|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2023 13:05:22 GMT -5
codystarbuck - lots of great thoughts and info here! I think about the "psychology" side of things in two different ways. The first is more just "shiny object, look at me!", and that's packaging and marketing products in compelling ways for customers already oriented to a specific product. If a kid in the old days went to the newsstand to buy comic books and saw a cover that said "in this issue a major character dies! not a dream, not a hoax!", well, lots of kids would often go "wow, I've GOT to read this!". That's just a slick sales hook, all part of the "make-believe experience" of comics (and other entertainment-oriented products) in general. The difference in the "gimmick" here with say a speculator pitch is that you are more just trying to move a volume retail product. The second side of psychology is more about understanding the collector/speculator personality and vulnerabilities for lack of a better term (which sounds a little nefarious, but it is a business). As you were saying, convincing people they "need" something even if they really may not. And I don't think it's as simple as "people are gullible" (even though yes, the less informed people are can lead to potentially bad spending sometimes). There's also a psychological need in some people, more pronounced in some than others (sometimes markedly so), to acquire things and sometimes this can reach an addictive level. In the guitar collecting world I'm in (and for musicians in general), there's a very well-known and infamous term for this called "GAS" (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) where people find themselves always chasing the next instrument or piece of gear to purchase. In a good number of cases they become less content with what they already have and get swept up in the thrill of the chase and rush of spending the money and having a "new gear day". Only to often turn right around and be off on the hunt for the next thing. Musicians often half-jokingly call it a "disease", though for some it's not even a half-joke. The impulse to suddenly drop a few thousand dollars for something shiny (and not everyone can "really" afford it, but will rationalize it somehow anyways) defies normal disciplined spending but it happens all the time. I can't tell you how many get stressed when they realize how much gear they've accumulated, how little of it they actually use, how much money is tied up in it, and the hassle of trying to unload it. I think comics can be a little more pleasant because while you CAN get caught up in the ultra-high dollar issues chase, there are so many options for every budget to enjoy our hobby. That said though, even in comics like any other collectibles market, speculator frenzy can lead to similar behaviors. I get more concerned with that because I think it can hurt people in the long run, both financially and stress-wise. But if people enjoy "the game" and can avoid those pitfalls, again, I'm not one to judge. What brings people happiness is their business, my hope is only that it truly does bring them happiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 8, 2023 13:24:44 GMT -5
codystarbuck - lots of great thoughts and info here! I think about the "psychology" side of things in two different ways. The first is more just "shiny object, look at me!", and that's packaging and marketing products in compelling ways for customers already oriented to a specific product. If a kid in the old days went to the newsstand to buy comic books and saw a cover that said "in this issue a major character dies! not a dream, not a hoax!", well, lots of kids would often go "wow, I've GOT to read this!". That's just a slick sales hook, all part of the "make-believe experience" of comics (and other entertainment-oriented products) in general. The difference in the "gimmick" here with say a speculator pitch is that you are more just trying to move a volume retail product. The second side of psychology is more about understanding the collector/speculator personality and vulnerabilities for lack of a better term (which sounds a little nefarious, but it is a business). As you were saying, convincing people they "need" something even if they really may not. And I don't think it's as simple as "people are gullible" (even though yes, the less informed people are can lead to potentially bad spending sometimes). There's also a psychological need in some people, more pronounced in some than others (sometimes markedly so), to acquire things and sometimes this can reach an addictive level. In the guitar collecting world I'm in (and for musicians in general), there's a very well-known and infamous term for this called "GAS" (Gear or Guitar Acquisition Syndrome) where people find themselves always chasing the next instrument or piece of gear to purchase. In a good number of cases they become less content with what they already have and get swept up in the thrill of the chase and rush of spending the money and having a "new gear day". Only to often turn right around and be off on the hunt for the next thing. Musicians often half-jokingly call it a "disease", though for some it's not even a half-joke. The impulse to suddenly drop a few thousand dollars for something shiny (and not everyone can "really" afford it, but will rationalize it somehow anyways) defies normal disciplined spending but it happens all the time. I can't tell you how many get stressed when they realize how much gear they've accumulated, how little of it they actually use, how much money is tied up in it, and the hassle of trying to unload it. I think comics can be a little more pleasant because while you CAN get caught up in the ultra-high dollar issues chase, there are so many options for every budget to enjoy our hobby. That said though, even in comics like any other collectibles market, speculator frenzy can lead to similar behaviors. I get more concerned with that because I think it can hurt people in the long run, both financially and stress-wise. But if people enjoy "the game" and can avoid those pitfalls, again, I'm not one to judge. What brings people happiness is their business, my hope is only that it truly does bring them happiness. Well, collecting is often about the thrill of the hunt, more than showing off the trophies. For me it was, as the joy I got out of it was going into a shop somewhere and searching through their stuff, then locating the elusive prey. It was the same in used bookstores, as I hunted down titles, which i combined with those comic hunting trips I'd hit a few used bookstores and comic shops in the same area. In some cases I found a handful of comics, but a stack of Doc Savage paperbacks or that missing Modesty Blaise novel. I wandered into one little bookstore and passed the case after case of Harlequin and regency romance novels and the usual junk and poked around the sci-fi and mystery, not finding much and then turned a corner and ran right smack into a copy of Phillip Jose Farmer's Doc Savage, His Apocalyptic Life (which I had been hunting, with no success, for a year) and, Congo Mercenary, Mike Hoare's memoir of his time as a mercenary leader in the Congo, in the 1960s. I don't fault people who collect to possess, so long as it is kept in proportion with real wants and needs; but, I have no sympathy for burned speculators. That mentality is more parasitic in nature and tends to have a hugely negative effect, ruining a nice hobby for everyone else. So, I will always fault speculators over those with a genuine love of what they are buying and selling, for a fair price or just buying to possess. Unless they are wealthy, in which case they are just a spoiled brat, whose parents didn't give them enough love and affection, who take the good stuff away from those of us who earned our way through honest toil and sweat.  |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Oct 8, 2023 15:12:13 GMT -5
