Marvel/DC and their reboot culture

[the authority]

I don't really know if there is a correct way to do this. Marvel and DC are in a bit of a bind. People have already voted with their wallets. Anyone can look up the numbers and see that #1's sell more, even if it is a slight sales bump, that's still a bump in numbers even if it only lasts for 4 or 5 issues. They're making more money, and attracting more readers.

Marvel has trapped themselves into the need to goose sales with crossovers, reboots, and event stories.

 

In Sean Howe's excellent book 'Marvel: The Untold Story', he recounts this fact: During research, he spoke to someone in sales, who noted that gimmick covers would provide a sales spike, but sales would subsequently drop to below what the pre-gimmick baseline had been. For example, issue 240 would sell 200K copies, 241, a gimmick issue, would sell 220K copies, but 242 would drop to 180K.

 

By repeatedly doing this, and alienating long term collectors, they have cultivated a customer base that buys reboot #1s, death issues, crossovers, and variant covers.

So what they did was focus importance on the new customer over their existing customer. Usually that turns out to be a bad business philosophy practice long-term.

With most Marvel and DC Comic barely selling 25,000 copies a month from the heyday of 100,000 a month it looks like that philosophy was right.

 

This is right in my wheelhouse. It is easier and less expensive to retain a happy customer than to pay to earn a new one. I've been working with real examples of that for decades and its even more prevalent today with emails and social media offering deals and services to your existing customer base costing zero.

[the authority]

I think the New 52 Batman and detective will go to 100. I don't think DC will reboot them again for a while. MHO !

 

You may well be right. I'm sure Batman can make that trip with Snyder driving sales but I could potentially see Detective Comics falling below the 40,000 copy threshold before it makes it to #100. I think that would spell trouble for the title.

[followtheleader]

My pull list, just a couple short years ago, was HUGE on Marvel.

I looked the other day and I'm lucky to have a couple titles on my list.

Hawkeye and Daredevil are fun and interesting. Deadpool is my moronic pull (that is likely coming off because it's so bad).

 

It's just sad and pathetic. Especially with X-men and Wolverine. I thought I would NEVER quit those books. But now it's been some time and I can't see a reason to buy again.

 

On the other hand, there were amazing books like Uncanny X-Force. Why couldn't that book still be going and strong?

 

Patrick

[General Zod]

It used to be the independent comics that were all new number 1s while the establishment had the high numbered series. Now the -script is flipped, and books like Spawn, Savage Dragon, Walking Dead, etc., are all high numbered series while Marvel and DC renumber with the seasons.

 

 

It is ironic, indeed. And shows the corporate culture that has permeated the Big Two. Independents don't have to answer to movie studios or licensing departments. In a way, being too popular is what's killing creativity for them and leading to short term vision in rebooting for temporary sale spikes.

 

What I was reading as a kid doesn't mesh with what I read today, so I've been naturally gravitating towards indies. It's also much, much easier to point new readers to indies instead of Marvel or DC because of all the numbering/rebooting/convoluted continuity confusion. And I was a huge Marvel and DC fan.

[Tuff Ghost]

I think comparing the indie series to DC/Marvel isn't really fair. They aren't really the same thing. Marvel and DC are selling you a never ending soap opera. They are selling a universe which you can read many titles and see how it all interacts with each other. They are attempting to manage decades of continuity. The reason people like Indies is because they're new and easy to jump onto. You don't have to worry about 30 years of continuity and you don't have to read more than one book, you start at the beginning and maybe you're in for 60 issues and it's over. You can do the same thing with a big two book. When the run's over it's over, it doesn't have to go on forever just for the sake of numbering.

 

I see the problem on www.reddit.com/r/comicbooks every day. It's one of the bigger comic book communities and every day you see people asking questions "Hey, I want to read X-men, where should I start, do I start with X-men #1 from 60's?". I mean no one says start with #1. It's always read New-Xmen + Astonishing X-men and then maybe check out some of the Marvel Now! titles if you want to follow along and use Wikipedia. We don't really tell people to go read Batman #404 - 407. We tell them to go read Batman:Year One. At that point numbering doesn't matter.

 

It's part of the way people consume media. People don't start watching Game of Thrones on season 3. Just the same way you'd probably tell someone to start reading SAGA at issue #1 or Walking Dead at issue #1. Those stories have a beginning and some sort of intended end. We aren't going to go back and revisit them. With DC/Marvel it's a constant rehash of stories and characters because that's just the way that universe works. It's a sandbox of characters. They take the toys out, they play with them and when they're done they put them away, then someone else comes and plays.

 

Is there a happy medium? I"m not sure, could they focus more on a season model and have legacy numbering printed somewhere else on the issue? I guess the way I see it, Image puts out new #1's every month and people get excited. "Look at this new book with a new writer, new artist new story". I see marvel doing the exact same thing by launching new series focusing on creative teams and having them tell their story and then ending the series.

 

So the question I guess Marvel and DC have to ask themselves. How do we continue to sell floppy issues and make them attractive to potential buyers. They've decided to focus on renumbering as a strategy. Will this work long term? I guess we'll have to see. They have definitely alienated some of the long term collectors and that is a big aspect of the hobby. Especially when it comes to single issues.

 

Bah, it's late i'm rambling i'm not even sure what this topic is about anymore. R.I.P Bernie.

[Hodor]

I'm relatively new to comics. I started reading with the New 52 reboot. I know Marvel has been rebooting everything left and right but has DC rebooted before the New 52?

[JasonDaTwit]

I'm relatively new to comics. I started reading with the New 52 reboot. I know Marvel has been rebooting everything left and right but has DC rebooted before the New 52?

 

They did it back in the 80s with CRISIS ON THE INFINITE EARTHS mini-series by Marv Wolfman & George Perez. It was supposed to clear up all the myriad of alternate earths that DC created over the years.

