Action #1 - #10 aren't so super ???

[ft88]

Also, you have to figure the DC managers at the time probably didn't care. Comics were considered the lowest form of publishing and kids letters were most likely respected as much as a letter to Santa Claus. Like any corporation there was probably a bureaucracy that kept the status quo. At the time of Action #1 they probably said, "Hey S&S did a pretty decent cover for next to nothing, and its a new character. Put him on #1 and rotate the rest of the stories, or use other covers we already have ready to go." Even after sales figures and letters (delayed though they may be) nobody had a huge incentive to change the rotating policy that nobody gave any real thought to, until 3 years later when it became as obvious as a bat to the head. Sometimes things are just like that.

[kimik]

When did Captain Marvel come out in relation to the start of the Superman covers on all issues of Action Comics? Since he was outselling Superman during his peak in the 40s, maybe this was the reason?

[Zonker]

Coincidentally on the same day I read this thread, I came across an article on Newsarama detailing the latest documents produced as part of the ongoing litigation between Jerry Siegel's heirs and DC Comics.

 

PDF Scans of the documents found here

 

Reading some of this stuff is pretty astounding, and it opens up a couple of possibilities:

 

1- Siegel & Shuster's editors were exceptionally clueless as to the source of their new-found success

 

or

 

2- The editors were systematically trying to downplay Superman's relative importance, all for the purpose of keeping their leverage over young Siegel and Shuster.

 

Think I'm indulging in conspiracy theorizing? Check out a few quotes from a letter Jack Liebowitz wrote to Jerry on September 28, 1938 ("Exhibit B" in the above).

 

As far as the rate of $25.00 for reprint material is concerned, when "Superman" reaches the same popularity as D ick Tracy, Orphan Annie, Skippy, Mutt & Jeff and dozens of other top-notch features, you will be in a position to ask for more money...

 

I don't know whether "Superman" heads the list or "Zatara" or any other feature...

 

...there are 64 pages in the magazine...there isn't any magazine being published today that can sell on the basis of any one feature...and if I thought for a moment that our magazine depended on your strip, I would certainly make every effort to avoid any such situation ...

 

[Miraclo]

until 3 years later when it became as obvious as a bat to the head.

 

Pun intended? (thumbs u

[rjpb]

Coincidentally on the same day I read this thread, I came across an article on Newsarama detailing the latest documents produced as part of the ongoing litigation between Jerry Siegel's heirs and DC Comics.

 

PDF Scans of the documents found here

 

Reading some of this stuff is pretty astounding, and it opens up a couple of possibilities:

 

1- Siegel & Shuster's editors were exceptionally clueless as to the source of their new-found success

 

or

 

2- The editors were systematically trying to downplay Superman's relative importance, all for the purpose of keeping their leverage over young Siegel and Shuster.

 

Think I'm indulging in conspiracy theorizing? Check out a few quotes from a letter Jack Liebowitz wrote to Jerry on September 28, 1938 ("Exhibit B" in the above).

 

As far as the rate of $25.00 for reprint material is concerned, when "Superman" reaches the same popularity as D ick Tracy, Orphan Annie, Skippy, Mutt & Jeff and dozens of other top-notch features, you will be in a position to ask for more money...

 

I don't know whether "Superman" heads the list or "Zatara" or any other feature...

 

...there are 64 pages in the magazine...there isn't any magazine being published today that can sell on the basis of any one feature...and if I thought for a moment that our magazine depended on your strip, I would certainly make every effort to avoid any such situation ...

 

 

 

 

I'd wondered why Supes hadn't made another cover appearance until Action #7, considering his prominence on the cover on the first issue. The other theories posited didn't quite add up, as waiting six more issues to feature the lead story character on the cover barely qualifies as rotating the cover feature.

 

The desire to deliberately diminish the appearance of Superman's draw for leverage in financial dealings makes more sense than other theories.

[VintageComics]

I didn't know either as I remember about 3 issues [months] was the normal waiting period.

 

That is a very plausible explanation.

