|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 18:33:19 GMT -5
That's true of any business, you get certain perks for being a big customer and it has nothing to do with hard balling smaller customers and everything to do with keeping your best customers happy because they give you more sales more often. And the big complaint with Amazon is they are simply treating the fifth smallest publisher the same exact way they treat the largest publisher. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 18:39:32 GMT -5
Publishers set their cover prices not Diamond. If a publisher wants to pit a 24 page floppy out there at $8 (twice Marvel's cover) they can. It won't sell to the end customers. But they can. Diamond has a discount structure for retailers based on overall units purchased (again bigger accounts getting a better per unit price because they buy more). If a retailer though they could move 6000 units to met the minimum at a $8 msrp, they could try. The market however is more price resistant than brand resistant. Buyers cringe at buying $8 full color 64-100 page comics from the big 2 in the American direct market, so upping price for a 24 page black and white or color floppy to that level is not likely to increase sales. But hey a publisher could if they wanted to.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 20, 2014 18:44:32 GMT -5
If moving 5000 units doesn't cover their cost of doing business why should they take that account? It will cover the cost of doing business if the 5000 units are priced accordingly. There is no price factor, only a unit factor. How about this, what if it actually cost money to list your comic in previews? Fifty bucks, five hundred bucks, whatever it costs to make cataloging the comic, giving it an order code, and publishing it viable. Then make Previews free, like the pennysaver. Limited to x number of issues per store based on their spending. If the cost of publishing is paid for by charging for the listing, it could work. Then customers could more easily root through it themselves, know what's available, and put in their orders. It could actually increase sales for the retailer, since he probably only has space to stock about 150 titles. The guy with nine or ten titles on his pull list might have fifteen after looking in previews. The guy with sixty might have eighty. Then Diamond can say they will distribute based on this price point per unit plan, which means if you presell x amount of issues we charge this much, if you presell many more issues, we are happy to take a smaller cut. Way back when Marvel Comics had a cover price of thirty cents some people were willing to spend four dollars on a copy of Cannon by Wally Wood. DOes a high price hurt sales? Yes. Does it mean there will be no sales? No. Diamond could still easily have minimums, but in my opinion a more reasonable minimum is half what they have now. A third would be ideal. If you paid for your Previews listing and you have two thousand preorders, you manage to print and deliver 2000 comics to Diamond distributors and the cover price is set so you, Diamond, and the retailer all make money, I don't see the problem. This is why I think they have a minimum based strictly on circulation numbers, they aren't offering indies the opportunity to charge double what a Marvel comic costs, like indies were known to do in the 1980's. They are simply making them cease to exist. And saying Kickstarter and free to read webcomics is a reasonable solution doesn't really fly to me either. Maybe that book publisher that is having problems with Amazon can just post their work on Deviantart for free and hope they generate enough of a following to Kickstart a print on demand version some day. New ideas and unproven material has no place in floppies, essentially saying they have no place in the direct market. That is incredibly sad to me to hear. I don't necessarily disagree though. People will pay more for a comic with a blank cover that they never intend on opening than they will for something that doesn't have a Marvel logo in the corner. I don't think Diamond is solely to blame, but I think this was a conscious effort on behalf of both Diamond and the publishers. While your top plan is perhaps appealing for some customers I don't think it would change the way most people buy their books and because of that I don't think you're likely to see a change like your proposal as it would not be a significant benefit for most consumers which would mean the costs associated with changing their business plan would not be offset by enough added sales. As for the kickstarter plan not flying with you just seems weird because to my ears that narrative sounds very analogous to the way the indie creators from the past got their work out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 18:56:10 GMT -5
It won't sell to the end customers. It might. It has in the past. You're right, Diamond doesn't set the cover price. They set the minimum circulation though. Supposedly because of the cost of business. But if they're willing to distribute 7000 units at three dollars each, shouldn't they be willing to distribute 3500 units at six dollars? Wouldn't that actually make them more money, shipping fewer units but making the same dollar amount? They could easily release a structure based on minimum revenue showing how many units need to presell at which price in order to be distributed. They could solicit at the maximum price, whatever they figure that to be, and if the comic presells double the projected units then the retailers get an extra bonus when their invoice is a little lower than expected. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 18:57:18 GMT -5
