|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 1:36:59 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They choose not to do it. Like they choose not to take advantage of the bookstore distribution point. Like they chose not to do day of release digital for far too long. I don't think it's because it's not cost effective. I think it's because these other formats and forms of distribution don't allow them the same dominance they have with direct market floppies, so they don't want to support these new formats and dorms of distribution until they absolutely have to. Sooner or later they will realize its where all the growth is though, and things like X- Men omnibus will not be out of print and selling for $500 on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 1:47:08 GMT -5
Trade collections in the direct market are piss poor sellers. The top trade sellers form Diamond each month average less than 10% of the volume of floppies. I don't think Marvel or DC gives a damn about trade sales in the direct market, there's no money it in at all for hem. They sell to the big distributors/sellers who buy in larger numbers than Diamond (and probably at a better price to which is why Amazon and the like can sell a lot of trades cheaper than it costs my shop to order them from Diamond, so we cannot possibly match those prices). Trade sales have little to nothing to do with market dominance in the direct market. Trade sales to the direct market are an afterthought. The economic factors I highlighted are about the book trade and other distribution models than the direct market.
Publisher ego may have been a factor before Marvel got swallowed into the Disney monster, but no corporate bean counter is going to accept that kind of excuse if money is being left on the table. If they are not keeping it in stock there is a money reason behind it. Disney is not about leaving things unexploited. If it were cost effective and profitable for them to keep books in print, they would, but I think you are vastly overestimating the demand and sales potential of some of these out of print books.
6 collectors wanting an out of print book can drive up the price on ebay. Selling to those 6 guys and meeting that small pocket of demand won't pay to keep the book in print. The economics of the secondary market is vastly different than the economics of publishing.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 19, 2014 2:29:55 GMT -5
I do agree that with the move to digital libraries, even keeping the first few volumes of DC Archives or Marvel Masterworks in print is fast becoming moot. Marvel does seem to be more interested in celebrating and exploiting their past, though. The Masterworks aside, they seem to be covering the same ground, again, with the Epic line as well as issuing high quality Omnibus editions as well.
Only within the last few years have we see any effort on DC's part to represent Superman and Batman's Bronze Age material. I realize that sales is the driving factor, but I can't help but wonder how much philosophy, personal tastes and internal politics matter. For years it seemed that in terms of the Trinity of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, if the material was Pre-Miller/Byrne/Perez, it wasn't worth revisiting. That's just not true, looking at the recent Jose Luis Garcia Lopez and Jim Aparo collections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 2:35:56 GMT -5
Trade collections in the direct market are piss poor sellers. I'm talking about outside the direct market, which is still by comparison smaller, but growing at a huge rate compared to the direct market. How long until it catches up? Surpasses the direct market? Replaces it? On topic, I saw a few TPB's on an endcap at Best Buy today. Two were Marvel I think and one was a Godzilla trade, right above some Godzilla DVD's. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 2:40:14 GMT -5
Disney is not about leaving things unexploited. I'm not 100% sure about that either. Their Disney Collection would continuously go out of print on VHS, then be rereleased, then go out of print again. I think at the time it was their strategy to charge more than the typical VHS, but I think when Blockbuster and Video Depot was on every corner it ruined it for them. I remember them forcing those places to pull things off the shelves before the rereleases so people couldn't just go rent the old VHS. Maybe it worked out better, maybe making those videos available at all times would have worked better. I'm not sure, but if I were in charge I'd have gone with the latter. I don't know if they still go out of print regularly though. I think one thing that could solve the problem completely is hand the classic material off to Fantagraphics. They already publish the classic Disney stuff, give them the Marvel stuff too. Let them keep the X-Men collections in print. Win/win for everybody. But if I were Marvel, I'd start seriously looking at the possibility of floppy comics on Wednesday not being the default format of "comics" in twenty years. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 2:43:25 GMT -5
Disney is not about leaving things unexploited. I'm not 100% sure about that either. Their Disney Collection would continuously go out of print on VHS, then be rereleased, then go out of print again. I think at the time it was their strategy to charge more than the typical VHS, but I think when Blockbuster and Video Depot was on every corner it ruined it for them. I remember them forcing those places to pull things off the shelves before the rereleases so people couldn't just go rent the old VHS. Maybe it worked out better, maybe making those videos available at all times would have worked better. I'm not sure, but if I were in charge I'd have gone with the latter. I don't know if they still go out of print regularly though. Again allowing a product to go fallow while out of print increases the demand sometimes and creates a marketing push when it comes back, so it helps sales in the initial push, which is where the bulk of the sales are going to occur. It's a marketing strategy to increase sales and increase interest in an item, and also gets people to rebuy it, if they add a special feature or two and market it correctly. It is all about exploiting those items as something new all over again, creating sales they would never get if they kept it in print. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 2:46:17 GMT -5
