DC Comics Rebirth

[revat]

Variants have nothing to do with readership. Sorry, but it's a fact.

If you eliminated them tomorrow, the people who still just READ comics, would still READ comics. Anyone who left because of it, really wasn't a comic book fan in the first place.

 

You don't buy a variant to READ it.

Stores don't order it for people to READ it.

It exists to get retailers to buy more copies.

Retailers use it to sell to customers interested in the COVER.

 

At this year's Retailer Summit in Baltimore, the Marvel rep told me that retailers keep telling him, they'd rather see a DISCOUNT incentive, or a returnability incentive than a variant incentive. If they'd listen, that'd be great.

 

If variants were eliminated, you'd probably also see a lot of titles disappear, as the drop in numbers from collectors who buy everything would make some stuff economically infeasible.

 

Image dropped the amount of variants this year drastically and at the end of the year they finished:

Retail Market Share 2014: 9.23%

Retail Market Share 2015: 9.93%

 

Unit Market Share 2014: 10.41%

Unit Market Share 2015: 10.70%

 

2014 Comics Shipped: 717

2015 Comics Shipped: 717

 

They cut down on variants, shipped the same amount of titles, and slightly INCREASED their numbers, despite DECREASING the use of variants, and eliminating outside variant programs.

 

The only thing I've ever seen that led to the elimination of a comic book, that a publisher wanted to print, was a decrease in readership.

Variants don't save a a title, they only temporarily prop the numbers up.

 

 

 

Good point Chuck, but flawed.

Image cut out variants mid way through 2015...

 

Let's revisit those numbers in June shall we?

06-15 through 06-16

 

Their decision to not produce variants hasn't affected their readership at all, but collectors haven't been buying as much.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see, but I think with even a 50/50 year, to basically have those numbers still is impressive. And perhaps by eliminating variants they've been able to focus on their strength, which is to put out quality comic books. I know Image sales increased for me over 2015.

 

I believe if they put out good comics, the market will respond.

Unlike the 80's, and especially into the 90's, when Marvel and DC were able to glut the market and eventually kill the rise of many independents, technology gives a voice and a face to anyone who can master it and get the information and exposure of their comic out there. People are hungry for GOOD comics. Good comics to READ.

 

Because of the glitz and over exposure of poor material from the big two that was touted as 'collectibles', the market almost collapsed in the 90's.

The key to the health of comic books is to put out quality material to grow readership. We're on the wave of yet another creative zeitgeist in comics, and I don't want to see greed destroy it again.

Collectible material will come along through a natural process.

 

 

You cherry-picked data

 

That's not cherry picked data. It's the hard data released by Diamond.

In 2014, Image had the variant programs and outside variant programs, and those are the sales numbers for the year.

Half way through 2015 they abandoned those programs, so half the year was without any of the variant incentives.

To a publisher, what matters is the bottom line... and according to that list, we didn't see a drop off, but a slight increase, even HALF the year was without the variants.

As a CEO, I'd be happy with that.

 

and speculated as to why "everyone" buys a comic. Truth is you have no idea why some buys a variant unless they directly tell you personally.

 

They do. I'm a retailer. Here in the middle of America, where they haven't had a comic shop in 7 years, and not much of one for 20 years prior to that, they look at me like a 3 legged dog, when I try to explain to them that a variant is the SAME book only with a different cover... they think it's some kind of trick. Which.. when you think about it, it kind of is.

 

With the exception of the very small print run variants (where dealers order specifically to flip for speculation), most of them never see a slab. You can't draw a linear conclusion that a change in variants directly changes sales numbers with creating a baseline to measure against (and no total business year over year doesn't count).

 

Why doesn't total business year over year count?

If I say variants don't necessarily make a difference and show it, why would that not count?

In fact, realistically, that;s the ONLY numbers that would count.

I guarantee it counts in financial meetings. We spent less and were slightly up. That's a win.

 

You would need to isolate the variable and measure against a control to draw conclusions, which you can't. Everything else is just your opinion. I have seen kids and adults choose a variant cover at a store (versus another) and buy the book to read.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Because there was a choice, they made one. Take away the variant and they still buy the book to read. Marvel is simply making an additional choice that isn't necessary, in order to get the RETAILER to buy more copies. RETAILERS buy more copies, not CUSTOMERS.

CUSTOMERS don't buy a comic to read because of a variant... they may CHOOSE a variant over a regular cover, but the READER, is going to buy the comic because he wants to read it.

 

Comic companies produce product for sales. Variants are a tool that they use to boost sales (sometimes works, sometimes doesn't).

 

Yes, sales for the PUBLISHER.

The purpose of the variant is to get the RETAILER to buy more copies, NOT the customer.

Some customers still fall into that buying pattern, but eliminate it, and you don't eliminate a customer, you simply give him one less unnecessary book to feed his completionist affliction.

The publishers just want you to carry more copies of their unreturnable product, so that they make more money and no one ever misses an issue. If you have a bunch of you have to mark down to a $1, that's of no concern to them.

 

Some stories are more compelling than others and readership grows year over year. However to say that variants (as a tool to drive increased sales) doesn't EVER increase readership is ridiculous.

 

You just made my point again. WITHOUT the variant, you can increase sales by presenting stories that are more compelling than others. The necessity of a variant is inconsequential to that process.

 

Walking Dead before it ever had a TV Show or a variant cover, wrote compelling stories and built an audience.

 

You are talking in absolutes and it is downright silly.

 

I only speak in absolutes when the truth is absolute.

 

We should call you "Darth Gower."

 

:shrug:

 

Mm .

 

If Marvel ceased to print variants tomorrow, they would still sell a lot of comics. It would have little to no effect on CUSTOMER sales.

 

Marvel might sell less comics to the RETAILER, but in general, customer sales wouldn't all that much feel the effect.

