Image decision to drop second prints

[Prince Namor]

I also wonder if this isn't a reaction to the secondary market that seems quick to mark up the price of a 'sold out' first print, which can be a turn off to readers and a possible detriment to the growth of a title.

It's good to see Image back off of this policy, as the reaction to it seems to be overwhelmingly negative, but I'm wondering what ideas they have in mind to satisfy both sides (minus the secondary market).

[DiceX]

Perhaps they could hire an oracle to help predict what people will be buying.

 

 

[Erndog]

I also wonder if this isn't a reaction to the secondary market that seems quick to mark up the price of a 'sold out' first print, which can be a turn off to readers and a possible detriment to the growth of a title.

 

 

Wouldn't this just make it quicker?

 

"Quick! Sold out 1st print! NO 2nd prints coming! MUST BUY THIS NOW AT THIS HEAVILY INCREASED PRICE BEFORE IT GOES EVEN HIGHER AS YOU WON'T HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A 2ND PRINTING!"

 

[MrBedrock]

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?

 

I honestly believe they view what is happening on the speculator market as a positive thing for them and are using that as leverage to increase initial orders by forcing retailers (and customers) to take all the risk. It is the same fools game publishers played in the early '90s.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I'm disappointed to see this. Those of us that don't make it to the store every week are going to be hurt by this. I'm not going to pull every Image book hoping to get lucky.

[MrBedrock]

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.

 

But you also need to factor in creation costs, advertising costs, legal costs etc. to the initial print run. Those costs are near zero on each additional print run.

[ComicConnoisseur]

I also wonder if this isn't a reaction to the secondary market that seems quick to mark up the price of a 'sold out' first print, which can be a turn off to readers and a possible detriment to the growth of a title.

It's good to see Image back off of this policy, as the reaction to it seems to be overwhelmingly negative, but I'm wondering what ideas they have in mind to satisfy both sides (minus the secondary market).

In a year it will be mute. At this time next year we will be talking why the modern speculation bubble burst,and who was at fault.

[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.

 

But you also need to factor in creation costs, advertising costs, legal costs etc. to the initial print run. Those costs are near zero on each additional print run.

 

True (thumbs u

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

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?

 

 

Image was unable to accurately gauge the demand for some of their titles and did not want to increase their risk by increasing the amount that they overprint in the initial print run. The risk being that the title may cool off and then they will be sitting on worthless, stale inventory.

 

They wanted to pass this risk on to the retailers.

 

The more accurate they can predict demand, the more profit Image can make. My opinion is since Image is more incentivized than the retailer for accurately predicting demand, they should be the one bearing the risk.

 

Image could alleviate some of the angst by simply charging higher prices on the 2nd prints. From Richards comments, it does not sound like they do this. Of course this still encourages the retailer to speculate, but in the end it should make for far more accurate predictions as retailers attempt to maximize their profits on the higher margin initial print run. If Image does not charge a premium for the second prints, there is little incentive for the retailer to "get it right" the first time.

[MrBedrock]

If Image does not charge a premium for the second prints, there is little incentive for the retailer to "get it right" the first time.

The problem with this logic (I'm sure it is the logic that Image is using) is that even the best retailers - those with the most advanced POS systems, the most diligent inventory counts, the best records - rarely get it right the first time on even the long running steady titles. Trying to get it right the first time on most Image titles, which have no track record, unknown creators, and high cover prices, is always a shot in the dark. Even six or seven issues out we have trouble because release dates are staggered or delayed and we have to order two to three months in advance. It is a very delicate balance when ordering these titles. The "no second print" policy is not going to help alleviate ordering issues.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

If Image does not charge a premium for the second prints, there is little incentive for the retailer to "get it right" the first time.

The problem with this logic (I'm sure it is the logic that Image is using) is that even the best retailers - those with the most advanced POS systems, the most diligent inventory counts, the best records - rarely get it right the first time on even the long running steady titles. Trying to get it right the first time on most Image titles, which have no track record, unknown creators, and high cover prices, is always a shot in the dark. Even six or seven issues out we have trouble because release dates are staggered or delayed and we have to order two to three months in advance. It is a very delicate balance when ordering these titles. The "no second print" policy is not going to help alleviate ordering issues.

 

Premiums for second prints are still a method of shifting the risk, however it seems far more palatable than a strict "no second print" policy.

 

I also agree that their initial position seemed to be fanning the flames of a resurgent speculator market.

 

Other than the crash at the end, publishers would probably love to see another speculator boom. Heck, if they could accurately time their exit from floppies, they would love to see a boom just prior.

[Prince Namor]

Image and some of the other publishers, and I'm sure you've heard them begging in the Diamond Retailer Conferences, if they want more product in the stores are going to have to offer an incentive other than silly variants.

Maybe for anything ordered over x amount of copies, a return policy is in place after x amount of months. That would prove or disprove the theory that its success or lack thereof is all about retailers not taking a chance.

