|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 2, 2018 15:06:07 GMT -5
The entire reason for changing issue numbers and multiple covers is to encourage double, triple, quadrupal dipping of purchasing the same exact issue more than once at the initial sale "without" waiting for the later trade reprint. Why throw away money to the LCS/used shops where the Publisher doesn't get anything in return when you the Publisher only get money from the initial sale. They want confusion on our part where we make impulse multiple buys at the initial release and don't care if we end up buying the same comic over and over again through the years. I'm really struggling to parse what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that comic buyers are buying the same NEW comics multiple times? I can see (and we have people here saying they have) buying the same back issues by mistake. I can't imagine going to the comic shop and buying the same new issue multiple times. Or maybe you're saying something else and I'm just not understanding. Yes, buyers purchase the same comic. Whether for investing for resale or it being multiple covers they may like or the variant covers in grabbing it on the fly because they don't recognize the cover/issue being one they already bought and other times a week to a month down the line at other visits thinking it is the next new issue. I have actually done the last several times... |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 2, 2018 15:10:44 GMT -5
I'm really struggling to parse what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that comic buyers are buying the same NEW comics multiple times? I can see (and we have people here saying they have) buying the same back issues by mistake. I can't imagine going to the comic shop and buying the same new issue multiple times. Or maybe you're saying something else and I'm just not understanding. Hm, well, variant covers are a gimmick to make you buy more than one copy of the same issue. On the website of my LCS, I can peruse the variants of all the titles that I have on my pull list and can select however many of each variant that I care to purchase. I can buy the regular cover and a variant cover, same exact issue with both, but double the regular cost by buying two issues instead of just one copy. Add in rarer incentive covers (which on their website, you have to place a bid upon) and the cost of buying the same exact issue can quickly escalate. As for the other point, the problem with trade-dressing could possibly make it ambiguous as to which specific issues are being reprinted in that trade. In some instances, I've really had to focus on which issues are included to make sure I wasn't doubling down on issues or even storylines that I already own. Reading product reviews (like on Amazon) helps some in this area where fans can give a clearer idea of what's included in this book versus the product description itself. Although it can be difficult to figure which issues are collected in a specific trade(especially with Marvel books of late) that isn't related to trade dress. Trade dressing refers to the stylistic elements used to identify the product; in the case of comics this has to do a lot with the design, font and colors used in the title on the cover as well as the company's logo and oftentimes the masthead above the title itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2018 15:18:33 GMT -5
I'm really struggling to parse what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that comic buyers are buying the same NEW comics multiple times? I can see (and we have people here saying they have) buying the same back issues by mistake. I can't imagine going to the comic shop and buying the same new issue multiple times. Or maybe you're saying something else and I'm just not understanding. Yes, buyers purchase the same comic. Whether for investing for resale or it being multiple covers they may like or the variant covers in grabbing it on the fly because they don't recognize the cover/issue being one they already bought and other times a week to a month down the line at other visits thinking it is the next new issue. I have actually done the last several times... As far as for investing purposes and multiple covers, that's been a thing for at least 25 years now. I can't speak to the confusion in comic shops for new releases because it's been over a decade (probably close to two) since I've set foot in one. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 16:07:06 GMT -5
If comic buyers i.e. fans, didn't financially incentivize new #1s, relaunches, reboots, etc. by buying them in significantly higher quantities than regular issues and if customers didn't incentivize variants by buying them, publishers like marvel wouldn't do them. I've said it many times, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. The fetishization of #1s started in the Bronze Age (look at the ads in comics form that time with dealers hyping up #1 issues and buying them up to sell to fans who wanted them). It's not a new phenomenon and the type of comics you get now, the variant,s the $1s, the relaunches, are the result of comic fans buying patterns over the last several decades. You reap what you sow, and comics are what comic fans have made of them based on how they buy them. Point fingers all you want, the aphorism of three pointing back at you is very true here. Comics publishers are reactionary and copycats, they produce what people are buying. If people didn't buy up the things they say they hate, they wouldn't be on the market, but dollars speak louder than empty complaints, and buyer dollars reward variants, relaunches, reboots, and #1s.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 2, 2018 16:45:32 GMT -5
If comic buyers i.e. fans, didn't financially incentivize new #1s, relaunches, reboots, etc. by buying them in significantly higher quantities than regular issues and if customers didn't incentivize variants by buying them, publishers like marvel wouldn't do them. I've said it many times, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. The fetishization of #1s started in the Bronze Age (look at the ads in comics form that time with dealers hyping up #1 issues and buying them up to sell to fans who wanted them). It's not a new phenomenon and the type of comics you get now, the variant,s the $1s, the relaunches, are the result of comic fans buying patterns over the last several decades. You reap what you sow, and comics are what comic fans have made of them based on how they buy them. Point fingers all you want, the aphorism of three pointing back at you is very true here. Comics publishers are reactionary and copycats, they produce what people are buying. If people didn't buy up the things they say they hate, they wouldn't be on the market, but dollars speak louder than empty complaints, and buyer dollars reward variants, relaunches, reboots, and #1s. -M Forget it Jake, it's Comicstown. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 2, 2018 19:36:58 GMT -5
