When will the New Mutants 98 bubble burst? 1 1

[Rip]

i think rarity speaks volumes.

 

with the walking dead a cgc high graded copy will always command a premium. there are a very few copies out there and a huge fanbase. in 30 years it will be commanding huge money just like AF 15.

Dead pool's 1st appearance will be less expensive because there are 100's of thousands of copies in great shape out there. Walking Dead's print run. mere thousands. You will always be good to invest in high grade keys. there's nothing more key for this generation than. spider-man. TMNT. (also with a tiny print run of mere thousands) and the walking dead. when the big money boys go after high grade keys of this generation--watch out!

 

Again, this is a poor comparison.

 

The Walking Dead's following is not a bunch of children, it is mainly young adults and adults. There aren't generations of children loving these characters through their youth, growing into adulthood remembering them fondly and then looking to recapture a piece of their youth with a high value comic investment. AF15 is worth what it is because Spiderman has been capturing the hearts and minds of children for decades...

 

Walking Dead is the most popular it has ever been (according to TV ratings) and the sale price of that book has stalled. Once it is off the air there isn't a generation of children turning into adults 20 years from now looking to recapture their youth. Once it is off TV for a few years and is not re-envisioned or made into movies, WD1 will lose steam to cater to only the comic collectors and perhaps a small number of diehard fans (however, they have many other things to purchase to remember the series outside of a comic book). Again, this is after it fades (which will eventually happen).

 

:shrug:

I posted this before. A lot of people don't realize, Walking Dead is very popular among kids.

 

For example The finale for season 4 was second only behind the Kids Choice Awards on the "Tops on Twitter" Nelson rating and the show was number 1 last season (now season 5) among the age groups of 9-14. 2nd was the Disney Channel's Dog with a Blog.

Also number 1 among ages 12-34

http://www.wetpaint.com/most-popular-show-young-viewers-798618/

 

Kind of crazy if you really think about it.

 

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/31/the-walking-dead-finale-twitter-kids-choice/#8hkUNRjGpEqB

(Here's one of the links that still works)

 

 

 

Dude, the first article lumps together 12-34 year olds and does not delineate between them at all. Then at the end of the article they speculate on the age of people watching the show because they cannot separate them. This is hardly strong evidence to show that parents are really letting their 12 year olds watch walking dead. Not to mention the inherent flaw in the Nielsen reporting structure (which you have to be 18 to participate) and families are reported as a whole when a show is watched because you cannot delineate who is actually physically watching a show, they only record that a show was watched at the house (the details are poorly collected by a household "diary").

 

The second article just records tweets and that when the Kids Choice Awards were on that Walking Dead fell to second. However again there isn't any delineation on who owns the accounts that normally tweet about the Walking Dead or any analysis to show that people under 18 make up any amount of significant population. There isn't cited trend data to represent ongoing Walking Dead tweets and if there was a drop and how much of a drop versus normal. It isn't a complete analysis to support the conclusion, just cherry-picked anecdotal data for the article. If anything the two small data sets show the opposite when the Oscars clearly topped the Twitter charts by a landslide versus the Kids Choice awards:

 

2014 Walking Dead Season Finale

Kids Choice Awards: 2.1 million tweets

Walking Dead: 1 million tweets

 

2014 Episode of Walking Dead

Oscars: 11.2 million tweets

Walking Dead: 439 thousand tweets

 

EDIT: FYI - it appears that Walking Dead averaged 480 thousand tweets per episode.... Making the data in the second article irrelevant in reference to age of viewers. All the data shows is that the finale had a spike on Twitter (duh) and that kids tweeted excessively about the Kids Choice Awards. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/01/walking-dead-twitter

 

I can see how you can want to draw these conclusions, but due to the age groups and way the data is collected - you cannot 100% conclude that the show is popular with an abundance of minors (I am sure there are some whose parents let them watch the show). Even the articles themselves on speculate as to the real age of the viewers.

 

I appreciate the information provided, but it is hardly concrete evidence to support kids are big Walking Dead fans (again, I am sure some parents let this happen). Nor is it proof that this show will have the same lasting impact on them that Spiderman or other superheroes historically have needed to sustain comic prices in 20-30 years...

 

:shrug:

 

FYI - according to Twitter policy the minimum age to join is 13 and if children under that join their accounts are removed. So there can't be statistics for ages 9-14...

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-minimum-age/501920

 

The ages 9-14 wasn't from Twitter with Dog with a Blog etc. ratings.

 

I couldn't find my original more detailed post and link posted over a year ago but I found a different link.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/08/375878511/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-kids-dont-always-understand-the-moral

 

 

Porter — whose daughter watches Sofia — is the editor of the ratings website TVByTheNumbers. He says the second-highest-rated cable TV show among 9- to 14-year-olds is The Walking Dead, a gory, post-apocalyptic series about zombies and humans battling each other.

 

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rip

[BarryAllen]

i think rarity speaks volumes.

 

with the walking dead a cgc high graded copy will always command a premium. there are a very few copies out there and a huge fanbase. in 30 years it will be commanding huge money just like AF 15.

Dead pool's 1st appearance will be less expensive because there are 100's of thousands of copies in great shape out there. Walking Dead's print run. mere thousands. You will always be good to invest in high grade keys. there's nothing more key for this generation than. spider-man. TMNT. (also with a tiny print run of mere thousands) and the walking dead. when the big money boys go after high grade keys of this generation--watch out!

 

Again, this is a poor comparison.

 

The Walking Dead's following is not a bunch of children, it is mainly young adults and adults. There aren't generations of children loving these characters through their youth, growing into adulthood remembering them fondly and then looking to recapture a piece of their youth with a high value comic investment. AF15 is worth what it is because Spiderman has been capturing the hearts and minds of children for decades...

 

Walking Dead is the most popular it has ever been (according to TV ratings) and the sale price of that book has stalled. Once it is off the air there isn't a generation of children turning into adults 20 years from now looking to recapture their youth. Once it is off TV for a few years and is not re-envisioned or made into movies, WD1 will lose steam to cater to only the comic collectors and perhaps a small number of diehard fans (however, they have many other things to purchase to remember the series outside of a comic book). Again, this is after it fades (which will eventually happen).

 

:shrug:

I posted this before. A lot of people don't realize, Walking Dead is very popular among kids.

 

For example The finale for season 4 was second only behind the Kids Choice Awards on the "Tops on Twitter" Nelson rating and the show was number 1 last season (now season 5) among the age groups of 9-14. 2nd was the Disney Channel's Dog with a Blog.

Also number 1 among ages 12-34

http://www.wetpaint.com/most-popular-show-young-viewers-798618/

 

Kind of crazy if you really think about it.

