SNE to flood eBay with 13,000 slabs?

[Logan510]

Once the publisher has sold the books to the distributor they could care less if it's 100 people buying 10 copies each or 1000 people buying one copy in the shops. To them it's the same money.

 

Not quite correct.

 

If only one person buys all 1,000 copies of #1, do you think they'll be doing the same with #2?

 

The more different customers buying #1, the healthier the orders for #2.

 

 

The Publishers don't KNOW who's buying what in the stores. They get orders from the distributors, not the shops.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Once the publisher has sold the books to the distributor they could care less if it's 100 people buying 10 copies each or 1000 people buying one copy in the shops. To them it's the same money.

 

Not quite correct.

 

If only one person buys all 1,000 copies of #1, do you think they'll be doing the same with #2?

 

The more different customers buying #1, the healthier the orders for #2.

 

 

The Publishers don't KNOW who's buying what in the stores. They get orders from the distributors, not the shops.

 

Which is why I said 'not quite correct'.

 

They might not know, but if they had the choice, they would want 1,000 books in 1,000 different sets of hands.

[Aman619]

actually, the rules changed when Diamond got exclusives with DC and Marvel etc. Now DC owns the books until sold to stores and Diamond is just the agent handling sales. Back then Diamond took orders and bought the comics from the publishers.

[dekeuk]

Man, I wish these were independents...

 

 

Then you should buy the 9 Jon Sable Freelance books in "9.8 white" I have been trying to sell on these boards

 

 

[Logan510]

Once the publisher has sold the books to the distributor they could care less if it's 100 people buying 10 copies each or 1000 people buying one copy in the shops. To them it's the same money.

 

Not quite correct.

 

If only one person buys all 1,000 copies of #1, do you think they'll be doing the same with #2?

 

The more different customers buying #1, the healthier the orders for #2.

 

 

The Publishers don't KNOW who's buying what in the stores. They get orders from the distributors, not the shops.

 

Which is why I said 'not quite correct'.

 

They might not know, but if they had the choice, they would want 1,000 books in 1,000 different sets of hands.

 

Of course, that goes without saying. They would prefer more warm bodies buying books, but the bottom line doesn't account for warm bodies, just numbers sold.

[Aman619]

I like what you have been saying about Valiant, but you veer off course when you "blame them" for having no restraint and going after every dollar they could. NOONE showed any restraint then because if they did, someone else would have gotten the $$$ "comic investers" were trying so hard to get rid of.

 

The publishers knew they were piloting a runaway train, and could guess the destination. But there was no point in limiting your own ability to soak up any money coming their way, or divert it to someone else "too stupid" to also hold back...

 

and I dont blame Valiants demise on chasing sales, but rather the internal corruption of success! Massarsky and Shooter couldnt BOTH get credit for the success, and couldnt find a way to share it. So Shooter was showed the door, and was pushed through it.

 

I dont blame either one particularly, they are both egotists of the first kind.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Once the publisher has sold the books to the distributor they could care less if it's 100 people buying 10 copies each or 1000 people buying one copy in the shops. To them it's the same money.

 

Not quite correct.

 

If only one person buys all 1,000 copies of #1, do you think they'll be doing the same with #2?

 

The more different customers buying #1, the healthier the orders for #2.

 

 

The Publishers don't KNOW who's buying what in the stores. They get orders from the distributors, not the shops.

 

Which is why I said 'not quite correct'.

 

They might not know, but if they had the choice, they would want 1,000 books in 1,000 different sets of hands.

 

Of course, that goes without saying. They would prefer more warm bodies buying books, but the bottom line doesn't account for warm bodies, just numbers sold.

 

Like I said...every manufacturer wants to know how their products are making it to the consumer, including publishers. Do Marvel and DC have an employee at every store to find out how many copies of what are selling to whom? No, of course not (though it's not a bad idea, and they've done it in the past.) Do they occasionally send out surveys to retailers asking these questions. Sometimes, yes.

 

If you wish to believe publishers care for nothing but how many thousands of units were ordered by Diamond, well...feel free, but it's simply not true.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I like what you have been saying about Valiant, but you veer off course when you "blame them" for having no restraint and going after every dollar they could. NOONE showed any restraint then because if they did, someone else would have gotten the $$$ "comic investers" were trying so hard to get rid of.

 

The publishers knew they were piloting a runaway train, and could guess the destination. But there was no point in limiting your own ability to soak up any money coming their way, or divert it to someone else "too stupid" to also hold back...

