|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2014 17:04:50 GMT -5
Except it isn't actually a significant amount more to publish a physical copy over a digital one. It is to distribute it. Creating the page costs the same. From that point things get very different. In modern comics production the pages are typically scanned and finished digitally. We'll start from there. In digital the process once the pages are finished and digitized this is the entire process from production to distribution to point of purchase 1. Upload file to Comixology, pay distribution fee. That's it. In print the entire process from production to distribution to point of purchase is this 1. Send file to printer, have copies printed based on preorders and projections, hope you're close to accurate. Pay a ton of money. Hope physical product isn't damaged, but a portion of the run often is. Hope there isn't a recall because the editor didn't notice Wolverine drinking a beer and you don't lose the entire eighty thousand unit print run. Write whatever you do lose up as a loss. 2. Send finished product to distributor, pay shipping and pay distribution fee (sold to distributor for a fraction of cover). Hope nothing is damaged along the way, you're probably going to take the loss for that, because Diamond certainly isn't. 3. Distributor sells to retailers who have to pay for the product, pay for shipping, pay for the labor involved in receiving and processing orders, and pay the overhead of a retail outlet. 4. If demand exceeds preorders and you sell out you have to decide if you'll go to second print or not. If you don't, everyone buying that issue for $50 on eBay is a guaranteed lost sale. If you do you have to factor in the fact that some will buy the $50 one on eBay anyway because they don't like second prints. You're losing sales either way, and paying everything twice. And three times once trades come around (which I think have a lower profit margin anyway). Digital is never out of print. Digital profit margins don't change (unless price points do, but you figure your second and third runs are "free" then any price is a profit. Factor everything after the first month as a bonus). In both of these cases there is a distributor cut. In both cases (I'm assuming) the distributor cut is comparable. In one of these cases there are factors multiplying production costs several times. Materials, labor, overhead, shipping, and multiple merchants with their slice of the pie. I figure the cost of a digital product at the end of it's journey into a consumer's possession is less than half that of print. And again, you can get print day of release for forty percent below cover. It's kind of like would it cost you more to mail a thousand people a letter or send a thousand people an email? You still have to write it either way, but reproducing and distributing it digitally dramatically reduces costs. Except in the letter or email scenario we assume that the person sending the letter doesn't own a paper mill, an ink manufacturer, and a printing house because obviously most people aren't in that situation but the same isn't true of the larger publishing houses which in essence own their own supply lines which makes the portion of the cost of each book that goes to its physical make up next to nothing. With that in mind the only real cost is distribution and in this case we are lead to believe that cost is about the same either way, which is why the price is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 17:07:59 GMT -5
Regardless of what you own, paper costs money. Shipping costs money. And that only covers the larger publishers. Newspapers own their own printing and shipping networks and it's still expensive to publish a paper. So much they're seen as obsolete in favor of the internet, which is cheaper, even though they have to pay people to host and operate their website. Digital distribution is just flat out cheaper, in every type of media.
On top of all that, we know for a fact the publishers (the ones that own their own printing networks as well as the ones that don't) sell to Diamond for a reduced rate (and pay for printing and shipping), Diamond then sells to DCBS for a reduced rate (and DCBS pays for shipping) and DCBS can STILL sell the comic for 40% below cover and make enough profit to cover all overhead and bring home the bacon.
I didn't say the distribution cost was the same, I said the distribution cut is probably the same. Meaning Comixology probably takes the same sized cut Diamond does. The publisher is still saving on printing and shipping, with zero threat of losing product, with zero threat of miscalculating print runs and being left with overstock or selling out and losing sales. They will never have to pay for a second run. It's done now. On top of that, as a distributor, Comixology is likely saving a lot of money on not actually shipping anything to retailers. The cost of operating the marketplace is likely a fraction of the cost of physical distribution and retailer discount. So that means more of the retail price is going toward the publisher and the distributor, cutting out the retailer, the shippers, the printers, and any threat of lost product or small second batch runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2014 17:43:10 GMT -5
Regardless of what you own, paper costs money. Shipping costs money. And that only covers the larger publishers. Newspapers own their own printing and shipping networks and it's still expensive to publish a paper. So much they're seen as obsolete in favor of the internet, which is cheaper, even though they have to pay people to host and operate their website. Digital distribution is just flat out cheaper, in every type of media. On top of all that, we know for a fact the publishers (the ones that own their own printing networks as well as the ones that don't) sell to Diamond for a reduced rate (and pay for printing and shipping), Diamond then sells to DCBS for a reduced rate (and DCBS pays for shipping) and DCBS can STILL sell the comic for 40% below cover and make enough profit to cover all overhead and bring home the bacon. I didn't say the distribution cost was the same, I said the distribution cut is probably the same. Meaning Comixology probably takes the same sized cut Diamond does. The publisher is still saving on printing and shipping, with zero threat of losing product, with zero threat of miscalculating print runs and being left with overstock or selling out and losing sales. They will never have to pay for a second run. It's done now. On top of that, as a distributor, Comixology is likely saving a lot of money on not actually shipping anything to retailers. The cost of operating the marketplace is likely a fraction of the cost of physical distribution and retailer discount. So that means more of the retail price is going toward the publisher and the distributor, cutting out the retailer, the shippers, the printers, and any threat of lost product or small second batch runs. It costs money, sure, but the costs are differed to other customers, company x isn't really going to charge themselves any money to print their work on their own printers they are instead going to charge company Y, who uses company X's printer, a little more to cover the cost of printing