 

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/31/the-walking-dead-finale-twitter-kids-choice/#8hkUNRjGpEqB

(Here's one of the links that still works)

 

 

 

Dude, the first article lumps together 12-34 year olds and does not delineate between them at all. Then at the end of the article they speculate on the age of people watching the show because they cannot separate them. This is hardly strong evidence to show that parents are really letting their 12 year olds watch walking dead. Not to mention the inherent flaw in the Nielsen reporting structure (which you have to be 18 to participate) and families are reported as a whole when a show is watched because you cannot delineate who is actually physically watching a show, they only record that a show was watched at the house (the details are poorly collected by a household "diary").

 

The second article just records tweets and that when the Kids Choice Awards were on that Walking Dead fell to second. However again there isn't any delineation on who owns the accounts that normally tweet about the Walking Dead or any analysis to show that people under 18 make up any amount of significant population. There isn't cited trend data to represent ongoing Walking Dead tweets and if there was a drop and how much of a drop versus normal. It isn't a complete analysis to support the conclusion, just cherry-picked anecdotal data for the article. If anything the two small data sets show the opposite when the Oscars clearly topped the Twitter charts by a landslide versus the Kids Choice awards:

 

2014 Walking Dead Season Finale

Kids Choice Awards: 2.1 million tweets

Walking Dead: 1 million tweets

 

2014 Episode of Walking Dead

Oscars: 11.2 million tweets

Walking Dead: 439 thousand tweets

 

EDIT: FYI - it appears that Walking Dead averaged 480 thousand tweets per episode.... Making the data in the second article irrelevant in reference to age of viewers. All the data shows is that the finale had a spike on Twitter (duh) and that kids tweeted excessively about the Kids Choice Awards. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/01/walking-dead-twitter

 

I can see how you can want to draw these conclusions, but due to the age groups and way the data is collected - you cannot 100% conclude that the show is popular with an abundance of minors (I am sure there are some whose parents let them watch the show). Even the articles themselves on speculate as to the real age of the viewers.

 

I appreciate the information provided, but it is hardly concrete evidence to support kids are big Walking Dead fans (again, I am sure some parents let this happen). Nor is it proof that this show will have the same lasting impact on them that Spiderman or other superheroes historically have needed to sustain comic prices in 20-30 years...

 

:shrug:

 

FYI - according to Twitter policy the minimum age to join is 13 and if children under that join their accounts are removed. So there can't be statistics for ages 9-14...

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-minimum-age/501920

 

The ages 9-14 wasn't from Twitter with Dog with a Blog etc. ratings.

 

I couldn't find my original more detailed post and link posted over a year ago but I found a different link.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/08/375878511/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-kids-dont-always-understand-the-moral

 

 

Porter — whose daughter watches Sofia — is the editor of the ratings website TVByTheNumbers. He says the second-highest-rated cable TV show among 9- to 14-year-olds is The Walking Dead, a gory, post-apocalyptic series about zombies and humans battling each other.

 

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

 

I still don't understand how the article proves children are fans of the show, but I may be missing something.

 

Regardless, isn't TVByTheNumbers using Neilsen data anyhow?

 

Here is an article on how inaccurate and archaic Neilsen "Familes" are: http://www.popmatters.com/post/169031-nielsen/

 

No offense, but I still haven't seen any actual data showing anyone under 18 is watching the show en masse.

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[Rip]

i think rarity speaks volumes.

 

with the walking dead a cgc high graded copy will always command a premium. there are a very few copies out there and a huge fanbase. in 30 years it will be commanding huge money just like AF 15.

Dead pool's 1st appearance will be less expensive because there are 100's of thousands of copies in great shape out there. Walking Dead's print run. mere thousands. You will always be good to invest in high grade keys. there's nothing more key for this generation than. spider-man. TMNT. (also with a tiny print run of mere thousands) and the walking dead. when the big money boys go after high grade keys of this generation--watch out!

 

Again, this is a poor comparison.

 

The Walking Dead's following is not a bunch of children, it is mainly young adults and adults. There aren't generations of children loving these characters through their youth, growing into adulthood remembering them fondly and then looking to recapture a piece of their youth with a high value comic investment. AF15 is worth what it is because Spiderman has been capturing the hearts and minds of children for decades...

 

Walking Dead is the most popular it has ever been (according to TV ratings) and the sale price of that book has stalled. Once it is off the air there isn't a generation of children turning into adults 20 years from now looking to recapture their youth. Once it is off TV for a few years and is not re-envisioned or made into movies, WD1 will lose steam to cater to only the comic collectors and perhaps a small number of diehard fans (however, they have many other things to purchase to remember the series outside of a comic book). Again, this is after it fades (which will eventually happen).

 

:shrug:

I posted this before. A lot of people don't realize, Walking Dead is very popular among kids.

 

For example The finale for season 4 was second only behind the Kids Choice Awards on the "Tops on Twitter" Nelson rating and the show was number 1 last season (now season 5) among the age groups of 9-14. 2nd was the Disney Channel's Dog with a Blog.

Also number 1 among ages 12-34

http://www.wetpaint.com/most-popular-show-young-viewers-798618/

 

Kind of crazy if you really think about it.

 

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/31/the-walking-dead-finale-twitter-kids-choice/#8hkUNRjGpEqB

(Here's one of the links that still works)

 

 

 

Dude, the first article lumps together 12-34 year olds and does not delineate between them at all. Then at the end of the article they speculate on the age of people watching the show because they cannot separate them. This is hardly strong evidence to show that parents are really letting their 12 year olds watch walking dead. Not to mention the inherent flaw in the Nielsen reporting structure (which you have to be 18 to participate) and families are reported as a whole when a show is watched because you cannot delineate who is actually physically watching a show, they only record that a show was watched at the house (the details are poorly collected by a household "diary").

 

The second article just records tweets and that when the Kids Choice Awards were on that Walking Dead fell to second. However again there isn't any delineation on who owns the accounts that normally tweet about the Walking Dead or any analysis to show that people under 18 make up any amount of significant population. There isn't cited trend data to represent ongoing Walking Dead tweets and if there was a drop and how much of a drop versus normal. It isn't a complete analysis to support the conclusion, just cherry-picked anecdotal data for the article. If anything the two small data sets show the opposite when the Oscars clearly topped the Twitter charts by a landslide versus the Kids Choice awards:

 

2014 Walking Dead Season Finale

Kids Choice Awards: 2.1 million tweets

Walking Dead: 1 million tweets

 

2014 Episode of Walking Dead

Oscars: 11.2 million tweets

Walking Dead: 439 thousand tweets

 

EDIT: FYI - it appears that Walking Dead averaged 480 thousand tweets per episode.... Making the data in the second article irrelevant in reference to age of viewers. All the data shows is that the finale had a spike on Twitter (duh) and that kids tweeted excessively about the Kids Choice Awards. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/01/walking-dead-twitter

 

I can see how you can want to draw these conclusions, but due to the age groups and way the data is collected - you cannot 100% conclude that the show is popular with an abundance of minors (I am sure there are some whose parents let them watch the show). Even the articles themselves on speculate as to the real age of the viewers.