 

and I dont blame Valiants demise on chasing sales, but rather the internal corruption of success! Massarsky and Shooter couldnt BOTH get credit for the success, and couldnt find a way to share it. So Shooter was showed the door, and was pushed through it.

 

I dont blame either one particularly, they are both egotists of the first kind.

 

That's what I've been saying: NOBODY showed any restraint, not Valiant, not DC, not Marvel, not Image, not even Dark Horse. Everybody was jumping on the gravy train, with little thought to where it was headed, and how fast.

 

Smart businesspeople grow their businesses organically, one customer at a time, and have long term plans which include not flooding the market with product, even if current demand calls for it.

 

A couple of people keep saying "well, duh, they took the money and ran, and that's what the SHOULD have done!" Except it's not.

 

And the lack of restraint that everybody showed in that time period ruined a LOT of lives, thousands of them, from speculators who lost their shirts, to store owners who lost their stores, to their employees who lost their jobs, to distributors who went under by the bucketful and THEIR employees, to the publishers who were forced to shut down and THEIR employees, to the creators who could no longer get work, to convention promoters who could no longer run their conventions...

 

Everybody up and down the chain, and no one did anything to prevent it...and it cost. Boy did it cost.

[Ogami]

I like what you have been saying about Valiant, but you veer off course when you "blame them" for having no restraint and going after every dollar they could. NOONE showed any restraint then because if they did, someone else would have gotten the $$$ "comic investers" were trying so hard to get rid of.

 

The publishers knew they were piloting a runaway train, and could guess the destination. But there was no point in limiting your own ability to soak up any money coming their way, or divert it to someone else "too stupid" to also hold back...

 

and I dont blame Valiants demise on chasing sales, but rather the internal corruption of success! Massarsky and Shooter couldnt BOTH get credit for the success, and couldnt find a way to share it. So Shooter was showed the door, and was pushed through it.

 

I dont blame either one particularly, they are both egotists of the first kind.

 

That's what I've been saying: NOBODY showed any restraint, not Valiant, not DC, not Marvel, not Image, not even Dark Horse. Everybody was jumping on the gravy train, with little thought to where it was headed, and how fast.

 

Smart businesspeople grow their businesses organically, one customer at a time, and have long term plans which include not flooding the market with product, even if current demand calls for it.

 

A couple of people keep saying "well, duh, they took the money and ran, and that's what the SHOULD have done!" Except it's not.

 

And the lack of restraint that everybody showed in that time period ruined a LOT of lives, thousands of them, from speculators who lost their shirts, to store owners who lost their stores, to their employees who lost their jobs, to distributors who went under by the bucketful and THEIR employees, to the publishers who were forced to shut down and THEIR employees, to the creators who could no longer get work, to convention promoters who could no longer run their conventions...

 

Everybody up and down the chain, and no one did anything to prevent it...and it cost. Boy did it cost.

 

And this is why every current Marvel collector I know just shakes their head ruefully at Quesada's current scheme of four thousand covers per copy and all at four bucks a pop (hyperbole alert). He knows better. We know better. It's shameful.

 

I picked up a "second print variant" recently and was appalled to see that in the indicia, there was no conotation of it being a second print. All of the information was the same as the first print. I thought by law, a second printing from a publisher had to reflect that. So in my mind, these second prints are printed at the same exact time as the first prints with just different covers. And before some know-it-all comes in to tell me what I already know, I'm not talking about the five different covered variant covers all released at the same time. The Amazing guys will know what I'm talking about.

 

 

[Sal]

as someone who worked in circulation for over five years, the concept that a publisher would only care about shop orders and not sell-through is ludicrous.

 

sell-through is the market. if they sell 10,000 to diamond and only 140 get sold, how do you think orders for the next issue are going to go?

[MR.COMICBOOK]

I remember asking a nameless comic store owner if he was concerned that Jim Shooter just got fired from Valiant and he told me who cares if Shooter just got fired? I am selling Valiants like crazy! of course this LCS shop owner was out of business two years later. I guess the lcs owner was a little shortsighted.

[Logan510]

 

 

And this is why every current Marvel collector I know just shakes their head ruefully at Quesada's current scheme of four thousand covers per copy and all at four bucks a pop (hyperbole alert). He knows better. We know better. It's shameful.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, the publishers would LOVE for the speculator days to be back and it appears that's exactly who they're trying to lure back. The bottom line here is money and anybody who thinks anything else is more important to them is living in Candy Land.

[Aman619]

I like what you have been saying about Valiant, but you veer off course when you "blame them" for having no restraint and going after every dollar they could. NOONE showed any restraint then because if they did, someone else would have gotten the $$$ "comic investers" were trying so hard to get rid of.