their own work. It's a shell game and it all amounts to the same: the physical costs of printing a book have nearly zero impact on the price the consumer pays and if you don't believe that all you have to do is google it and you'll find dozens of articles from experts in the field that say just that. The only real difference is that that digitally there aren't as many middle men taking a bite out of the pie than there are when compared to physical distribution, but again that's negligible in terms of the cost per issue for the consumer. So in the end digital is slightly less costly than physical and it comes down to is it really in their interest to create an entirely different pricing scale if the price is only slightly lower? Is $2.50 an issue really much different than $2.99? The answer? A resounding, "No". The difference in price at that scale is neither going to deter current consumers from making the purchase nor significantly entice new consumers to make a purchase based solely on price point. As an aside, newspapers are slowly folding because readers are deciding not to buy them as they can get the same news for free on line, not because the cost of printing the paper is more expensive than digital distribution so the comparison doesn't really work. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 17:46:38 GMT -5
I just looked up what seem to be the best estimates for distribution cost breakdowns through Comixology, and it looks like the costs are more than I expected for two reasons. One is Comixology is taking a much larger cut than I had figured. The other is that Apple/Google take a cut I hadn't counted on, and it's HUGE. Also the publisher does take a larger cut of digital, and even gives the talent a larger cut than in print. This is probably where the savings in printing and shipping go. They say that comics bought through the apps are the only ones where Google/Apple get a cut, but that it's more convenient that way, so it's how most sales take place. First thing I'd do is work on fixing that, make purchases outside the app more convenient and suggest it to customers. Maybe even passing a portion of the savings along. If you offer a 20% discount for purchasing outside the app, you're gaining a 10% cut every time it works. Also, in the comments section of the article people are saying there are other digital distributors who take a fraction of the cut COmixology/Apple/Google do. With Drive Thru Comics you save an instant 35%. An indy comics creator stated that it's far cheaper to sell PDF's directly and only pay "Paypal transactions and a monthly Bigcartel subscription." So it sounds like the problem here is Comixology's dominance in the market is a big part of the reason digital costs so much. I think if Comixology and the publishers really wanted to undercut print prices while not losing any revenue themselves they could do it though, by finding a way to bypass in-app purchases without putting the customer off. Those savings could then be directed to the customer. Also if instead of adding the printing and shipping savings to their bottom line they passed it on to the customer the price could be reduced further. Not that I don't think it's nice creators get a bigger cut, but really, if you cut Google/Apple out completely you still can't get me a digital comic as cheap as DCBS can get me the real thing? Why not go all out and release digital comics on physical media to be distributed through Diamond if it's going to be cheaper than zapping a file into my computer over the web? Apparently the answer I found for why digital costs more than print is "Everybody is taking a larger cut" though. edit: link www.jimzub.com/okay-but-what-about-digital-comics/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 17:49:09 GMT -5
Regardless of what you own, paper costs money. Shipping costs money. And that only covers the larger publishers. Newspapers own their own printing and shipping networks and it's still expensive to publish a paper. So much they're seen as obsolete in favor of the internet, which is cheaper, even though they have to pay people to host and operate their website. Digital distribution is just flat out cheaper, in every type of media. On top of all that, we know for a fact the publishers (the ones that own their own printing networks as well as the ones that don't) sell to Diamond for a reduced rate (and pay for printing and shipping), Diamond then sells to DCBS for a reduced rate (and DCBS pays for shipping) and DCBS can STILL sell the comic for 40% below cover and make enough profit to cover all overhead and bring home the bacon. I didn't say the distribution cost was the same, I said the distribution cut is probably the same. Meaning Comixology probably takes the same sized cut Diamond does. The publisher is still saving on printing and shipping, with zero threat of losing product, with zero threat of miscalculating print runs and being left with overstock or selling out and losing sales. They will never have to pay for a second run. It's done now. On top of that, as a distributor, Comixology is likely saving a lot of money on not actually shipping anything to retailers. The cost of operating the marketplace is likely a fraction of the cost of physical distribution and retailer discount. So that means more of the retail price is going toward the publisher and the distributor, cutting out the retailer, the shippers, the printers, and any threat of lost product or small second batch runs. It costs money, sure, but the costs are differed to other customers, company x isn't really going to charge themselves any money to print their work on their own printers they are instead going to charge company Y, who uses company X's printer, a little more to cover the cost of printing their own work. It's a shell game and it all amounts to the same: the physical costs of printing a book have nearly zero impact on the price the consumer pays and if you don't believe that all you have to do is google it and you'll find dozens of articles from experts in the field that say just that. We're not talking about ONI here are we? Do they own any major printing facilities? If they did, and they weren't printing their own comics, then that money from other customers would be an addition to their bottom line, wouldn't it? Sure, they're offsetting the cost somehow, rationalizing it. Imagine though, that same printing company, with the same number of paying customers, but printing 40,000 fewer units that require a cost offset every month? Lets say it costs fifty cents to print each unit. That's twenty grand a month saved by going digital. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 1, 2014 18:01:20 GMT -5
I don't know as much as the rest of you gentlemen but I think paying the same price for a digital copy as a physical one is a sin. I was thinking maybe the demand might up the price but there would never be an issue with the supply. It doesn't cost anything to send a digital copy through the net.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 18:10:39 GMT -5
Maybe I'm willing to say a dollar for a new comic is too cheap, at least at the moment while digital sales are relatively low and the volume isn't making up for it. I also like that creators get a larger cut trhough digital.
