's pretty much all I wanted to know.
Peter Meilinger
>On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:22:49 -0400, Johanna Draper Carlson
><johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>>Once you're buying lots at once, it's not a $2 impulse buy anymore. It's
>>"I have 6 comics here, which keeps me under $20 this week."
>I think the psychology only works on individual pricing.
Do you have anything even resembling proof to back up that
idea, though?
>It's more
>like "well it's only another $2. I may as well try this new book." And
>if I'm calculating right it wouldn't take many more buys for Marvel
>and the stores to be making more money.
And hey! Since no one thinks about spending just two dollars, and
since the decision is made about individual comics instead of the
entire purchase, people will end up buying dozens, nay hundreds
of new comics and will only later wonder where the heck the rent
money went. The comics industry will be saved, at the meager cost
of lots of homeless fans.
Reading over everything above, I realize I came off a helluva
lot snarkier than I'd originally intended, and for that I
apologize. Honestly, though, I just don't think the industry
or human psychology work the way you think they do. I agree
that if something is cheap enough, it's much more likely to
be bought on impulse. But that doesn't translate directly into
"If you make comics cheap enough they'll become hugely profitable."
For all sorts of reasons, many of which have been pointed out
in this thread several times already.
Pete
Jon J Yeager
news:d7i52r$e2o$1...@news3.bu.edu...
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:22:49 -0400, Johanna Draper Carlson
>><johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
>>> Once you're buying lots at once, it's not a $2 impulse
>>> buy anymore. It's "I have 6 comics here, which keeps
>>> me under $20 this week."
>
>> I think the psychology only works on individual pricing.
>
> Do you have anything even resembling proof to back up that
> idea, though?
The words "I think" are a pretty dead give-away that this is David's
opinion, and he has every right to it.
Since when is a case study required in matters of opinion?
>>It's more
>>like "well it's only another $2. I may as well try this new book." And
>>if I'm calculating right it wouldn't take many more buys for Marvel
>>and the stores to be making more money.
>
> And hey! Since no one thinks about spending just two dollars, and
> since the decision is made about individual comics instead of the
> entire purchase, people will end up buying dozens, nay hundreds
> of new comics and will only later wonder where the heck the rent
> money went. The comics industry will be saved, at the meager cost
> of lots of homeless fans.
You know, given his poise, I think David deserves better than the disrespect
you are showing him.
> Reading over everything above, I realize I came off a helluva
> lot snarkier than I'd originally intended
Gee, ya think?
> and for that I
> apologize. Honestly, though, I just don't think the industry
> or human psychology work the way you think they do.
"Do you have anything even resembling proof to back that up, though?"
> I agree
> that if something is cheap enough, it's much more likely to
> be bought on impulse. But that doesn't translate directly into
> "If you make comics cheap enough they'll become hugely profitable."
> For all sorts of reasons, many of which have been pointed out
> in this thread several times already.
Then why repeat it?
Jon
http://cuppycake.ytmnd.com/
Peter Meilinger
>"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
>news:d7i52r$e2o$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:22:49 -0400, Johanna Draper Carlson
>>><johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>>>> Once you're buying lots at once, it's not a $2 impulse
>>>> buy anymore. It's "I have 6 comics here, which keeps
>>>> me under $20 this week."
>>> I think the psychology only works on individual pricing.
>> Do you have anything even resembling proof to back up that
>> idea, though?
>The words "I think" are a pretty dead give-away that this is David's
>opinion, and he has every right to it.
Sure.
>Since when is a case study required in matters of opinion?
Required? Never, of course. I for one consider it polite to
offer at least some evidence when you're making the claim
that other people's evidence and experience isn't valid.
>> And hey! Since no one thinks about spending just two dollars, and
>> since the decision is made about individual comics instead of the
>> entire purchase, people will end up buying dozens, nay hundreds
>> of new comics and will only later wonder where the heck the rent
>> money went. The comics industry will be saved, at the meager cost
>> of lots of homeless fans.
>You know, given his poise, I think David deserves better than the disrespect
>you are showing him.
I don't see what poise has to do with it, to be honest. I do
agree that I shouldn't have been so openly disrespectful,
though.
>> and for that I
>> apologize. Honestly, though, I just don't think the industry
>> or human psychology work the way you think they do.
