RockMyAmadeus

Here's an example, posted in another thread by @FlyingDonut:

A tad vague (for a lawyer) and also immediately contradicted below. The presence of someone who did not have that same experience does not "cancel out" the experience of someone who did.

So, I have no idea why we didn't start this 10 years ago. I blame @valiantman . We've taken snapshots, but we've never even attempted to do a methodical analysis of the ratio of newsstand copies to Direct market copies. Here's what I propose: First, we nominate, say, 10 books, one or two from each short time period, from 1977 to 2017, when DC finally pulled the plug on their newsstand sales (Marvel let the ax fall in 2013.) Then, at or around the beginning of each month, we tally up (I'll be happy to do so) the number of DIRECT market copies that are available for sale, vs. how many NEWSSTAND copies are. This should, over time, give us a bit of a pattern as to what is out there, keeping in mind that this is not a scientific study, because of the presence of factors over which we cannot control, like the bringing to market of copies that exist. It's critical to keep in mind that what is available at any given time only gives us the broadest clue as to what really exists, and then only in an eliminating, rather than inclusive, manner. Much like the census, which only gives us a potential ceiling for copies graded, but doesn't tell us anything about how many copies exist, or, in fact, how many copies are actually in slabs, due to resubmissions. It is only a potential number, much like these eBay numbers. All copies will be accounted for, even ones that were listed and sold during the same calendar month. As for the 10 (or so) books we pick, they have to be important, heavily traded (as much as possible) books. The more traded, the better. Picking, say, Amazing Spiderman #287 wouldn't work, because that book isn't nearly as heavily traded (and thus, doesn't give us as complete a picture) as, say, ASM #300 (which is an obvious choice.) So...without further ado, let's nominate 10 books (more if necessary) and start with the project. My nominees are: 1977-1979: Star Wars #1 (we'll have to be VERY careful to not include reprints and the 35 cent version. Only the newsstand version vs. the Direct version, which does exist!) 1979-1982: Wolverine Ltd. Series #1 1983-1987: Amazing Spiderman #252 1988-1990: Amazing Spiderman #300 1991-1995: New Mutants #98 1991-1995: Batman Adventures #12 1996-2000: Daredevil #1 2001-2005: Amazing Spiderman #36 2006-2010: Wolverine #66 2011-2017: Batman New 52 #1 So, feel free to nominate your candidates to track, and whatever books get the most votes, we'll use those (though there is, of course, no harm in including more.) NOMINATION PERIOD ENDS AT 6 PM PACIFIC DAYLIGHT TIME ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2018. Whatever we have by then, that's what we'll go with.

It's a good start, always keeping in mind that those numbers are functionally (but not absolutely) meaningless with such a small sample, because of the factors involved in getting these books to market which have nothing whatsoever to do with their survival rate. I was looking at Amazing Spiderman #301s...there are newsstand copies of that book for sale all over the place. 1988 is supposed to be a "declining" year for newsstand copies. But that certainly sounds within reason.

It's interesting that the first appearance of Venom isn't on the cover. In fact, Venom doesn't get his own cover until #316, over a year later. ...and the headshot on #315 (which totally ruins it for #316, but hey, whatevs.)

122

Wow.

And before someone gets kinky and tries to claim "You CAN tell a story in a single panel, you just need words!"...I will point out that that is NOT sequential art, but illustrated prose. Not the same thing.

As I made clear in my followup post about Superman #75, the only reason multiple panels (or, in some cases, pages) are required is because comics are sequential art: meaning they tell a story through static (as opposed to motion) pictures and words. Since you cannot tell a story with a single panel, by the very definition of SEQUENTIAL art, then at least 2 (and almost always more) panels are necessary....that doesn't mean, as you initially took it, that the character in question has to appear in 2 or more panels. It just means that they need to appear in the context of a story. A single panel/page/pinup/image, without a surrounding story to put it in context, is not an appearance, as that term has been defined by the comic collecting hobby for decades. "Appearance" does NOT mean the literal, actual depiction of someone or something. It means the context in which they first appear as intended by their creators. For example: Luke Skywalker appears all over the place before Star Wars comes out. Posters, books, EVEN THE COMIC BOOK titled "Star Wars" and published by Marvel Comics. BUT...his first APPEARANCE is in the film "Star Wars." Why? Because Luke Skywalker is, first and foremost, a FILM character...not a literary (like Harry Potter) character, nor a comic book character, nor a radio character, etc. Did the depiction of Luke appear all over the place before the film? Of course. You bet. But his first APPEARANCE is in the FILM "Star Wars." ( Now watch all the raging fanboys talk about my "personal" definition of something that is intuitively obvious, and already suggested by folks like Will Eisner and Scott McCloud.) Context is everything.

46 I know this cover. Dang it.

57

I'm of the exact opposite sentiment! You can have your green slime, then.

At this point, I'm starting to think Fiege is trawling through the most obscure books to troll us... I've always thought it a compelling conspiracy theory that these guys secretly look for these obscure characters, have their lackeys buy up all their appearances on the cheap, and then use those characters in pop culture to make a killing on down the line. Call me crazy, but it's something *I* would do, if I were in that position.

He's completely correct. You took a hypothetical, extreme estimate, made for the sake of the argument, and "settled" on that number as a baseline of sales, rather than the extreme hypothetical I presented it as...and then, even further, you started to subtract from that number by referring to "returns"...which, by definition, aren't included in sales numbers. That is a lack of comprehension. You can choose to be offended, or you can say "oops...my bad, I misspoke" and we can continue on from there. Here's, again, what I said: (emphasis added; "those sales" refers to total comics sold on the newsstand in 2013 as reported by John Jackson Miller of Comichron, approximately 5.5 million.) So, no, I didn't settle on those sales numbers, as some sort of baseline...I presented them as being on the lowest end of the potential sales for each issue. Again...even if a mere half the vendors of newsstand comics in the US in 2011-2013 sold a single copy of each issue...that is thousands upon thousands of copies sold. And it's not reasonable to assume that that was the case, which means that there were possibly tens of thousands of copies sold of each issue of ASM at the newsstand. Even ten thousand copies sold is a mere 200 for each and every state in the union, and not even counting Canada and/or Mexico, if such distribution took place. I would imagine 200 copies of each issue were sold in NYC alone. I suspect that Lazyboy's contention that those numbers (2-3k copies sold per issue) was not far off by the very end of Marvel's newsstand distribution...and though Amazing was "cancelled" (again), its successor, Superior Spiderman, was still being distributed on the newsstand well into 2013, the last year of Marvel's newsstand presence...is correct.

This is funny...I suggested this years ago as being an option for sellers and BIN...lower the price by increments until buyers can't resist, and it sells. BUT...obviously, not by force. Boy, eBay is hilarious. They create the "Amazon" model, gut their auction model, and then, when their site gets filled with the millions of high priced BINs that eBay wanted, they panic because sales are down. Stupid eBay.

Are you saying that's Darkseid's first appearance? Indeed.

But it is these discussions, and countless others like it, which influence what the market thinks, and therefore drives.

You're up too late. You going to be at Baltimore (he asked, knowing what a stupid question that was)...? I'll stop by your booth and say hi.

No, it's not.

No...read it again. I said it's NOT totally reasonable to imagine newsstand sales would be 1%-3%. Let me be more emphatic: it's totally UNreasonable to estimate that low.

53

64

75