 

The publishers knew they were piloting a runaway train, and could guess the destination. But there was no point in limiting your own ability to soak up any money coming their way, or divert it to someone else "too stupid" to also hold back...

 

and I dont blame Valiants demise on chasing sales, but rather the internal corruption of success! Massarsky and Shooter couldnt BOTH get credit for the success, and couldnt find a way to share it. So Shooter was showed the door, and was pushed through it.

 

I dont blame either one particularly, they are both egotists of the first kind.

 

That's what I've been saying: NOBODY showed any restraint, not Valiant, not DC, not Marvel, not Image, not even Dark Horse. Everybody was jumping on the gravy train, with little thought to where it was headed, and how fast.

 

Smart businesspeople grow their businesses organically, one customer at a time, and have long term plans which include not flooding the market with product, even if current demand calls for it.

 

A couple of people keep saying "well, duh, they took the money and ran, and that's what the SHOULD have done!" Except it's not.

 

And the lack of restraint that everybody showed in that time period ruined a LOT of lives, thousands of them, from speculators who lost their shirts, to store owners who lost their stores, to their employees who lost their jobs, to distributors who went under by the bucketful and THEIR employees, to the publishers who were forced to shut down and THEIR employees, to the creators who could no longer get work, to convention promoters who could no longer run their conventions...

 

Everybody up and down the chain, and no one did anything to prevent it...and it cost. Boy did it cost.

 

I hear ya. but it would have been suicide for Valiant to nobly resist while everyone else was gorging at the trough. Only if the industry all coordinated their actions. Not likely. and maybe illegal! Even tho it would have been done to prolong an industry and not to keep prices up on their product, the usual collusionary tactic.

 

and, given the choice of a major payday today (selling millions of copies) vs only the hope of a longer business life (not a certainty) everyone would take the money now and try to hang on to it rather than 'hope' they net the same $$ over 10 years.

 

What you are saying is wistful thinking. And historically the comics business has been feast and famine. You cant expect them to NOT gorge themselves in those happy times while they can! Since the 40s, its been UP, then down (50s) up in the 60s, down in the 70s, up again in the late 80s-early 90s. way down late 90s, now upping again. Dont buy into it! But be glad that the industry has another mild feast to fatten up on for a while. it wont last.

 

 

[the blob]

yeah, but a gadjillion #1 issues didn't kill the relaunches of Spiderman or X-Men or the new X-Force or Spawn...or Batman (497 - printed in extra vast quantities it seems), Superman 75, etc. etc. two or three years later.

 

Sure, other than Spawn those titles had already cultivated a following.

[the blob]

And the lack of restraint that everybody showed in that time period ruined a LOT of lives, thousands of them, from speculators who lost their shirts, to store owners who lost their stores, to their employees who lost their jobs, to distributors who went under by the bucketful and THEIR employees, to the publishers who were forced to shut down and THEIR employees, to the creators who could no longer get work, to convention promoters who could no longer run their conventions...

 

-------------------------

 

This kindah presumes that comics sales post 1997 or so would continue to be the same as they were pre-1987 or so, with, let's say, X-Men selling 400K copies (rather than 900K copies a month in 1992). The shops that sprung up during the hysteria of 1989-1993 were not going to be around long-term anyway.

 

I don't think X-Men struggling to crack 100K nowadays can really be attributed to the events of 1989-1993, do you? Some of it, sure, like I said, I do think a chunk of 9 - 14 year olds got so burned by the process they probably don't want to read comics anymore so now we're missing some 25-30 year old readers in 2009, but we've debated the reasons there isn't a new group of 9-14 year olds ad nauseum here.

 

basically, a lot of shops were going to close regardless. jobs in comics would get harder to come by (although there sure do seem to be plenty of titles nowadays (my current LCS probably has 2X the number of titles my old one had in 1993), just selling 20% of what they used to), etc.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And this is why every current Marvel collector I know just shakes their head ruefully at Quesada's current scheme of four thousand covers per copy and all at four bucks a pop (hyperbole alert). He knows better. We know better. It's shameful.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, the publishers would LOVE for the speculator days to be back and it appears that's exactly who they're trying to lure back. The bottom line here is money and anybody who thinks anything else is more important to them is living in Candy Land.

 

You know, no offense, truly, and you seem like you're a nice enough, and smart enough guy, and I've certainly appreciated the back and forth..

 

....but some of the stuff you're saying has absolutely no relevance to what's being said by me. I never said the bottom line was NOT money. That's the point of ALL for-profit ventures. Any company MUST make money to survive.