>"Do you have anything even resembling proof to back that up, though?"
Lots and lots of personal experience in buying comic books at
a variety of different prices and observing others do the
same? It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but David hasn't offered
even that much. The reason I didn't trot out any of those
anecdotes was to save space and because it seemed pretty
clear David would've said something along the lines of
"I think things would be different if we did X."
>> that if something is cheap enough, it's much more likely to
>> be bought on impulse. But that doesn't translate directly into
>> "If you make comics cheap enough they'll become hugely profitable."
>> For all sorts of reasons, many of which have been pointed out
>> in this thread several times already.
>Then why repeat it?
Because eventually it might sink in?
Pete
Jon J Yeager
> Jon J Yeager <nos...@please.com> wrote:
>>"Peter Meilinger" <mell...@bu.edu> wrote in message
>>news:d7i52r$e2o$1...@news3.bu.edu...
>>>
>>> in this thread several times already.
>
>>Then why repeat it?
>
> Because eventually it might sink in?
Let me know how that works out for you.
Jon
http://cuppycake.ytmnd.com/
Kurt Busiek
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:15:14 -0700, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@comcast.netherworld> wrote:
>
>> You keep changing your argument -- last time it was that sales would go
>> up if a book with a popular character and good word of mouth was
>> cheaper.
>
> I believe you're referring to me saying that if people like a certain
> character but aren't getting all their books they would if the price
> were cheaper.
It was the sentence, "I think they would if the books feature
characters they like or that
are getting good word-of-mouth" that I was referring to.
> If you're saying that it didn't help "Untold Tales" you have to admit
> that it could be for a number of reasons.
Sure. But lower price didn't seem to help at all -- it demonstrably
hurt in one sales channel, and anecdotally hurt in another.
> I didn't say they would, just that past evidence of a few select
> examples, where there may or may not have been other elements in play,
> isn't an indication of what would happen with a sweeping,
> well-publicized industry-wide change.
It's still actual data versus an unsupported hypothesis.
kdb
Brian Henderson
>So if Marvel cuts prices across their whole product line the
>newsstands will refuse to carry any Marvel product? See, that's the
>problem with this argument. It's been tried with a few select books
>but we can only hypothesize about what would happen on an
>industry-wide or company-wide basis.
They refuse to carry Marvel now! Pamphlet comics simply do not exist
on newsstands. You may find GNs and TPBs but otherwise, you won't
find any comics, sorry.
It's been tried, it's failed. It isn't Marvel, it's the newsstands
that don't want comics at that price point.
Brian Henderson
>But if this is a concrete fact, then why do companies hold sales,
>occasionally slash prices on even their top-selling products? If there
>aren't upswings in sales whenever sales are held, then why have them? Why
>does a company like Wal-Mart do so well because of the way is cuts prices on
>items like Coke? Price matters.
Mostly to try to attract new customers who will continue to purchase
their products at the regular prices when they have been hooked.
Wal-Mart gets ridiculous discounts from their vendors (they demand it
and because they are the 800-lb gorilla of retail, everyone gives in
to them) and their entire image is based on price-slashing. It's a
marketing gimmick. If they weren't getting the huge discounts up
front, they wouldn't be passing it along to the consumer.
>Neither do you. There's more to selling goods than the bottom line. Again,
>marketing is the biggest reason why comics are dying. Solve that problem,
>get comics out to the masses again, and the pricing issue corrects itself.
>And there's got to be a way to do this. People are still interested in the
>characters. Look at the hype for the Spider-Man franchise, and the buzz
>right now about Batman Beyond, arguably this summer's second-biggest picture
>besides Revenge of the Sith.
No, the reason comics are dying is because the traditional market for
comics have moved on to other things. Teenage boys are too busy
playing video games to bother with comics anymore, they're not going
to come back. Comics either need to move on to another market or
they're going to die. Currently, they are surviving solely on adults
who grew up reading comics, but even that market is eventually going
to dry up, either due to people getting tired of comics or death.
People are interested in the characters, certainly, but the characters
in the movies are not the same as the characters in the comics. Comic
book movies are action films on the same level as The Matrix or Kill
Bill. People don't go to see Batman, they go to see explosions, CGI
and people getting beat up.
Oh, and it's Batman Begins, not Batman Beyond, FYI.