 

Think about it: Next time you go into a store and it's got $1 modern blow out sale, how much of that is from books that were extra copies bought just to get a variant, or even sometimes the variants themselves? That's ALL I see.

 

It's additional RETAILER purchases that aren't necessary. The Diamond numbers might go down, but the actual sales to customers, especially readers would see little to no effect. If not for completionists and those who still cling to the idea of bragging about owning a super valuable modern variant, the need for the customer to collect these things is already diminished tremendously from even 5 years ago.

 

The modern variant was originally created as a thank you to the retailer, but in line with one of the darker times of this hobby, it's use as a tool to get people to buy more copies of the same book is no accident. Comics can grow without it.

 

I gotta say, this made a lot of sense to me. I don't think Chuck is denying there are outliers, people who chase variants, or might be drawn to a variant and then read the book and then buy the whole series, of course that happens from time to time. But that's not necessarily the type of customer most LCS's are looking for. They want people who buy multiple books every week and religiously read stories, and they're happy to reward those people with rare variants if/when available, but honestly they're buying the books anyways.

 

So how much EXTRA REGULAR business for the LCS in aggregate is generated from the rareish variants? Probably not too much, especially not the type of regular readership that the LCS is looking for. But they've been scared by Diamond (and the big two) into thinking that if they don't order enough for the variant, the LCS down the street will and will grab the bigger fish customers, which might be true.

 

But if the retailer variants uniformly disappeared, the comic readers would still spend their money SOMEWHERE, so overall readership would be largely untouched. But the distributors wisely keep offering them to scare stores into thinking they HAVE to carry the variants to keep their biggest customers.

[Prince Namor]

And trust me, if retailers could return unsold product, the variant would disappear immediately.

 

The incentive would be on the actual product line, and the publisher's wouldn't mess with the nonsense of printing and then getting back a failed variant cover.

 

If WE have to eat it, that's ok.

[BarryAllen]

Variants have nothing to do with readership. Sorry, but it's a fact.

If you eliminated them tomorrow, the people who still just READ comics, would still READ comics. Anyone who left because of it, really wasn't a comic book fan in the first place.

 

You don't buy a variant to READ it.

Stores don't order it for people to READ it.

It exists to get retailers to buy more copies.

Retailers use it to sell to customers interested in the COVER.

 

At this year's Retailer Summit in Baltimore, the Marvel rep told me that retailers keep telling him, they'd rather see a DISCOUNT incentive, or a returnability incentive than a variant incentive. If they'd listen, that'd be great.

 

If variants were eliminated, you'd probably also see a lot of titles disappear, as the drop in numbers from collectors who buy everything would make some stuff economically infeasible.

 

Image dropped the amount of variants this year drastically and at the end of the year they finished:

Retail Market Share 2014: 9.23%

Retail Market Share 2015: 9.93%

 

Unit Market Share 2014: 10.41%

Unit Market Share 2015: 10.70%

 

2014 Comics Shipped: 717

2015 Comics Shipped: 717

 

They cut down on variants, shipped the same amount of titles, and slightly INCREASED their numbers, despite DECREASING the use of variants, and eliminating outside variant programs.

 

The only thing I've ever seen that led to the elimination of a comic book, that a publisher wanted to print, was a decrease in readership.

Variants don't save a a title, they only temporarily prop the numbers up.

 

 

 

Good point Chuck, but flawed.

Image cut out variants mid way through 2015...

 

Let's revisit those numbers in June shall we?

06-15 through 06-16

 

Their decision to not produce variants hasn't affected their readership at all, but collectors haven't been buying as much.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see, but I think with even a 50/50 year, to basically have those numbers still is impressive. And perhaps by eliminating variants they've been able to focus on their strength, which is to put out quality comic books. I know Image sales increased for me over 2015.

 

I believe if they put out good comics, the market will respond.

Unlike the 80's, and especially into the 90's, when Marvel and DC were able to glut the market and eventually kill the rise of many independents, technology gives a voice and a face to anyone who can master it and get the information and exposure of their comic out there. People are hungry for GOOD comics. Good comics to READ.

 

Because of the glitz and over exposure of poor material from the big two that was touted as 'collectibles', the market almost collapsed in the 90's.

The key to the health of comic books is to put out quality material to grow readership. We're on the wave of yet another creative zeitgeist in comics, and I don't want to see greed destroy it again.

Collectible material will come along through a natural process.

 

 

You cherry-picked data

 

That's not cherry picked data. It's the hard data released by Diamond.

In 2014, Image had the variant programs and outside variant programs, and those are the sales numbers for the year.

Half way through 2015 they abandoned those programs, so half the year was without any of the variant incentives.

To a publisher, what matters is the bottom line... and according to that list, we didn't see a drop off, but a slight increase, even HALF the year was without the variants.

As a CEO, I'd be happy with that.

 

and speculated as to why "everyone" buys a comic. Truth is you have no idea why some buys a variant unless they directly tell you personally.

 

They do. I'm a retailer. Here in the middle of America, where they haven't had a comic shop in 7 years, and not much of one for 20 years prior to that, they look at me like a 3 legged dog, when I try to explain to them that a variant is the SAME book only with a different cover... they think it's some kind of trick. Which.. when you think about it, it kind of is.

 

With the exception of the very small print run variants (where dealers order specifically to flip for speculation), most of them never see a slab. You can't draw a linear conclusion that a change in variants directly changes sales numbers with creating a baseline to measure against (and no total business year over year doesn't count).

 

Why doesn't total business year over year count?

If I say variants don't necessarily make a difference and show it, why would that not count?

In fact, realistically, that;s the ONLY numbers that would count.

I guarantee it counts in financial meetings. We spent less and were slightly up. That's a win.