I do not care for distributors taking a nearly 70% cut though. That's a bit much. $2-$2.50 new comics without the publisher losing any money are possible.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Aug 1, 2014 18:59:11 GMT -5
i'd actually be very surprised if marvel and dc owned their own presses given that their various formats seem to be printed around the world.
Even if they did of course they'd charge themselves printing costs for accounting / tax purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2014 19:27:59 GMT -5
It costs money, sure, but the costs are differed to other customers, company x isn't really going to charge themselves any money to print their work on their own printers they are instead going to charge company Y, who uses company X's printer, a little more to cover the cost of printing their own work. It's a shell game and it all amounts to the same: the physical costs of printing a book have nearly zero impact on the price the consumer pays and if you don't believe that all you have to do is google it and you'll find dozens of articles from experts in the field that say just that. We're not talking about ONI here are we? Do they own any major printing facilities? If they did, and they weren't printing their own comics, then that money from other customers would be an addition to their bottom line, wouldn't it? Sure, they're offsetting the cost somehow, rationalizing it. Imagine though, that same printing company, with the same number of paying customers, but printing 40,000 fewer units that require a cost offset every month? Lets say it costs fifty cents to print each unit. That's twenty grand a month saved by going digital. Except there are similar costs for digital too, I mean it's not as if the digital process is magic. Granted, most new books start out as a digital files these dys but If they aren’t already digitized, then they have to be scanned but that’s only the beginning as publishers must then format the books, so that they work on all the various eReaders and the formatting process is pretty labor intensive which in effect means it costs more to do. It's one cost for another similar cost, which means the price is basically going to be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2014 19:31:46 GMT -5
i'd actually be very surprised if marvel and dc owned their own presses given that their various formats seem to be printed around the world. Even if they did of course they'd charge themselves printing costs for accounting / tax purposes. It's a basic shell game, they charge themselves x but charge others a slightly higher cost of y which covers what it cost to print their own work. And I believe the formats printed worldwide are basically licensed printers which would account for the variances. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 19:39:45 GMT -5
We're not talking about ONI here are we? Do they own any major printing facilities? If they did, and they weren't printing their own comics, then that money from other customers would be an addition to their bottom line, wouldn't it? Sure, they're offsetting the cost somehow, rationalizing it. Imagine though, that same printing company, with the same number of paying customers, but printing 40,000 fewer units that require a cost offset every month? Lets say it costs fifty cents to print each unit. That's twenty grand a month saved by going digital. Except there are similar costs for digital too, I mean it's not as if the digital process is magic. Granted, most new books start out as a digital files these dys but If they aren’t already digitized, then they have to be scanned but that’s only the beginning as publishers must then format the books, so that they work on all the various eReaders and the formatting process is pretty labor intensive which in effect means it costs more to do. It's one cost for another similar cost, which means the price is basically going to be the same. The publisher doesn't do that, the distributor does. The publisher has to create the pages, scan the pages, digitally finish the pages, and I imagine no matter if it's going to a printer or a digital distributor the pages are put in some sort of coherent order. Taking that file of pages and transporting it to the distributor costs nothing. It can be sent over the web. When the distributor receives it they then have to format it and host it. A fraction of the overhead, a fraction of the labor, none of the inherent risk of handling physical media. And there's still no cut for the brick and mortar, since the distributor is direct to the consumer. If the publisher did everything but list it in the app store, why not list it in the app store? No need to pay someone 30% for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 19:42:40 GMT -5
i'd actually be very surprised if marvel and dc owned their own presses given that their various formats seem to be printed around the world. Even if they did of course they'd charge themselves printing costs for accounting / tax purposes. I didn't think they did either. Charging someone else more to cover your costs isn't going to make the product cheaper. The guy who gets charged is also passing that cost on, to us. Bottom line, we're paying for the material and ink and all the labor involved in printing, cutting, binding, packaging, shipping, storing, and retailing the product. The entire process, countless hundreds of thousands of dollars in machinery, property, energy costs, labor, and vendor costs for shipping and whatever else is not handled in house can be eliminated. The added costs are minimal. Hosting the content, and a couple computer guys who maybe make double what one of the hundreds of people involved in the old print way make. When you can lay off a hundred workers, you can afford to hire half a dozen at double the wage. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2014 20:27:08 GMT -5