As for the kickstarter plan not flying with you just seems weird because to my ears that narrative sounds very analogous to the way the indie creators from the past got their work out there. Then why can't that book publisher that's having problems with Amazon just use Kickstarter from now on too? Why is it okay for comic publishers and not book publishers? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 20, 2014 19:03:01 GMT -5
It is okay for them as well, there is no right to be sold; you need to work for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 19:07:40 GMT -5
It won't sell to the end customers. It might. It has in the past. You're right, Diamond doesn't set the cover price. They set the minimum circulation though. Supposedly because of the cost of business. But if they're willing to distribute 7000 units at three dollars each, shouldn't they be willing to distribute 3500 units at six dollars? Wouldn't that actually make them more money, shipping fewer units but making the same dollar amount? They could easily release a structure based on minimum revenue showing how many units need to presell at which price in order to be distributed. They could solicit at the maximum price, whatever they figure that to be, and if the comic presells double the projected units then the retailers get an extra bonus when their invoice is a little lower than expected. Because the past is not the present and economic factors have changed. Standard comic cover prices in the 80's were behind inflation costs, today they are far ahead of them. As for 7000 $3 units vs. 3500 $6 units, you are not factoring economy of scale. It is always cheaper to do more than less, so as you move down in the number of units, the cost per unit rises faster than the increase in cover price you propose, so no it is not more profitable or even as profitable to move 3500 units at $6 than it is to move 7000 units at $3. As for kickstarter and small book publishers, many do use it. WhenI went to Origins and walked through The Library-i.e. the prose writer's alley, I got no less than 15 flyers promoting kickstarter (or Indigogo) campaigns for new books for these small publishers in the half hour I was there. And many of them were from established writers with severla published credits already out there (and on sale at their tables, to which they were also handing out flyers to by the ebook version of the books if you wanted it but didn't want a physical copy you had to carry around at the con). So yes it is as good for book publishers as it is for comic publishers. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 19:09:29 GMT -5
As for 7000 $3 units vs. 3500 $6 units, you are not factoring economy of scale. It is always cheaper to do more than less, so as you move down in the number of units, the cost per unit rises faster than the increase in cover price you propose, so no it is not more profitable or even as profitable to move 3500 units at $6 than it is to move 7000 units at $3. But Diamond doesn't print them, right? If a comic company can pull it off, why not let them? Is Diamond responsible for enforcing the publishers bottom line as well as their own? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 19:10:16 GMT -5
So yes it is as good for book publishers as it is for comic publishers. -M So again I have to ask, how is Diamond different than Amazon? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 19:19:25 GMT -5
As for 7000 $3 units vs. 3500 $6 units, you are not factoring economy of scale. It is always cheaper to do more than less, so as you move down in the number of units, the cost per unit rises faster than the increase in cover price you propose, so no it is not more profitable or even as profitable to move 3500 units at $6 than it is to move 7000 units at $3. But Diamond doesn't print them, right? If a comic company can pull it off, why not let them? Is Diamond responsible for enforcing the publishers bottom line as well as their own? Your missing the point-The unit costs I am talking about is the unit cost for Diamond to process them not for the publisher to print them. A publisher can price it however they want. However the business cost of operating for Diamond goes up the fewer units Diamond processes. It costs them more per unit to process 3500 units of a book than it does to process 7000 on a per unit basis, so even though they are getting paid more per unit, it costs them more per unit to do so and is less profitable. They could give a rat's behind about the publisher's bottom line, but they watch their own carefully, and their bottom line takes a hit if they process 3500 units at $6 as opposed to processing 7000 at $3.50. Economy of scale applies to distribution as well as printing. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 19:22:08 GMT -5
So yes it is as good for book publishers as it is for comic publishers. -M So again I have to ask, how is Diamond different than Amazon? As I said before Diamond is not taking business from inquiring potential customers because it's not profitable for them to do so. Amazon is not distributing books from business partners as a negotiating tool to increase profits on an already profitable venture. If you can't see the difference there, I can't help you. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 20:26:54 GMT -5