 

You would need to isolate the variable and measure against a control to draw conclusions, which you can't. Everything else is just your opinion. I have seen kids and adults choose a variant cover at a store (versus another) and buy the book to read.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Because there was a choice, they made one. Take away the variant and they still buy the book to read. Marvel is simply making an additional choice that isn't necessary, in order to get the RETAILER to buy more copies. RETAILERS buy more copies, not CUSTOMERS.

CUSTOMERS don't buy a comic to read because of a variant... they may CHOOSE a variant over a regular cover, but the READER, is going to buy the comic because he wants to read it.

 

Comic companies produce product for sales. Variants are a tool that they use to boost sales (sometimes works, sometimes doesn't).

 

Yes, sales for the PUBLISHER.

The purpose of the variant is to get the RETAILER to buy more copies, NOT the customer.

Some customers still fall into that buying pattern, but eliminate it, and you don't eliminate a customer, you simply give him one less unnecessary book to feed his completionist affliction.

The publishers just want you to carry more copies of their unreturnable product, so that they make more money and no one ever misses an issue. If you have a bunch of you have to mark down to a $1, that's of no concern to them.

 

Some stories are more compelling than others and readership grows year over year. However to say that variants (as a tool to drive increased sales) doesn't EVER increase readership is ridiculous.

 

You just made my point again. WITHOUT the variant, you can increase sales by presenting stories that are more compelling than others. The necessity of a variant is inconsequential to that process.

 

Walking Dead before it ever had a TV Show or a variant cover, wrote compelling stories and built an audience.

 

You are talking in absolutes and it is downright silly.

 

I only speak in absolutes when the truth is absolute.

 

We should call you "Darth Gower."

 

:shrug:

 

Mm .

 

If Marvel ceased to print variants tomorrow, they would still sell a lot of comics. It would have little to no effect on CUSTOMER sales.

 

Marvel might sell less comics to the RETAILER, but in general, customer sales wouldn't all that much feel the effect.

 

Think about it: Next time you go into a store and it's got $1 modern blow out sale, how much of that is from books that were extra copies bought just to get a variant, or even sometimes the variants themselves? That's ALL I see.

 

It's additional RETAILER purchases that aren't necessary. The Diamond numbers might go down, but the actual sales to customers, especially readers would see little to no effect. If not for completionists and those who still cling to the idea of bragging about owning a super valuable modern variant, the need for the customer to collect these things is already diminished tremendously from even 5 years ago.

 

The modern variant was originally created as a thank you to the retailer, but in line with one of the darker times of this hobby, it's use as a tool to get people to buy more copies of the same book is no accident. Comics can grow without it.

 

I get it, you own a comic shop and have a POV (maybe even a good one). However, that does not make you an expert on all things involving comic sales period. You are oversimplifying your analysis by cherry-picking a data point to prove your argument. You can break my posts up all you want to make it appear that your answer is "logical" or "better formulated," but you are still just giving your opinion on the situation.

 

You aren't the CEO of DC/Marvel/Other and you clearly have a jaded view of the variant portion of the business.

 

I understand you are passionate about this and have provided clear postioning on your personal thoughts on the matter. However, you are not providing facts to support your conclusion and while you are persuasive, it doesn't mean you are accurate.

 

I don't have the time or the desire to go back and pick your posts apart like you do mine, but I am confident that your assertion that variants do not drive readership at all is false. Your personal experiences not withstanding, that is silly. There are a multitude of factors you do not include and chose one set of "before and after data" that does not and can not tell the complete picture.

 

Publishers care about Distributors just like Distributors care about Retailers and everyone cares about Customers. You can argue the degree to which any entity or individual cares, but business relationships must still be maintained (that doesn't mean they won't be stretched to a breaking point though), so the picture you paint is far too bleak. Again, maybe your individual experience (or even shared by a few others here) has been bad, but it does not represent the entirety of the market - yet you continue to pass it off that way.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Prince Namor]

I get it, you own a comic shop and have a POV (maybe even a good one). However, that does not make you an expert on all things involving comic sales period.

 

Never once did I say it did.

 

You are oversimplifying your analysis by cherry-picking a data point to prove your argument.

 

Show me what was 'cherry picked'. That's very specific data.

 

Years ago, I was a bids and contracts manager for a large plastics manufacturer (#2 to Rubbermaid in the world) and I redesigned and repriced the entire catalog, because it was....well, it was wrong, and not conducive to selling various products in the line. As I explained the process to the owner, who i reported directly to, he looked at me suspiciously throughout, as if he was trying to determine my reasons or hidden agenda for taking on such a monstrous task, but when we got to the end of it all, I said, "...and based on the projections I've run, which I'm 99% confident on, we should be up 1% next year." (1% up in manufacturing is considered a very good thing).

 

At this, he raised his eyebrows, and a smile came to his face. "Well, sheet, son. Why didn't you say that in the first place?"

 

We were exactly 1% up for the year.

 

But my point is, regardless of all of the information I threw at him, the bottom line was, 'Will we be up?'

 

You can break my posts up all you want to make it appear that your answer is "logical" or "better formulated," but you are still just giving your opinion on the situation.

 

Of course I am. An educated, informed opinion with examples, and even clever little anecdotes, but... you've provided none of those in your rebuttal.

 

You aren't the CEO of DC/Marvel/Other and you clearly have a jaded view of the variant portion of the business.

 

It's not jaded. I have nothing against 'selfie sticks', but I don't see them as a necessary item either.

 

I understand you are passionate about this and have provided clear postioning on your personal thoughts on the matter. However, you are not providing facts to support your conclusion and while you are persuasive, it doesn't mean you are accurate.

 

If you listen to me enough and wait for the results, you'll find that if there is one thing I AM, it is accurate.

 

I don't have the time or the desire to go back and pick your posts apart like you do mine, but I am confident that your assertion that variants do not drive readership at all is false.

 

Then how do you explain, the 50 years of readership that didn't have it?

 

Your personal experiences not withstanding, that is silly. There are a multitude of factors you do not include and chose one set of "before and after data" that does not and can not tell the complete picture.