Brian Henderson
>It may be a perception thing. People associate high price with quality
>so since Coke is more expensive they may think it's better than
>A&P-brand cola. If Coke lowers their price they may get more customers
>but they'll lose their brand identity as the most quality product.
I don't think that has a damn thing to do with it. Coke costs no more
than A&P to make, probably dramatically less so because of the scale
it's manufactured on, but it costs more because they have brand
loyalty and people will pay that price. They've cultivated a huge
brand loyalty and know that the consumers will pay that price even if
there are cheaper brands that taste just as good out there.
>But they will sell more books, and when you get into mass production
>the cost per product isn't that big.
You haven't demonstrated that it will sell more books though. The
only way this is a winning situation for Marvel is if it attracts a
lot of NEW readers to comics, not just people who are already buying
comics.
>They may think that in-house advertising is a better value for their
>money if it leads to higher sales for what they're advertising.
Which isn't the case. They have a set page count because they get
printing discounts that way and they fill those pages with story
first, then paying advertizers, then in-house ads if they can't get
anything else. If they could fill every non-story page with a paid
ad, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
The problem is that they can't. There just aren't that many
advertisers who are interested in putting ads into comics. There's no
sharply defined demographic for comic fans which Marvel could use to
sell ads. Marvel isn't really making a whole lot off of comics and
you want them to drop the price? Dream on!
Brian Henderson
>It's not an issue of budgeting or $3 being a lot of money, it's a
>psychological thing. There's some amount of money that a normal person
>would spend while giving it very little conscious thought and some line
>after which the person would stop and consider for a moment whether
>they really want to spend it. I don't know where that line is but
>judging by the kind of impulse buys people make I'd guess it falls
>somewhere between $2 and $3.
There's nothing psychological about it. I think nothing whatsoever of
spending $20 on a DVD, or $8 on a paperback book, why would I worry
about a $3 comic book? I don't stop and think that a comic that I
want to read is $2.99 or $3.99 or $5.99, if I want to read it, I get
it and if I don't, I don't.
Brian Henderson
>Brian, you're 15, right? Financially successful people are careful with
>every expenditure, even the $3 ones. Also, we're not just talking about $3
>here. We're talking about $3 X 10-15 books a month, on average. $40-50 a
>month on comics that provide maybe two-three hours of reading pleasure is a
>big expenditure for a good 80% of the population. Even people who aren't on
>a strict budget are generally going to balk at that kind of expense, unless
>they're really getting a lot out of it.
Um, no, try almost 3x that. My wife and I spend between $30-50 a week
on comics, every week, often more. You know something? We can afford
it. We probably spend $200-300 a month on DVDs too. We can afford
that as well.
Brian Henderson
>That's hard to believe, with all the companies desperately trying to
>reach young people. Maybe they just have exclusive deals with the
>advertisers they currently have.
Young people don't read comics! The primary readership of comics
today are ADULTS!
Brian Henderson
>I'd imagine that the "general market" would lose interest in daily
>newspapers too if the publishers decided to sell them only in out-of-the-way
>specialty shops and crank the price up to $2-3 an issue.
As a matter of fact, newspaper sales have dropped dramatically, just
like all print sales.
Peter Meilinger
>People are interested in the characters, certainly, but the characters
>in the movies are not the same as the characters in the comics.
And when the comic companies move to make the comic characters
more similar to the movie versions, comics fans freak out.
Myself included. Organic web-shooters, my ass...
> Comic
>book movies are action films on the same level as The Matrix or Kill
>Bill. People don't go to see Batman, they go to see explosions, CGI
>and people getting beat up.
To be fair, the fact that it's Batman is a big draw, even to
people who don't read comics. Everyone knows Batman, Superman
and Spider-Man, at least enough to have some interest even
before they know what the movie's going to be about. Most
of them don't know the characters from reading comics, though,
but from other movies or TV shows or cartoons or just their
general presence in pop culture. I'm sure there are any
number of people who are planning to see the new Batman
film that would be surprised to learn that there's still
a Batman comic book.
Pete
Toddy
news:a0ep91h5ceh07fu2m...@4ax.com...
> No, the reason comics are dying is because the traditional market for
> comics have moved on to other things. Teenage boys are too busy
> playing video games to bother with comics anymore, they're not going
> to come back. Comics either need to move on to another market or
> they're going to die. Currently, they are surviving solely on adults
> who grew up reading comics, but even that market is eventually going
> to dry up, either due to people getting tired of comics or death.
