DC Comics Rebirth

[BarryAllen]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

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?

 

Two things:

1) Arguing from personal anecdotal experience/information (another logical fallacy) isn't a valid argument either. Providing your personal experience as sole reasoning and making connective leaps with the assumption that ANYONE who has been doing this for the last 20+ years would agree. Your opinion counts as a shop owner; however, it represents a population of "1." You cannot speak for all others and continue to do so throughout your posts. You make claims as if they are "common knowledge" but that is another type of generalization that is not sound evidence.

2) For the record, I went to three separate comic shops yesterday and spoke with three different shop owners who have been in business since the late 70's-early 80's and all three of them felt that variant sales were hugely boosting their sales and interest in comics. In recent years a VERY large portion of their business has shifted to gamers (Magic and the like) and the increase in additional covers has (from their point of view) been a "savior" to their comic business. People come in looking for new issues, many times asking for variant covers, purchase either or both and other titles/merchandise as well. One shop owner even cited a recent example where a man brought his daughter in and she found one of the "Harley" cover variants for DC out there and loved it so much that he bought her three different titles with the variant cover. Next month, they came back and they bought back issues and the next issue of the titles she read. In this specific instance, variants directly drove an incremental reader....so that is at least "1."

 

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.

Again, you are drawing a correlation between two phenomena and assuming causation. Stating that these formats don't have variants (which they do, digital comics and TPBs have variant covers and editions released ALL THE TIME - Omnibuses, Collected Editions, Archvies, Variant Artist Covers, Absolutes and plenty of digital variations where incremental or different artwork is included with a purchase of the same comic) cannot be used as sole evidence for variants being detrimental to readership. The success of these formats are driven largely by cultural changes in how people receive information and an overall preference shift from collecting single issues to the desire to read complete story-arcs and a desire to read the material but not "own" the physical book. Like your first example, this is far more complicated that just saying - there aren't variants in TPBs or Digital (which there are) and they are successful; therefore, variants are bad. False all around.

 

 

Look I appreciate that you have a strong POV and clearly you have a bad taste in your mouth from the variant portion of the business. Maybe they aren't good for your particular shop, but you are extending your frustration with a segment of the hobby to all others and making sweeping incorrect arguments using invalid correlations and inferences.

 

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

[Prince Namor]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

 

No. It's simple math.

 

In Year B, there aren't enough copies to equal Year A. :make point:

 

Duh.

[BarryAllen]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

 

No. It's simple math.

 

In Year B, there aren't enough copies to equal Year A. :make point:

 

Duh.

 

Sure, it is simple math. However, your simple math is not enough to substantiate your claims.

 

Either you don't get it or don't want to....which is your problem, not mine.

[Prince Namor]

 

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?

 

Two things:

1) Arguing from personal anecdotal experience/information (another logical fallacy) isn't a valid argument either. Providing your personal experience as sole reasoning and making connective leaps with the assumption that ANYONE who has been doing this for the last 20+ years would agree. Your opinion counts as a shop owner; however, it represents a population of "1." You cannot speak for all others and continue to do so throughout your posts. You make claims as if they are "common knowledge" but that is another type of generalization that is not sound evidence.

2) For the record, I went to three separate comic shops yesterday and spoke with three different shop owners who have been in business since the late 70's-early 80's and all three of them felt that variant sales were hugely boosting their sales and interest in comics. In recent years a VERY large portion of their business has shifted to gamers (Magic and the like) and the increase in additional covers has (from their point of view) been a "savior" to their comic business. People come in looking for new issues, many times asking for variant covers, purchase either or both and other titles/merchandise as well. One shop owner even cited a recent example where a man brought his daughter in and she found one of the "Harley" cover variants for DC out there and loved it so much that he bought her three different titles with the variant cover. Next month, they came back and they bought back issues and the next issue of the titles she read. In this specific instance, variants directly drove an incremental reader....so that is at least "1."

 

The two retailers you talked to have used variants to try and 'keep' their customers, but their business has started to shift to gamers. My point exactly. It isn't working.

 

[Prince Namor]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

 

No. It's simple math.

 

In Year B, there aren't enough copies to equal Year A. :make point:

 

Duh.