 

I appreciate the information provided, but it is hardly concrete evidence to support kids are big Walking Dead fans (again, I am sure some parents let this happen). Nor is it proof that this show will have the same lasting impact on them that Spiderman or other superheroes historically have needed to sustain comic prices in 20-30 years...

 

:shrug:

 

FYI - according to Twitter policy the minimum age to join is 13 and if children under that join their accounts are removed. So there can't be statistics for ages 9-14...

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-minimum-age/501920

 

The ages 9-14 wasn't from Twitter with Dog with a Blog etc. ratings.

 

I couldn't find my original more detailed post and link posted over a year ago but I found a different link.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/08/375878511/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-kids-dont-always-understand-the-moral

 

 

Porter — whose daughter watches Sofia — is the editor of the ratings website TVByTheNumbers. He says the second-highest-rated cable TV show among 9- to 14-year-olds is The Walking Dead, a gory, post-apocalyptic series about zombies and humans battling each other.

 

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

 

I still don't understand how the article proves children are fans of the show, but I may be missing something.

 

Regardless, isn't TVByTheNumbers using Neilsen data anyhow?

 

Here is an article on how inaccurate, shady and archaic Neilsen "Familes" are: http://www.popmatters.com/post/169031-nielsen/

 

No offense, but I still haven't seen any actual data showing anyone under 18 is watching the show en masse.

 

Maybe you missed the part in the article where it says Walking Dead was the 2nd highest rated cable show ages 9-14?

 

I had a more detailed link posted which had some comparisons a while back but I can't find it.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rip

[BarryAllen]

i think rarity speaks volumes.

 

with the walking dead a cgc high graded copy will always command a premium. there are a very few copies out there and a huge fanbase. in 30 years it will be commanding huge money just like AF 15.

Dead pool's 1st appearance will be less expensive because there are 100's of thousands of copies in great shape out there. Walking Dead's print run. mere thousands. You will always be good to invest in high grade keys. there's nothing more key for this generation than. spider-man. TMNT. (also with a tiny print run of mere thousands) and the walking dead. when the big money boys go after high grade keys of this generation--watch out!

 

Again, this is a poor comparison.

 

The Walking Dead's following is not a bunch of children, it is mainly young adults and adults. There aren't generations of children loving these characters through their youth, growing into adulthood remembering them fondly and then looking to recapture a piece of their youth with a high value comic investment. AF15 is worth what it is because Spiderman has been capturing the hearts and minds of children for decades...

 

Walking Dead is the most popular it has ever been (according to TV ratings) and the sale price of that book has stalled. Once it is off the air there isn't a generation of children turning into adults 20 years from now looking to recapture their youth. Once it is off TV for a few years and is not re-envisioned or made into movies, WD1 will lose steam to cater to only the comic collectors and perhaps a small number of diehard fans (however, they have many other things to purchase to remember the series outside of a comic book). Again, this is after it fades (which will eventually happen).

 

:shrug:

I posted this before. A lot of people don't realize, Walking Dead is very popular among kids.

 

For example The finale for season 4 was second only behind the Kids Choice Awards on the "Tops on Twitter" Nelson rating and the show was number 1 last season (now season 5) among the age groups of 9-14. 2nd was the Disney Channel's Dog with a Blog.

Also number 1 among ages 12-34

http://www.wetpaint.com/most-popular-show-young-viewers-798618/

 

Kind of crazy if you really think about it.

 

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/31/the-walking-dead-finale-twitter-kids-choice/#8hkUNRjGpEqB

(Here's one of the links that still works)

 

 

 

Dude, the first article lumps together 12-34 year olds and does not delineate between them at all. Then at the end of the article they speculate on the age of people watching the show because they cannot separate them. This is hardly strong evidence to show that parents are really letting their 12 year olds watch walking dead. Not to mention the inherent flaw in the Nielsen reporting structure (which you have to be 18 to participate) and families are reported as a whole when a show is watched because you cannot delineate who is actually physically watching a show, they only record that a show was watched at the house (the details are poorly collected by a household "diary").

 

The second article just records tweets and that when the Kids Choice Awards were on that Walking Dead fell to second. However again there isn't any delineation on who owns the accounts that normally tweet about the Walking Dead or any analysis to show that people under 18 make up any amount of significant population. There isn't cited trend data to represent ongoing Walking Dead tweets and if there was a drop and how much of a drop versus normal. It isn't a complete analysis to support the conclusion, just cherry-picked anecdotal data for the article. If anything the two small data sets show the opposite when the Oscars clearly topped the Twitter charts by a landslide versus the Kids Choice awards:

 

2014 Walking Dead Season Finale

Kids Choice Awards: 2.1 million tweets

Walking Dead: 1 million tweets

 

2014 Episode of Walking Dead

Oscars: 11.2 million tweets

Walking Dead: 439 thousand tweets

 

EDIT: FYI - it appears that Walking Dead averaged 480 thousand tweets per episode.... Making the data in the second article irrelevant in reference to age of viewers. All the data shows is that the finale had a spike on Twitter (duh) and that kids tweeted excessively about the Kids Choice Awards. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/01/walking-dead-twitter

 

I can see how you can want to draw these conclusions, but due to the age groups and way the data is collected - you cannot 100% conclude that the show is popular with an abundance of minors (I am sure there are some whose parents let them watch the show). Even the articles themselves on speculate as to the real age of the viewers.

 

I appreciate the information provided, but it is hardly concrete evidence to support kids are big Walking Dead fans (again, I am sure some parents let this happen). Nor is it proof that this show will have the same lasting impact on them that Spiderman or other superheroes historically have needed to sustain comic prices in 20-30 years...

 

:shrug:

 

FYI - according to Twitter policy the minimum age to join is 13 and if children under that join their accounts are removed. So there can't be statistics for ages 9-14...

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-minimum-age/501920

 

The ages 9-14 wasn't from Twitter with Dog with a Blog etc. ratings.

 

I couldn't find my original more detailed post and link posted over a year ago but I found a different link.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/08/375878511/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-kids-dont-always-understand-the-moral

 

 

Porter — whose daughter watches Sofia — is the editor of the ratings website TVByTheNumbers. He says the second-highest-rated cable TV show among 9- to 14-year-olds is The Walking Dead, a gory, post-apocalyptic series about zombies and humans battling each other.

 

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

 

I still don't understand how the article proves children are fans of the show, but I may be missing something.

 

Regardless, isn't TVByTheNumbers using Neilsen data anyhow?

 

Here is an article on how inaccurate, shady and archaic Neilsen "Familes" are: http://www.popmatters.com/post/169031-nielsen/

 

No offense, but I still haven't seen any actual data showing anyone under 18 is watching the show en masse.

 

Maybe you missed the part in the article where it says Walking Dead was the 2nd highest rated cable show ages 9-14?

 

I had a more detailed link posted which had some comparisons a while back but I can't find it.