That's not the sole reason for the comic decline in the 1990s, though. Video
games were huge in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and then again from 1986
or so till today. Yet comics didn't begin their plummet until after the
direct marketing took over from newsstands. I'm not saying that video games,
CCGs, etc. aren't part of the reason, but you've gotta look beyond them to
get the whole picture. Comics did very well during the golden age of home
video gaming in 1977-1983. If video games were killing comics, then we would
have seen real evidence of this almost 30 years ago, when gaming was first
absolutely colossal, and we didn't.
> People are interested in the characters, certainly, but the characters
> in the movies are not the same as the characters in the comics. Comic
> book movies are action films on the same level as The Matrix or Kill
> Bill. People don't go to see Batman, they go to see explosions, CGI
> and people getting beat up.
Again, that's only true to a point. If all people wanted to see was stuff
getting blowed up good, Steven Seagal would still be a box-office star.
Spider-Man made oodles of money because it tapped in to the comic
marketplace and those familiar in a casual way with the character, not just
because it was a typical summer action flick. The comics are a huge part of
the appeal of these movies, and to me, that indicates that they are still
valid, both culturally and commercially. Publishers just have to find a way
to market the books better, either via getting into new markets (online?) or
getting back to the old (newsstands? maybe via a magazine or digest
format?).
Mathew Krull
> "Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:a0ep91h5ceh07fu2m...@4ax.com...
>
>>No, the reason comics are dying is because the traditional market for
>>comics have moved on to other things. Teenage boys are too busy
>>playing video games to bother with comics anymore, they're not going
>>to come back. Comics either need to move on to another market or
>>they're going to die. Currently, they are surviving solely on adults
>>who grew up reading comics, but even that market is eventually going
>>to dry up, either due to people getting tired of comics or death.
>
>
> That's not the sole reason for the comic decline in the 1990s, though. Video
> games were huge in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and then again from 1986
> or so till today. Yet comics didn't begin their plummet until after the
> direct marketing took over from newsstands.
Wrong. Comics moved to the Direct Market because they were not making
money on the newsstands. The decline started happening in the 70's and
continued into the 90's. Here are some figures that appeared in the
Comics Journal as part of a special report they ran about "the comic
book crisis" (#199, oct. 1997 issue, p. 6). According to the article,
these are copies SOLD per issue (pre-1980, before the rise of the direct
market, the number of copies SOLD typically would be a bit over half of
the copies that were actually PRINTED).
Action Comics
1960: 458,000
1970: 329,000
1980: 131,118
1988: 97,779
1995: 95,820 (direct sales only)
Batman
1962: 410,000
1966: 898,470
1970: 293,897
1975: 154,000
1980: 129,299
1987: 193,000
1995: 100,000 (direct sales only)
Amazing Spider-Man
1966: 340,155
1970: 322,195
1975: 273,773
1980: 296,712
1985: 326,695
1990: 334,977
1993: 592,442
1995: 234,290
Daredevil
1968: 292,423
1985: 177,884
1994: 145,292
1995: 64,453
I'm not saying that video games,
> CCGs, etc. aren't part of the reason, but you've gotta look beyond them to
> get the whole picture. Comics did very well during the golden age of home
> video gaming in 1977-1983. If video games were killing comics, then we would
> have seen real evidence of this almost 30 years ago, when gaming was first
> absolutely colossal, and we didn't.
>
We did see evidence. The comic companies certainly saw evidence. Your
whole premise is based on the untrue assumption that comics left the
newsstands voluntarily. This is clearly and demonstrably untrue.
>
>>People are interested in the characters, certainly, but the characters
>>in the movies are not the same as the characters in the comics. Comic
>>book movies are action films on the same level as The Matrix or Kill
>>Bill. People don't go to see Batman, they go to see explosions, CGI
>>and people getting beat up.
>
>
> Again, that's only true to a point. If all people wanted to see was stuff
> getting blowed up good, Steven Seagal would still be a box-office star.
> Spider-Man made oodles of money because it tapped in to the comic
> marketplace and those familiar in a casual way with the character, not just
> because it was a typical summer action flick.
