TILTING @ WINDMILLS v2 #12: THE HORSE ISN'T DEAD YET

[MattBrady]

by Brian Hibbs

#128 – December 2004

I am rather encouraged by Marvel’s going back to press on New Avengers #1.

I’ve been arguing for, well, since Jemas first announced the “no overprint” policy, that it was a short-sighted plan that would cripple long-term growth for Marvel’s titles. And I think even a cursory examination of sales over the last 5 years has bourne that out – most Marvel titles have trended downwards.

The problem of course is that it shifted the burden of inventory-management from those most able to afford it (the publisher) to those least able to do so (the retailer), and it limits the supply of a given work to the confidence and capitalization of the retailer.

Click here for the column

[Ras Al Ghul]

Of course, lack of reprints and reorders aren't the only reasons for the downward spiral of, well, every Marvel book. If they tried putting in some promotion for the lesser selling titles they wouldn't have to cancel and relaunch them over again. Just a year or two ago, they put 3-5 page previews in the back of their books. But what were the previews for? The latest issue of Uncanny X-Men or Ultimate X-Men, which hardly need the sales boost.

What would've happened if Avengers Disassembled had tied into *gasp* She-Hulk, a character who, during the storyline, was part of the Avengers?

But yeah, the lack of reorders is brainless. How are new readers supposed to jump on if they can't find the product? Also, "new readers" aren't as obsessed as regular readers who stop by the comic store every week. If they go on a monthly basis, they might wind up empty-handed if something they were expecting sells out.

[Sam Pay]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for larger print runs (especially, as Brian mentions, for those books the publishers are giving big creator or advertising pushes, such as AXM etc), but isn't one of the rationales for not making the issues available long-term is that it expands the market for the trade? (And, presumably, for the super-keen customer, the high-price hardcover, ala Origin.)

That being said, both trade pushing and reprints sound more and more like increased interest (by both publishers) in keeping material on the shelves longer, which if I'm understanding the articles about cycle sheets and ordering patterns, could spell trouble for retailers in the long-term?

BTW, first post - mine, if not the thread's... 5 years of lurking broken; woo-hoo!

[gwangung]

Originally posted by Sam Pay
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for larger print runs (especially, as Brian mentions, for those books the publishers are giving big creator or advertising pushes, such as AXM etc), but isn't one of the rationales for not making the issues available long-term is that it expands the market for the trade? (And, presumably, for the super-keen customer, the high-price hardcover, ala Origin.)

Maybe, if Marvel was more diligent in keep backstock in stock...

[Chad Anderson]

Originally posted by Sam Pay
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for larger print runs (especially, as Brian mentions, for those books the publishers are giving big creator or advertising pushes, such as AXM etc), but isn't one of the rationales for not making the issues available long-term is that it expands the market for the trade? (And, presumably, for the super-keen customer, the high-price hardcover, ala Origin.)

But if the single copies don't sell enough to justify a trade, you either need deep pockets or a lot of faith in a title to actually print a TPB, because, as Brian points out, without additional copies of early issues you're dooming yourself to diminishing returns on successive issues, as some folks unable to get the beginning of a story wait for the trade and others just move on to another comic book.

[Terwilliger]

Originally posted by Sam Pay
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for larger print runs (especially, as Brian mentions, for those books the publishers are giving big creator or advertising pushes, such as AXM etc), but isn't one of the rationales for not making the issues available long-term is that it expands the market for the trade? (And, presumably, for the super-keen customer, the high-price hardcover, ala Origin.)

It might -- but not every customer turned away is going to be a customer who will still want to read the entire storyline or series, or one who will be willing to (or remember) to wait for a collection. And in the specific case Hibbs describes (Joss Whedon's X-MEN book) retailers -- and Marvel -- may even be missing out on walk-in traffic from readers who don't reguarly visit the store or read the title.

On an "event" like that (as Hibbs related from his own experience) it's just a big missed opportunity.

[Number37]

i personally love the no reprint rule. see im just an individual collector and i buy about as many shitty issue 1s as i do good ones. the no reprint lets me capitalise on the demand instead of the retailer. the individual collector and fan reaps the benefit in the aftermarket sale.

[zeraze]

Originally posted by Ras Al Ghul
If they tried putting in some promotion for the lesser selling titles they wouldn't have to cancel and relaunch them over again.

Marvel relaunching low-selling titles is a better fate than DC's habit of casting such books into comic book oblivion. The irony is that many of these DC castoffs were promoted fiercely. Nevertheless, these often acclaimed and often original DC titles get cancelled all too soon (Power Company, Monolith) or are in frequent danger of the ax (Gotham Central, Sleeper).

Sure, the cancellation of some titles with new or less known superheroes is understandable. But when the overwhelming majority get axed, that hints at a much larger problem.

As has been noted on too many fan sites and blogs, the problem starts with the readers and retailers. Whether due to limited funds, cynicism or both, too many who buy and sell comics are wary of anything not connected to the Bat, Super, Spidey and X titles. Hence, you can't blame Marvel and DC from resorting to such tactics as having their lesser known titles written by Hollywood talent like Kevin Smith (Green Arrow) and Reggie Hudlin (February's Black Panther) to prevent the direct market from completely rejecting them sight unseen.

Promotion is great, but more readers and retailers have to change their mindset about comics devoid of iconic characters.

What would've happened if Avengers Disassembled had tied into *gasp* She-Hulk, a character who, during the storyline, was part of the Avengers?

