|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 11, 2014 20:39:20 GMT -5
People still have their jobs and the comics are still coming out, so assume the New 52 is doing well enough for now. The comic company is even getting a one way trip to Burbank next year. We don't know the whys, but smells more like a cost reduction move than a reward, especially since experienced (i.e. higher paid) staff is leaving and being replaced with people lower on the pay scale because of the move. It has every bit the look of downsizing and corporate consolidation to remove redundancy, not hey good job. -M At least part of it is to get out of an onerous lease that Paul Levitz had signed to keep DC in NYC. It was one of the things that the WB wanted off the books as it was a significant infrastructure cost. Paul believed that DC needed to stay in NYC, and that multi-year lease kept them there for a good number of years even as the WB and Jim Lee preached relocation to the LA area. It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back for Paul-- he wanted to pursue other things in any event-- but it certainly pushed the golden parachute along. Even with him gone, they were stuck with it for a few years. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 11, 2014 20:43:17 GMT -5
Paul Levitz was actually the reason the DCU didn't get rebooted right after Final Crisis. Thanks to him, we at least got a few years more with the old DCU.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 11, 2014 20:43:28 GMT -5
I've read that many non-DC readers jumped on, while very few DC readers were lost. Also, the numbers are skewed because what we get are Diamond numbers. That still doesn't include non-Diamond distribution, or digital, which particularly for DC has been a win with their weeklies and digital first series like Batman '66. But the 2011 numbers don't include that either. We're still comparing apples to apples here. And since digital numbers are very hard to come by (as are all alternative distribution numbers actually), this is still the best gauge we have for growth within the industry. My argument would be that while we're still comparing apples to apples because that's the info we have, the people at DC have a different metric. And it's known that collection sales and digital sales are factored into that metric. At a certain point, we should recognize that we are in a very different market that we had been in circa 2000-- monthly sales are no longer the sole factor in determining a book's success anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 20:49:38 GMT -5
There are statistics for trades.... I could take look at those, I suspect they're similar as far as trends go... maybe with a slightly more upward trend (since trades are more popular these days) I don't think digital and newsstand makes up enough of a portion to matter, to be honest. I do wonder very much about Jez's point... why don't moviegoers translate into new readers? I've heard some people say its that the movie characters are too different, but I don't buy that. I think it's really all about perception, and, to a lesser extend, availability. I be if there was a $1.99 Iron Man comic on the grocery store stand, it'd sell. Why didn't everyone who watched Buffy go out and get the Buffy novels or comics? Why doesn't every Star Wars fan buy the books and comics? Why didn't everyone who saw the Harry Potter movies run out and get the books? Why doesn't everyone who watches Game of Thrones on HBO go out and rad the books? Because movie and TV viewers are viewers and readers are readers, and while there is some overlap, not every viewer wants to go out and read more about the characters they just saw in a movie. For some people it's just a 2 hour fun viewing experience, and if there's another movie I will go see it but that's that. And that's with copies of Game of Thrones and Hunger Games and Harry Potter in every grocery store and pharmacy that carries books when the movies hit. If people going to the movies were looking for things to read they would find them. They are not. Movies are not a magic wand that suddenly make non-readers interested in reading. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 20:51:21 GMT -5
But the 2011 numbers don't include that either. We're still comparing apples to apples here. And since digital numbers are very hard to come by (as are all alternative distribution numbers actually), this is still the best gauge we have for growth within the industry. My argument would be that while we're still comparing apples to apples because that's the info we have, the people at DC have a different metric. And it's known that collection sales and digital sales are factored into that metric. At a certain point, we should recognize that we are in a very different market that we had been in circa 2000-- monthly sales are no longer the sole factor in determining a book's success anymore. Yet even when a collection makes the NY Times best seller list like the first I, Vampire trade did, it's not enough to save a book mot producing monthly sales. -M |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 11, 2014 20:55:38 GMT -5
One group that tends to get overlooked when the declining New 52 numbers are discussed is the lapsed fans who probably read Vertigo or indie books and jumped on with the new #1s. These were a significant amount of the "new" readers. Many (if not most of them)jumped ship when they realized that there was no real difference between most of the New 52 books and their previous conterparts beyond the loss of continuity. I think we can extrapolate that these readers probably took that money to Image or another independent publisher, judging by Image's growing market share.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 11, 2014 21:03:23 GMT -5
My argument would be that while we're still comparing apples to apples because that's the info we have, the people at DC have a different metric. And it's known that collection sales and digital sales are factored into that metric. At a certain point, we should recognize that we are in a very different market that we had been in circa 2000-- monthly sales are no longer the sole factor in determining a book's success anymore. Yet even when a collection makes the NY Times best seller list like the first I, Vampire trade did, it's not enough to save a book mot producing monthly sales. -M As dupont mentioned, that Bestseller list is misleading. It's the best-selling title in a certain week, but that doesn't mean it actually sold well. In the case of I, Vampire, it did make it 19 issues when the money was on it lasting less than a year. I don't think it's too far a reach to say that critical acclaim and reasonably strong showing as a collection probably gave it another 6 issues or so. Most books of its type have been dead within two years for much of the past decade and a half. I'm not suprised that I, Vampire (good as it was) fit into this pattern, but I do think we have to consider that it probably wouldn't have made it past 12 issues if we strictly counted monthly numbers.
