What's stopping publishers from fiddling with printing identification...?

[Underground44]

"what's to stop any publisher from printing up a "new batch" of a hot book, and just pretend it's a first printing? "

 

This happens now.

 

Publishers always over print.

 

"Overprinting" isn't the same thing as "reprinting."

 

Speaking as someone from the printing industry I can tell you that yes publishers regularly overprint and regularly print "new prints" as you call them.

A printer or publisher could not care less if something is a second print, third print or first print because to them, as long as the information printed is identical in all three prints it is still technically a first print.

Printing is never done with collectors or comic book nerds in mind so therefore print runs do get mixed up and a second or third print will blend into the first.

 

[rjrjr]

Good post. Thanks for the insight.

 

The thing others have mentioned in the thread re printer employees trying to sell a few books at local cons and the like was historically (and by 'historically', I really mean 1990ish - early 2000s) the greater concern. It invariably got back to the publisher (or the exclusive seller/retailer) and was dealt with quickly.

 

And again... pubs understand this market segment and its concerns to a greater extent than you might think, and take such things very seriously. I have direct knowledge of an incident in the early 90s where printer employees were walking rare variants out the back door and trying to move them to retailers. When the publisher was informed, they contacted the fbi. The fbi placed an agent undercover in a store where I worked, and when the transaction concluded, a team of agents, guns drawn, apprehended the seller. We later heard he took a plea rather than stand trial.

 

One of the more exciting times I spent working the counter at a comic shop, lemme tell you... ... but the point is, it was taken seriously by everyone involved.

 

***

 

The thing RMA mentioned at the top re going back to press within a few days -- practically speaking, it's hard to imagine a scenario where that would come up. Press to in-store is generally 3 weeks plus or minus 1 week. Even now, it takes time to get the press time, get stuff on a truck, get it to diamond, let diamond move through their system,etc. When you see a fast 2nd print announcement from a pub, it's because they saw it coming via advance reorders and got the wheels in motion.

Or, potentially, that the publisher went ahead and made a planned "second" print as part of the original run, because variant collectors and reprint collectors are a thing.

 

I was about to mention this. Some of the publishers do this. They know they can shift another X number of copies just by printing a different cover or altering the cover slightly and declaring it a second print. It has another benefit of allowing them to declare the comic as "sold out" and in demand, despite the fact the first prints are sitting in comic shops across the country.

[markseifert]

I was about to mention this. Some of the publishers do this. They know they can shift another X number of copies just by printing a different cover or altering the cover slightly and declaring it a second print. It has another benefit of allowing them to declare the comic as "sold out" and in demand, despite the fact the first prints are sitting in comic shops across the country.

 

I wouldn't suggest it's never happened anywhere, but that wouldn't be without risk -- you'd be cutting off advanced reorders and/or reorders and thus turning down guaranteed money. Which, of course, nobody likes to do.

 

Then, because you've declared it a 2nd print, you (probably) have to get diamond to collect orders on the 'new printing', and if you're actually noting it as a second print on the interior indicia (and it's not on the inside cover) you're maybe incurring the expense of a separate print job anyway, and it's a small one, so your cost per unit is higher.

 

Meanwhile, if it really was a marketing ploy and retailers did still have the first prints sitting around, 2nd print orders may end up soft and you've got a minor financial debacle in the making.

 

Again, wouldn't doubt it's happened, but I also wouldn't be surprised that there was no net benefit to doing it when all was said and done. Of course, that sometimes doesn't stop people...

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

I was about to mention this. Some of the publishers do this. They know they can shift another X number of copies just by printing a different cover or altering the cover slightly and declaring it a second print. It has another benefit of allowing them to declare the comic as "sold out" and in demand, despite the fact the first prints are sitting in comic shops across the country.

 

I wouldn't suggest it's never happened anywhere, but that wouldn't be without risk -- you'd be cutting off advanced reorders and/or reorders and thus turning down guaranteed money. Which, of course, nobody likes to do.

 

Then, because you've declared it a 2nd print, you (probably) have to get diamond to collect orders on the 'new printing', and if you're actually noting it as a second print on the interior indicia (and it's not on the inside cover) you're maybe incurring the expense of a separate print job anyway, and it's a small one, so your cost per unit is higher.

 

Meanwhile, if it really was a marketing ploy and retailers did still have the first prints sitting around, 2nd print orders may end up soft and you've got a minor financial debacle in the making.

 

Again, wouldn't doubt it's happened, but I also wouldn't be surprised that there was no net benefit to doing it when all was said and done. Of course, that sometimes doesn't stop people...

I haven't bothered checking indicias on recent books. Certainly that was primarily the way a reprint was indicated years ago, but in recent years it's indicated on the cover with the barcode.

[RockMyAmadeus]

"what's to stop any publisher from printing up a "new batch" of a hot book, and just pretend it's a first printing? "

 

This happens now.

 

Publishers always over print.

 

"Overprinting" isn't the same thing as "reprinting."

 

Speaking as someone from the printing industry I can tell you that yes publishers regularly overprint and regularly print "new prints" as you call them.