 

Sure, it is simple math. However, your simple math is not enough to substantiate your claims.

 

Either you don't get it or don't want to....which is your problem, not mine.

 

You can try and make it a more complex idea all you want. It's really very simple.

 

This decade sells less comics, with MORE incentive variants used.

 

All of the other decades have LESS incentive variants (most have none), and they sell more comics.

 

How you fail to see this is just baffling.

[Prince Namor]

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.

Again, you are drawing a correlation between two phenomena and assuming causation. Stating that these formats don't have variants (which they do, digital comics and TPBs have variant covers and editions released ALL THE TIME - Omnibuses, Collected Editions, Archvies, Variant Artist Covers, Absolutes and plenty of digital variations where incremental or different artwork is included with a purchase of the same comic) cannot be used as sole evidence for variants being detrimental to readership. The success of these formats are driven largely by cultural changes in how people receive information and an overall preference shift from collecting single issues to the desire to read complete story-arcs and a desire to read the material but not "own" the physical book. Like your first example, this is far more complicated that just saying - there aren't variants in TPBs or Digital (which there are) and they are successful; therefore, variants are bad. False all around.

 

 

Look I appreciate that you have a strong POV and clearly you have a bad taste in your mouth from the variant portion of the business. Maybe they aren't good for your particular shop, but you are extending your frustration with a segment of the hobby to all others and making sweeping incorrect arguments using invalid correlations and inferences.

 

Those aren't incentive variants, they're choice variants and they make up 1% of it.

 

Two phenomena - It's not a phenomena, it's COMICS. They are both a medium for comic books.

And they're growing at almost 1000% greater rate than regular comic books.

Deny, all you want, it just makes you look silly.

There's a reason they've taken digital comics out of the hands of retailers, and have hidden the numbers from us.

[BarryAllen]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

 

No. It's simple math.

 

In Year B, there aren't enough copies to equal Year A. :make point:

 

Duh.

 

Sure, it is simple math. However, your simple math is not enough to substantiate your claims.

 

Either you don't get it or don't want to....which is your problem, not mine.

 

You can try and make it a more complex idea all you want. It's really very simple.

 

This decade sells less comics, with MORE incentive variants used.

 

All of the other decades have LESS incentive variants (most have none), and they sell more comics.

 

How you fail to see this is just baffling.

 

I am not failing to see anything, you continue to oversimplify a complex situation. It is a common distraction technique and I am calling you on it. Again, either you don't understand or don't want to, but that doesn't change the situation.

 

There is all kinds of oversimplified and inaccurate nonsense in the media (particularly social media) these days. Just because you want something to be true and make false statements on how two data points are "connected," doesn't make it true or you right.

 

Feel free to think/post whatever you want, but be prepared for others to point out the flaws in your logic. In this instance, you are incorrect. I am sorry that you aren't taking it well.

[BarryAllen]

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.

Again, you are drawing a correlation between two phenomena and assuming causation. Stating that these formats don't have variants (which they do, digital comics and TPBs have variant covers and editions released ALL THE TIME - Omnibuses, Collected Editions, Archvies, Variant Artist Covers, Absolutes and plenty of digital variations where incremental or different artwork is included with a purchase of the same comic) cannot be used as sole evidence for variants being detrimental to readership. The success of these formats are driven largely by cultural changes in how people receive information and an overall preference shift from collecting single issues to the desire to read complete story-arcs and a desire to read the material but not "own" the physical book. Like your first example, this is far more complicated that just saying - there aren't variants in TPBs or Digital (which there are) and they are successful; therefore, variants are bad. False all around.

 

 

Look I appreciate that you have a strong POV and clearly you have a bad taste in your mouth from the variant portion of the business. Maybe they aren't good for your particular shop, but you are extending your frustration with a segment of the hobby to all others and making sweeping incorrect arguments using invalid correlations and inferences.

 

Those aren't incentive variants, they're choice variants and they make up 1% of it.

 

Two phenomena - It's not a phenomena, it's COMICS. They are both a medium for comic books.

And they're growing at almost 1000% greater rate than regular comic books.

Deny, all you want, it just makes you look silly.

There's a reason they've taken digital comics out of the hands of retailers, and have hidden the numbers from us.