 

By all means, name some of the 'multitude of factors'.

I would enjoy this more if you would actually provide something in your rebuttals for me to rebut, but all you do is say I'm wrong, 'just 'cuz'.

It's almost like you're disagreeing with me 'just cuz.'

 

Publishers care about Distributors just like Distributors care about Retailers and everyone cares about Customers. You can argue the degree to which any entity or individual cares, but business relationships must still be maintained (that doesn't mean they won't be stretched to a breaking point though), so the picture you paint is far too bleak. Again, maybe your individual experience (or even shared by a few others here) does not represent the entirety of the market - yet you continue to pass it off that way.

 

The picture isn't bleak at all. We can grow this business WITHOUT variants.

Image Comics, the third largest comic publisher in North America (and #1 Graphic Novel publisher in North America) has bet the company on it. And thus far, they're doing ok.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

I enjoy every day. I sell comics for a living!

 

So here's how you can respond:

A) Show how the data is cherry picked, by showing a larger picture it comes from.

B) Show some of the 'multitude of factors" you think I do not include.

C) A and B

D) Throw your hands in the air like you just don't care

E) Say, "I just don't agree with you because I don't'

F) D and E

[BarryAllen]

I get it, you own a comic shop and have a POV (maybe even a good one). However, that does not make you an expert on all things involving comic sales period.

 

Never once did I say it did.

 

You are oversimplifying your analysis by cherry-picking a data point to prove your argument.

 

Show me what was 'cherry picked'. That's very specific data.

 

Years ago, I was a bids and contracts manager for a large plastics manufacturer (#2 to Rubbermaid in the world) and I redesigned and repriced the entire catalog, because it was....well, it was wrong, and not conducive to selling various products in the line. As I explained the process to the owner, who i reported directly to, he looked at me suspiciously throughout, as if he was trying to determine my reasons or hidden agenda for taking on such a monstrous task, but when we got to the end of it all, I said, "...and based on the projections I've run, which I'm 99% confident on, we should be up 1% next year." (1% up in manufacturing is considered a very good thing).

 

At this, he raised his eyebrows, and a smile came to his face. "Well, sheet, son. Why didn't you say that in the first place?"

 

We were exactly 1% up for the year.

 

But my point is, regardless of all of the information I threw at him, the bottom line was, 'Will we be up?'

 

You can break my posts up all you want to make it appear that your answer is "logical" or "better formulated," but you are still just giving your opinion on the situation.

 

Of course I am. An educated, informed opinion with examples, and even clever little anecdotes, but... you've provided none of those in your rebuttal.

 

You aren't the CEO of DC/Marvel/Other and you clearly have a jaded view of the variant portion of the business.

 

It's not jaded. I have nothing against 'selfie sticks', but I don't see them as a necessary item either.

 

I understand you are passionate about this and have provided clear postioning on your personal thoughts on the matter. However, you are not providing facts to support your conclusion and while you are persuasive, it doesn't mean you are accurate.

 

If you listen to me enough and wait for the results, you'll find that if there is one thing I AM, it is accurate.

 

I don't have the time or the desire to go back and pick your posts apart like you do mine, but I am confident that your assertion that variants do not drive readership at all is false.

 

Then how do you explain, the 50 years of readership that didn't have it?

 

Your personal experiences not withstanding, that is silly. There are a multitude of factors you do not include and chose one set of "before and after data" that does not and can not tell the complete picture.

 

By all means, name some of the 'multitude of factors'.

I would enjoy this more if you would actually provide something in your rebuttals for me to rebut, but all you do is say I'm wrong, 'just 'cuz'.

It's almost like you're disagreeing with me 'just cuz.'

 

Publishers care about Distributors just like Distributors care about Retailers and everyone cares about Customers. You can argue the degree to which any entity or individual cares, but business relationships must still be maintained (that doesn't mean they won't be stretched to a breaking point though), so the picture you paint is far too bleak. Again, maybe your individual experience (or even shared by a few others here) does not represent the entirety of the market - yet you continue to pass it off that way.

 

The picture isn't bleak at all. We can grow this business WITHOUT variants.

Image Comics, the third largest comic publisher in North America (and #1 Graphic Novel publisher in North America) has bet the company on it. And thus far, they're doing ok.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

I enjoy every day. I sell comics for a living!

 

So here's how you can respond:

A) Show how the data is cherry picked, by showing a larger picture it comes from.

B) Show some of the 'multitude of factors" you think I do not include.

C) A and B

D) Throw your hands in the air like you just don't care

E) Say, "I just don't agree with you because I don't'

F) D and E

 

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

D) I do care, but I don't have time to devote like you do

 

E) Sure, kind of

 

:shrug:

 

[Comic Closet]

Do we even know this is about a new new 52 type re-boot?

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

[BarryAllen]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

 

You seriously don't know?

[natevegas]

Do we even know this is about a new new 52 type re-boot?

The DC Rebirth promo.

[Jaydogrules]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

 

This could also just as likely be a case of the tail wagging the dog though.

 

There are many who believe that variants are what is keeping the market from fracturing any further.

 

And I don't think we can read (no pun intended) very much into a meager few months sample of a (distant) third place indy publisher (that, by the way, still prints variants as well, *see Walking Dead #150).

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Variants have nothing to do with readership. Sorry, but it's a fact.

If you eliminated them tomorrow, the people who still just READ comics, would still READ comics. Anyone who left because of it, really wasn't a comic book fan in the first place.

 

You don't buy a variant to READ it.

Stores don't order it for people to READ it.

It exists to get retailers to buy more copies.

Retailers use it to sell to customers interested in the COVER.

 

At this year's Retailer Summit in Baltimore, the Marvel rep told me that retailers keep telling him, they'd rather see a DISCOUNT incentive, or a returnability incentive than a variant incentive. If they'd listen, that'd be great.

