Image decision to drop second prints

[Prince Namor]

Bleeding Cool has an article on this from a retailer perspective...

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/12/retailers-respond-to-images-decision-to-drop-second-prints/

 

Also, would this decision to not do 2 or more prints potentially take money out of the creator's hands? If they could sell more product but don't because of this policy, would someone like Vaughan be pleased with this decision? Interesting to know of any financial implications for the actual creators too.

 

I guess though they could get off with a technicality...Oh yeah, we said no 2nd prints but here is a variant cover...

Good point. I think creators typically get a smaller cut on trades. Could be a way to drive sales to trades.

 

I'm not sure that's as true at Image with the way that deal is set up.

I know a couple of months ago Marvel cut the percentage creators get on trades, but the creators don't own those characters and have no say so in it.

[ComicConnoisseur]

So what is your opinion of the decision by Image to drop second printings?

I think it will be a good thing from a collecting point of view, especially if you are a completist.

It`s starting to get ugly in modern speculation.

Image is finding out that most of their new titles were being bought by many more speculators than readers. This is Image`s way to salvage some of these titles before they get cancelled.

 

[Prince Namor]

So what is your opinion of the decision by Image to drop second printings?

I think it will be a good thing from a collecting point of view, especially if you are a completist.

It`s starting to get ugly in modern speculation.

Image is finding out that most of their new titles were being bought by many more speculators than readers. This is Image`s way to salvage some of these titles before they get cancelled.

 

This has nothing to do with #1 issues. This has to do with books that are beyond that point.

This has nothing to do with books that aren't selling. It has to do with books that ARE selling.

Essentially what they are saying is this:

If #3 comes out and you order 20 copies and sell out,

Then #4 comes out and you order 25 copies and sell out,

Each time causing us to do a costly second print,

Only to see you order 25 of #5,

Once again creating the need for a costly second print,

Why would you order only 20 copies of #6?

We can't keep doing these second prints.

Your missing out on sales and not giving this book the chance to grow even bigger.

[dupont2005]

Seems like a dumb move. If they have the kind of demand that warrants a second print, why not make one?

[Prince Namor]

Seems like a dumb move. If they have the kind of demand that warrants a second print, why not make one?

 

Comic publishers prefer the financial risk to be on the retailer. It's worked that way from the beginning. (No returns but please order heavy; stop spending on back issues your market is new books, etc.)

If you think about it from a customers point of view, they want to walk in the store and find the new issue. If they don't, they may buy it somewhere else. That's a customer you may lose.

If you're selling x amount each month, why order less than that?

The reasons of course, are rooted in Marvel and DC's ability to glut the market with JUNK, so that retailers don't give the order attention to other titles. It's very easy to make sure you have enough copies of the latest crossover.

There are still plenty of stores out there that don't use Diamond's POS software or even a computer (!) to keep track of what they are selling each month to properly reorder. That's especially detrimental to the growth of smaller non-Big 2 books.

[Prince Namor]

To put it in language that Image would never use: Look, it's not cost effective for us to a 2000 print run of a issue #7 of book. As much as we'd like to promote it and get it in the hands of as many readers as we'd like, the fact is, too many of these are just getting scooped up by goofy speculators.

If we saw it as necessary, we'd do it in a heartbeat. But the fact of the matter is, we no longer are going to go to these means just because retailers are too lazy to keep track of what they're selling in the first place.

 

[MrBedrock]

So what is your opinion of the decision by Image to drop second printings?

I think it will be a good thing from a collecting point of view, especially if you are a completist.

It`s starting to get ugly in modern speculation.

Image is finding out that most of their new titles were being bought by many more speculators than readers. This is Image`s way to salvage some of these titles before they get cancelled.

 

This has nothing to do with #1 issues. This has to do with books that are beyond that point.

This has nothing to do with books that aren't selling. It has to do with books that ARE selling.

Essentially what they are saying is this:

If #3 comes out and you order 20 copies and sell out,

Then #4 comes out and you order 25 copies and sell out,

Each time causing us to do a costly second print,

Only to see you order 25 of #5,

Once again creating the need for a costly second print,

Why would you order only 20 copies of #6?

We can't keep doing these second prints.

Your missing out on sales and not giving this book the chance to grow even bigger.