 

Yes according to TVByTheNumbers which uses Nielsen data. Nielsen home panel (or diary) data isn't reliable when delineating who in the home is actually watching the show.

 

They pulled households that have children of that age and assumed a correlation that they were watching (versus just the parents or teenagers).

 

The data is not able to be segmented reliably to that level; thus groupings like 18-54 are common.

 

:shrug:

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[Rip]

i think rarity speaks volumes.

 

with the walking dead a cgc high graded copy will always command a premium. there are a very few copies out there and a huge fanbase. in 30 years it will be commanding huge money just like AF 15.

Dead pool's 1st appearance will be less expensive because there are 100's of thousands of copies in great shape out there. Walking Dead's print run. mere thousands. You will always be good to invest in high grade keys. there's nothing more key for this generation than. spider-man. TMNT. (also with a tiny print run of mere thousands) and the walking dead. when the big money boys go after high grade keys of this generation--watch out!

 

Again, this is a poor comparison.

 

The Walking Dead's following is not a bunch of children, it is mainly young adults and adults. There aren't generations of children loving these characters through their youth, growing into adulthood remembering them fondly and then looking to recapture a piece of their youth with a high value comic investment. AF15 is worth what it is because Spiderman has been capturing the hearts and minds of children for decades...

 

Walking Dead is the most popular it has ever been (according to TV ratings) and the sale price of that book has stalled. Once it is off the air there isn't a generation of children turning into adults 20 years from now looking to recapture their youth. Once it is off TV for a few years and is not re-envisioned or made into movies, WD1 will lose steam to cater to only the comic collectors and perhaps a small number of diehard fans (however, they have many other things to purchase to remember the series outside of a comic book). Again, this is after it fades (which will eventually happen).

 

:shrug:

I posted this before. A lot of people don't realize, Walking Dead is very popular among kids.

 

For example The finale for season 4 was second only behind the Kids Choice Awards on the "Tops on Twitter" Nelson rating and the show was number 1 last season (now season 5) among the age groups of 9-14. 2nd was the Disney Channel's Dog with a Blog.

Also number 1 among ages 12-34

http://www.wetpaint.com/most-popular-show-young-viewers-798618/

 

Kind of crazy if you really think about it.

 

 

http://mashable.com/2014/03/31/the-walking-dead-finale-twitter-kids-choice/#8hkUNRjGpEqB

(Here's one of the links that still works)

 

 

 

Dude, the first article lumps together 12-34 year olds and does not delineate between them at all. Then at the end of the article they speculate on the age of people watching the show because they cannot separate them. This is hardly strong evidence to show that parents are really letting their 12 year olds watch walking dead. Not to mention the inherent flaw in the Nielsen reporting structure (which you have to be 18 to participate) and families are reported as a whole when a show is watched because you cannot delineate who is actually physically watching a show, they only record that a show was watched at the house (the details are poorly collected by a household "diary").

 

The second article just records tweets and that when the Kids Choice Awards were on that Walking Dead fell to second. However again there isn't any delineation on who owns the accounts that normally tweet about the Walking Dead or any analysis to show that people under 18 make up any amount of significant population. There isn't cited trend data to represent ongoing Walking Dead tweets and if there was a drop and how much of a drop versus normal. It isn't a complete analysis to support the conclusion, just cherry-picked anecdotal data for the article. If anything the two small data sets show the opposite when the Oscars clearly topped the Twitter charts by a landslide versus the Kids Choice awards:

 

2014 Walking Dead Season Finale

Kids Choice Awards: 2.1 million tweets

Walking Dead: 1 million tweets

 

2014 Episode of Walking Dead

Oscars: 11.2 million tweets

Walking Dead: 439 thousand tweets

 

EDIT: FYI - it appears that Walking Dead averaged 480 thousand tweets per episode.... Making the data in the second article irrelevant in reference to age of viewers. All the data shows is that the finale had a spike on Twitter (duh) and that kids tweeted excessively about the Kids Choice Awards. http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/01/walking-dead-twitter

 

I can see how you can want to draw these conclusions, but due to the age groups and way the data is collected - you cannot 100% conclude that the show is popular with an abundance of minors (I am sure there are some whose parents let them watch the show). Even the articles themselves on speculate as to the real age of the viewers.

 

I appreciate the information provided, but it is hardly concrete evidence to support kids are big Walking Dead fans (again, I am sure some parents let this happen). Nor is it proof that this show will have the same lasting impact on them that Spiderman or other superheroes historically have needed to sustain comic prices in 20-30 years...

 

:shrug:

 

FYI - according to Twitter policy the minimum age to join is 13 and if children under that join their accounts are removed. So there can't be statistics for ages 9-14...

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-minimum-age/501920

 

The ages 9-14 wasn't from Twitter with Dog with a Blog etc. ratings.

 

I couldn't find my original more detailed post and link posted over a year ago but I found a different link.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/08/375878511/and-the-moral-of-the-story-is-kids-dont-always-understand-the-moral

 

 

Porter — whose daughter watches Sofia — is the editor of the ratings website TVByTheNumbers. He says the second-highest-rated cable TV show among 9- to 14-year-olds is The Walking Dead, a gory, post-apocalyptic series about zombies and humans battling each other.

 

Yvette Harris, a psychology professor and early childhood researcher at The Miami University of Ohio, says The Walking Dead might be OK for young adults, but 9- and 10-year-olds are unlikely to understand its underlying message. "Violence is sometimes justified," says Harris, "and it's the hero who actually can engage in violent behavior because — the justification is — the hero is protecting everybody and saving the world."

 

I still don't understand how the article proves children are fans of the show, but I may be missing something.

 

Regardless, isn't TVByTheNumbers using Neilsen data anyhow?

 

Here is an article on how inaccurate, shady and archaic Neilsen "Familes" are: http://www.popmatters.com/post/169031-nielsen/

 

No offense, but I still haven't seen any actual data showing anyone under 18 is watching the show en masse.

 

Maybe you missed the part in the article where it says Walking Dead was the 2nd highest rated cable show ages 9-14?

 

I had a more detailed link posted which had some comparisons a while back but I can't find it.

 

Yes according to TVByTheNumbers which uses Nielsen data. Nielsen home panel (or diary) data isn't reliable when delineating who in the home is actually watching the show.

 

They pulled households that have children of that age and assumed a correlation that they were watching (versus just the parents or teenagers).

 

The data is not able to be segmented reliably to that level; thus groupings like 18-54 are common.

 

:shrug:

 

You should tell Disney all their data is wrong.

 

In all seriousness do you have something that shows otherwise? Do you have better data for more popular shows ages 9-14? Was the data wrong all year all the time? Do you have a source for this?

"They pulled households that have children of that age and assumed a correlation that they were watching (versus just the parents or teenagers)."

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rip

[BarryAllen]

 

You should tell Disney all their data is wrong.

 

:shrug:

 

Ok.