 

Snide remarks and now the introduction of conspiracy theories...

 

Whether or not I look silly is not important to me. You, yet again, are over-simplifying.

 

You continue to delve into nonsense and take personal shots - not sure how any of it helps you prove your point.

 

:shrug:

[Prince Namor]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

[Prince Namor]

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.

Again, you are drawing a correlation between two phenomena and assuming causation. Stating that these formats don't have variants (which they do, digital comics and TPBs have variant covers and editions released ALL THE TIME - Omnibuses, Collected Editions, Archvies, Variant Artist Covers, Absolutes and plenty of digital variations where incremental or different artwork is included with a purchase of the same comic) cannot be used as sole evidence for variants being detrimental to readership. The success of these formats are driven largely by cultural changes in how people receive information and an overall preference shift from collecting single issues to the desire to read complete story-arcs and a desire to read the material but not "own" the physical book. Like your first example, this is far more complicated that just saying - there aren't variants in TPBs or Digital (which there are) and they are successful; therefore, variants are bad. False all around.

 

 

Look I appreciate that you have a strong POV and clearly you have a bad taste in your mouth from the variant portion of the business. Maybe they aren't good for your particular shop, but you are extending your frustration with a segment of the hobby to all others and making sweeping incorrect arguments using invalid correlations and inferences.

 

Those aren't incentive variants, they're choice variants and they make up 1% of it.

 

Two phenomena - It's not a phenomena, it's COMICS. They are both a medium for comic books.

And they're growing at almost 1000% greater rate than regular comic books.

Deny, all you want, it just makes you look silly.

There's a reason they've taken digital comics out of the hands of retailers, and have hidden the numbers from us.

 

Snide remarks and now the introduction of conspiracy theories...

 

Whether or not I look silly is not important to me. You, yet again, are over-simplifying.

 

You continue to delve into nonsense and take personal shots - not sure how any of it helps you prove your point.

 

:shrug:

 

 

From your first post to me on this:

You are talking in absolutes and it is downright silly.

We should call you "Darth Gower."

:shrug:

 

 

[BarryAllen]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

[BarryAllen]

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.

Again, you are drawing a correlation between two phenomena and assuming causation. Stating that these formats don't have variants (which they do, digital comics and TPBs have variant covers and editions released ALL THE TIME - Omnibuses, Collected Editions, Archvies, Variant Artist Covers, Absolutes and plenty of digital variations where incremental or different artwork is included with a purchase of the same comic) cannot be used as sole evidence for variants being detrimental to readership. The success of these formats are driven largely by cultural changes in how people receive information and an overall preference shift from collecting single issues to the desire to read complete story-arcs and a desire to read the material but not "own" the physical book. Like your first example, this is far more complicated that just saying - there aren't variants in TPBs or Digital (which there are) and they are successful; therefore, variants are bad. False all around.

 

 

Look I appreciate that you have a strong POV and clearly you have a bad taste in your mouth from the variant portion of the business. Maybe they aren't good for your particular shop, but you are extending your frustration with a segment of the hobby to all others and making sweeping incorrect arguments using invalid correlations and inferences.

 

Those aren't incentive variants, they're choice variants and they make up 1% of it.

 

Two phenomena - It's not a phenomena, it's COMICS. They are both a medium for comic books.

And they're growing at almost 1000% greater rate than regular comic books.

Deny, all you want, it just makes you look silly.

There's a reason they've taken digital comics out of the hands of retailers, and have hidden the numbers from us.

 

Snide remarks and now the introduction of conspiracy theories...

 

Whether or not I look silly is not important to me. You, yet again, are over-simplifying.

 

You continue to delve into nonsense and take personal shots - not sure how any of it helps you prove your point.

 

:shrug:

 

 

From your first post to me on this:

You are talking in absolutes and it is downright silly.

We should call you "Darth Gower."

:shrug:

 

 

That was a joke about "Sith only talking in absolutes." Maybe it didn't land well, so I am sorry for that. But come on, that is clearly not a personal shot or insult. Cripes.