Printing costs are not higher on second prints. And do not fault retailers in such a general fashion for Image's decision. It is their decision no matter how they try to spin it. How am I, as a retailer, missing out on sales by ordering second prints after I sold out of first prints? I can reorder almost to the day. I can get more copies in as I need them. I can sell an exact amount and more closely monitor my inventory needs. I am being fiscally responsible with my money. Remember, retailers order a vast majority of their comics nonreturnable. Basically, by your logic, what Image is trying to do is force me to speculate on nonreturnable inventory levels with product that, at best, is uncertain. I like Image. I like most of their product. But Image sales are wildly fluctuating title by title. If Image decides to do away with second prints then they sure better plan on heavily overprinting books and make those overprints available for reorder. Otherwise a title like Saga, which had a very long shelf life and tons of additional sales via multiple printings, is useless to me.

[Mark 1]

Doesn't matter to me. I never buy second printings.

[sckao]

 

In some ways, this forces Retailers (or Diamond) to over-order I guess.

 

I see it as boosting initial orders slightly but also acquiescing to the digital comics explosion.

 

On March 6, 2012 Comixology announced they had reached their 50 millonth download.

 

On July 9, 2012, they announced they had reached 75 million downloads.

 

That's 4 months and 25 million downloads.

 

 

 

[whisp]

Now if we could get marvel to get rid of second and so on prints along with variants as well. If they did they may get me back as a customer again in the future but until then I will keep my money in my pocket for copper age and back.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

So what is your opinion of the decision by Image to drop second printings?

I think it will be a good thing from a collecting point of view, especially if you are a completist.

It`s starting to get ugly in modern speculation.

Image is finding out that most of their new titles were being bought by many more speculators than readers. This is Image`s way to salvage some of these titles before they get cancelled.

 

This has nothing to do with #1 issues. This has to do with books that are beyond that point.

This has nothing to do with books that aren't selling. It has to do with books that ARE selling.

Essentially what they are saying is this:

If #3 comes out and you order 20 copies and sell out,

Then #4 comes out and you order 25 copies and sell out,

Each time causing us to do a costly second print,

Only to see you order 25 of #5,

Once again creating the need for a costly second print,

Why would you order only 20 copies of #6?

We can't keep doing these second prints.

Your missing out on sales and not giving this book the chance to grow even bigger.

 

Printing costs are not higher on second prints.

 

I'm sure the actual cost of the printing is the same.

I think what Image is trying to say is that the administrative cost, the preparation for a new cover costs, the storage costs, the scheduling costs of an additional small print run that has to be paid for, remember, by the creators who are actually financing the book makes it less cost effective for them.

 

And do not fault retailers in such a general fashion for Image's decision. It is their decision no matter how they try to spin it. How am I, as a retailer, missing out on sales by ordering second prints after I sold out of first prints? I can reorder almost to the day. I can get more copies in as I need them. I can sell an exact amount and more closely monitor my inventory needs. I am being fiscally responsible with my money.

 

I apologize for making it seem as if I was lumping all retailers together, that's very much not the case. There's a chain of stores here in the area that does a really good job of having copies of books in stock and in general keeping up to date on what's selling. But there are also a number of stores here in the area that don't seem to have a clue as to what they order.

Here on the boards we have retailers who are very, very good at what they do.

But we all know, there are still some out there that aren't.

 

Remember, retailers order a vast majority of their comics nonreturnable.

 

Yes, and in stores that don't manage their inventory quite as well, Non-Big 2 titles usually are the first to suffer because of this. I've always thought it was unfair for retailers to have to order this way, and feel it's counter productive to expanding the market.

It's a credit to stores like yours that have been able to do it.

 

Basically, by your logic, what Image is trying to do is force me to speculate on nonreturnable inventory levels with product that, at best, is uncertain.

 

No, I understand how it might seem that way, but the example they used is Saga, which I guess they feel as though retailers should be able to speculate a little on, because of it's building success, and yet is one of the titles that they continue to have to do second prints on.

I'm not trying to take their side as much as I'm trying to verbalize what I think they're trying to say. I very much understand the risk involved for retailers.

 

I like Image. I like most of their product. But Image sales are wildly fluctuating title by title. If Image decides to do away with second prints then they sure better plan on heavily overprinting books and make those overprints available for reorder. Otherwise a title like Saga, which had a very long shelf life and tons of additional sales via multiple printings, is useless to me.