[BarryAllen]

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up

 

Nielsen uses "viewer buttons" and "written diaries" that are supposed to keep track of who is watching and when. There has been wide criticism of both models (especially the more prevalent diary model) and large accusations of inaccurate sample sizes being used (lots of racial bias accusations). Because it is a private company and all their models are proprietary, I guess my own skepticism plays into it as well.

 

But no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[Rip]

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up

 

Nielsen uses "viewer buttons" and "written diaries" that are supposed to keep track of who is watching and when. There has been wide criticism of both models (especially the more prevalent diary model) and large accusations of inaccurate sample sizes being used (lots of racial bias accusations). Because it is a private company and all their models are proprietary, I guess my own skepticism plays into it as well.

 

But no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up.

 

So no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

No doubt they aren't perfect but there is a huge industry based on the numbers.

Best I can do is go with the data. I wish I could find the rest of the data sheet showing the other age 9-14 shows.

 

I also don't need to go into all the detail about the industries based on these numbers, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel Nick etc. There is tons of data that you are saying should be tossed out. Its quite mind blowing when you think about it.

 

http://www.ratingsintel.com/think-kids-report-youth-viewing-habits/

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2009/tv-viewing-among-kids-at-an-eight-year-high.html

I'd be curious to see better links explaining why all this data is usless.

Sorry but for me to toss out all this data completely I would need some strong sources.

 

Again I don't claim the data perfect, but I see nothing to counter all the under age X data for Walking Dead happens to be wrong. And that kids aren't watching the show. Seems more of a gut feeling you have.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Rip

[RockMyAmadeus]

He really loves my old quote from almost 10 years ago.

 

I think he may even have it tattooed on his arm.

 

Yes, but do you still believe in and live by that quote...?

 

 

What comic book dealer shouldn't believe that?

 

All of them.

 

Comic books are a unique artform, a combination of words and pictures...sequential art...that tell a story that words or pictures alone cannot convey.

 

Reducing them to "stocks" robs them of that uniqueness. It is an unfortunate side effect that comic books have become "worth money", but in this madness cycle we're in now, the speculators and money-changers are out in full force, and once again it's about little more than "what is it worth????"

 

A quick perusal of all the forums will show that the main threads are all about value.

 

Comic book dealers should be making converts, encouraging buyers to become readers. After all, that's what happened to me. I got into comics in 1989-1990 to make money. Fortunately, I fell in love with the artform instead.

 

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

You buy and sell comics right? Send books to CGC? Use GPA?

 

How are you different? You have confused me.

 

Not surprising. It is substantially different. Why?

 

Because I love the artform, and if I never had to sell one, I never would. I sell so that I can buy more. It's an addiction, I'll admit. I don't sell because I can then toss dollar bills on the bed and roll around in them. That's why most of my stuff is overpriced. If I must sell them, at least I can do so for what I consider a worthwhile price.

 

That is why comics are a commodity.

 

Yes it is a fun platform but artists, writers, publishers, and dealers arent just here for their health.

 

Do you know that there are many creators who ARE just here "for their health"? That they do it because they have a love of the artform, have a story to tell, and consider it unfortunate that money is necessary to provide for basic needs?

 

You do know I have a small collection right?

 

You assume commodity as negative as opposed to me where I see it as fun and exciting in a moral manner. I love what I do. Comic book selling beats most jobs IMO.

 

I don't assume "commodity" is negative. I know it is. They aren't commodities. They are an artform. And it is terribly unfortunate that money has to be involved at all, but that's the way it goes.

[SquareChaos]

He really loves my old quote from almost 10 years ago.

 

I think he may even have it tattooed on his arm.

 

Yes, but do you still believe in and live by that quote...?

 

 

What comic book dealer shouldn't believe that?

 

All of them.

 

Comic books are a unique artform, a combination of words and pictures...sequential art...that tell a story that words or pictures alone cannot convey.

 

Reducing them to "stocks" robs them of that uniqueness. It is an unfortunate side effect that comic books have become "worth money", but in this madness cycle we're in now, the speculators and money-changers are out in full force, and once again it's about little more than "what is it worth????"

 

A quick perusal of all the forums will show that the main threads are all about value.

 

Comic book dealers should be making converts, encouraging buyers to become readers. After all, that's what happened to me. I got into comics in 1989-1990 to make money. Fortunately, I fell in love with the artform instead.

 

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

You buy and sell comics right? Send books to CGC? Use GPA?

 

How are you different? You have confused me.

 

Not surprising. It is substantially different. Why?

 

Because I love the artform, and if I never had to sell one, I never would. I sell so that I can buy more. It's an addiction, I'll admit. I don't sell because I can then toss dollar bills on the bed and roll around in them. That's why most of my stuff is overpriced. If I must sell them, at least I can do so for what I consider a worthwhile price.

 

That is why comics are a commodity.

 

Yes it is a fun platform but artists, writers, publishers, and dealers arent just here for their health.

 

Do you know that there are many creators who ARE just here "for their health"? That they do it because they have a love of the artform, have a story to tell, and consider it unfortunate that money is necessary to provide for basic needs?

 

You do know I have a small collection right?

 

You assume commodity as negative as opposed to me where I see it as fun and exciting in a moral manner. I love what I do. Comic book selling beats most jobs IMO.

 

I don't assume "commodity" is negative. I know it is. They aren't commodities. They are an artform. And it is terribly unfortunate that money has to be involved at all, but that's the way it goes.

 

Well... not to butt in, but one of CGCs purposes is to turn books into commodities. They haven't fully managed that - collectors still may favor one book of the same grade and page quality over another - but they've gone a good way down that path.

 

I agree with the sentiment though, this is an art form, and a form of entertainment and sometimes even enlightenment since it can make you experience things in a different manner than any other form of media I've encountered.

[BarryAllen]

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up

 

Nielsen uses "viewer buttons" and "written diaries" that are supposed to keep track of who is watching and when. There has been wide criticism of both models (especially the more prevalent diary model) and large accusations of inaccurate sample sizes being used (lots of racial bias accusations). Because it is a private company and all their models are proprietary, I guess my own skepticism plays into it as well.

 

But no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up.

 

So no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

No doubt they aren't perfect but there is a huge industry based on the numbers.

Best I can do is go with the data. I wish I could find the rest of the data sheet showing the other age 9-14 shows.

 

I also don't need to go into all the detail about the industries based on these numbers, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel Nick etc. There is tons of data that you are saying should be tossed out. Its quite mind blowing when you think about it.

 

http://www.ratingsintel.com/think-kids-report-youth-viewing-habits/

 

I'd be curious to see better links explaining why all this data is usless.

Sorry but for me to toss out all this data completely I would need some strong sources.

 

 

I wouldn't recommend throwing anything out completely, but rather taking it with a grain of salt. I work in an industry that heavily uses Nielsen data and it isn't treated as the "bible." When a private company owns all the information and won't be transparent about the entirety of its calcuation methodology, one should be skeptical. The TV industry has been heavily criticized for years for relying too heavily on Nielsen ratings, particularly since the inception of the Internet (and more recently Internet TV) and Neilsen's inability to adapt their models to reflect modern viewing practices.