Except there are similar costs for digital too, I mean it's not as if the digital process is magic. Granted, most new books start out as a digital files these dys but If they aren’t already digitized, then they have to be scanned but that’s only the beginning as publishers must then format the books, so that they work on all the various eReaders and the formatting process is pretty labor intensive which in effect means it costs more to do. It's one cost for another similar cost, which means the price is basically going to be the same. The publisher doesn't do that, the distributor does. The publisher has to create the pages, scan the pages, digitally finish the pages, and I imagine no matter if it's going to a printer or a digital distributor the pages are put in some sort of coherent order. Taking that file of pages and transporting it to the distributor costs nothing. It can be sent over the web. When the distributor receives it they then have to format it and host it. A fraction of the overhead, a fraction of the labor, none of the inherent risk of handling physical media. And there's still no cut for the brick and mortar, since the distributor is direct to the consumer. If the publisher did everything but list it in the app store, why not list it in the app store? No need to pay someone 30% for that. Not according to several industry insiders, the publishers are responsible for formatting the files they send to the digital distributors as well as proof reading those files to make sure they look right for the different formats and so forth. All the distributors do are host the various files and monitor the software that oversees the transactions and the execution of the program files associated with each title. And I imagine they pay others up to 30% to do just that because it's a fairly complicated venture that costs time and money that they feel is better used elsewhere. i'd actually be very surprised if marvel and dc owned their own presses given that their various formats seem to be printed around the world. Even if they did of course they'd charge themselves printing costs for accounting / tax purposes. I didn't think they did either. Charging someone else more to cover your costs isn't going to make the product cheaper. The guy who gets charged is also passing that cost on, to us. Bottom line, we're paying for the material and ink and all the labor involved in printing, cutting, binding, packaging, shipping, storing, and retailing the product. The entire process, countless hundreds of thousands of dollars in machinery, property, energy costs, labor, and vendor costs for shipping and whatever else is not handled in house can be eliminated. The added costs are minimal. Hosting the content, and a couple computer guys who maybe make double what one of the hundreds of people involved in the old print way make. When you can lay off a hundred workers, you can afford to hire half a dozen at double the wage. For one, you likely aren't really buying from the other guy who got charged a higher rate, his product could be that billboard on the highway or some ad stuck in the middle of your paper...and it does make the product cheaper because you're not really charging yourself you're charging that other guy. Same thing with the various other overhead expenses, they largely pay for themselves through other business transactions with various other parties which makes their associated cost per book minimal(around 10-15%) which is roughly the same as the costs associated with digital. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 20:31:46 GMT -5
But the bottom line is, even if they make up for the cost of printing by having other customers, if they didn't have the cost of printing, they'd still have those same customers paying the same prices. So it costs them money to print the comics.
And I'm still not convinced that every single comic publisher owns a printing facility and freelances in addition to printing comics.
I'll buy Marvel and DC do, even though I've never heard of such a thing, but I'm nearly positive that several publishers do not. If they have to pay for printing and yet their price point is the same as that of Marvel, it leads me to believe Marvel is passing the cost of printing on to us as well. Otherwise, why can't they undercut the indies like they used to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 20:38:06 GMT -5
Not according to several industry insiders, the publishers are responsible for formatting the files they send to the digital distributors as well as proof reading those files to make sure they look right for the different formats and so forth. All the distributors do are host the various files and monitor the software that oversees the transactions and the execution of the program files associated with each title. And I imagine they pay others up to 30% to do just that because it's a fairly complicated venture that costs time and money that they feel is better used elsewhere. Why even pay Comixology then? If they own printing facilities and print highway banners to offset the cost of comics (I'm still not buying that) why not cut out the middle man and upload their own comics to the app store? For an extra thirty five percent (larger than their entire cut, by the way). They could go from 22% to 57% by uploading the comic to iTunes themselves. |
|