 

If variants were eliminated, you'd probably also see a lot of titles disappear, as the drop in numbers from collectors who buy everything would make some stuff economically infeasible.

 

Image dropped the amount of variants this year drastically and at the end of the year they finished:

Retail Market Share 2014: 9.23%

Retail Market Share 2015: 9.93%

 

Unit Market Share 2014: 10.41%

Unit Market Share 2015: 10.70%

 

2014 Comics Shipped: 717

2015 Comics Shipped: 717

 

They cut down on variants, shipped the same amount of titles, and slightly INCREASED their numbers, despite DECREASING the use of variants, and eliminating outside variant programs.

 

The only thing I've ever seen that led to the elimination of a comic book, that a publisher wanted to print, was a decrease in readership.

Variants don't save a a title, they only temporarily prop the numbers up.

 

 

 

Good point Chuck, but flawed.

Image cut out variants mid way through 2015...

 

Let's revisit those numbers in June shall we?

06-15 through 06-16

 

Their decision to not produce variants hasn't affected their readership at all, but collectors haven't been buying as much.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see, but I think with even a 50/50 year, to basically have those numbers still is impressive. And perhaps by eliminating variants they've been able to focus on their strength, which is to put out quality comic books. I know Image sales increased for me over 2015.

 

I believe if they put out good comics, the market will respond.

Unlike the 80's, and especially into the 90's, when Marvel and DC were able to glut the market and eventually kill the rise of many independents, technology gives a voice and a face to anyone who can master it and get the information and exposure of their comic out there. People are hungry for GOOD comics. Good comics to READ.

 

Because of the glitz and over exposure of poor material from the big two that was touted as 'collectibles', the market almost collapsed in the 90's.

The key to the health of comic books is to put out quality material to grow readership. We're on the wave of yet another creative zeitgeist in comics, and I don't want to see greed destroy it again.

Collectible material will come along through a natural process.

 

 

You cherry-picked data

 

That's not cherry picked data. It's the hard data released by Diamond.

In 2014, Image had the variant programs and outside variant programs, and those are the sales numbers for the year.

Half way through 2015 they abandoned those programs, so half the year was without any of the variant incentives.

To a publisher, what matters is the bottom line... and according to that list, we didn't see a drop off, but a slight increase, even HALF the year was without the variants.

As a CEO, I'd be happy with that.

 

and speculated as to why "everyone" buys a comic. Truth is you have no idea why some buys a variant unless they directly tell you personally.

 

They do. I'm a retailer. Here in the middle of America, where they haven't had a comic shop in 7 years, and not much of one for 20 years prior to that, they look at me like a 3 legged dog, when I try to explain to them that a variant is the SAME book only with a different cover... they think it's some kind of trick. Which.. when you think about it, it kind of is.

 

With the exception of the very small print run variants (where dealers order specifically to flip for speculation), most of them never see a slab. You can't draw a linear conclusion that a change in variants directly changes sales numbers with creating a baseline to measure against (and no total business year over year doesn't count).

 

Why doesn't total business year over year count?

If I say variants don't necessarily make a difference and show it, why would that not count?

In fact, realistically, that;s the ONLY numbers that would count.

I guarantee it counts in financial meetings. We spent less and were slightly up. That's a win.

 

You would need to isolate the variable and measure against a control to draw conclusions, which you can't. Everything else is just your opinion. I have seen kids and adults choose a variant cover at a store (versus another) and buy the book to read.

 

Thanks for proving my point. Because there was a choice, they made one. Take away the variant and they still buy the book to read. Marvel is simply making an additional choice that isn't necessary, in order to get the RETAILER to buy more copies. RETAILERS buy more copies, not CUSTOMERS.

CUSTOMERS don't buy a comic to read because of a variant... they may CHOOSE a variant over a regular cover, but the READER, is going to buy the comic because he wants to read it.

 

Comic companies produce product for sales. Variants are a tool that they use to boost sales (sometimes works, sometimes doesn't).

 

Yes, sales for the PUBLISHER.

The purpose of the variant is to get the RETAILER to buy more copies, NOT the customer.

Some customers still fall into that buying pattern, but eliminate it, and you don't eliminate a customer, you simply give him one less unnecessary book to feed his completionist affliction.

The publishers just want you to carry more copies of their unreturnable product, so that they make more money and no one ever misses an issue. If you have a bunch of you have to mark down to a $1, that's of no concern to them.

 

Some stories are more compelling than others and readership grows year over year. However to say that variants (as a tool to drive increased sales) doesn't EVER increase readership is ridiculous.

 

You just made my point again. WITHOUT the variant, you can increase sales by presenting stories that are more compelling than others. The necessity of a variant is inconsequential to that process.

 

Walking Dead before it ever had a TV Show or a variant cover, wrote compelling stories and built an audience.

 

You are talking in absolutes and it is downright silly.

 

I only speak in absolutes when the truth is absolute.

 

We should call you "Darth Gower."

 

:shrug:

 

Mm .

 

If Marvel ceased to print variants tomorrow, they would still sell a lot of comics. It would have little to no effect on CUSTOMER sales.

 

Marvel might sell less comics to the RETAILER, but in general, customer sales wouldn't all that much feel the effect.

 

Think about it: Next time you go into a store and it's got $1 modern blow out sale, how much of that is from books that were extra copies bought just to get a variant, or even sometimes the variants themselves? That's ALL I see.

 

It's additional RETAILER purchases that aren't necessary. The Diamond numbers might go down, but the actual sales to customers, especially readers would see little to no effect. If not for completionists and those who still cling to the idea of bragging about owning a super valuable modern variant, the need for the customer to collect these things is already diminished tremendously from even 5 years ago.

 

The modern variant was originally created as a thank you to the retailer, but in line with one of the darker times of this hobby, it's use as a tool to get people to buy more copies of the same book is no accident. Comics can grow without it.