 

I would say that their overall viewership household numbers are fairly accurate (i.e. an estimated X million households watch SpongeBob based on their sample sizes) but actually taking it to 4-9 year olds versus 7-13 year olds is unreliable. With children's shows, it is fair to say that for the most part they are watched by children because many of them would be uninteresting to adults (although you could argue that a parent regularly watches with them as well but is strangely never reported). With other shows that viewership is shared (like Flash, or Arrow or even Walking Dead) it is more difficult to assume age of viewership. In general though, I think it stands to reason that most parents do not let children under 13 regularly watch hyper violent shows.

 

So I am probably more middle of the road in terms of the data, I am comfortable with the overall viewership numbers but less comfortable with diving deeper due to all the stated above. However that is largely driven by my personal professional experience with data and the Nielsen company - which is only one man's perspective.

 

I see it as there isn't reliable hard data to that level, you take the numbers/company at their word. :shrug;

Edited March 2, 2016 by rfoiii

[NewWorldOrder]

He really loves my old quote from almost 10 years ago.

 

I think he may even have it tattooed on his arm.

 

Yes, but do you still believe in and live by that quote...?

 

 

What comic book dealer shouldn't believe that?

 

All of them.

 

Comic books are a unique artform, a combination of words and pictures...sequential art...that tell a story that words or pictures alone cannot convey.

 

Reducing them to "stocks" robs them of that uniqueness. It is an unfortunate side effect that comic books have become "worth money", but in this madness cycle we're in now, the speculators and money-changers are out in full force, and once again it's about little more than "what is it worth????"

 

A quick perusal of all the forums will show that the main threads are all about value.

 

Comic book dealers should be making converts, encouraging buyers to become readers. After all, that's what happened to me. I got into comics in 1989-1990 to make money. Fortunately, I fell in love with the artform instead.

 

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

You buy and sell comics right? Send books to CGC? Use GPA?

 

How are you different? You have confused me.

 

Not surprising. It is substantially different. Why?

 

Because I love the artform, and if I never had to sell one, I never would. I sell so that I can buy more. It's an addiction, I'll admit. I don't sell because I can then toss dollar bills on the bed and roll around in them. That's why most of my stuff is overpriced. If I must sell them, at least I can do so for what I consider a worthwhile price.

 

That is why comics are a commodity.

 

Yes it is a fun platform but artists, writers, publishers, and dealers arent just here for their health.

 

Do you know that there are many creators who ARE just here "for their health"? That they do it because they have a love of the artform, have a story to tell, and consider it unfortunate that money is necessary to provide for basic needs?

 

You do know I have a small collection right?

 

You assume commodity as negative as opposed to me where I see it as fun and exciting in a moral manner. I love what I do. Comic book selling beats most jobs IMO.

 

I don't assume "commodity" is negative. I know it is. They aren't commodities. They are an artform. And it is terribly unfortunate that money has to be involved at all, but that's the way it goes.

 

Anything in life can be considered art.

 

I am sure those people who do comics for fun have other income to make up for the lack of income from doing their hobby on the side.

 

I am happy you love comics so do I so as of right now making a living via comics makes me happy.

 

Comics are produced and sold on various business resell outlets. They are abolsutely a commodity. Anything that can be bought and sold appears to be a commodity in my eyes. I understand one can get technical with the word commodity as it has to be a "raw" material such as gold, oil, or coffee bean but comics are paper and paper is a commodity.

 

I deal in paper on the open market....so I consider comics a commodity, especially when we are dealing with back issues.

 

(even more technical....pulp is traded as a commodity which turns into paper)

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by NewWorldOrder

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Well... not to butt in, but one of CGCs purposes is to turn books into commodities. They haven't fully managed that - collectors still may favor one book of the same grade and page quality over another - but they've gone a good way down that path.

 

The purpose of CGC wasn't to create commodities. It was to provide reliable grading and restoration detection so that buyers and sellers could both agree on what it was they were selling...another unfortunate side effect of the money factor.

 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need sonically sealed cases and tamper-proof holders. CGC could simply put their assessment on a piece of paper or label and include it with the book, so there wouldn't be a "commodity" created. That's just the unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

 

[apollobuzz]

I read over 10 pages of posts in this thread today!

[SquareChaos]

He really loves my old quote from almost 10 years ago.

 

I think he may even have it tattooed on his arm.

 

Yes, but do you still believe in and live by that quote...?

 

 

What comic book dealer shouldn't believe that?

 

All of them.

 

Comic books are a unique artform, a combination of words and pictures...sequential art...that tell a story that words or pictures alone cannot convey.

 

Reducing them to "stocks" robs them of that uniqueness. It is an unfortunate side effect that comic books have become "worth money", but in this madness cycle we're in now, the speculators and money-changers are out in full force, and once again it's about little more than "what is it worth????"

 

A quick perusal of all the forums will show that the main threads are all about value.

 

Comic book dealers should be making converts, encouraging buyers to become readers. After all, that's what happened to me. I got into comics in 1989-1990 to make money. Fortunately, I fell in love with the artform instead.

 

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

You buy and sell comics right? Send books to CGC? Use GPA?

 

How are you different? You have confused me.

 

Not surprising. It is substantially different. Why?

 

Because I love the artform, and if I never had to sell one, I never would. I sell so that I can buy more. It's an addiction, I'll admit. I don't sell because I can then toss dollar bills on the bed and roll around in them. That's why most of my stuff is overpriced. If I must sell them, at least I can do so for what I consider a worthwhile price.

 

That is why comics are a commodity.

 

Yes it is a fun platform but artists, writers, publishers, and dealers arent just here for their health.

 

Do you know that there are many creators who ARE just here "for their health"? That they do it because they have a love of the artform, have a story to tell, and consider it unfortunate that money is necessary to provide for basic needs?

 

You do know I have a small collection right?

 

You assume commodity as negative as opposed to me where I see it as fun and exciting in a moral manner. I love what I do. Comic book selling beats most jobs IMO.

 

I don't assume "commodity" is negative. I know it is. They aren't commodities. They are an artform. And it is terribly unfortunate that money has to be involved at all, but that's the way it goes.

 

Anything in life can be considered art.

 

I am sure those people who do comics for fun have other income to make up for the lack of income from doing their hobby on the side.

 

I am happy you love comics so do I so as of right now making a living via comics makes me happy.

 

Comics are produced and sold on various business resell outlets. They are abolsutely a commodity. Anything that can be bought and sold appears to be a commodity in my eyes. I understand one can get technical with the word commodity as it has to be a "raw" material such as gold, oil, or coffee bean but comics are paper and paper is a commodity.

 

I deal in paper on the open market....so I consider comics a commodity, especially when we are dealing with back issues.