 

(thumbs u

[kimik]

Poor Siegel - Liebowitz nagged him worse than my wife does on a bad day!

 

[Miraclo]

Poor Siegel - Liebowitz nagged him worse than my wife does on a bad day!

 

[Yannis]

Kimik, If poor anyone I say.... Poor Malcom Wheeler who lost his own company that he started!

[kimik]

Agreed, but at least he did not have to put up with the bs nagging from the people who were screwing him over at the same time like Siegel did.

[Yannis]

Perhaps, but how we will ever know really of what actually happened. The only thing we know is that he sold his shares. Later Vincent Sullivan accepted Siegels and shusters creation. And the rest is history. I never heard bad rap about Mr. Sullivan.

[1koko]

 

The desire to deliberately diminish the appearance of Superman's draw for leverage in financial dealings makes more sense than other theories.

 

Think this inferring too much from Superman's future impact at such an early stage as Action #1-7.

 

Could simply be that they were pushing "action comics" rather than Superman untill marketing figures confirmed impact

[swapto]

personally, i think it would make more sense if action comics was a pre-existing title like detective comics before they introduced a super (batman) into the mix and then start looking for 'impact' in the market.

 

to start a print ( like action comics) and have appear on its cover 'Superman!' in Action Comics #1' seems more like a deliberate step into superhero style comics rather than 'adventure style comics'.

 

he should of appeared (been featured) on all the covers of action comics. having him not looks like DC got cold feet in the super department.

 

 

[rjpb]

 Originally Posted By: rjpb

 

The desire to deliberately diminish the appearance of Superman's draw for leverage in financial dealings makes more sense than other theories.

 

Think this inferring too much from Superman's future impact at such an early stage as Action #1-7.

 

Could simply be that they were pushing "action comics" rather than Superman untill marketing figures confirmed impact

Maybe - the O'Mealia covers National went with are pretty amazing - but I still find it odd that they waited that long for a second cover appearance after featuring Supes on the premier issue's cover. It would seem that alternating the covers every other issue would indicate pretty quickly the impact of Superman on sales.

[VintageComics]

 Originally Posted By: 1koko

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header"> Originally Posted By: rjpb</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><br /><br />The desire to deliberately diminish the appearance of Superman's draw for leverage in financial dealings makes more sense than other theories. </div></div><br /><br />Think this inferring too much from Superman's future impact at such an early stage as Action #1-7.<br /><br />Could simply be that they were pushing "action comics" rather than Superman untill marketing figures confirmed impact

 

Maybe - the O'Mealia covers National went with are pretty amazing - but I still find it odd that they waited that long for a second cover appearance after featuring Supes on the premier issue's cover. It would seem that alternating the covers every other issue would indicate pretty quickly the impact of Superman on sales.

3-4 issues was about the norm so 7 seems long...the leverage again JS+JS makes this a very plausible reason.

[Bronty]

check out bangzoom's thread. perhaps the reason we waited so long for another superman cover is that shuster was up to his neck in work at the time.

 

the other equally possible alternative is that they already had a couple o'mealia covers in inventory by the time the 3-4 months rolled around and feedback was received.

[VintageComics]

check out bangzoom's thread. perhaps the reason we waited so long for another superman cover is that shuster was up to his neck in work at the time.

 

the other equally possible alternative is that they already had a couple o'mealia covers in inventory by the time the 3-4 months rolled around and feedback was received.

I saw that. That is WICKED stuff!

[Bronty]

oh for sure. But I'm referring to the 1938 letter from Vin Sullivan to Jerry Siegel, did you see that? Vin expresses concern that Joe might not be able to handle the extra work of 13 pgs of superman a month

[VintageComics]

oh for sure. But I'm referring to the 1938 letter from Vin Sullivan to Jerry Siegel, did you see that? Vin expresses concern that Joe might not be able to handle the extra work of 13 pgs of superman a month

 

I did see it. I asked BZ where he got it from.

 

Man oh man there has been some terrific history coming out of the wood work lately.

 

R.