 

But intelligent people, good businesspeople, understand that there's the RIGHT way to make money, and the WRONG way to make money, and that selling the bulk of your product to speculators who hope to get rich by re-selling your product to "someone else" at some future date for more money is the WRONG way, business decision-wise, to make money.

 

It was wrong in Holland in the 1630's, it was wrong in Great Britain in the 1720's, it was wrong in the 1920's in the US, and it was wrong in the comics market of the early 90's.

 

This is the name of phenomenon, which I think is brilliant:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greaterfooltheory.asp

 

The Greater Fool Theory

 

"A theory that states it is possible to make money by buying securities, whether overvalued or not, and later selling them at a profit because there will always be someone (a bigger or greater fool) who is willing to pay the higher price."

 

"When acting in accordance with the greater fool theory, an investor buys questionable securities without any regard to their quality, but with the hope of quickly selling them off to another investor (the greater fool), who might also be hoping to flip them quickly. Unfortunately, speculative bubbles always burst eventually, leading to a rapid depreciation in share price due to the selloff. "

 

Sound familiar...?

 

Now raise your hand if you've been "the greater fool" in your life...

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I like what you have been saying about Valiant, but you veer off course when you "blame them" for having no restraint and going after every dollar they could. NOONE showed any restraint then because if they did, someone else would have gotten the $$$ "comic investers" were trying so hard to get rid of.

 

The publishers knew they were piloting a runaway train, and could guess the destination. But there was no point in limiting your own ability to soak up any money coming their way, or divert it to someone else "too stupid" to also hold back...

 

and I dont blame Valiants demise on chasing sales, but rather the internal corruption of success! Massarsky and Shooter couldnt BOTH get credit for the success, and couldnt find a way to share it. So Shooter was showed the door, and was pushed through it.

 

I dont blame either one particularly, they are both egotists of the first kind.

 

That's what I've been saying: NOBODY showed any restraint, not Valiant, not DC, not Marvel, not Image, not even Dark Horse. Everybody was jumping on the gravy train, with little thought to where it was headed, and how fast.

 

Smart businesspeople grow their businesses organically, one customer at a time, and have long term plans which include not flooding the market with product, even if current demand calls for it.

 

A couple of people keep saying "well, duh, they took the money and ran, and that's what the SHOULD have done!" Except it's not.

 

And the lack of restraint that everybody showed in that time period ruined a LOT of lives, thousands of them, from speculators who lost their shirts, to store owners who lost their stores, to their employees who lost their jobs, to distributors who went under by the bucketful and THEIR employees, to the publishers who were forced to shut down and THEIR employees, to the creators who could no longer get work, to convention promoters who could no longer run their conventions...

 

Everybody up and down the chain, and no one did anything to prevent it...and it cost. Boy did it cost.

 

I hear ya. but it would have been suicide for Valiant to nobly resist while everyone else was gorging at the trough. Only if the industry all coordinated their actions. Not likely. and maybe illegal! Even tho it would have been done to prolong an industry and not to keep prices up on their product, the usual collusionary tactic.

 

and, given the choice of a major payday today (selling millions of copies) vs only the hope of a longer business life (not a certainty) everyone would take the money now and try to hang on to it rather than 'hope' they net the same $$ over 10 years.

 

What you are saying is wistful thinking. And historically the comics business has been feast and famine. You cant expect them to NOT gorge themselves in those happy times while they can! Since the 40s, its been UP, then down (50s) up in the 60s, down in the 70s, up again in the late 80s-early 90s. way down late 90s, now upping again. Dont buy into it! But be glad that the industry has another mild feast to fatten up on for a while. it wont last.

 

 

That's...exactly...my point.

 

Think of the companies that have been around for decades, even over a century. Think of companies that have been around for 2 centuries or more (Chase, for example.)

 

Those companies have been around so long, through many recessions, booms, busts, even a Depression or two, because they followed sound business practices, and didn't give in to the "get rich" schemes that opportunity presented them with time after time after time.

 

How many companies went under during the Crash of 1929, and Long, Slow Slide of 1930-31? Thousands. Most of them because they had leveraged the hell out of themselves, thinking they could make money quick. They bought their means of production on credit, and many took part in the margin buying of stocks. They overproduced (ring, ring), and ended up with product that no one wanted, and later, could afford. Then it all crashed down around them, and millions lost everything.

 

Do you think the lessons of the Crash and Depression were lost on our parents and grandparents? I think not.

