|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 10, 2016 10:49:32 GMT -5
Much as I've already explained the difference between LOTDK #1 and Spidey #1 previously, let me put it this way: when Apple rebranded the IMac in the late '90s by making it available in a variety of colors, they didn't do this with the expectation that collectors would acquire every color and own a complete set of IMacs. They did it because they believed it would nudge someone on the fence about buying the product if they saw it as aesthetically customizable -- YOU pick the color. And again, the blurb about the exterior cover contained in LOTDK #1 downplays its importance. It was a very different approach than what Marvel did with Spidey #1. And, from my own personal experience, the Spidey #1s were put on display behind the counter of my LCS as soon as they hit stands. The LOTDK #1s were out there on the racks -- grab whichever one you like. I was a stupid kid who bought into all of the hype of the early '90s. I bought two copies of every polybagged comic so I could open one. I had each variant of Spidey #1. I also bought exactly one copy of LOTDK #1 -- the yellow one because I liked the look. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but...C'mon!!! The iMacs were $1,299. It would have cost $6495 to buy all of them. That's $9600 in 2016 dollars. Nobody was going to buy all of them and nobody thought that anyone was going too. LotDK #1 came out on the heels of Spider-Man #1 and there was absolutely speculation as to which color would be worth more and, I believe, full anticipation on the part of DC that many many people would buy all of them. And at $6 for the set that was at least a decent bet. That's just not a reasonable comparison. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2016 11:03:38 GMT -5
The price points were different, but the marketing strategy was the same.
DC did nothing to encourage the collecting of multiple covers and, in fact, the inside blurb did a bit to discourage it.
But again, we're way off topic. If you'd like to continue the debate, we should start a separate topic for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 14:03:12 GMT -5
And I'll say this Shax, you give DC a pass, but they were expecting everyone to buy all 4 colors, so were the shop owners who were ordering the books who knew the completest collector mentality of the typical comic shop customer. It was the same mentality DC had between 2 different covers for Man of Steel in 1986. DC was getting blasted by everybody at the time for their cash grab with the cover color trick on LODK #1. Denny O'Neil and anyone else can spin it any way they want in interviews and reminisces bu on the ground in comic shops in 1989 and in the fan press everyone felt DC was making a cash grab and only doing it to boost sale sand capitalize on the popularity of Batman. Looking back you may not see it that way, but that was definitely how it was perceived at the time by the retailers and customer base who were buying those books.
What makes it relevant was it was part of DC's attempt to catch up with Marvel in the marketplace. Throughout the 80s DC was transforming trying to become relevant again because their sales were terrible for the most part. They had a lot of success with critically acclaimed material and were experimenting with format and pricing in an attempt to gain ground in the marketplace. Part of that was transforming the content to be more "Marvel-like" in some books as you highlighted in the original post, but it was all part of the same endeavor to reinvent DC to be more successful in the marketplace spearheaded by Jeanette Khan and Dick Giordano. But by 1993 Giordano was gone,part of it was because the marketing aspect of cover gimmicks and such were outside his comfort zone and his principle of just getting the best creators on books and let them create was no longer fully embraced at DC with editorial asking stronger hands in story direction and some creators now feeling skittish about working for DC after events like the Swamp Thing #88 debacle (other than for Karen Berger who had tried to go to bat for them in the affair).
These kinds of things are all part and parcel of DC's attempt to transform itself into a company relevant to comics present and future throughout the 80s-one of the driving forces of which was to catch Marvel who was seen by many as the industry leader at the time.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 10, 2016 14:52:25 GMT -5
Have to side with mrp on this one. DC published LOTDK with different color colors to encourage multiple sales. No other reason to publish it that way. Fanboys responded by acting as lemmings and doing so, speculating which color would be a collector's item. I was shopping at multiple stores in Manhattan at that time and personally saw that behavior. In fact, one store was selling them as sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 10, 2016 14:58:40 GMT -5
What makes it relevant was it was part of DC's attempt to catch up with Marvel in the marketplace. Throughout the 80s DC was transforming trying to become relevant again because their sales were terrible for the most part. They had a lot of success with critically acclaimed material and were experimenting with format and pricing in an attempt to gain ground in the marketplace. Part of that was transforming the content to be more "Marvel-like" in some books as you highlighted in the original post, but it was all part of the same endeavor to reinvent DC to be more successful in the marketplace spearheaded by Jeanette Khan and Dick Giordano.... The frustrating thing as a DC fan in the 80s was exactly this... DC was trying to grow market based on producing good comics, while Marvel--like Atlas in the 50s--would flood the market with more of the same. Say what you like about them now, but almost 30 years on Watchmen and Dark Knight are still seen as high-water marks for mainstream comics, and I credit Kahn and Giordano for creating an environment where that could happen. Nothing like that was gonna happen under Shooter. (It might be forcing a parallel that's not there, but in the late silver/early bronze, DC seemed to try to break comics out of the superhero ghetto--Bat Lash, Secret Six, Shadow, HOM/HOS, Days of the Mob/Spirit World--while Marvel expanded its superhero line.) The next question is: when will DC/Marvel "catch up" to Fantagraphics/Dark Horse/IDW? |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 10, 2016 15:07:30 GMT -5
The next question is: when will DC/Marvel "catch up" to Fantagraphics/Dark Horse/IDW? Not while they are owned by Time Warner and Disney |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 15:39:25 GMT -5