We do know that there are cases where the collections are given more relevance than the monthly issues. Vertigo books, obviously, but also something like Jonah Hex, which was well in the cancellation window as a monthly book, but sold very well in Europe due to Jordi Bernet being one its creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 21:03:42 GMT -5
I was a lapsed reader who jumped back in with nu52. I dropped everything except Frankenstein, Demon Knights, Jonah Hex and Wonder Woman until the first two ended then dropped the other two when I realized I only liked them compared to the other stuff out at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Aug 11, 2014 21:26:06 GMT -5
Paul Levitz was actually the reason the DCU didn't get rebooted right after Final Crisis. Thanks to him, we at least got a few years more with the old DCU. It should have been rebooted back when Infinite Crisis came out. DC had vastly superior creative talent at the time too. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 11, 2014 21:44:23 GMT -5
Paul Levitz was actually the reason the DCU didn't get rebooted right after Final Crisis. Thanks to him, we at least got a few years more with the old DCU. It should have been rebooted back when Infinite Crisis came out. DC had vastly superior creative talent at the time too. In my opinion, it never should have been rebooted again in the first place, but that's a discussion for another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 11, 2014 23:07:12 GMT -5
The Big Two seem to have settled on a pattern of exploiting spikes in sales to make their money -- reboots, new #1s, character deaths, events, etc. And every time sales go back to what they were, sometimes worse. To me that just seems like a recipe for long-term failure. They are acclimating their buyers to only pay attention when something sensationalized happens. After a certain point in time, the same tricks just aren't going to work anymore as readers become more jaded. They will be forced to come up with something more sensational to grab the audience. They must be taking their cues from drug dealers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 23:31:33 GMT -5
The Big Two seem to have settled on a pattern of exploiting spikes in sales to make their money -- reboots, new #1s, character deaths, events, etc. And every time sales go back to what they were, sometimes worse. To me that just seems like a recipe for long-term failure. They are acclimating their buyers to only pay attention when something sensationalized happens. After a certain point in time, the same tricks just aren't going to work anymore as readers become more jaded. They will be forced to come up with something more sensational to grab the audience. They must be taking their cues from drug dealers. or prime time television dramas....which get ratings spikes for debuts and sensational events during sweeps then back to a lull in between followed by even more sensational events to get spikes in the next sweeps month...ad infinitum... -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 23:44:32 GMT -5
But the 2011 numbers don't include that either. We're still comparing apples to apples here. And since digital numbers are very hard to come by (as are all alternative distribution numbers actually), this is still the best gauge we have for growth within the industry. My argument would be that while we're still comparing apples to apples because that's the info we have, the people at DC have a different metric. And it's known that collection sales and digital sales are factored into that metric. At a certain point, we should recognize that we are in a very different market that we had been in circa 2000-- monthly sales are no longer the sole factor in determining a book's success anymore. I think for mainstream comics it is still the sole factor. They'll cancel a comic before it has a chance to be collected if the monthly floppies don't sell. That means the product is still crafted to that crowd. And their (getting better but still) halfhearted attempt at infiltrating new retail outlets with reprint material leads me to believe it probably still makes up a less significant portion of their bottom line than you'd think. This may explain their loss of market share while having steady (and even climbing) monthly sales in the direct market. The market is bigger now, and includes more than just the direct market. I don't think they're doing nearly as well outside the direct market, although I'm pretty sure they do better than a handful of indy publishers whose names we may have heard of. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of IDW and Fantagraphics actually do better in TPB and HC sales than DC, which could explain why those two publishers are reprinting DC property right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 23:51:19 GMT -5