 

Very well said, as usual, Chuck. There are a lot of people...particular younger people, who didn't live through the 90's, and don't understand the economics of the comic book industry...who are in much error about how and why publishers do what they do.

 

And not only can comics grow without it, it is detrimental to the health of the industry. If publishers are trying to get retailers to order more product...product that does not sell...by offering "incentives" that may, or may not, pan out...they are forcing retailers, without which the publishers do not exist, to buy more than they can reasonably sell, and sticking them with product that had to be paid for.

 

Repeat that often enough, and business fails. It's inevitable.

 

People should read more, and post less.

[RockMyAmadeus]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Interestingly enough, the era that sold the most units in the entire history of comics...1990-1993...saw very few variants, and they were long before the era of incentive variants (that is, if you buy X amounts of our book, we'll give you/let you buy 1 of these variants), which didn't really become a fully realized "thing" until the mid-00's.

 

The very first (or, the first widescale) "1:X" variant was Prophet #4 in 1994, which was given to retailers as a one of four...that is, if a retailer ordered 4 copies of Prophet #4, three of them were the regular, one was the Platt variant.

 

That idea continued in the industry for quite some time, perhaps the next 6-10 years...that is, for every X copies, you were automatically sent 1:X copies of the variant. It wasn't (necessarily) an incentive to get you to buy more, but rather a "gift" of sorts....and, 1:4 or 1:2, or the much lower ratios of the past weren't inspiring retailers to order boatloads anyways.

 

I don't know what the first "official" ORDERING incentive was, but I think it was around New Avengers in 2004...? I could be wrong, but it's close. I remember the first six issues had some sort of countdown, that is, #1 was 1:20, #2 was 1:19, #3 was 1:18...something along those lines.

 

Yes, there were outliers before then, but the program was embryonic for a long time, and publishers were trying all sorts of different methods to increase sales of individual books themselves (like Dynamic Forces variants, American Entertainment variants, etc.) at higher price points.

 

Ultimate Spiderman #1, for example, the DF variant could be directly ordered from DF for $6.95...substantially higher than the $2.95 cover price of the regular first issue, and for which Marvel saw a substantially higher per issue payment.

 

PS. When looking up New Avengers #1, I found this:

 

 

After the devastating destruction of the original Avenger's just what sort of threat

 

Seriously? On Marvel's OFFICIAL site...?

 

 

http://marvel.com/comics/issue/40/new_avengers_2004_1

[BarryAllen]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

 

You seriously don't know?

 

I am confused by this response. I am referring to the stats you posted above that are underlined (I know where to get comic sales from). Where can you track "readership?" How do you make these claims and ranges? What proof do you have?

 

 

FYI - you brought sales data into the conversation as an analog for readership, not me. I am just pointing out that your data analysis isn't accurate because you don't (and can't) take into account all the other mitigating factors that drove the results. Thus you cannot make the conclusion you did based on that data (that variants do not drive readership at all).

 

:shrug:

 

For the record: I am not a fan of variants overall due to the speculation that some can cause and the potential negative impacts they will have to the secondary market if/when that bubble bursts. However I do believe the intent of the publisher is to sell more books and create more readers with them.

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

 

This could also just as likely be a case of the tail wagging the dog though.

 

There are many who believe that variants are what is keeping the market from fracturing any further.

 

No one who retails, distributes, or publishes believes that. And i've questioned many of them on the topic.

 

And I don't think we can read (no pun intended) very much into a meager few months sample of a (distant) third place indy publisher (that, by the way, still prints variants as well, *see Walking Dead #150).

 

-J.

 

None of those were incentive variants.

[Jaydogrules]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

 

This could also just as likely be a case of the tail wagging the dog though.

 

There are many who believe that variants are what is keeping the market from fracturing any further.

 

No one who retails, distributes, or publishes believes that. And i've questioned many of them on the topic.

 

And I don't think we can read (no pun intended) very much into a meager few months sample of a (distant) third place indy publisher (that, by the way, still prints variants as well, *see Walking Dead #150).

 

-J.

 

None of those were incentive variants.

 

What do buyers say ? They seem to pretty clearly be speaking with their wallets. Retailers don't "have" to order heavy on a book a to qualify for incentive variants. However they fail to do so at their own peril. Your arguments are very one sided and pretty obviously from a (seemingly) jaded retailer's perspective who doesn't like the current "system". No one forces you to load up on a book to qualify for incentive variants though. You do that to make your customers happy (I assume), and to keep them from going to the other guy's store or looking for the books that you don't order on ebay.

 

And a variant, is a variant, is a variant, no? Or are we just splitting hairs.

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

 

You seriously don't know?

 

I am confused by this response. I am referring to the stats you posted above that are underlined (I know where to get comic sales from). Where can you track "readership?" How do you make these claims and ranges? What proof do you have?

 

Which word didn't you understand?

 

If in Year A, there are no variants and they sell 10 copies - then most likely, those ten copies are __________ (bought for the purposes of being read)

If in Year B, there are 1 variant, and 4 regular copies - then which year had the most readers? ____________ (the year they sold more, with no variants, simple deduction)

 

FYI - you brought sales data into the conversation as an analog for readership, not me. I am just pointing out that your data analysis isn't accurate because you don't (and can't) take into account all the other mitigating factors that drove the results. Thus you cannot make the conclusion you did based on that data (that variants do not drive readership at all).

 

Yes you can. Only someone purposely denying it, couldn't see it,

 

Ask ANYONE who's been in the hobby from 20+ years. When did the hobby have the most pure readers? Now? Or 1950?

Now? Or 1960?

You'll get the same results.

 

But are they right? Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

But not from variants.... How can we know?