[Prince Namor]

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)

This is a logical fallacy. You are arguing that correlation proves causation, which is incorrect. You cannot just make a "simple" deduction here and assume since the two coincided at the same time that one caused the other. The situation is more complicated, national comic sales are impacted by more that just variants and many other variables need to be considered. Here is a list I provided earlier of additional variables that need to be considered when you are analyzing large national sales:

- 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)

 

Your answer here, and the core of your argument, is invalid. This is a case of incomplete comparison.

 

 

No. It's simple math.

 

In Year B, there aren't enough copies to equal Year A. :make point:

 

Duh.

 

Sure, it is simple math. However, your simple math is not enough to substantiate your claims.

 

Either you don't get it or don't want to....which is your problem, not mine.

 

You can try and make it a more complex idea all you want. It's really very simple.

 

This decade sells less comics, with MORE incentive variants used.

 

All of the other decades have LESS incentive variants (most have none), and they sell more comics.

 

How you fail to see this is just baffling.

 

I am not failing to see anything, you continue to oversimplify a complex situation. It is a common distraction technique and I am calling you on it. Again, either you don't understand or don't want to, but that doesn't change the situation.

 

There is all kinds of oversimplified and inaccurate nonsense in the media (particularly social media) these days. Just because you want something to be true and make false statements on how two data points are "connected," doesn't make it true or you right.

 

Feel free to think/post whatever you want, but be prepared for others to point out the flaws in your logic. In this instance, you are incorrect. I am sorry that you aren't taking it well.

 

Deny all you want, but there are very literally 4 decades of collectors, who COULD still be buying comics from the Big Two, but DON'T because of Marvel and DC's handling of these characters and the way they do business. And one of the things they dislike is the 'variant craze'.

 

It has turned off readers to Modern Comics, and it's something that, as a newb, you may not have noticed yet, but is very much prevalent in the hobby.

 

So deny all you want, the facts are facts.

 

Good day sir.

[natevegas]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out are so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points? I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

[Prince Namor]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out and so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points. I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

 

Excellent point.

 

And of course the answer is, because it's NOT building readership, but it is giving a temporary spike to sales, which is enhanced even more by incentive variants.

Afterwards it drops, and when the stop using the incentives for an issue, it drops even more. There are your readers at the number left over.

[BarryAllen]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out and so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points. I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

 

You are mixing issues. The topic is Chuck's claim that Variants NEVER increase readership. You are introducing reboots and new comic lines (admittedly some of those include variants). You are complicating the situation further and also drawing a false conclusion.

 

Whether or not variants do what they are supposed to isn't directly related to story quality or the desire for a company to reboot its titles. Of course they are all related in some shape and form, but you cannot draw a linear relationship from one to the other.

 

What I continue to push is that the situation is more complex than everyone is making it and blaming variants as a cause is currently unsubstantiated.

[BarryAllen]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out and so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points. I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

 

Excellent point.

 

And of course the answer is, because it's NOT building readership, but it is giving a temporary spike to sales, which is enhanced even more by incentive variants.

Afterwards it drops, and when the stop using the incentives for an issue, it drops even more. There are your readers at the number left over.

 

More leaps of logic without data or reasoning to back it up. You don't take into account story or art quality, readership changes just due to the nature of a "new or different" version and many other variables.

 

It is more complicated than you continue to relentlessly and illogically push.

[natevegas]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out and so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points. I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

 

You are mixing issues. The topic is Chuck's claim that Variants NEVER increase readership. You are introducing reboots and new comic lines (admittedly some of those include variants). You are complicating the situation further and also drawing a false conclusion.

 

Whether or not variants do what they are supposed to isn't directly related to story quality or the desire for a company to reboot its titles. Of course they are all related in some shape and form, but you cannot draw a linear relationship from one to the other.

 

What I continue to push is that the situation is more complex than everyone is making it and blaming variants as a cause is currently unsubstantiated.

This is a thread about DC's Rebirth renumbering right?

Of course variants and renumbering would be subject to this conversation. IMO variants do the following.

1. Increase the print run of selected issue.

2. Increase the hype game for the title.

3. Cater to a niche collector of a fan who likes specific artist and or cover concept.

4. Inflate the hype to the overall media and thus draw eyes to it.

[BarryAllen]

Perhaps readership IS growing now....