My background is economics, which is smoke and mirrors; but, there are grains of truth within it. Markets are all about supply and demand; but, the academic idea of markets being demand driven ignores some basic psychology: if you can make a person believe something is true, it becomes true. If you can make people believe they have a need for a product they never considered before, they will rationalize a need to not be left out and will buy accordingly. That is what mass advertising is all about and that is what gimmicks like variant covers, holograms or similar features were trying to do: manipulate demand to create it where it didn't exist before. Apple does it all the time. No one NEEDED an iPod....there were mobile cassette and CD players.....but Apple convinced people that they had a need for it and they bought them in droves. Then it was iPads and the iPhones, to the point that they had the consumers trained to buy each annual release, like rats in a skinner box, tapping the lever for food pellets. As an iPod repeat buyer... mobile cassettes and CD players had substantial drawbacks. I had a lot of CDs but wanted the customization of playlists. For years I used blank cassettes and then blank CDs for this but felt constrained by the playback length of those physical formats and enjoyed the freedom of an iPod for a 200 song playlist to randomize. iPods helped to fuel an early 2000s boom in the sale of MP3s, in which I indulged heavily, to the point where no iPod would hold my collection. In recent years my music acquisition rate fell dramatically; there's only so much I can listen to, and songs play in my head now even when I'm not listening to something external. (The best internal hard drive is biological!) As a result, iPhone storage capacity finally caught up with the size of my collection. I don't doubt your assessment of supply-side economics. Money clearly tends to accumulate preferentially in the upper classes, and it's good for society to have mechanisms to spread it back out again. However I do wonder what happens to the money that gets "tossed into an interest-earning account." Doesn't it get lent back out again at lower rates, greasing the wheels at all levels? But perhaps preferentially at the top once again. Bill Cox' YouTube channel Comic Art Fans has become an invaluable resource for comics fandom. Earlier this year he interviewed a collector, I forget which one, who formed a buyer's group in the mid 1970s. It was a consortium of New York-area fans who pooled their purchasing power to buy comics directly from the distributors, yielding a substantial discount on the cover price. They only bought as much as they wanted to keep, hence no returns, which was appealing to the distributor as well. They were the beginning (or at least a beginning) of a Local Comics Store that had nothing to do with Head Shops or other 1960s alternative sales outlets. As the decade went on, periodicals including comics were getting squeezed out of traditional outlets like NYC street corner booths and their other traditional strongholds. Simultaneously, Marvel and DC envied the higher quality paper and ink of Heavy Metal and wanted to get out of the remainders-driven distribution model. Between those two factors, LCS kept the industry afloat when the newsstands failed. But, as you have noted, with the cost of losing access to potential new customers. Here's a fun example of DC specifically encouraging comic book speculation in the lettercol for Wonder Woman #210 (1974).  |
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 9, 2023 0:38:59 GMT -5
Related to this discussion, I recently watched this, and while not perfect, the guy makes some great points.
Now, let me say that I simply love to collect, categorize and catalog things of all types; comics being among those things. However, I've come to accept that I have the mentality of an archivist and tend to collect things for not only for my own enjoyment, but also for the nebulous concept of posterity. Whether this is a blessing or a curse remains to be seen. Comics certainly aren't the only thing I collect, but they have been the only thing that I collect actively for the past 15 years or so. I don't throw guitars or other musical instruments into this collecting category because, despite having way more than I need, I still view them as largely utilitarian in my 30+yr. side-profession as a musician and songwriter. So I view guitars the same way I view most other functional items-- tools to be used to achieve a specific goal or accomplish a specific task. While guitars have a certain aesthetic appeal from an industrial design approach, I don't consider them as any form of art medium. A guitar is an object that may or may not have visual aesthetic appeal, but it's still not much more than a doorstop if it's not used to create or re-create art in the musical sense. This is why I don't own any super-special uber-limited signed and numbered Artist Tribute guitars which require a nitrogen-filled sealed lighted glass display case and should never be handled without archival virgin cotton gloves and an N-95 mask. If I can't handle it or play it, I just don't need it. Of course, after coaxing me into posting pics of most of my guitars last year, I'm sure that @supercat2099 is probably lightly chuckling to himself and saying, " Yeah. Riiiiiiiight." 
Thankfully, I've never been a speculator, and FOMO has never been a thing for me, primarily because I collect for entertainment purposes, not for profit. As a matter of fact, I've never sold a single book. I've done some straight-up non-cash trades, and I've gifted plenty in my collecting lifetime, but if you asked me to put a hard value to my collection, I couldn't do it with any accuracy. The upside is that I'm not worried about it at all, since my collection will be inherited by my son, who is a similar-minded collector. At that point, it will be up to him to decide whether to offload anything he doesn't want to keep.
|
|