 

You seem like someone who shows a great appreciation for comics created outside the Big Two. I bought an autographed Strangers in Paradise #1 from you in Chicago last year, and I could tell in the way you talked about Terry Moore, that you enjoy promoting a book like that just as much as anything mainstream.

But you also know it's harder for the smaller guys in this business. As much as we think of Image as a publisher like any other, the truth of the matter is that it's an umbrella for a whole group of smaller independent creator's publishing under their name.

Those costs come directly out of the creators pocket. It's hard to compete.

Hopefully there can be some common ground so that we can continue to get quality comics from small publisher's and retailers can continue to be able to effectively support them.

 

[MrBedrock]

First off Chuck, I really appreciate the response and the conversation....but I must disagree on a couple of things.

 

The primary cost of any comic is its actual creation. The creators are the ones going out on a limb. Therefore the first printings are the ones that have the highest unit cost to create. Any additional printings should actually lower the overall cost of printing ANY of the issue. But Image chooses to spin their administrative costs into the formula. Those costs, while real, are then taken totally out of the creators' side of the ledger. This is a fact. As you mentioned, I do talk to Terry Moore frequently. He made a choice to have his books printed by Image for a period in the late '90s. By doing so he increased his sell through numbers by a large percentage. Having Image print and distribute his book was a huge success...until he got paid. All of the publisher costs meant he actually received less money for his books than when he was self publishing. In Terry's words "Image cost me a Mercedes."

Think about that...it is actually more profitable to self publish than have one of the biggest publishers print your books. It doesn't make sense.

And Saga is exactly the example I would use. If we didn't have multiple printings available of every issue of that book it would have died before it got hot. The additional printings allowed new readers to find and read a title that was getting positive press well after the shelf life should have expired. And most of those new readers would not have waited the months it took for a trade to be compiled.

So if Image decides they don't want to do second prints they don't have creators best interests at heart. Fine. It is a business decision. One thing I have learned in my three decades of retailing is that there are a ton of business decisions made every year and NONE of them really have my best interests at heart except the ones I make. Image not doing second prints doesn't help me. It doesn't help my customers. It doesn't help creators. It does help Image. Yeah. More power to them. But I have a hard time hearing it being spun as a good thing.

[KONG]

Image back peddled quite a bit

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/13/image-comics-responds-to-retailers-and-announces-a-second-print-of-saga-7-and-maybe-8/

 

Response from some creators

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/13/image-creators-respond-to-second-printing-kerfuffle-john-layman-nick-spencer-zim-zubkavich-and-justin-jordan/

 

 

 

[paperheart]

Image back peddled quite a bit

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/13/image-comics-responds-to-retailers-and-announces-a-second-print-of-saga-7-and-maybe-8/

 

Response from some creators

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/13/image-creators-respond-to-second-printing-kerfuffle-john-layman-nick-spencer-zim-zubkavich-and-justin-jordan/

 

 

 

and in the time nick spenser wasted writing that diatribe he could have finished Infinite Vacation.

[KONG]

Spencers response was well thought out i think he outlined the whole thing really well.

[Prince Namor]

First off Chuck, I really appreciate the response and the conversation....but I must disagree on a couple of things.

 

The primary cost of any comic is its actual creation. The creators are the ones going out on a limb. Therefore the first printings are the ones that have the highest unit cost to create. Any additional printings should actually lower the overall cost of printing ANY of the issue. But Image chooses to spin their administrative costs into the formula. Those costs, while real, are then taken totally out of the creators' side of the ledger. This is a fact. As you mentioned, I do talk to Terry Moore frequently. He made a choice to have his books printed by Image for a period in the late '90s. By doing so he increased his sell through numbers by a large percentage. Having Image print and distribute his book was a huge success...until he got paid. All of the publisher costs meant he actually received less money for his books than when he was self publishing. In Terry's words "Image cost me a Mercedes."

Think about that...it is actually more profitable to self publish than have one of the biggest publishers print your books. It doesn't make sense.

And Saga is exactly the example I would use. If we didn't have multiple printings available of every issue of that book it would have died before it got hot. The additional printings allowed new readers to find and read a title that was getting positive press well after the shelf life should have expired. And most of those new readers would not have waited the months it took for a trade to be compiled.