 

After that mini-series, they rebooted DC to the universe many remember fondly. Some titles ended up getting new #1s like Superman, Wonder Woman and Flash while letting other titles continue their numbering system like ACTION COMICS, DETECTIVE COMICS and BATMAN.

 

In general, DC made a mistake when they did NEW52. Trying to guarantee 52 titles to the public is idiotic. The constant change in writers' voices and artwork doesn't help (almost every comic has a rotating list of creators). Neither does the fact that each time someone leaves, it get crazy attention in the comic news feeds and its due to some editorial edicts that can interrupt the creative process to their detriment. Being selective with their history also doesn't help (maintaining the history in BATMAN and GREEN LANTERN but rebooting everything else).

 

All I have to say is that there's a reason Bob Harras was fired as Editor-in-Chief from Marvel. HEROES REBORN & CLONE SAGA are just some of the examples supporting his removal and replacing him with Joe Quesada.

[the blob]

One thing I am enjoying about the new numbering series is how it can be a fresh start. Look at the changes made in the new 52. Also it seems that some of the writers seem to be trying to cut out their own little "permanent history" for these characters now, and that's something I can fully applaud. I enjoy it when they try to actually do something with a character that sticks, or at least becomes permanent history.

 

...at least until Mephisto/Superboy punches wall/clones/lazarus/whatever happens.

 

Could they do the same without renumbering? Of course, and a large part of me would actually prefer that. If by next year they just go ahead and call ASM 22, ASM 722 it would put the biggest smile on my face.

 

I think what DC did with New 52 is a bit different than a simple reboot to get a new #1. aren't they seriously tweaking the universe and everything else?

 

what was the point of rebooting dardevil just now after a reboot in 2011?

 

i understand the comic cos don't care about collectors, but if a re-boot hurts the collectability of the immediate prior series, people may start getting tired of being burned and it may impact sales, their willingness to buy an "extra copy" etc.

 

renumering temporarily like they did with ASM 15 years ago i don't mind so much. call it a #1 on the front, but let us know it is 437 inside or whatever.

 

i know, it SHOULDN'T matter, but it does when you've been following a title for 35+ years.

[Hodor]

What if instead of numbering each comic in a series they just numbered the books in a certain arc.

 

For example instead of saying Zero Year starts with Batman 21, it should just be numbered as Zero Year: Secret City #1. So the Secret City arc can be numbered 1-4 and then then the Dark City story arc (which is technically Batman 25) could be called Dark City 1.

 

Would this help with preventing reboots? There will be a lot more #1's technically, but they will all just be starts to new story arcs.

[Comicopolis]

Marvel aren't rebooting their universe with new number #1's. Not yet anyway.

 

They should just do away with the numbers and print the month and year on the cover.

[revivedrevival]

Does it matter what issue number is on the front as long as it is well written?

 

I really like how you worded your question.

If Marvel does another reboot today: aside from keys (e.g. first appearances), well written super hero stories by Jason Aaron (Amazing X-Men), Rick Remender (Uncanny Avengers), Hickman (Avengers), Waid (DareDevil) etc will not hold their value.

A good story alone does not correlate to value, not without help (help e.g. story arch being a basis for a movie).

 

 

Amazing that a series that makes it to issue number 33 is considered a long running title nowadays.

 

Superb comment.

 

Every jumping on point is also a jumping off point ... As a result, DC and Marvel are basically trying to find a whole new readership over and over again.

 

Well put.

 

With most Marvel and DC Comic barely selling 25,000 copies a month from the heyday of 100,000 a month it looks like that philosophy was right.

 

Need to also put into account digital prints and subscription services (e.g. Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited).

 

 

 

I think the New 52 Batman and detective will go to 100. I don't think DC will reboot them again for a while. MHO

 

Any other predictions for the New 52?

How long does everyone think Marvel Now will last?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rjrjr]

What if instead of numbering each comic in a series they just numbered the books in a certain arc.

 

For example instead of saying Zero Year starts with Batman 21, it should just be numbered as Zero Year: Secret City #1. So the Secret City arc can be numbered 1-4 and then then the Dark City story arc (which is technically Batman 25) could be called Dark City 1.

 

Would this help with preventing reboots? There will be a lot more #1's technically, but they will all just be starts to new story arcs.

 

Companies that have done this (Dark Horse and IDW come to mind) decide instead of a series of mini-series to go with ongoing series. They've done this with BPRD, Hellboy, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. I'm guessing there is a limit to the effect a new number one has on a title. I'm guessing those companies changed to ongoing series to try and retain their readers and get a predictable sales pattern.

[followtheleader]

What if instead of numbering each comic in a series they just numbered the books in a certain arc.

 

For example instead of saying Zero Year starts with Batman 21, it should just be numbered as Zero Year: Secret City #1. So the Secret City arc can be numbered 1-4 and then then the Dark City story arc (which is technically Batman 25) could be called Dark City 1.

 

Would this help with preventing reboots? There will be a lot more #1's technically, but they will all just be starts to new story arcs.

 

Companies that have done this (Dark Horse and IDW come to mind) decide instead of a series of mini-series to go with ongoing series. They've done this with BPRD, Hellboy, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, etc. I'm guessing there is a limit to the effect a new number one has on a title. I'm guessing those companies changed to ongoing series to try and retain their readers and get a predictable sales pattern.

 

You took the example of BPRD out of my mouth.

It worked for a very long time. But after awhile, people didn't know which mini-series to read 1st (there are TONS of them at this point).

So BPRD is now to a collective numbering (meaning in the 100s).

 

The old Marvel numbering is the right way. I don't know why they stopped. Amazing Spider-man #1 (legacy #455). Gets the point for both audiences.

 

Patrick