 

 

Getting technical with "commodity" basically means that it's fungible, over and above anything else, even it's use as an input into a more complicated production chain.

 

I think the only way a comic can truly be considered a commodity is when it's graded.

[NewWorldOrder]

 

Well... not to butt in, but one of CGCs purposes is to turn books into commodities. They haven't fully managed that - collectors still may favor one book of the same grade and page quality over another - but they've gone a good way down that path.

 

The purpose of CGC wasn't to create commodities. It was to provide reliable grading and restoration detection so that buyers and sellers could both agree on what it was they were selling...another unfortunate side effect of the money factor.

 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need sonically sealed cases and tamper-proof holders. CGC could simply put their assessment on a piece of paper or label and include it with the book, so there wouldn't be a "commodity" created. That's just the unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

 

A service which you use.

 

Yeah cause people would honor those paper grades honestly.

 

You crack me up RMA.

[SquareChaos]

 

Well... not to butt in, but one of CGCs purposes is to turn books into commodities. They haven't fully managed that - collectors still may favor one book of the same grade and page quality over another - but they've gone a good way down that path.

 

The purpose of CGC wasn't to create commodities. It was to provide reliable grading and restoration detection so that buyers and sellers could both agree on what it was they were selling...another unfortunate side effect of the money factor.

 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need sonically sealed cases and tamper-proof holders. CGC could simply put their assessment on a piece of paper or label and include it with the book, so there wouldn't be a "commodity" created. That's just the unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

 

If it wasn't one of their purposes, then it was surely a side effect.

[ComicConnoisseur]

All good arguments,but we are missing the point that Deadpool is a brand now like Batman!

Just about every collector wants Detective Comics #27 and Batman #1,and as the years go by they will all want New Mutants #98 and Deadpool #1.

Deadpool is in the Superman,Batman,Spider-Man and Wolverine club now,and to resist it is futile.

I heard the same talk about the Walking Dead,but here we are 13 years later waiting for the Walking Dead bubble to burst!

 

This isn't an accurate statement. I don't know if you are completely joking or just very hopeful, but Deadpool is not in the club. One successful movie doesn't make him equal to the greatest superheroes (and Wolverine) of comic history.

 

His long term success in movies is also unproven as his character (beyond his origin story) largely depends on the ability to be increasingly inappropriate and vulgar with his co-stars. If you read his comics all he does is break the 4th wall, be violent and make sexual/violent references towards the others. It will be difficult to keep this schtick fresh and still build a brand without denigrating the superhero co-stars to a point where they become parodies of themselves and no longer bankable. The used two throw-away stars in his first movie, there isn't an endless list of these and there is only so much believability in that type of rinse and repeat approach. Everybody is doing backflips over a one-trick pony.

 

People can celebrate the success of the movie without going over the wall bat-*spoon* crazy about how this is the next coming of the savior.

 

Does this apply to Harley too?

 

The Suicide Squad movie will put her on the map.

Harley has much more upside than let`s say Wonder Woman.

 

I look at the upward trends and most of the younger generation thinks Harley is cooler than Wonder Woman by a mile!

The old traditionalists will tell us how cool Wonder Women is,but we all know Harley is way more interesting!

 

Things change.

Tarzan at one time was more popular than Wolverine.

Buck Rogers at one time was more popular than Star Wars.

Fantastic Four at one time was more popular than Deadpool.

Harley and Deadpool lots of upside!

 

 

Insightful. About as insightful as horses at one time being a more popular form of transportation than cars. The M*A*S*H* finale is still the recordholder for most watched TV show (barring Super Bowls) in history, with 105 million viewers and 60% of households tuning in (approximately). This should make it likely to sell more comics than WD. Like 30 times more if viewership has that strong a correlation in your other examples. Cheers was also huge, with the second highest rating ever for its final episode. Where is the long term Cheers bump?

Cheers is deader than Mash.

There will be no bumps for both of them.

At one time Milton Berle was the king of TV.

Ask anybody now who Milton Berle was?

Deadpool and Harely have more upside for investment potential than MASH,Cheers and Uncle Miltie because Mash,Cheers,and Uncle Miltie`s time has come and passed,while Deadpool and Harley are just getting started.

 

Deadpool and Harley are a great opportunity for collectors to get in at the beginning before their first appearances skyrocket.

 

Anybody remember how Star Wars #1 exploded in price over the last few years?

Don`t be surprised over the next few years NM #98 and Harley`s first appearances continue to rise.

 

For some reason old time comic book traditionalists hate change, and resist when new characters like Deadpool,Harley and The Walking Dead take off.

Deadpool,Harley and The Walking Dead are good for the hobby because they create new interest.

 

 

.

 

To children everything is new. Do you think a 5 year old remembers Spiderman from the 60's, 70's or 80's? No, he gets his first impression from a movie, comic or cartoon series. It is all new interest to them.

 

There is no denying that Deadpool and Harley are more popular now than they ever have been, but just continuing to repeat that fact over and over is not a valid line of reasoning to extend their popularity into perpetuity or compare them to heroes that have billions more impressions per year (Superman, Batman, Spiderman and even Wolverine).

 

I get it you are a fan and there is nothing wrong with that, but you are also not making any points.

My point is Harley and Deadpool have huge upsides heading into the future.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I am out.

 

Do you honestly feel they have huge upside knowing how many copies are available and the census numbers?

 

No matter what the future holds I just don't see a huge upside for either one but would love to know your justification for such a view. I enjoy them both but they don't have the depth other major characters have. A one trick pony can only keep the attention span for so long IMO.

Young generations create the future icons.

Some examples,not all.

1930s with Universal Monsters.

1940s with Superman and Batman.

1950s with Elvis.

1960s with The Beatles,James Bond and Stan Lee,Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby Marvel Comics.

1970s with Star Wars.

1980s with Transformers,GI JOE and NINTENDO.

1990s with Harry Potter,and video games.

There is always a pattern whatever something was popular with young generations that it comes back big when those younger generations start to have buying power when they get a certain age.

My nephew is a case example he was 5 when Power Rangers hit, now that he has graduated college,became a husband and father and has a good paying job we will find he now spends thousands on Power Rangers memorabilia.

 

I have another friend was just starting to buy comics when Liefeld,McFarlane and Jim Lee first burst onto the scene and now he has at that age where he can spend the bucks.

 

Deadpool and Harley are just starting to take off. Their generation has come of age. I expect a good 20 year run out of them.

 

Now with that being said. They might be the last mainstream heroes that come out of comics like that because right around somewhere in the mid-90s the younger mainstream generation abandoned comics and got into video games,Pokemon,Harry Potter and Magic the Gathering.

 

Those much maligned early 90s dreck comic books might have been the last time comic books were collected in such high numbers by the younger generation.

There might not be another generation that will get nostalgic for comic books in big numbers.

That early 1990s generation might be it.