 

And then...WE took charge, and forgot those lessons...and what happened in the comic market was, oddly enough, a harbinger of what was to come in the roaring 2000's. People saw opportunities to get rich quick, VERY few people listened to those urging restraint, and now look where we are.

 

"Oh wow, I can get a $600,000 loan, even though I only make $32,000 a year, and I can live in a McMansion! Sweet!

 

These principles do not just apply to the comic book industry.

 

It would NOT have been suicide if Valiant had shown restraint, because that would have given them the ability to weather what was to come. If you have a product that is quality and that people want, they will buy it. That's been true for 5,000 years. But if you glut the market and devalue your own product, you will be destroyed. It doesn't help that the quality of their product took a massive nosedive, too...again, simple pride. They thought they could publish ANYTHING, and it would turn to gold.

[Aman619]

the bottom line is net profit. Weathering the storm is putting off profit into the future. And you may not GET the profit. Its not the same as signing a 10 year payout on selling a million copies today. Theres no guarantee of future success. So if you have a million orders today, you print a million books. case closed.

 

Given that the other publishers would have killed the goose anyway if Valiant had gone conservative alone, the comics market would still suck post crash. Valiant would have survived retty much as they did sales wise in the much smaller post 95 market.

 

anyway, IMO it was the breakup between Shooter and Massarsky that doomed Valiant. not their greedy rapid expansion.. post-Shooter/Unity the books were just not the same. Jim took the Good Skin with him!

[RockMyAmadeus]

the bottom line is net profit. Weathering the storm is putting off profit into the future. And you may not GET the profit. Its not the same as signing a 10 year payout on selling a million copies today. Theres no guarantee of future success. So if you have a million orders today, you print a million books. case closed.

 

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

"Take the money and run" is NOT sound business policy.

 

And it is this kind of shortsighted thinking that has caused financial ruin for so many. If their intent was to print only 1.75 million copies of Turok #1, and then close up shop forever...I would agree with you. But it wasn't.

 

It was FAKE PROFIT. They were not selling their product to CONSUMERS. They did NOT have "a million orders", they had 10,000 orders of 100 books each!

 

And it destroyed them.

 

Shortsighted, short term greed. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

But I'm shouting into the wind, even with the ENDLESS examples of what such shortsighted greed causes.

 

"Don't tell ME I can't get a $600,000 loan, even though I only make $32,000 a year...I'll be able to pay it off!"

 

"Don't tell ME I can't sell 1.75 Million copies of a book to 100,000 people. They'll still be around for issue 12!!"

 

Same thing.

 

Given that the other publishers would have killed the goose anyway if Valiant had gone conservative alone, the comics market would still suck post crash. Valiant would have survived retty much as they did sales wise in the much smaller post 95 market.

 

 

PURE speculation!

 

We don't know WHAT would have happened if ANYBODY with influence had shown restraint!

 

anyway, IMO it was the breakup between Shooter and Massarsky that doomed Valiant. not their greedy rapid expansion.. post-Shooter/Unity the books were just not the same. Jim took the Good Skin with him!

 

That was the "quality" that I referred to earlier.

 

[JuliusSeizure]

the bottom line is net profit. Weathering the storm is putting off profit into the future. And you may not GET the profit. Its not the same as signing a 10 year payout on selling a million copies today. Theres no guarantee of future success. So if you have a million orders today, you print a million books. case closed.

 

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

"Take the money and run" is NOT sound business policy.

 

And it is this kind of shortsighted thinking that has caused financial ruin for so many. If their intent was to print only 1.75 million copies of Turok #1, and then close up shop forever...I would agree with you. But it wasn't.

 

It was FAKE PROFIT. They were not selling their product to CONSUMERS. They did NOT have "a million orders", they had 10,000 orders of 100 books each!

 

And it destroyed them.

 

Shortsighted, short term greed. Nothing more, and nothing less.

 

But I'm shouting into the wind, even with the ENDLESS examples of what such shortsighted greed causes.

 

"Don't tell ME I can't get a $600,000 loan, even though I only make $32,000 a year...I'll be able to pay it off!"

 

"Don't tell ME I can't sell 1.75 Million copies of a book to 100,000 people. They'll still be around for issue 12!!"

 

Same thing.

 

I hear you, but many people start or fund companies of all kinds precisely to "get rich quickly". They don't care if the company lasts two hundred years and they don't care what happens to the employees or to the industry in the wake of its inevitable fall. The idea of the people making the production level decisions is to walk away with the IPO or buyout cash, then watch the carnage from the Hamptons.

 

Is that shortsighted greed? Of course. But it's a feature, not a bug. :-(