Much as I've already explained the difference between LOTDK #1 and Spidey #1 previously, let me put it this way: when Apple rebranded the IMac in the late '90s by making it available in a variety of colors, they didn't do this with the expectation that collectors would acquire every color and own a complete set of IMacs. They did it because they believed it would nudge someone on the fence about buying the product if they saw it as aesthetically customizable -- YOU pick the color. And again, the blurb about the exterior cover contained in LOTDK #1 downplays its importance. It was a very different approach than what Marvel did with Spidey #1. And, from my own personal experience, the Spidey #1s were put on display behind the counter of my LCS as soon as they hit stands. The LOTDK #1s were out there on the racks -- grab whichever one you like. I was a stupid kid who bought into all of the hype of the early '90s. I bought two copies of every polybagged comic so I could open one. I had each variant of Spidey #1. I also bought exactly one copy of LOTDK #1 -- the yellow one because I liked the look. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but...C'mon!!! The iMacs were $1,299. It would have cost $6495 to buy all of them. That's $9600 in 2016 dollars. Nobody was going to buy all of them and nobody thought that anyone was going too. LotDK #1 came out on the heels of Spider-Man #1 and there was absolutely speculation as to which color would be worth more and, I believe, full anticipation on the part of DC that many many people would buy all of them. And at $6 for the set that was at least a decent bet. That's just not a reasonable comparison. One was a durable good where color options are part and parcel of the offering to consumers. The other was marketed as a collectible (the first new Batman book since 1940 get it while you can) where color options was not the standard expectation at a time when collectibility was the driving force in the market and offering 4 colors wasn't about options it was about driving collectible sales. It's apples (pardon the pun) and oranges (or pinks, or blues or yellows or greens- I was worng 5 color choices not 4).  -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Aug 10, 2016 17:02:12 GMT -5
Industry sales figures I have from 1991 show Marvel already holding nearly 70% of the market to DC's 30%. I suspect it happened in 1990, around the time the adjective-less Spider-Man #1 was launched. By the time X-Force #1 launched that summer, Marvel was holding each of the top 13 of the Top 100 comics of the month. Pretty much this. I worked in an LCS while in college (91 -94) and we couldn't give DC titles away, outside of the mega-events like Death of Superman or Bat-crossovers. Most customers' pull lists consisted of X-titles and Spider-Man books, with some folks picking up Marvel solo books (Cap, Iron Man, Thor) and Avengers. When I made out my first pull list in 1991, I became the first person to have a Marvel free list in the shop's history. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 10, 2016 17:24:03 GMT -5
2000 Ad and other UK comics like Warrior were real rare to find at all in the 80s. I remember a buddy of mine finding some issues at a con and being wow here they are...a rare find.
People like Alan Moore and Brian Bolland were known by comic readers in the US from Camelot 3000 and Swamp Thing, so when Miracleman and those Eagle Dredd reprints came out, deep comic fans were looking them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 10, 2016 19:10:36 GMT -5
There were always individual DC titles of quality here and there in the late silver age and forward. Most times there were just a few or the title was short lived. Many times it had nothing to do with superheroes but rather its war, western or "horror' genre. And sales wise, DC never caught up with Marvel once they relinquished their lead in the very early 70s (except for some individual months here or there, never on an annual basis) Quality is subjective so there would be no consensus to this question. But, considering the entire lineup of DC, I don't think it happened until shortly after Crisis and into the early 90s. I base the resurgence on 3 things 1-Under jeanette Khan's stewardship DC began to offer its freelancers better royalty rates and other benefits, far superior than what Marvel offered. This was also done to counter the freedoms and benefits the new independent companies were offering 2-Jim Shooter alienated many long-time Marvel veterans such as Roy Thomas, Steve Englehart, John Byrne, Marv Wolfman, Gene Colan etc and DC got the influx of this talent 3-DC reached out to the best of British writers and artists such as Alan Moore, Alan Grant, Brian Bolland and many others. They brought a fresh and mature perspective to DC and helped create the Vertigo line This statement could not be more correct. I would add that Dick Giordano as Executive Editor and VP and Paul Levitz as Editor and President and Karen Berger's rise as Editor and later Executive Editor of Vertigo, were as important as Ish's above statement. According to Comichron.com, measuring line-wide sales, Marvel actually passed DC the last year DC still had distribution (1967), and there was only 1 time when DC equalled Marvel's sales, was in 1972, when inflation was high and cover prices kept going up. After that, on an annual line-wide basis, DC has never passed Marvel again on an annual basis. Quality doesn't necessarily translate into sales. For the most part, pre-Crisis DC wasn't as good as Marvel, but post-Crisis, DC overall had better product IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 10, 2016 20:11:23 GMT -5
From TwoMorrows' Stan Lee & Jack Kirby: The Wonder Years  |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 10, 2016 20:12:27 GMT -5
Did some research on comicchron. Superman outsold Batman (except in 1966-67) until 1987 when Batman overtook Superman as DC's top book. Superman outsold Spider-Man until 1976. I think Marvel, overall, didn't start outselling DC until 1972. That must have been what I was remembering. I do think Spider-Man was Marvel's top selling book, maybe from around 1972, and wasn't surpassed until the X-Men blew up around 1982/83? As Byrne himself points out, the X-Men sold better after he left and really took off around the time Paul Smith took over. To be fair, that's simply because it took awhile for the title to build up steam coming off all that Claremont and Byrne accomplished. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2016 20:13:08 GMT -5
Speaking of which, what was the deal with the "Pop Art Productions" thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 10, 2016 20:17:40 GMT -5
Speaking of which, what was the deal with the "Pop Art Productions" thing? Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and "Pop Art" were popular. They were trying to appeal to the college crowd and ride the trend. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 10, 2016 20:22:15 GMT -5
Speaking of which, what was the deal with the "Pop Art Productions" thing? The term Pop Art was in vogue in the mid/late 60s, epitomized by the works of Andy Warhol. it could mean psychedelic, experimental or whatever but it was meant to denote something as "mod' " and "happening". Marvel just co-opted the phrase |
|