Makes sense, but having that mentality with their VHS tapes may mean they'll have it with their reprint material too.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 19, 2014 6:00:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I was talking a big warehouse. Inventory software is not a big deal either, and a couple guys with scanning guns tackling wrapped pallets with barcodes on them isn't a big deal either. I'm not suggesting they distribute them individually like Fantagraphics does. Pallets of 150 or so, however many fits on a pallet. When Diamond sells through, ship them another pallet, then have another pallet worth printed. If I'm underestimating how difficult it would be for Marvel to do it, how do you think other publishers manage to do it? I think other publishers are much smaller in scale. We're talking about thousands of different titles here... what does Fantagraphics have, a couple hundred? |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 19, 2014 6:04:14 GMT -5
I'm not 100% sure about that either. Their Disney Collection would continuously go out of print on VHS, then be rereleased, then go out of print again. I think at the time it was their strategy to charge more than the typical VHS, but I think when Blockbuster and Video Depot was on every corner it ruined it for them. I remember them forcing those places to pull things off the shelves before the rereleases so people couldn't just go rent the old VHS. Maybe it worked out better, maybe making those videos available at all times would have worked better. I'm not sure, but if I were in charge I'd have gone with the latter. I don't know if they still go out of print regularly though. Again allowing a product to go fallow while out of print increases the demand sometimes and creates a marketing push when it comes back, so it helps sales in the initial push, which is where the bulk of the sales are going to occur. It's a marketing strategy to increase sales and increase interest in an item, and also gets people to rebuy it, if they add a special feature or two and market it correctly. It is all about exploiting those items as something new all over again, creating sales they would never get if they kept it in print. -M They still do this... they put movies 'in the vault' for a few years, then release a new edition with some small new feature and re-sell it. I've always thought this had more to do with limiting retailer space (you could have a whole store just for Disney movies, after all) more than anything... I think they figured if they cycle them in and out, lesser titles will get their chance, rather than leaving it up to stores to decide what to buy. Ever look up Disney movies on the secondary market? The 'in the vault' ones almost always go for a premium, especially older ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 10:57:53 GMT -5
Makes sense, but having that mentality with their VHS tapes may mean they'll have it with their reprint material too. That is what Marvel does with a lot of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 19:11:22 GMT -5
Yeah, I was talking a big warehouse. Inventory software is not a big deal either, and a couple guys with scanning guns tackling wrapped pallets with barcodes on them isn't a big deal either. I'm not suggesting they distribute them individually like Fantagraphics does. Pallets of 150 or so, however many fits on a pallet. When Diamond sells through, ship them another pallet, then have another pallet worth printed. If I'm underestimating how difficult it would be for Marvel to do it, how do you think other publishers manage to do it? I think other publishers are much smaller in scale. We're talking about thousands of different titles here... what does Fantagraphics have, a couple hundred? If we base what Disney is able to do on what smaller publishers do, then how do they publish so many monthly floppies? Smaller publishers can't do that. And I'm sure Marvel has thousands of titles. How many were miniseries? How many licensed from cartoons in the 80's? We can safely say that stuff is done for. I'm not asking where the Kid 'N Play TPB is. I'm just wondering why an X-Men trade would go out of print. Surely they can handle the fifteen or twenty A-list titles they have, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 19:19:41 GMT -5
I'm not asking where the Kid 'N Play TPB is. Then I will. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 19:40:45 GMT -5
I think other publishers are much smaller in scale. We're talking about thousands of different titles here... what does Fantagraphics have, a couple hundred? If we base what Disney is able to do on what smaller publishers do, then how do they publish so many monthly floppies? Smaller publishers can't do that. And I'm sure Marvel has thousands of titles. How many were miniseries? How many licensed from cartoons in the 80's? We can safely say that stuff is done for. I'm not asking where the Kid 'N Play TPB is. I'm just wondering why an X-Men trade would go out of print. Surely they can handle the fifteen or twenty A-list titles they have, right? But they do that-it may be the Masterworks one time, essentials another, softcover masterworks the next, an omnibus, then an Epic collection, etc. they keep putting those same books out there just in different formats at different times to create that OMG new version what extras this time phenomenon they do with the Disney flicks form the Vault, and they increase sales as there is a core of consumers who buy the same material again and again in each format it is released in, as well as sales to new customers each time, something they wouldn't get if they just did it in one format and kept it in print. For example, you have pretty much been able to get the Ditko Spidey run in collected edition non-stop since the late 80s when the Masterworks line started, but the various editions/lines might go out of print, the bulk of that core Marvel material has been out there in print in some way, just perhaps the format/edition you want. The Omnibus may be out of print, but those issues are still available in Masterowrks softcovers in print, or in a new Epic collection, or.... Even evergreen titles get new editions when they go back to print-how many different versions of the Lord of the Rings have been printed with new cover art in the book trade-how about Dark Knight Returns cover arts and editions....they don't keep each version in print, they put it in new packages every so often to keep it fresh an catch repeat purchases from old customers who want the new format of the same old material. What "A-list materiel" has been completely out of print in every format from Marvel? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 20:06:24 GMT -5
The difference is Lord Of The Rings pocketbooks aren't going for $500 on eBay. I'm half sure they've been available in bookstores consistently for the past twenty years or so, I don't think there was a time you'd go to Barnes & Noble and not be able to buy a LOTR book.