If comic buyers i.e. fans, didn't financially incentivize new #1s, relaunches, reboots, etc. by buying them in significantly higher quantities than regular issues and if customers didn't incentivize variants by buying them, publishers like marvel wouldn't do them. I've said it many times, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. The fetishization of #1s started in the Bronze Age (look at the ads in comics form that time with dealers hyping up #1 issues and buying them up to sell to fans who wanted them). It's not a new phenomenon and the type of comics you get now, the variant,s the $1s, the relaunches, are the result of comic fans buying patterns over the last several decades. You reap what you sow, and comics are what comic fans have made of them based on how they buy them. Point fingers all you want, the aphorism of three pointing back at you is very true here. Comics publishers are reactionary and copycats, they produce what people are buying. If people didn't buy up the things they say they hate, they wouldn't be on the market, but dollars speak louder than empty complaints, and buyer dollars reward variants, relaunches, reboots, and #1s. -M The ironic part is that I would almost wager that the top ten books of all time are NOT #1's. Hulk 181, New Mutants 98, Iron Man 55, Amazing Fantasy # 15 etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 22:29:17 GMT -5
If comic buyers i.e. fans, didn't financially incentivize new #1s, relaunches, reboots, etc. by buying them in significantly higher quantities than regular issues and if customers didn't incentivize variants by buying them, publishers like marvel wouldn't do them. I've said it many times, comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. The fetishization of #1s started in the Bronze Age (look at the ads in comics form that time with dealers hyping up #1 issues and buying them up to sell to fans who wanted them). It's not a new phenomenon and the type of comics you get now, the variant,s the $1s, the relaunches, are the result of comic fans buying patterns over the last several decades. You reap what you sow, and comics are what comic fans have made of them based on how they buy them. Point fingers all you want, the aphorism of three pointing back at you is very true here. Comics publishers are reactionary and copycats, they produce what people are buying. If people didn't buy up the things they say they hate, they wouldn't be on the market, but dollars speak louder than empty complaints, and buyer dollars reward variants, relaunches, reboots, and #1s. -M The ironic part is that I would almost wager that the top ten books of all time are NOT #1's. Hulk 181, New Mutants 98, Iron Man 55, Amazing Fantasy # 15 etc. How are you measuring top 10? Initial sales? Value in collector's market? What? Top 10 Marvels in value would be Marvel Comics #1, Captain America Comics #1, etc. and the only one on your list would be Amazing Fantasy #15. Avengers, #1, Amazing Spider-Man #1, Ff #1 X-Men #1 would all be higher than what you listed and so would golden age Sub-Mariner #1, Human Torch #1, etc. If you are talking initial sales, then Jim Lee's X-Men #1 is #1, McFarlane's Spider-Man #1 is #2, and X-Force #1 is #3, all selling in the millions of copies. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 2, 2018 22:39:40 GMT -5
I wasn't making a list of the top ten, just giving examples of books that are currently popular and in demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 3, 2018 6:44:37 GMT -5
The ironic part is that I would almost wager that the top ten books of all time are NOT #1's. Hulk 181, New Mutants 98, Iron Man 55, Amazing Fantasy # 15 etc. How are you measuring top 10? Initial sales? Value in collector's market? What? Top 10 Marvels in value would be Marvel Comics #1, Captain America Comics #1, etc. and the only one on your list would be Amazing Fantasy #15. Avengers, #1, Amazing Spider-Man #1, Ff #1 X-Men #1 would all be higher than what you listed and so would golden age Sub-Mariner #1, Human Torch #1, etc. If you are talking initial sales, then Jim Lee's X-Men #1 is #1, McFarlane's Spider-Man #1 is #2, and X-Force #1 is #3, all selling in the millions of copies. -M I'm answering the premise that releasing # 1's every so often because of the collectibility of it is faulty if you want to Make big money in the aftermarket. Many first appearances of key characters don't occur in # 1's. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 15:18:35 GMT -5
How are you measuring top 10? Initial sales? Value in collector's market? What? Top 10 Marvels in value would be Marvel Comics #1, Captain America Comics #1, etc. and the only one on your list would be Amazing Fantasy #15. Avengers, #1, Amazing Spider-Man #1, Ff #1 X-Men #1 would all be higher than what you listed and so would golden age Sub-Mariner #1, Human Torch #1, etc. If you are talking initial sales, then Jim Lee's X-Men #1 is #1, McFarlane's Spider-Man #1 is #2, and X-Force #1 is #3, all selling in the millions of copies. -M I'm answering the premise that releasing # 1's every so often because of the collectibility of it is faulty if you want to Make big money in the aftermarket. Many first appearances of key characters don't occur in # 1's. The reson for #1s is not collectibility, but initial sales. And the #1 collectibility, true or not, has been ingrained in comic collectors since at least the Bronze Age if not earlier. It may be one of those lies told so often it is considered truth, but it has traction in the collector community whether it is true or not. however, your post said the top 10 books weren't #1s then went on to list a bunch of non-#1s implying these were the top 10 books, hence the confusion. The structire of your post led the reader to believe the second part was a continuation of the idea presented in the first part. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 3, 2018 16:10:05 GMT -5
Mea culpa
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 3, 2018 18:41:32 GMT -5
I suspect Golden Age Human Torch # 2 would be a top 10 Marvel.