Actually, Spider-man's success had almost nothing to do with the comic
marketplace. At his peak, Spidey was selling only half a million
copies. Spider-Man was more well known from his appearances on Electric
Company and his daily newspaper strip than he was from comic books. The
movie did well because it was well written, directed, and acted. It had
romance to bring in the female audience and action to bring in the male
audience. In short, it had broad appeal.
Mathew Krull
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:21:34 GMT, Brian Henderson
> <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On 29 May 2005 17:20:51 -0700, "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But I would think that more people would buy a $2 comic than a $5 comic
>>>so once all the sales are totaled up they'd be making more money.
>>
>>But that's not the case. See, newsstands are not going to give space
>>to a $2 comic. Period.
>
>
> So if Marvel cuts prices across their whole product line the
> newsstands will refuse to carry any Marvel product?
Yes, they will. Newsstands would rather sell a $5 issue of Maxim or
Cosmo, as they have higher sales than comics, create a higher profit for
the newsdealer, and take up about the same amount of space.
Mathew Krull
40,000 people is 'the jackpot'? Reaching less than 1 percent of your
target audience is 'the jackpot'?
jay
And bully for you, but for mere working stiffs who
aren't named something like Rockefeller, concern
for finite resources is a very real thing, as is the
matter of availability. I have no desire to come
between all the marketing professionals offering
their expert views in this thread, but price and
(un)availability as a consequence of direct market
ghettoization long ago forced me to the expedient
of making all my comic purchases second-hand. I
either buy series through the trades--always
discounted second-hand books--or I wait until
several issues of a title have hit the streets, then
find and purchase the run, in bulk, on ebay. As
a consequence, the medium I love has received
virtually no money from me over the last few
years. I don't like this, but the factors I mentioned
make it my only option short of abandoning comics
entirely. A system which forces a person such as
myself into such a situation is a badly broken one.
Paul O'Brien
Busiek <kurtb...@comcast.netherworld> writes
>
>No, the culprit was that it was a dumb idea from the jump. It was
>aimed at newsstand markets, to catch the eye of new readers. However,
>it was prices so newsstand markets wouldn't take it, which killed the
>line right there. However, they pressed on, and proved that it was an
>insurmoutable obstacle.
I'd suggest that the concept wasn't really ideal to attract new readers
either, since the book's premise was defined in terms of its interaction
with stories published thirty years previously.
But there's no denying that the 99c line bombed big-time; something was
fundamentally defective about the entire concept, and it seems to boil
down to the books being too cheap.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Paul O'Brien
Toddy <n...@thanks.com> writes
>Yet comics didn't begin their plummet until after the direct marketing
>took over from newsstands.
This is a common misapprehension, but it's not correct. Comics moved to
the direct market precisely because they were being squeezed out of
their traditional distribution routes. It was a defensive move from an
industry that was already in chronic decline.
Paul O'Brien
Toddy <n...@thanks.com> writes
>
>But if this is a concrete fact, then why do companies hold sales,
>occasionally slash prices on even their top-selling products? If there
>aren't upswings in sales whenever sales are held, then why have them?
>Why does a company like Wal-Mart do so well because of the way is cuts
>prices on items like Coke? Price matters.
But not equally on every product. This is the concept of elasticity of
demand. Yes, if you cut prices, demand goes up - but not necessarily by
very much. The demand for comics is extremely inelastic. You have to
make massive changes to the price before it affects demand
significantly. This is probably because the readership is
overwhelmingly comprised of hardcore fans, and it takes a lot to drive
them away.
Another example of the same effect is the occasional attempts that have
been made in Britain to cut smoking and drinking by whacking up the rate
of tax. The theory was that if you make cigarettes and alcohol very
expensive, people will stop buying them. What actually happens is that
they buy just as much as they did before, and the Inland Revenue gets an
unexpected windfall. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's just how it
is.
Paul O'Brien
<mell...@bu.edu> writes
>I'm sure there are any number of people who are planning to see the new
>Batman film that would be surprised to learn that there's still a
>Batman comic book.
I think that's probably true - but I also very much doubt whether those
people actually WANT a Batman comic book. For the most part, I suspect
they're happy enough with a Batman film, once every few years, as a
special event. They don't want to read about him every month. They're
just not that interested in him. If that market is available to be
tapped, it'll be with trade paperbacks and one-offs, not with massively
complicated monthly titles and huge DCU crossovers.