But Diamond doesn't print them, right? If a comic company can pull it off, why not let them? Is Diamond responsible for enforcing the publishers bottom line as well as their own? Your missing the point-The unit costs I am talking about is the unit cost for Diamond to process them not for the publisher to print them. A publisher can price it however they want. However the business cost of operating for Diamond goes up the fewer units Diamond processes. It costs them more per unit to process 3500 units of a book than it does to process 7000 on a per unit basis, so even though they are getting paid more per unit, it costs them more per unit to do so and is less profitable. They could give a rat's behind about the publisher's bottom line, but they watch their own carefully, and their bottom line takes a hit if they process 3500 units at $6 as opposed to processing 7000 at $3.50. Economy of scale applies to distribution as well as printing. -M The price point was an example. What I'm essentially saying is, if Diamond says they need three grand minimum to distribute a comic, it can be done on any sized print run if the publisher can presell units at a price point that will allow for it. There is no system of doing that through Diamond though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 20:30:35 GMT -5
As I said before Diamond is not taking business from inquiring potential customers because it's not profitable for them to do so. -M Unless those customers were low profit margin customers, and by eliminating them they have influenced the direct market to order more product from their higher profit margin accounts. Kind of how retail stores have eliminated the kind of stock from their shelves that were low profit margin merchandise to fill their shelves with high profit margin merchandise, or how a car salesman will try to sell you what nets him the most commission regardless of what you stepped on the lot looking for, or the same with cellular phone dealers and service plans. I used to do that, and I remember the difference in commissions for certain things, and believe me, we tried to make sure everyone chose the plan that paid us the most. My belief is those smaller publishers were profitable, just not AS profitable as the big two, and doing a favor for the big two, while doing a favor for yourself seemed like a win win for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 21:05:43 GMT -5
As I said before Diamond is not taking business from inquiring potential customers because it's not profitable for them to do so. -M Unless those customers were low profit margin customers, and by eliminating them they have influenced the direct market to order more product from their higher profit margin accounts. Kind of how retail stores have eliminated the kind of stock from their shelves that were low profit margin merchandise to fill their shelves with high profit margin merchandise, or how a car salesman will try to sell you what nets him the most commission regardless of what you stepped on the lot looking for, or the same with cellular phone dealers and service plans. I used to do that, and I remember the difference in commissions for certain things, and believe me, we tried to make sure everyone chose the plan that paid us the most. My belief is those smaller publishers were profitable, just not AS profitable as the big two, and doing a favor for the big two, while doing a favor for yourself seemed like a win win for them. You can certainly believe that, but all the numbers I have seen and dealt with working with a small self-publishing comic company and helping doing the ordering at 2 different comic shops in 2 different states don't pan that out. But again, I think it's just time to agree to disagree. -M |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 21, 2014 17:26:53 GMT -5
As I said before Diamond is not taking business from inquiring potential customers because it's not profitable for them to do so. -M Unless those customers were low profit margin customers, and by eliminating them they have influenced the direct market to order more product from their higher profit margin accounts. Kind of how retail stores have eliminated the kind of stock from their shelves that were low profit margin merchandise to fill their shelves with high profit margin merchandise, or how a car salesman will try to sell you what nets him the most commission regardless of what you stepped on the lot looking for, or the same with cellular phone dealers and service plans. I used to do that, and I remember the difference in commissions for certain things, and believe me, we tried to make sure everyone chose the plan that paid us the most. My belief is those smaller publishers were profitable, just not AS profitable as the big two, and doing a favor for the big two, while doing a favor for yourself seemed like a win win for them. Distributing comics isn't commission based though so I don't think the logic carries over, plus it seems like a rather complicated line of reasoning that includes many intricate steps to reach the nefarious end goal...which would suggest to me that a much simpler explanation would be much closer to the actual reasoning for their business practice. I get it, it stinks that comics we enjoy aren't popular enough to be profitable but I see no beneficial reason for chasing ghosts in the belief that these comics are being purposefully set up to fail for nefarious reasons by the distributor. |
|