A printer or publisher could not care less if something is a second print, third print or first print because to them, as long as the information printed is identical in all three prints it is still technically a first print.

Printing is never done with collectors or comic book nerds in mind so therefore print runs do get mixed up and a second or third print will blend into the first.

 

True. And that gets into the discussion about "editions" vs. "printings", which is more of a book issue.

 

However...the point I'm making here is that there is a substantial market in books that actually DO sell out, all the way down to the retail level, and there's nothing stopping a publisher (rather than a printer) from simply printing up more "first prints" and having them quietly appear on the market through normal distribution channels.

 

After all, as a retailer, there are many, many items that "sit on Diamond's shelves" long after they are published, which you can order. "Hot Book #1" shows up in your next month's Previews as a reorder. "Wow, I want that!"

 

Take, for example, 6th Gun. 6th Gun #1 was a ridiculous hit, right out of the gate, and selling for silly premiums right away. Now, Oni DID do a second printing, but what was stopping them from saying to the printer "we need 5,000 more copies of that book, would you mind printing them up for us? Oh, just use the same one you have on file. Thanks."

 

That's really the question. As Mark said, printers would likely say something to "fix" the "error", but what's really stopping it?

 

I disagree with you that a publisher could not care less what printing the book is...that was certainly true in the past, but not now, not in this "instant market" age. There IS a market for "later printings" that are identified as such, but it is a very niche market, and very small relative to the "first printing back issue" market, if one develops. The printer doesn't care, because a job is a job is a job (disregarding the interesting side discussion about printer employees...like US Mint employees of the mid-1800's...printing up extra copes to sell out the back door), but it's certainly lucrative for a publisher to print up a "new batch" (let's call them "printing events") of "first printings", because they can then sell them....not as back issues, but through normal distribution channels. And, they could probably move more units if it's a quote-unquote "first printing" (that is, marked as such) than if it's a "second" (that is, marked as such), "variant" collectors aside. The issue of collectors and comic nerds need not enter the picture in this scenario.

 

This stuff, in this day and age, doesn't operate in a vacuum.

 

And, it gets into a whole bunch of technical issues like "what really IS a first printing, anyways?" as you bring up.

 

In other words: would Superman #1 (1939) SECOND PRINT (or THIRD PRINT) be as valuable as the first printing IF they were clearly distinguished...? And so on down the line to today.

 

And....if it's happening, and they ARE indistinguishable...is the whole thing a moot point anyways...? So Publisher X prints up 7,000 copies of Hot Book #1, and it sells out within a week. Publisher X calls up their rep at the printer, and says "we need 5,000 more copies of Hot Book #1, thanks." The printer says "sure, I'll add it to the run, and you'll have them in two weeks."

 

All "first printings", identified as such, and none the wiser.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I haven't bothered checking indicias on recent books. Certainly that was primarily the way a reprint was indicated years ago, but in recent years it's indicated on the cover with the barcode.

 

Printers aren't and haven't been exceptionally diligent in indicating code changes, so it's not necessarily accurate...especially with books that have 87 (literally) different variants.

[Comic Closet]

Always found it strange when a reprint is worth more than the original print. But I work in the printing industry so it is all ink on paper to me.

[Aweandlorder]

[rjrjr]

I was about to mention this. Some of the publishers do this. They know they can shift another X number of copies just by printing a different cover or altering the cover slightly and declaring it a second print. It has another benefit of allowing them to declare the comic as "sold out" and in demand, despite the fact the first prints are sitting in comic shops across the country.

 

I wouldn't suggest it's never happened anywhere, but that wouldn't be without risk -- you'd be cutting off advanced reorders and/or reorders and thus turning down guaranteed money. Which, of course, nobody likes to do.

 

Then, because you've declared it a 2nd print, you (probably) have to get diamond to collect orders on the 'new printing', and if you're actually noting it as a second print on the interior indicia (and it's not on the inside cover) you're maybe incurring the expense of a separate print job anyway, and it's a small one, so your cost per unit is higher.

 

Meanwhile, if it really was a marketing ploy and retailers did still have the first prints sitting around, 2nd print orders may end up soft and you've got a minor financial debacle in the making.

 

Again, wouldn't doubt it's happened, but I also wouldn't be surprised that there was no net benefit to doing it when all was said and done. Of course, that sometimes doesn't stop people...

 

The interior of these second prints are the same as the interior of the first prints, because they came off the presses at the same time. The only difference is the cover.

 

And there is at least one publisher that, at least initially, used this as a marketing tool. I don't know if they still do this or not.

[Jaydogrules]

I was about to mention this. Some of the publishers do this. They know they can shift another X number of copies just by printing a different cover or altering the cover slightly and declaring it a second print. It has another benefit of allowing them to declare the comic as "sold out" and in demand, despite the fact the first prints are sitting in comic shops across the country.

 

I wouldn't suggest it's never happened anywhere, but that wouldn't be without risk -- you'd be cutting off advanced reorders and/or reorders and thus turning down guaranteed money. Which, of course, nobody likes to do.