 

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

 

You are right, I cannot prove that variants drive readership. However, you have not proven that they do not. I am sure you will claim otherwise because it is clear through your posts that your opinion is industry fact (you have that in common with a couple others on the boards) versus what it actually is: a population sample of "1." Not useless, but not enough to substantiate your arguments.

 

:shrug:

 

Wrong.

How many ways can I explain it.

 

1) Incentive Variants make up 0% of tpb and digital sales, yet they're growing 1000% faster than regular comics where variants are used to constantly try and get retailers to buy more copies. The purpose for buying a gn/tpb or digital copy is to READ it, It is attracting more READERS, and doing so WITHOUT the use of incentive variants.

 

2) The years in which incentive variants exist as an every month process, we sell less comics than any other decade that has NO incentive variants.

 

3) Marvel and DC continually try and reboot and restart and renumber their universes, more and more often, using incentive variants to coerce retailers into buying more and more product that ends up in $1 boxes. Not conducive to readership. Period.

 

Deny all you want, it's all there.

 

Look, you refuse to address what I have logically laid out as why your arguments are invalid. Then you continue to make the same unsubstantiated, invalid, logical fallacy ridden arguments peppered with your personal opinion passed off as industry facts.

 

What you say has not been true from square one, there isn't anything "there" but your ongoing nonsense. It may sound great to you (or even others), but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

Either do the appropriate analysis to incorporate necessary factors to come to a proper conclusion, or don't.

 

However just posting more the the same drivel isn't proving your point any further or helping the discussion.

And the rebuttal you are making isn't proving anything either honestly. Whether or not anyone thinks variants do or don't prove increased readership the proof is in the pudding. Last relaunches by the big 2 has large print runs of #1's only to have that number drop 50 percent by issue 2 and continued to drop. Now if readership was growing the sales numbers would be there. They are not.

 

I lost count on how many individual variants there were for this last Star Wars #1 same goes for ASM volume 3 and 4. I could go and on and but why bother. If these stories the big 2 are pumping out and so great why is readership decreasing to warrant new #1 jumping onto points. I mean are we all supposed to believe from #1 to #3 a reader would refuse to buy a book because they are lost in the story? Nonsense.

 

You are mixing issues. The topic is Chuck's claim that Variants NEVER increase readership. You are introducing reboots and new comic lines (admittedly some of those include variants). You are complicating the situation further and also drawing a false conclusion.

 

Whether or not variants do what they are supposed to isn't directly related to story quality or the desire for a company to reboot its titles. Of course they are all related in some shape and form, but you cannot draw a linear relationship from one to the other.

 

What I continue to push is that the situation is more complex than everyone is making it and blaming variants as a cause is currently unsubstantiated.

This is a thread about DC's Rebirth renumbering right?

Of course variants and renumbering would be subject to this conversation. IMO variants do the following.

1. Increase the print run of selected issue.

2. Increase the hype game for the title.

3. Cater to a niche collector of a fan who likes specific artist and or cover concept.

4. Inflate the hype to the overall media and thus draw eyes to it.

 

You are correct. I was referring to the discussion that Chuck and I are having (that admittedly had gotten off topic) and the addition of reboots into that specific conversation muddies the waters further.

 

Your points make sense though. However I am not sure you can say they only cater to "niche" collectors.

[natevegas]

Honestly the muddying of the water is exactly what DC & Marvel are doing. Decades ago epic characters (Supes, Batman, Spider-man, Hulk, etc) were introduced. Over next few decades they became ingrained and popular to comic book readers. Nostalgia is very important. These characters were unique. Unique is the key word here. The fans love these characters : 616 One Spider-man, Hulk, Wolverine, Captain America etc. Each publisher envied the other over said characters and continued to try to make new ones that would stick. Some did many didn't. Now lets fast forward to today shall we.

 

Multiple Spider-man's, Caps, Wolverines in continuity etc have damaged the uniqueness of the originals. Older readers and when I said older I mean 30 plus have little desire to continue reading about characters in name only. This isn't just my opinion I hear it from a core group of friends all the time. Publishers are blaming the internet for loss of readership of physical books but the real loss is the uniqueness of the brand.

 

I'll leave with this why would a person read a comic book about a character they love only to see that character is not one of a kind anymore but worse has multiple clones of what made that character unique in the first place.