 

:shrug:

 

For the record: I am not a fan of variants overall due to the speculation that some can cause and the potential negative impacts they will have to the secondary market if/when that bubble bursts. However I do believe the intent of the publisher is to sell more books and create more readers with them.

 

Marvel doesn't primarily sell books to readers, they sell them to distributors, who sell them to retailers.

The retailers actually sell them to customers.

Marvel's intent is to get the retailers, through the distributor, to buy more copies.

Never once have they ever had an incentive based upon reading a comic.

 

Here's another clue for you all.

The Walrus was Paul.

 

But the biggest clue of all is:

Graphic Novel and Trade Paperback sales have risen to their highest levels ever. No variants needed. Just readers!

In 1998, GN/TPB sales made up 7% of the Top total Diamond Sales items - In 2015 it now makes up 20%.

Since 1998, GN/TPB's have grown 464% compared to comics which have grown 44%.

The books that are just for readers are growing at a substantially faster rate than the comics (almost 1000% faster), without the help of variants!

No variants!

 

More proof? Even more proof?

Digital Comic Sales continue to reach new heights, nay, they are EXPLODING...no variants needed! Just readers!

And we have no idea HOW MUCH they're growing..... but here was a clue from a few years ago....

 

2011 Digital Comic Numbers

 

There's a reason we know they're continuing to grow... go ahead... ask me.... I'll tell ya...

 

So...the two biggest growing segment's of the hobby, which use no variants at all to sell themselves, but rather rely upon readers to buy the product for reading.

 

Absolute proof. You don't need variants to grow. In fact, without the variants you may just grow faster.

 

[BarryAllen]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

 

You seriously don't know?

 

I am confused by this response. I am referring to the stats you posted above that are underlined (I know where to get comic sales from). Where can you track "readership?" How do you make these claims and ranges? What proof do you have?

 

Which word didn't you understand?

 

If in Year A, there are no variants and they sell 10 copies - then most likely, those ten copies are __________ (bought for the purposes of being read)

If in Year B, there are 1 variant, and 4 regular copies - then which year had the most readers? ____________ (the year they sold more, with no variants, simple deduction)

 

FYI - you brought sales data into the conversation as an analog for readership, not me. I am just pointing out that your data analysis isn't accurate because you don't (and can't) take into account all the other mitigating factors that drove the results. Thus you cannot make the conclusion you did based on that data (that variants do not drive readership at all).

 

Yes you can. Only someone purposely denying it, couldn't see it,

 

Ask ANYONE who's been in the hobby from 20+ years. When did the hobby have the most pure readers? Now? Or 1950?

Now? Or 1960?

You'll get the same results.

 

But are they right? Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

But not from variants.... How can we know?

 

:shrug:

 

For the record: I am not a fan of variants overall due to the speculation that some can cause and the potential negative impacts they will have to the secondary market if/when that bubble bursts. However I do believe the intent of the publisher is to sell more books and create more readers with them.

 

Marvel doesn't primarily sell books to readers, they sell them to distributors, who sell them to retailers.

The retailers actually sell them to customers.

Marvel's intent is to get the retailers, through the distributor, to buy more copies.

Never once have they ever had an incentive based upon reading a comic.

 

Here's another clue for you all.

The Walrus was Paul.

 

But the biggest clue of all is:

Graphic Novel and Trade Paperback sales have risen to their highest levels ever. No variants needed. Just readers!

In 1998, GN/TPB sales made up 7% of the Top total Diamond Sales items - In 2015 it now makes up 20%.

Since 1998, GN/TPB's have grown 464% compared to comics which have grown 44%.

The books that are just for readers are growing at a substantially faster rate than the comics (almost 1000% faster), without the help of variants!

No variants!

 

More proof? Even more proof?

Digital Comic Sales continue to reach new heights, nay, they are EXPLODING...no variants needed! Just readers!

And we have no idea HOW MUCH they're growing..... but here was a clue from a few years ago....

 

2011 Digital Comic Numbers

 

There's a reason we know they're continuing to grow... go ahead... ask me.... I'll tell ya...

 

So...the two biggest growing segment's of the hobby, which use no variants at all to sell themselves, but rather rely upon readers to buy the product for reading.

 

Absolute proof. You don't need variants to grow. In fact, without the variants you may just grow faster.

 

You haven't provided any absolute proof of anything and are ignoring all rational requests to include relevant variables in an analysis to drive a conclusion.

 

This isn't going to go anywhere, you are entrenched in your own personal experience and pushing it off as a history of facts. You have nothing but speculation on what has happened to readership just like you are speculating that variants are hurting comic sales by connecting unrelated phenomena.

 

Have a nice evening.

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

 

This could also just as likely be a case of the tail wagging the dog though.

 

There are many who believe that variants are what is keeping the market from fracturing any further.

 

No one who retails, distributes, or publishes believes that. And i've questioned many of them on the topic.

 

And I don't think we can read (no pun intended) very much into a meager few months sample of a (distant) third place indy publisher (that, by the way, still prints variants as well, *see Walking Dead #150).

 

-J.

 

None of those were incentive variants.

 

What do buyers say ?

 

About what?

 

They seem to pretty clearly be speaking with their wallets.

 

How long have you been in this hobby? 1:25's are going for cheaper than they ever have and 1:100's are going for cheaper than they ever have.

 

There's an outlier here and there, but the vast majority of variants, even if they initially have some value quickly lose it. The market for those has shrunk considerably.

 

Retailers don't "have" to order heavy on a book a to qualify for incentive variants.

 

Um.... yeah, that's what an 'incentive' variant is. it involves you ordering at a certain level.

 

However they fail to do so at their own peril.

 

What peril is that? I feel no peril.

 

Your arguments are very one sided and pretty obviously from a (seemingly) jaded retailer's perspective who doesn't like the current "system".

 

I LOVE being a retailer of comic books. Love it. Love it. Love it. It's best thing I ever did, besides make a baby.