 

Then, because you've declared it a 2nd print, you (probably) have to get diamond to collect orders on the 'new printing', and if you're actually noting it as a second print on the interior indicia (and it's not on the inside cover) you're maybe incurring the expense of a separate print job anyway, and it's a small one, so your cost per unit is higher.

 

Meanwhile, if it really was a marketing ploy and retailers did still have the first prints sitting around, 2nd print orders may end up soft and you've got a minor financial debacle in the making.

 

Again, wouldn't doubt it's happened, but I also wouldn't be surprised that there was no net benefit to doing it when all was said and done. Of course, that sometimes doesn't stop people...

 

The interior of these second prints are the same as the interior of the first prints, because they came off the presses at the same time. The only difference is the cover.

 

And there is at least one publisher that, at least initially, used this as a marketing tool. I don't know if they still do this or not.

 

And you know this, how?

 

-J.

[dpiercy]

Jaydogrules...I just want to comment on the AWESOMENESS of this username. JAYDOGRULES y'all.

[markseifert]

we need 5,000 more copies of that book, would you mind printing them up for us? Oh, just use the same one you have on file. Thanks.

 

The printer still has the digital files, yep.

 

SOP is to send a new page 1 with the altered indicia indicating the new printing (or whatever page has the indicia, presuming it is an interior page and not a cover).

 

I think the notion that the printer doesn't care may be true in the general case for periodical and/or book printers, but is probably less true for the major comic printers I'm aware of -- Transcon in particular, which accounts for a lot of the market aside from Marvel... those guys are stunningly detail-oriented, and if you wanted to roll the presses again and didn't send in that new page 1 with the indicia... (or whatever you'd need to do in your particular circumstance to indicate a new printing)... I'm fairly certain that would result in a reminder and a discussion.

 

Now, what would happen if you said "nope, just roll it", I guess I couldn't really say, though there are some very old school printing people at the top there, and I have a general sense that they care a lot about reputation.

 

 

[dupont2005]

I doubt the printer cares, but I also doubt the publisher cares either. They tend to not sell back issues. There's probably a bit of variant effect when they print a second print anyway, and people who already own the first print will buy the second as well. I'm wondering if that isn't where most second print copies go actually.

[Kevin76]

I've been in printing working with offset heatset web presses for the last 20 years...the printing company doesn't give 2 flying &%#* about reprinting for their own benefit. A publisher is basically buying press time, once that it done, the printed plates are taken off the press and into the recycling bins and move on to another job. Time is money in printing, it's all about production, not going back to press and printing up a few thousand that isn't needed, unless the customer wants it because the press crews did a bad job.

 

Close the thread, that is your expert answer.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've been in printing working with offset heatset web presses for the last 20 years...the printing company doesn't give 2 flying &%#* about reprinting for their own benefit. A publisher is basically buying press time, once that it done, the printed plates are taken off the press and into the recycling bins and move on to another job. Time is money in printing, it's all about production, not going back to press and printing up a few thousand that isn't needed, unless the customer wants it because the press crews did a bad job.

 

Close the thread, that is your expert answer.

 

 

Except no one was making the claim about the printer..............

[Kevin76]

I've been in printing working with offset heatset web presses for the last 20 years...the printing company doesn't give 2 flying &%#* about reprinting for their own benefit. A publisher is basically buying press time, once that it done, the printed plates are taken off the press and into the recycling bins and move on to another job. Time is money in printing, it's all about production, not going back to press and printing up a few thousand that isn't needed, unless the customer wants it because the press crews did a bad job.

 

Close the thread, that is your expert answer.

 

 

Except no one was making the claim about the printer..............

 

No, but that's how the work flows.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've been in printing working with offset heatset web presses for the last 20 years...the printing company doesn't give 2 flying &%#* about reprinting for their own benefit. A publisher is basically buying press time, once that it done, the printed plates are taken off the press and into the recycling bins and move on to another job. Time is money in printing, it's all about production, not going back to press and printing up a few thousand that isn't needed, unless the customer wants it because the press crews did a bad job.

 

Close the thread, that is your expert answer.

 

 

Except no one was making the claim about the printer..............

 

No, but that's how the work flows.

 

Not in dispute.

 

However, that's still not the question.

[Lonzilla]

Howard The Duck #1 (1976) was reprinted while it was still on the stands according to Frank Brunner, No indication anywhere on the book of a 2nd printing, they all look exactly the same

[steveinthecity]

Howard The Duck #1 (1976) was reprinted while it was still on the stands according to Frank Brunner, No indication anywhere on the book of a 2nd printing, they all look exactly the same

I thought the idea of a HTD #1 second printing had been debunked?

[Lonzilla]

Found this Frank Brunner interview....

"And you know why? I don't know exactly how it happened, but they printed what they thought they could sell, and obviously, it wasn't enough. It was the first Marvel comic that went back to reprint as a first issue—not really a reprint, they just went back to press again and printed more.

 

http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/06brunner.html