Apart from Thor, none of the titles tying into "Disassembled" enjoyed a sales boost. Even then, it could be argued that Thor started climbing the sales charts due to all the hoopla over its impending cancellation.

So, it is not a sure thing that She-Hulk would have gotten a sales boost if it tied into "Disassembled." This goes back to my earlier post about readers and retailers being more open-minded about buying comics off the beaten path.

In short, Marvel's should get chastised for a "no reprint/overprint" policy that ultimately harms the long-term sales of promising new series. But, readers and retailers can also do more to ensure that the direct market is more than just Super/Bat/ Spidey/X comics.

zeraze

[rgfrost]

I don't think you should devalue the importance of the collector. I like the supply to be less than the demand. If monthlies were valueless and always available - I'd just wait for the trade.

I missed out on the first few issues of Ultimate X-Men but Marvel didn't lose money on me - I bought the hardback.

I just think you don't like to spend much time thinking about your order.

[Ras Al Ghul]

Originally posted by zeraze
Marvel relaunching low-selling titles is a better fate than DC's habit of casting such books into comic book oblivion. The irony is that many of these DC castoffs were promoted fiercely. Nevertheless, these often acclaimed and often original DC titles get cancelled all too soon (Power Company, Monolith) or are in frequent danger of the ax (Gotham Central, Sleeper).

You've gotta give DC credit for maintaining certain books that are financially tanking - like Gotham Central, Hawkman, and Aquaman - rather than just cancelling them right away. Heck, I believe all three series are still getting trades published too in order to keep them going. Also, despite constantly crappy sales, HERO lasted a while longer than it should've thanks to DC's support. I'm not saying that promotion will guarantee better sales, but it's the least Marvel could try to do.

Though I bet you anything the relaunches of She-Hulk and Runaways will hardly make a difference after their fourth issues.

[Brian Hibbs]

Originally posted by Sam Pay
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for larger print runs (especially, as Brian mentions, for those books the publishers are giving big creator or advertising pushes, such as AXM etc), but isn't one of the rationales for not making the issues available long-term is that it expands the market for the trade? (And, presumably, for the super-keen customer, the high-price hardcover, ala Origin.)

That never was the stated rationale, no -- it was always about preserving "collectibilty" for Marvel's largest accounts

By and large the periodical and the TP buyers are tradtionally different animals, and supply (or lack thereof) to one doesn't seem to have any trackable impact on the other....

-B

[Number37]

i can say from recent experience i saw a direct relationship between trade and monthly. i was talking to my buddy and telling him how great the ultimates was and how the second series was coming out. we immediately went over to the back issues bins. after seeing what the collector price was he said "do they have it in trade?" he then picked up the hardback collected edition. by reducing the amount of print copies available marvel increases the value of the the issues people dont have and increases the demand for the series collected in print. its a win win for the company. and say what you want about the casual fus diehard fanboys at the comic shop everyweek that they depend on for thier sales. if we all said ill wait for the trade the industry would die.

[Brian Hibbs]

Originally posted by Number37
by reducing the amount of print copies available marvel increases the value of the the issues people dont have and increases the demand for the series collected in print.

Honestly, "collector's value" doesn't have any real bearing on book demand, your personal experience notwithstanding.

You can get a set of WATCHMEN for under $3 on eBay, yet DC sells something like 12k a year of the WATCHMEN TP through the Direct Market alone.

Conversely, a set of ACTION #1-4 would cost you tens of thousands of dollars, but I'd be kinda surprised if DC moves 1000 copies a year of ACTION ARCHIVES v1.

By your reasoning, it would be better if Marvel UNDERprinted by 10-20%, right? That would increase demand for the trades, and really spark collectors prices....

-B

[Sam Pay]

Originally posted by Brian Hibbs
By and large the periodical and the TP buyers are tradtionally different animals, and supply (or lack thereof) to one doesn't seem to have any trackable impact on the other....

-B

Fair enough. And I take on board the comment about customers turned away not necessarily returning for the trade at all.

It all seems to be part of a short-sightedness on the distribution side with regard to the contraction of the direct market. A low(er) print run certainly guarantees that the publisher is not left with unwanted stock, but also potentially drives away customers from the book (and, by extension, the company), and certainly doesn't help draw new readers in.

It's upsetting - the more I read articles concerning distribution and marketing, the more I worry that I'm going to out-live the comic as a main-stream medium (no reflection on your article Brian, and thankyou for your response).

[rgfrost]

Originally posted by Brian Hibbs
Honestly, "collector's value" doesn't have any real bearing on book demand, your personal experience notwithstanding.

You can get a set of WATCHMEN for under $3 on eBay, yet DC sells something like 12k a year of the WATCHMEN TP through the Direct Market alone.

Conversely, a set of ACTION #1-4 would cost you tens of thousands of dollars, but I'd be kinda surprised if DC moves 1000 copies a year of ACTION ARCHIVES v1.

By your reasoning, it would be better if Marvel UNDERprinted by 10-20%, right? That would increase demand for the trades, and really spark collectors prices....

-B

Good God, man, that is a pathetic analogy. There is no buzz for Action #1-4. It's all about the buzz, man! A publisher will sell more trades for a recent book that people couldn't find all of the monthlies than for one that the monthlies are still on the shelves. A year and a half ago, no one could find a copy of Sojourn #1. A decent sized percentage of the audience had joined the book late and badly wanted that first issue, so they bought a trade, even though they had all but that first issue or two. Astonishing X-Men trades will also sell well partly because there is huge buzz and one or two of the issues are impossible to find. Marvel can see this and they are using it well. Good for them.