There are statistics for trades.... I could take look at those, I suspect they're similar as far as trends go... maybe with a slightly more upward trend (since trades are more popular these days) I don't think digital and newsstand makes up enough of a portion to matter, to be honest. I do wonder very much about Jez's point... why don't moviegoers translate into new readers? I've heard some people say its that the movie characters are too different, but I don't buy that. I think it's really all about perception, and, to a lesser extend, availability. I be if there was a $1.99 Iron Man comic on the grocery store stand, it'd sell. Why didn't everyone who watched Buffy go out and get the Buffy novels or comics? Why doesn't every Star Wars fan buy the books and comics? Why didn't everyone who saw the Harry Potter movies run out and get the books? Why doesn't everyone who watches Game of Thrones on HBO go out and rad the books? Because movie and TV viewers are viewers and readers are readers, and while there is some overlap, not every viewer wants to go out and read more about the characters they just saw in a movie. For some people it's just a 2 hour fun viewing experience, and if there's another movie I will go see it but that's that. And that's with copies of Game of Thrones and Hunger Games and Harry Potter in every grocery store and pharmacy that carries books when the movies hit. If people going to the movies were looking for things to read they would find them. They are not. Movies are not a magic wand that suddenly make non-readers interested in reading. -M I think the sales boost Game Of Thrones and Harry Potter books got from the movies actually multiplied their publication numbers several times. That doesn't happen for superhero comics. Not the monthly ones anyway, I think the constant slew of Batman movies is a big part of why DKR and The Killing Joke remain perpetually in print. This is the sales tactic I think they are ignoring at their own cost. Crafting good stand alone work is more profitable in the long term. The guy who shows up to buy the new issue of Batman every Wednesday already read it and isn't buying it again, but all those people watching the Batman movies, if even a tiny fraction of them decides to read a Batman comic, which one is recommended to them? Which one is available at the bookstore or on Amazon? Which one can they buy with their Christmas gift certificate? If someone who doesn't know much about comics but wants to buy a gift for their Batman fanatic loved one, what will likely be recommended to them? Those long term perpetual sales. I wonder if DC has ever made anything more profitable than DKR? At least since the Golden Age. This isn't some magic that only Frank Miller and Alan Moore are capable of. I think a lot of it's success has to do with the format of the comic. It's a complete package, with an ending, outside continuity, with no crossovers. It's a book. DC still periodically releases an OGN, but imagine if they did just one annually, with the years hottest talent on their roster? Maybe one per year per A-list character even? If 25% of them become classics, that's long term money in new markets that aren't slowly disappearing. |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Aug 12, 2014 7:14:45 GMT -5
My argument would be that while we're still comparing apples to apples because that's the info we have, the people at DC have a different metric. And it's known that collection sales and digital sales are factored into that metric. At a certain point, we should recognize that we are in a very different market that we had been in circa 2000-- monthly sales are no longer the sole factor in determining a book's success anymore. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of IDW and Fantagraphics actually do better in TPB and HC sales than DC, which could explain why those two publishers are reprinting DC property right now. They don't, but the gap has narrowed. DC is still the top publisher for collected editions, although Image has been nipping at their heals over the past two years. Surprisingly, it's Marvel that's had the hardest time keeping up. I think their policy of having their tpbs go out of print as a bone to collectors has bit them in the rear. DC has that healthy backlist.
The IDW and Fanta deals with DC are for books that DC feels that aren't going to sell enough to justify production. That's why they're shopping certain licenses for all-ages material and older niche stuff. The Artist's Editions are a whole different matter-- they're considered art books, everyone loves their production values, it keeps the creators happy, and it's all-around good public relations.
|
|