So if Image decides they don't want to do second prints they don't have creators best interests at heart. Fine. It is a business decision. One thing I have learned in my three decades of retailing is that there are a ton of business decisions made every year and NONE of them really have my best interests at heart except the ones I make. Image not doing second prints doesn't help me. It doesn't help my customers. It doesn't help creators. It does help Image. Yeah. More power to them. But I have a hard time hearing it being spun as a good thing.

 

I appreciate and respect your perspective, you've been at this a very long time.

I have no doubt that this isn't in the best interest of the retailers. Unfortunately publishers rarely make the kinds of decisions that are.

So why do you believe Image is doing this?

If it doesn't cost them anything more to make a second print, and it's going to hurt availability of the book AND make retailers angry, what do you believe is their motivation for doing it?

 

 

[joecgcmaniac]

First off Chuck, I really appreciate the response and the conversation....but I must disagree on a couple of things.

 

The primary cost of any comic is its actual creation. The creators are the ones going out on a limb. Therefore the first printings are the ones that have the highest unit cost to create. Any additional printings should actually lower the overall cost of printing ANY of the issue. But Image chooses to spin their administrative costs into the formula. Those costs, while real, are then taken totally out of the creators' side of the ledger. This is a fact. As you mentioned, I do talk to Terry Moore frequently. He made a choice to have his books printed by Image for a period in the late '90s. By doing so he increased his sell through numbers by a large percentage. Having Image print and distribute his book was a huge success...until he got paid. All of the publisher costs meant he actually received less money for his books than when he was self publishing. In Terry's words "Image cost me a Mercedes."

Think about that...it is actually more profitable to self publish than have one of the biggest publishers print your books. It doesn't make sense.

And Saga is exactly the example I would use. If we didn't have multiple printings available of every issue of that book it would have died before it got hot. The additional printings allowed new readers to find and read a title that was getting positive press well after the shelf life should have expired. And most of those new readers would not have waited the months it took for a trade to be compiled.

So if Image decides they don't want to do second prints they don't have creators best interests at heart. Fine. It is a business decision. One thing I have learned in my three decades of retailing is that there are a ton of business decisions made every year and NONE of them really have my best interests at heart except the ones I make. Image not doing second prints doesn't help me. It doesn't help my customers. It doesn't help creators. It does help Image. Yeah. More power to them. But I have a hard time hearing it being spun as a good thing.

 

I appreciate and respect your perspective, you've been at this a very long time.

I have no doubt that this isn't in the best interest of the retailers. Unfortunately publishers rarely make the kinds of decisions that are.

So why do you believe Image is doing this?

If it doesn't cost them anything more to make a second print, and it's going to hurt availability of the book AND make retailers angry, what do you believe is their motivation for doing it?

 

 

They think that it will force collectors to buy the book when it comes out, no more of this waiting to see whether or not the book will get hot. In the end, all they are going to do is kill off some books that may have been able to succeed if readers had been able to pick up "cheaper" books to read instead of having to pay inflated prices for first prints.

[DiceX]

There is a "make ready" charge every time something goes back to print.

When the book is printed, on top of paying the creators and staff, the printer charges a fee basically to put the job onto the press. This will include prepping, plating, the cost of the plates themselves, and fees associated with hanging the plates on press and getting the presses ready to print the job. This fee is in addition to the fee of $X per book to print and bind it.

Incidentally, the more copies you print, the cheaper the "per book" charge is.

 

Let's say the initial printing of the book is 20,000 copies.

The prices I'm quoting are purely for demonstration and may or may not be actual.

There is a charge of $1 per book to print.

There is also a $5,000 "Make Ready" charge applied to the job.

Total cost is $25,000 witch averages out to $1.25 per book.

 

Two weeks later, they want to do a second printing on the issue.

There is still another $5,000 "Make Ready" charge to prepare everything to put ink on paper.

This time they only want to print an additional 5,000 copies.

The per book charge for this changes to $1.10.

Total cost for the second printing is $10,500 which averages out to $2.10 per book.

A big increase in cost for a book that sells for the same price as the first print.

 

I'm sure deals are made with the printer and the per book charge is probably a wash, but you still get a lump make ready charge, and the fewer number of books you print, the more it drives the price of each book up. In some instances it can be substantial.

 

 

[mikephoen]

Image has always believed that stores should take all the risk and they should take very little. This is just another decision based on that premise.

[Prince Namor]

Image has always believed that stores should take all the risk and they should take very little. This is just another decision based on that premise.

 

All publishers as a part of the Direct Market seem to be that way.