If Marvel and DC want to do the season model, that's fine. I can see the benefits of this method, particularly given how most series are designed to be read in six issue arcs nowadays. The problem is that they're not marketing their books to reflect this. What I would do is highlight the story arc title on the cover with "Part 1 of 6" being clearly indicated on the cover as well. I see this as the best of both worlds. This would make it easier for readers to find series and would satisfy Marvel and DC's desire to release a new number one as often as humanly possible.

That's a very narrowly defined question. I suggest some alternative questions:

Where's the hard data that back issue sales pump new profits? Answer: the movies. Without back issue sales there would be no long term hard core of fans.

Where's the hard data that back issue sales of books in general pump new book sales? Answer: Amazon. Imagine if Amazon only sold the books published this month, and made only minimal effort to promote other books. Instead, it promotes all past books almost as much as it promotes the current crop, and creates suggestions to encourage the buying of back copies.

Where's the hard data that back issue sales can turn a failing comics industry around? The period from the late 1970s to the kid 1990s: a boom in sales that depended on comic shops. These in turn depended on back issues for their day to day survival. The back issues turn new issues into an investment, and they keep the fans excited during lean years.

Of course, the whole concept of back issues has been moot since the early 1990s, when continuity was effectively abandoned. Fans who care about stories were driven away, into the arms of TV and movies. TV and movies care more and more about back issues. They make serious money from box sets and repeat sales. Comics dropped the ball in the 1990s and TV picked it up. 

New mainstream comics are not made with long term continuity in mind. So back issues have no value. So it would not make any difference if Marvel and DC chose to focus on back issue: they have killed the long term story, the goose that laid the golden egg. But TV and movies have nurtured that goose (it takes many years). TV and movies have developed a following that cares passionately about their back issues, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

This is simply wrong. The "long term hard core" comic book fans aren't enough people to make a movie successful much less start a movie franchise. The movies are successful because they figured out how to appeal to people who don't care one bit about comic books and got them to buy tickets.



I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Amazon doesn't sell new comics or back issues. Members of the Amazon Marketplace do. Amazon itself sells the various trades and OGN's that the publishers produce. As far as the "suggestions" it's a computer algorithm that is based on what people who buy those particular books also bought. If you're buying trades of old stuff, you're likely going to also buy trades of other old stuff. The suggestions actual sales figures are what matter.



I question whether comic shops were depending on back issue sales for their survival. I suspect survival was due to new issue sales and back issues were the icing on the cake. That said, you're talking about a business model that is at least twenty-plus years old. What other entertainment industries are using twenty-plus year old business models?



If the fans were driven away then who is buying the current books. Everyone says that they aren't bringing in new fans. Now you're saying they have to be because the old fans all went away. I'm a bit lost as to what you're saying about TV and Movies and box sets and repeat sales. I'm assuming you're talking about DVDs. But sales of DVDs and Blue-Rays have been dropping precipitously since at least 2013. And honestly the previous model for comics had NOTHING remotely like the sale of box sets. It does now in the sale of trade paperbacks. It used to be if you missed a comic on the newstands you were shit out of luck unless you could find a back issue. And the publisher got ZERO money from that back issue. Now they can sell a trade and it's pure dosh for them.



You're making the assumption that the "long term story" is the goose that laid the golden egg. Comics sold at their peak when virtually every story was a one-and-done and there was virtually no cross-over between books. The tight continuity was change in the business model as a result of changing market forces. You're assuming that that same model will still work. But the current business model seems to disagree with you. Why aren't you calling for a return to anthology comics with multiple one-and-done stories? Because that was the most successful business model.

The renumbering thing drives me crazy! I think there are titles with something like 7 different volumes. Ridiculous. I wish they'd stop these silly money grabs.

It worked through the 1990s, but that was then, the model in place did not work from 2000-2010, which is when it was mostly abandoned beginning in 2011, over the past 5-6 years comics revenue has grown over what it had been for the 10-15 years previously. Yes, in the past comics were more profitable until that model stopped working and they were declining for 10-15 years, which is when they changed the model and growth started again. The growth (in revenue not units) hasn't reached previous levels, but you don't go back to the model that was in place when the decline happened because the new model isn't growing fast enough. If anything, you find yet another new model. Going back to the old model won't recapture the glory of the past. Buying habits and the market have changed, and the decline from 2000-2010 showed them the old model wouldn't work in the new market-that's the hard evidence they have why the model you want won't work, because it stopped working. And when they look at the world that is-what possible reason would they have to implement a model of the 1960s-1990s when nothing else in the entertainment world resembles the world of that era and nothing in the entertainment world still functions like it did in that era? The market moved beyond that model years ago, and it took comics a decade to catch on and change the model, in which the losses they suffered were severe and may never be made up. Going back to that model makes no sense whatsoever. You cna argue the current model is not working as well as it should, and I won't disagree, but the answer is not going back to the model that ended up working less well in its final years because the market had moved past it.

-M

Does it really??  Sure, they get a boost in sales...for a few months, maybe, but that's all.  Comic sales are of course nowhere near where they used to be. There a lot of reasons, but I think that the mentality of grabbing the quick buck, rather than making a quality product, is one of those reasons, and the renumbering is part of that mentality.  It can't really help attract new readers when you mention The Flash and they have no idea which Flash title you're referring to.

What's also frustrating is their penchant for renumbering a series in honor of some anniversary or celebration. A title may be up to issue 25 or 30 and then next month suddenly jump to #500. Long-time readers or hard-core collectors may know the reasoning why but any new reader may be clueless.