 

I can disagree with Marvel's or DC's program, and it doesn't mean I don't like the whole system.

 

Some of us have been telling Marvel for a while, that we prefer a price incentive system, but you see....

 

Marvel knows... that if you hit the incentive amount, you have to BUY the 1:25, or even better, when you hit the incentive, and it's a buy as much as you want...

 

Less understanding retailers end up with 25 regular and 10 copies of the action figure variant and 10 of the Scottie Young and 1 of the 1:25....46 COPIES of a book they might have originally only ordered 20 copies of. That's not Marvel building readers - that's Marvel milking a sucker.

 

That's why you see so many $1 boxes full of modern stuff.... Geez, don't you remember all of the New 52 early issues in $1 boxes? Why do you think people over ordered on that stuff?

 

No one forces you to load up on a book to qualify for incentive variants though. You do that to make your customers happy (I assume), and to keep them from going to the other guy's store or looking for the books that you don't order on ebay.

 

If someone wants a 1:25 and I don't usually order that many to get it, it's $25. If I do, it's generally $10 or $15. No peril involved.

 

a 1:50 is $50, a 1:100 is $100. If you want it, I'll get it, but you might, eh probably most likely, find it cheaper on eBay in a month or two.

 

And my competition, incidentally, isn't.

 

And a variant, is a variant, is a variant, no? Or are we just splitting hairs.

 

-J.

 

Not sure what you're splitting, but we were talking incentive variants.

Multiple covers for the same price is fine by me.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

B) to fully perform an analysis to isolate the impact of variants solely on the business you would need to take into account:

- sales trends by title heading into comparison years (were numbers trending up beforehand, etc)

- other changes that went on at that time (changes in distribution, title switching, pricing or sales, major story arcs changes that stop/start, etc)

- competitive activity (did competitors make a change in distribution, number of titles, stop or start a promotion, etc)

- change in advertising, media, merchandising or tv/movies (including competition, did they start/stop anything)

- total sales in market (was there a share change, did sales increase across the board, major customer trends up to down)

 

And you still wouldn't have an answer as to if it gained or lost READERS.

 

Because what we know FOR SURE is, people READ comics long before variants were an every month thing, and NOW, LESS people read comics now that they are an every month thing.

Because you DO know, that less people read comics now than in the 50's (7 to 10X less), the 60's (2.5 to 5X less), the 70's (3.5 to 1.5X less), the 80's (3.5 to 1.5X less), era's that had NO monthly incentive variants, than NOW, right? The last 20 years, with variants has been the lowest sales decades EVER for comics, right?

 

That the era with the most variants has sold the least units?

 

 

Sure, because there is no actual way to measure readers. Correct?

 

Where are you getting all the data points you are citing?

 

You seriously don't know?

 

I am confused by this response. I am referring to the stats you posted above that are underlined (I know where to get comic sales from). Where can you track "readership?" How do you make these claims and ranges? What proof do you have?

 

Which word didn't you understand?

 

If in Year A, there are no variants and they sell 10 copies - then most likely, those ten copies are __________ (bought for the purposes of being read)

If in Year B, there are 1 variant, and 4 regular copies - then which year had the most readers? ____________ (the year they sold more, with no variants, simple deduction)

 

FYI - you brought sales data into the conversation as an analog for readership, not me. I am just pointing out that your data analysis isn't accurate because you don't (and can't) take into account all the other mitigating factors that drove the results. Thus you cannot make the conclusion you did based on that data (that variants do not drive readership at all).

 

Yes you can. Only someone purposely denying it, couldn't see it,

 

Ask ANYONE who's been in the hobby from 20+ years. When did the hobby have the most pure readers? Now? Or 1950?

Now? Or 1960?

You'll get the same results.

 

But are they right? Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

But not from variants.... How can we know?

 

:shrug:

 

For the record: I am not a fan of variants overall due to the speculation that some can cause and the potential negative impacts they will have to the secondary market if/when that bubble bursts. However I do believe the intent of the publisher is to sell more books and create more readers with them.

 

Marvel doesn't primarily sell books to readers, they sell them to distributors, who sell them to retailers.

The retailers actually sell them to customers.

Marvel's intent is to get the retailers, through the distributor, to buy more copies.

Never once have they ever had an incentive based upon reading a comic.

 

Here's another clue for you all.

The Walrus was Paul.

 

But the biggest clue of all is:

Graphic Novel and Trade Paperback sales have risen to their highest levels ever. No variants needed. Just readers!

In 1998, GN/TPB sales made up 7% of the Top total Diamond Sales items - In 2015 it now makes up 20%.

Since 1998, GN/TPB's have grown 464% compared to comics which have grown 44%.

The books that are just for readers are growing at a substantially faster rate than the comics (almost 1000% faster), without the help of variants!

No variants!

 

More proof? Even more proof?

Digital Comic Sales continue to reach new heights, nay, they are EXPLODING...no variants needed! Just readers!

And we have no idea HOW MUCH they're growing..... but here was a clue from a few years ago....

 

2011 Digital Comic Numbers

 

There's a reason we know they're continuing to grow... go ahead... ask me.... I'll tell ya...

 

So...the two biggest growing segment's of the hobby, which use no variants at all to sell themselves, but rather rely upon readers to buy the product for reading.

 

Absolute proof. You don't need variants to grow. In fact, without the variants you may just grow faster.

 

You haven't provided any absolute proof of anything and are ignoring all rational requests to include relevant variables in an analysis to drive a conclusion.

 

This isn't going to go anywhere, you are entrenched in your own personal experience and pushing it off as a history of facts. You have nothing but speculation on what has happened to readership just like you are speculating that variants are hurting comic sales by connecting unrelated phenomena.

 

Have a nice evening.

 

It's all right there for ya, slugger.

 

A lack of understanding quantum physics, doesn't disprove the existence of atoms. Maybe ask someone here to help you with it.