 

 

 

.... good post..... but one glaring omission ...... the 1950's Sci-Fi craze in Hollywood had a profound influence on the Silver Age. John in his previous post is right on as well....... huge price spikes on NM 98 are unlikely, but the desirability will only increase. People who are solely or mostly motivated by the investment angle in comics will come and go, because frankly, there are much better options for investment. The comic market is driven by collectors..... always has and always will be..... and Deadpool has been hot for at least a decade and will stay that way...... and let's face it, as a way to spend one's entertainment/disposable income, bowling, billiards, booze, and broads, while plenty of fun, rarely offer the opportunity to recoup ones expense the way a nice comic does ..... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

 

Good call on the 1950's Sci-Fi craze.

That`s more iconic stuff. 1950's Sci-Fi craze is like the bread and butter of the movie poster hobby. Some would say they are the NM #98 and Incredible Hulk #181,while the Universal Horror posters would be the Action #1 and Detective #27.

[NewWorldOrder]

He really loves my old quote from almost 10 years ago.

 

I think he may even have it tattooed on his arm.

 

Yes, but do you still believe in and live by that quote...?

 

 

What comic book dealer shouldn't believe that?

 

All of them.

 

Comic books are a unique artform, a combination of words and pictures...sequential art...that tell a story that words or pictures alone cannot convey.

 

Reducing them to "stocks" robs them of that uniqueness. It is an unfortunate side effect that comic books have become "worth money", but in this madness cycle we're in now, the speculators and money-changers are out in full force, and once again it's about little more than "what is it worth????"

 

A quick perusal of all the forums will show that the main threads are all about value.

 

Comic book dealers should be making converts, encouraging buyers to become readers. After all, that's what happened to me. I got into comics in 1989-1990 to make money. Fortunately, I fell in love with the artform instead.

 

I feel quite sad for people who own comics and have never red one.

 

 

You buy and sell comics right? Send books to CGC? Use GPA?

 

How are you different? You have confused me.

 

Not surprising. It is substantially different. Why?

 

Because I love the artform, and if I never had to sell one, I never would. I sell so that I can buy more. It's an addiction, I'll admit. I don't sell because I can then toss dollar bills on the bed and roll around in them. That's why most of my stuff is overpriced. If I must sell them, at least I can do so for what I consider a worthwhile price.

 

That is why comics are a commodity.

 

Yes it is a fun platform but artists, writers, publishers, and dealers arent just here for their health.

 

Do you know that there are many creators who ARE just here "for their health"? That they do it because they have a love of the artform, have a story to tell, and consider it unfortunate that money is necessary to provide for basic needs?

 

You do know I have a small collection right?

 

You assume commodity as negative as opposed to me where I see it as fun and exciting in a moral manner. I love what I do. Comic book selling beats most jobs IMO.

 

I don't assume "commodity" is negative. I know it is. They aren't commodities. They are an artform. And it is terribly unfortunate that money has to be involved at all, but that's the way it goes.

 

Anything in life can be considered art.

 

I am sure those people who do comics for fun have other income to make up for the lack of income from doing their hobby on the side.

 

I am happy you love comics so do I so as of right now making a living via comics makes me happy.

 

Comics are produced and sold on various business resell outlets. They are abolsutely a commodity. Anything that can be bought and sold appears to be a commodity in my eyes. I understand one can get technical with the word commodity as it has to be a "raw" material such as gold, oil, or coffee bean but comics are paper and paper is a commodity.

 

I deal in paper on the open market....so I consider comics a commodity, especially when we are dealing with back issues.

 

 

Getting technical with "commodity" basically means that it's fungible, over and above anything else, even it's use as an input into a more complicated production chain.

 

I think the only way a comic can truly be considered a commodity is when it's graded.

 

I know I edited before you quoted this.

 

Pulp is a commodity so comics in my eyes are a commodity.

 

However if you can sell something on the open market is a freakin commodity such as eBay or here on the CGC boards.

 

If you give me $ and I give you something tangible and I do it over and again sounds like a commodity to me.

Edited March 2, 2016 by NewWorldOrder

[Rip]

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up

 

Nielsen uses "viewer buttons" and "written diaries" that are supposed to keep track of who is watching and when. There has been wide criticism of both models (especially the more prevalent diary model) and large accusations of inaccurate sample sizes being used (lots of racial bias accusations). Because it is a private company and all their models are proprietary, I guess my own skepticism plays into it as well.

 

But no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

All you can reliably do with Nielsen data is get an idea of what shows are watched in their sample households and then rely on their statistics as they ramp them up to total US estimates. Breaking down to actual viewers into smaller age groups doesn't empirically stand-up.

 

So no, I don't have a reliable method for reporting the behaviors of minors because collection of their data is largely prohibited by US law.

 

No doubt they aren't perfect but there is a huge industry based on the numbers.

Best I can do is go with the data. I wish I could find the rest of the data sheet showing the other age 9-14 shows.

 

I also don't need to go into all the detail about the industries based on these numbers, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel Nick etc. There is tons of data that you are saying should be tossed out. Its quite mind blowing when you think about it.

 

http://www.ratingsintel.com/think-kids-report-youth-viewing-habits/

 

I'd be curious to see better links explaining why all this data is usless.

Sorry but for me to toss out all this data completely I would need some strong sources.

 

 

I wouldn't recommend throwing anything out completely, but rather taking it with a grain of salt. I work in an industry that heavily uses Nielsen data and it isn't treated as the "bible." When a private company owns all the information and won't be transparent about the entirety of its calcuation methodology, one should be skeptical. The TV industry has been heavily criticized for years for relying too heavily on Nielsen ratings, particularly since the inception of the Internet (and more recently Internet TV) and Neilsen's inability to adapt their models to reflect modern viewing practices.

 

I would say that their overall viewership household numbers are fairly accurate (i.e. an estimated X million households watch SpongeBob based on their sample sizes) but actually taking it to 4-9 year olds versus 7-13 year olds is unreliable. With children's shows, it is fair to say that for the most part they are watched by children because many of them would be uninteresting to adults (although you could argue that a parent regularly watches with them as well but is strangely never reported). With other shows that viewership is shared (like Flash, or Arrow or even Walking Dead) it is more difficult to assume age of viewership. In general though, I think it stands to reason that most parents do not let children under 13 regularly watch hyper violent shows.

 

So I am probably more middle of the road in terms of the data, I am comfortable with the overall viewership numbers but less comfortable with diving deeper due to all the stated above. However that is largely driven by my personal professional experience with data and the Nielsen company - which is only one man's perspective.

 

I see it as there isn't reliable hard data to that level, you take the numbers/company at their word. :shrug;

 

So do I. I worked for Disney.

 

 

(I think it stands to reason that most parents do not let children under 13 regularly watch hyper violent shows.) Again this seems to be more of a gut feeling.

Do you have kids. 2 of my 3 boys watch the show. Most of my kids friends watch the show. They are under 12.

Ask around....You'll find its really common. The data seems to go with what I've seen.