I would even think about using area sales reps to set up counter/floor/wall displays and work more closely with retailers to support and help move product.

The Direct Market model really makes publishers lazy, and the ones that want to try and increase their market share are going to have to work harder and smarter to make that happen.

[sckao]

 

Comixology recently started accepting Self-Publishers. The cut is 50% of the revenue after Apple takes its 30% cut. (So 35% of the cover price.)

 

For a $3.99 comic, that's $1.40 per comic that goes back to the creators.

 

Diamond takes 60% I think. So that leaves 40% for the creators and the company they are with. For a $3.99 comic that's $1.60 in revenue.

 

However, the physical copy requires printing costs. (Assuming marketing, admin costs, etc. are the same) If that's even 50% of the revenue ($.80 cents to print a comic) you can see the digital copy can actually produce more revenue. (A lot more.)

 

Comic retailers are getting squeezed at both ends unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

Image and some of the other publishers, and I'm sure you've heard them begging in the Diamond Retailer Conferences, if they want more product in the stores are going to have to offer an incentive other than silly variants.

Maybe for anything ordered over x amount of copies, a return policy is in place after x amount of months. That would prove or disprove the theory that its success or lack thereof is all about retailers not taking a chance.

I would even think about using area sales reps to set up counter/floor/wall displays and work more closely with retailers to support and help move product.

The Direct Market model really makes publishers lazy, and the ones that want to try and increase their market share are going to have to work harder and smarter to make that happen.

All great points. Some of the publishers are already starting to offer percentage returnability. It is something that retailers have asked for for a while. Some of the delay in implementing that has been on Diamond's end as it involves a ton of extra work and systems upgrades for them to be able to properly do it. As the bugs get worked out I think it will definitely expand to smaller publishers.

As for sales reps...MAN I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM!

We have reps for toys,novelties, and books. They come into the store regularly. They know what we are about. They know what they have available. They are easy to work with and great at helping us expand into product lines we wouldn't normally know anything about. But comic sales reps...nadda, none, zilch, zippo. Diamond has field reps who visit in store periodically. But a distribution rep can only offer so much. Usually we get to hear about product that needs to be clearanced out of their systems, or overstock that a given publisher is trying to incentivize. But nothing at all along the lines of what you are talking about, racking and promoting new product in inventive new ways. That is all left to each individual retailer.

[500Club]

I also wonder if this isn't a reaction to the secondary market that seems quick to mark up the price of a 'sold out' first print, which can be a turn off to readers and a possible detriment to the growth of a title.

It's good to see Image back off of this policy, as the reaction to it seems to be overwhelmingly negative, but I'm wondering what ideas they have in mind to satisfy both sides (minus the secondary market).

In a year it will be mute. At this time next year we will be talking why the modern speculation bubble burst,and who was at fault.

Which is it?

 

'Mute', or 'we will be talking'?

 

[Senormac]

Comixology recently started accepting Self-Publishers. The cut is 50% of the revenue after Apple takes its 30% cut. (So 35% of the cover price.)

 

For a $3.99 comic, that's $1.40 per comic that goes back to the creators.

 

Diamond takes 60% I think. So that leaves 40% for the creators and the company they are with. For a $3.99 comic that's $1.60 in revenue.

 

However, the physical copy requires printing costs. (Assuming marketing, admin costs, etc. are the same) If that's even 50% of the revenue ($.80 cents to print a comic) you can see the digital copy can actually produce more revenue. (A lot more.)

 

Comic retailers are getting squeezed at both ends unfortunately.

 

 

Thats some good food sckao

[ComicConnoisseur]

I also wonder if this isn't a reaction to the secondary market that seems quick to mark up the price of a 'sold out' first print, which can be a turn off to readers and a possible detriment to the growth of a title.

It's good to see Image back off of this policy, as the reaction to it seems to be overwhelmingly negative, but I'm wondering what ideas they have in mind to satisfy both sides (minus the secondary market).

In a year it will be mute. At this time next year we will be talking why the modern speculation bubble burst,and who was at fault.

Which is it?

 

'Mute', or 'we will be talking'?

Both as in the sales will be so bad for future first print Image number ones that nobody will care about Image second,third and fourth prints,as the speculators will have abandoned loading up on Image comics to flip. The speculators will realize that the odds of another Walking Dead will be mute,while modern board members will reminisce by talking about how the modern bubble popped faster than a Justin Bieber zit.

[dgarthwaite-migration]

You should have said moot, not mute. They are two different words.

 

DG

[ComicConnoisseur]

You should have said moot, not mute. They are two different words.

 

DG

Mute as turn off.They won`t be talking about first,second,third or fourth prints as they will have been turned off by such lackluster non-profit poor sales.

[Prince Namor]

You should have said moot, not mute. They are two different words.

 

DG

Mute as turn off.They won`t be talking about first,second,third or fourth prints as they will have been turned off by such lackluster non-profit poor sales.

 

In the context you're using it, moot would be the correct word.