Paul O'Brien
<diml...@yahoo.com> writes
> It's been tried with a few select books but we can only hypothesize
>about what would happen on an industry-wide or company-wide basis.
No, we know full well what will happen. The newsstands won't touch
them. You seem to be assuming that if cheap comics are the only ones
available, retailers will buy them. They won't, because they don't want
cheap comics - they've made this abundantly clear in the past - and
comics aren't guaranteed a space on the shelves at all. If the comics
industry doesn't offer a product that they want (and it doesn't), then
they won't order comics at all. They'll sell magazines instead.
You have to ask yourself: what's in it for the newsstand retailers if
they start carrying comics again? The answer is "virtually nothing",
and if you make the comics cheaper, the answer becomes "even less."
Tim Roll-Pickering
> But there's no denying that the 99c line bombed big-time; something was
> fundamentally defective about the entire concept, and it seems to boil
> down to the books being too cheap.
In part, but I don't think many of the books were terribly well constructed
either (Untold Tales being a rare exception). My recollections are probably
biased and limited (but perhaps reflective of a potential buyer who did
actually follow a few of them). Also the bi-monthly schedule rarely helps a
book.
There was Avengers Unplugged - which seemed to spend most of its time
telling very dumbed down one-part stories which did little other than
justify why multi-part stories are often needed.
Fantastic Four Unplugged initially tried to go down the route of a solo-team
members book, but resulted in again weak storylines, some of which tried
poorly to tie in with ongoing plot points e.g. #3 which nominally tied in
with the retun of Doom & Reed storyline but rather contradicted it with some
significant story differences - the result being that readers of the regular
title generally saw it as an attempt to cash in, whilst people who were just
picking up the Unplugged (if there were any) found themselves being sucked
into a larger and more expensive multipart storyline in not only the regular
book but also the Unlimited.
A lot of others had very cartoony artwork. I recall some animated tie-ins
but they simply weren't in the league of Batman Adventures. The
non-animation tie-ins needed the artwork even less and just looked cheap.
About the only semi-decent books that I can recall from the line were Untold
Tales and Marvel Fanfare (though it had its moments - and wasn't it later
increased to $1.50). The rest simply weren't titles to set fandom on fire.
Of course this doesn't prove that the line could have worked if it had been
regular books such as the current continuity X-Men and Spider-Man titles,
given their animation appeal at the time.
Kurt Busiek
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> said:
> In message <2005053109191515474%kurtbusiek@comcastnetherworld>, Kurt
> Busiek <kurtb...@comcast.netherworld> writes
>>
>> No, the culprit was that it was a dumb idea from the jump. It was
>> aimed at newsstand markets, to catch the eye of new readers. However,
>> it was prices so newsstand markets wouldn't take it, which killed the
>> line right there. However, they pressed on, and proved that it was an
>> insurmoutable obstacle.
>
> I'd suggest that the concept wasn't really ideal to attract new readers
> either, since the book's premise was defined in terms of its
> interaction with stories published thirty years previously.
Actually, unless you know the old stories, there was no way for a
hypothetical new reader to tell that -- the book's premise was merely
"stories of a young Spider-Man." The interaction with older stories
was entirely self-contained -- if you knew them, you could see the
interaction, if you didn't, you wouldn't know. At least, until well
into the run when they did a couple of flowcharts, but that was long
after it was clear the 99-cent line was a dud.
The series title was ghastly as an outreach title, though -- "Untold
Tales"? It might as well have been called SPIDER-MAN: THE APOCRYPHA.
It's not a title that says to a new reader (or parent), "Start here!"
It's a title that says, "If you read all the others and still want
more, here's yet more." I pushed for FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN,
which I think is an ideal outreach title to parents and younger
readers, but it was not to be. [And now they're apparently considering
using it again, and wary of it for the same reasons.]
> But there's no denying that the 99c line bombed big-time; something was
> fundamentally defective about the entire concept, and it seems to boil
> down to the books being too cheap.
Yep. The price kept them from being distributed to the place that they
were intended to do their work, in a format where the price could have
been promoted as an advantage. They got around it by combining two
books into one and doubling the price, so the newstand versions were
inelegant anthologies of stories that didn't work well together, at the
same price as the other books.
kdb