The sales argument only goes so far. The question becomes, how much of the sales can be attributed to Shooter as EIC and how much to the creative team? The highest sellers came from veteran superstars, who pretty much ignored his story dictates, because they could. X-Men, Thor, Fantastic Four and Daredevil were the top dogs, in that time frame, with Spidey in that mix. It was pretty much down to those creators doing their thing and the market eating it up. Shooter had more influence on things like Avengers, where he was a writer or co-writer, and other titles, with younger talent who were having stuff dictated to them. His biggest direct influence is New Universe and that was a colossal failure, though the final product was a far cry from the initial concept. So, if Shooter's management is responsible for the big sales, then it is also responsible for the dismal sales of the failed projects. Ultimately, as the boss, he is the one accountable for the sales; but, I don't think you can credit him with having that direct affect, except in cases where he was the actual writer or dictated a change in creative team that directly changed the sales pattern of the title (for good or bad). Remember, those books all had individual editors, under Shooter, who had more direct involvement in those titles.

You could point to the greater success of Marvel, during that period as being down to either or a combination of two factors: the Direct Market and the introduction of sub-editors. Taking the first, the Direct Market The Direct Market comes into being in the early to-mid-70s, though it starts to become a force in the late 70s. Marvel starts selling to Phil Seuling, on a non-returnable basis, during that period (I can't find exact dates that their relationship began, but Seuling started up in 1972) prior to Shooter being EIC. By Shooter's tenure, the Direct Market accounts for about 25% of Marvel's sales. In particular, lower tier sellers become more viable as the Direct Market sales are more consistent than newsstand, where over-printing is the norm. Shooter's team takes advantage of that factor and starts to offer select titles as Direct Market Only, where they then print to order, reducing the costs of producing the titles, since they don't have to over print for the newsstand market. When those titles prove successful under that model, marvel increases its Direct Market publishing, including a flood of reprint titles, designed to push the emerging independent publishers off the stands in comic shops. Carol Kalish, who started at Marvel's sales department in 1982, spearheads the expansion into the Direct Market. She worked directly with retailers, offering business advice to often neophytes, sponsoring a cash register program (as her travels found few had registers for their operations), as well as order guidance to fulfill customer demands but not tie up cash with over-ordering. She brokered deals to get Marvel titles into Waldenbooks and B Dalton stores. In her capacity, she often butted heads with Shooter, according to anecdotes from peter David, who worked under her, at that time. In particular, she blocked efforts by Chuck Rozanski and Mile High Comics to manipulate the system in his favor, at the expense of other retailers. Rozanski maintained a close relationship with Shooter and used that to try to leverage his position. So, you have a new distribution system that is expanding rapidly (specialty shops increased in number about 500%, between 1974 and 1980) and providing an ever increasing source of revenue to Marvel, to the point that marginal titles are viable to continue, as print runs can be tailored to demand. Thus, you have to ask, was it Shooter's dictates that were responsible for mid-level titles being more profitable or the circumstances of the Direct Market? The weight of evidence suggests that the Direct Market is a bigger factor in the overall sales of Marvel than Shooter's editorial direction. Now, you can credit him with pursuing that direction, which is a smart decision, though much of that work is down to Carol Kalish.

Taking up the sub-editor factor, Archie Goodwin introduced assistant editors to help lighten his load, including Jim Shooter. Shooter expands things and makes the Assistants into full Editors, with other assistants. Now, titles have individual editors (or writer/editors, under Marv & Roy's contracts), who have the time to give attention to their books, rather than trying to cover the entire publishing line, which was the largest factor in EIC turnover, between Len Wein and Archie Goodwin. This frees up Shooter to focus more on Marvel's direction, rather than whether or not Spidey should fight Doc Ock again. Some of the editors prove to be exactly what creators needed, leading to creative explosions on their titles, such as Roger Stern and Louise Jones Simonson. Others are rookies who develop into the role, like Mark Gruenwald and Mike Carlin, to the point they become senior executives in the next decade. However, we often see a reluctance on Shooter's part to let them do their thing. With the rookies, it is proper that Shooter might take a more direct role in mentoring them and might be more involved with their titles; but, it is less proper with experienced editors like Louis Simonson. She had more experience than Shooter, as an editor, with her time at Warren. Those are the type of people you give you vision for the company and those titles and let them run with it, or let them pitch their own visions and approve, modify or reject. So, in that sense, you could say that Shooter was both a positive and negative influence, as he developed young editors, but also interfered with experienced editors. AS EIC, it is within his rights to interfere; but, a good leader empowers his subordinates and lets them get on with their work, trusting them to do their best work, for the company. That is part of why I say Shooter was a good manager; but, not necessarily a good leader.

Pfff.................Don Heck created everything!

I read a John Byrne interview from the CBJ recently where he was rubbishing the work that Roy Thomas and Gene Colan were doing at DC after they left Marvel. I guess at the time he was fiercely loyal to Marvel and Thomas and Colan went to work for "them." A few years later, Byrne did the same thing. Then he had a falling out with DC people too. So how can we trust the creators' word over Shooter? 

Everyone is the hero of their own story.