If switching formats is a sales gimmick then it's a crappy one, and just one more reason not to like them. Does there even have to be more than two formats? Cheap black and white softcover digest and expensive full sized color reproduction hardcover. Both versions available perpetually. Looks like what they're trying to do in the TPB market is what they do in the floppy market, get speculators to buy the same thing multiple times because the cover is different. The thing is though, it isn't working. Their marketshare of bookstore sales and online sales of trades is dismal compared to their marketshare of direct market floppies. Considering they have the absolute most valuable IP with mega blockbuster movies and millions of fans, that says something isn't working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 20:23:26 GMT -5
The difference is Lord Of The Rings pocketbooks aren't going for $500 on eBay. I'm half sure they've been available in bookstores consistently for the past twenty years or so, I don't think there was a time you'd go to Barnes & Noble and not be able to buy a LOTR book. If switching formats is a sales gimmick then it's a crappy one, and just one more reason not to like them. Does there even have to be more than two formats? Cheap black and white softcover digest and expensive full sized color reproduction hardcover. Both versions available perpetually. Looks like what they're trying to do in the TPB market is what they do in the floppy market, get speculators to buy the same thing multiple times because the cover is different. The thing is though, it isn't working. Their marketshare of bookstore sales and online sales of trades is dismal compared to their marketshare of direct market floppies. Considering they have the absolute most valuable IP with mega blockbuster movies and millions of fans, that says something isn't working. Some of the oop LOTR editions do go for big money. And it's not just comics that try to get consumers to buy the same thing in multiple formats-movies, music, books, comics, phones, computers, etc. etc. etc. etc. That's the way capitalism and a consumption based economy works. And that bookstore marketshare you say isn't good for Marvel-it would not get any better at all (and probably get worse) if they kept the same editions in print because you wouldn't have the initial sales push of each new edition that they have now and would move fewer units overall. And it's not speculators buying multiple editions, as not many of those collections do have much of a secondary market-those that do are the exception, not the rule. It's completists that buy up multiple editions. Or folks who want to upgrade from color to b&W, from SC to HC, those who may want a replacement copy but don't want the same exact format, etc. etc. And movie IP doesn't usually translate to mega-success in other formats, no matter how valuable the IP is. Movie and TV watchers are not necessarily readers and just because they like a movie doesn't mean they will go out and want to read comics form 50+ years ago because of it. Or even current comics, no matter what formats or marketing is involved. Measuring the success of print on how it relates to other media is guaranteed to point to print as a failure in all but a handful of cases that are exceptions (Harry Potter I am looking at you) no matter what the property is. There are a lot of market realities in the overall economic structure that the comics industry exists in that would have to undergo radical changes before the systems and strategies you suggest would work, but I don't see any kind of major economic revolution in the offing, and especially not one in print publishing that is struggling to maintain its viability as much of the world sees it as something on the road to being as obsolete as a betamax recorder or a laser disc player in temrs of delivering entertainment content. Any changes they do make will be to make shorter turnaround son invested capital and less long term investment in product lines as the market is constantly changing these days and they need to be more flexible with format and product offerings, not less, to survive in that environment. -M |
|