(Because there was no # 1*, natch.)
* Sorta
On the DC side I can think of a # 3 and a # 27 that would be on the pricey side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2018 23:53:07 GMT -5
The thing is, long-term collectibility has nothing to do with the success (or lack thereof) for a comic from either of the big two, They are not in the back issue business. The only measure of success for them is initial sales, long term digital sales, and trade sales. Whether a single issue is in demand thirty-forty years after it comes out or goes up in value has nothing to do with the measure of their success as a publisher and does not appear on their quarterly or annual reports. They are not collectible dealers. They sell stories in comic book form. How well they sell when they come out is the only measure of their success. If number 1 sell better than number 287, they are obligated to their shareholders to sell more #1 issues to maximize revenue. If issue 287 sold better, they'd publish more #287 issues. Fans who are collectors often conflate the success of comics as collectible with the success of comic publishers. There is zero relationship between the two. All those copies of Action #1 that sell for a million dollars or more do nothing for DC's bottom line. Those Amazing Fantasy #15s selling for big dollars makes Marvel absolutely nothing. It's a different business altogether. So unless Marvel is making money form new editions of Hulk 181, it doesn't matter if it is a number one or not as to how they do business and sell new issues. As long as #1s sell better now than #287 or whatever number, they will continue to put out more #1 issues. And the only reason they sell better is because comic fans buy more of them than they do other issue numbers, for whatever reason. Until comic fans stop buying #1 issues in higher quantities, Marvel will keep putting out more #1s whether that #1 has long term value to collectors or not, whether it confuses back issue buyers or not, as none of that is relevant to what Marvel does as a business.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 4, 2018 6:29:36 GMT -5
Publishers HAVE tried some different approaches over the years of not restarting books at #1's  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 11:15:24 GMT -5
Publishers HAVE tried some different approaches over the years of not restarting books at #1's here's the problem-companies that try to do things like they did back then are not doing well. Marvel and DC were at the top of their game in the 70s and 80s. So were Sears and Toys R Us. Those 2 resisted changes in the market, tried to keep doing things they way they used to be done, were slow to react to changes and wound up becoming irrelevant and are on the cusp of disappearing. They were on the wrong side of business history and it won't go backwards. The pace of change never stops. Companies that don't keep pace with changes in the world and the marketplace do stop, they stop being in business. What worked in the past doesn't work now because the circumstances, the world and the marketplace have change and old solutions don't necessarily apply. Looking at business through rose-colored nostagia glasses is guaranteed to result in a failed business. You can make money form nostalgia to be sure, but those that do resell or market old products, they don't produce new products. the nostalgia market in comics is back issues. Marvel and DC are not in the back issue market. Comic dealers are. Companies that produce new nostalgia products do not succeed in the mass market. They sel directly to collectors/nostalgia buffs and their product prices are 2-3 times what an equivalent product in the mass market retails at, and production is limited to what is pre-ordered (see something like Figures Toy Company producing Re-Mego type figures) and have little to no market appeal outside the intended customer base and pretty much zero-growth potential, and these companies will disappear once their market dies off. Marvel and DC need to not be on the wrong side of comics history. Trying to achieve success in the marketplace by adopting outdated modes of business will put them on the wrong side. The problem with viewing things with nostalgia glasses is people screen out all the problems the industry has back them and only focus on the things they liked about the era. They didn't renumber Tarzan with a #1 because doing so would have cost them money in mailing subscription issues (a significant part of their business model at the time which is no longer the case) because periodicals had to have so many issues int he can before they qualified for the cheaper mailing rates. By keeping the numbering formt he previous companies version, they saved on the costs of doing business and generated more revenue form the subscription sales. Not because they were opposed to doing #1 or they thought reboots or renumbering was bad, but because it made business sense at the time. Subscription rates are no longer a factor int he decisions about making and selling comics, so that need is no longer there and financial incentive for keeping old numbering is no longer there. Again, if it cost them less or made them more to keep numbering now, they would, It doesn't, but selling #1s does make them more money, so that's what they do. -M |
|
