Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[Ken Aldred]

10 hours ago, Jerkfro said:

I will still buy CDs and DVDs/Blue Rays on occasion. They are still widely in use. I just like having something tangible. Kinda like comic book collecting

 

7 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I have a friend who still only buys cds. His argument is the cds are higher quality sound, and he owns them outright. Said he is having a field day collecting cds, and a lot of fun because most cds can be had for under a buck.

 I still buy CDs from Amazon.  Like all physical formats, fewer these days, though.  Quite often you can also get a free Autorip MP3 version included as well.  That said, the MP3 isn't of that high a quality, and I prefer to listen to lossless FLAC or ALAC files made from my CD purchases.

[nWo_22]

On 4/11/2017 at 10:11 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

I have a friend who still only buys cds. His argument is the cds are higher quality sound, and he owns them outright. Said he is having a field day collecting cds, and a lot of fun because most cds can be had for under a buck.

He is right.

Now while I don't buy a ton of blu ray's anymore, I still own the major movies on disc.  Watching Rogue One on netflix isn't as good as blu ray.

Plus still in 2017 there is zero benefit to owning digital movies, CD, Or games.  They lose the license and you lose your rights to re-downloading the media.

Case in point Marvel vs Capcom 2 for PS3.  I had to get a new PS3, Sony lost the rights to game, I lost $40 bucks. Owning the tangible product is still best.  Just like people who didnt have the common sense to not upload pictures and other media to the iCloud.  Those hot celebrities found out what happens when you assume hackers wont come in and steal your adult pictures from out of the thin air. haha

 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by nWo_22

[Hamlet]

15 minutes ago, nWo_22 said:

He is right.

Now while I don't buy a ton of blu ray's anymore, I still own the major movies on disc.  Watching Rogue One on netflix isn't as good as blu ray.

Plus still in 2017 there is zero benefit to owning digital movies, CD, Or games.  They lose the license and you lose your rights to re-downloading the media.

Case in point Marvel vs Capcom 2 for PS3.  I had to get a new PS3, Sony lost the rights to game, I lost $40 bucks. Owning the tangible product is still best.  Just like people who didnt have the common sense to not upload pictures and other media to the iCloud.  Those hot celebrities found out what happens when you assume hackers wont come in and steal your adult pictures from out of the thin air. haha

 

 

These days, I generally purchase movies digitally through Amazon.  I think Amazon is less likely to go under than I am to lose or damage a physical copy.  The digital copy is also nice because I can pretty much access it from anywhere these days.  If I'm over at a friend's house, and we decide that we'd like to watch one of my movies, we can pull it up on any computer or Roku or Smart TV.

I have a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old that attempt to destroy anything they can get their hands on, so for me a physical copy is a massive downside

Certainly there will continue to be a market for the higher-end quality of a blu ray, but I'm not really that market.

[Hamlet]

18 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I don't think the comparison holds up upon closer scrutiny.  With music, people abandoned compact discs in favor of digital downloads (both legal and illegal) and streaming.  With comics, while we don't have the digital distribution statistics, I think it's pretty obvious that the decline in circulations is not just due to people changing formats.  Not to mention, global music revenue has plummeted by 40% between 2002 and 2015 while this shift occurred - no one would even begin to argue that the economics of the music industry are what they used to be.  If digital subscription models were to similarly dominate in comics, one would have to wonder, not if, but how big a revenue hit the industry would take.  It obviously wouldn't be able to support the existing distribution infrastructure, but I wonder if you could even support the existing creative infrastructure.    

I think you are probably right about the decline in circulation, but without any digital numbers, it is hard to be sure. 

On the economic side of things, the decline in revenue hurts all the middle-men that used to be involved in distributing CDs, but I would argue that the producers and the end consumers are likely to be better off with the digital distribution. 

It's like stock trading-- The transaction costs involved in buying stock have plummeted due to online trading.  The revenues for servicing a retail, low-volume stock trader like myself have declined dramatically in the last 25 years, but it is hard to see that as a bad thing, even though a bunch of stock brokers have had to find new employment.

[drotto]

I wonder if a seemingly radical idea might work for Marvel.  Reduce, consolidate, and simplify.  Step one would be dramatically cut back on the number of books.  I see that they have about 65 books right now,  I would suggest cutting that to like 30.  Make sure the teams, which built Marvel are put at the center and get like 3 books each.  So Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, FF, Hulk, Thor, etc. Would get 1 to 3 titles each family.  That would mean about 15 books used up.  Then your absolutely can carry characters get 1 solo title. Leaving maybe 5 to 10 books that are the experimental titles, that could potentially roll over quickly, while the others would resume legacy numbering.

 

Put you best teams on the main books and really concentrate on quality and keeping those teams consistent.  Try the idea that is is better to have one solid book selling 150k copies than 3 or 4 books selling  30k copies. 

 

Gives this setup a minimum of 2 to 3 years to re-establish and stabilize the MU.  Then re-evaluate and see which titles are working.  Get rid of variants.  Do not do any crossovers for the first few years, and no universe wide events.  Let the different main families be their own thing.

 

Lower the prices.  Now I never expected to see $1 books again, but make them like $2.50.  By having fewer books, less creators to pay, and in theory being able to charge more for ads based on larger print runs, it should be doable. Finally, get the books in more stores.  

Edited April 12, 2017 by drotto

[Ken Aldred]

16 minutes ago, drotto said:

I wonder if a seemingly radical idea might work for Marvel.  Reduce, consolidate, and simplify.  Step one would be dramatically cut back on the number of books.  I see that they have about 65 books right now,  I would suggest cutting that to like 30.  Make sure the teams, which built Marvel are put at the center and get like 3 books each.  So Avengers, X-Men, Spider-Man, FF, Hulk, Thor, etc. Would get 1 to 3 titles each family.  That would mean about 15 books used up.  Then your absolutely can carry characters get 1 solo title. Leaving maybe 5 to 10 books that are the experimental titles, that could potentially roll over quickly, while the others would resume legacy numbering.

 

Put you best teams on the main books and really concentrate on quality and keeping those teams consistent.  Try the idea that is is better to have one solid book selling 150k copies than 3 or 4 books selling  30k copies. 

 

Gives this setup a minimum of 2 to 3 years to re-establish and stabilize the MU.  Then re-evaluate and see which titles are working.  Get rid of variants.  Do not do any crossovers for the first few years, and no universe wide events.  Let the different main families be their own thing.

 

 

A lot of this basically describes why Marvel's comics improved so much under Joe Quesada.

It would be seeing history repeat itself in a good way.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[nepatkm]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:36 PM, Azkaban said:

I quit buying new stuff the first time they renumbered all the titles I collected. Never went back.

When they renumbered Amazing Spider Man the first time ( cant remember exact year ),  I ended my consecutive run on that title ( I wasn't happy with restarting ). Then Marvel renumbered the new series at where the 1st series would be. Yayyy -- I Went to catch back up with the run getting all the issues I had missed,....YEP They started over again ( Along with all their other titles restarting too X-Men, Captain America, FF, Wolverine etc, etc, etc...-They lost me there, I quit my runs, stopped picking up their regular monthly titles! Only series I still buy is The Punisher, and that is incredibly frustrating with the amount of restarts they do with poor Frank.   

P.S. I have Only collected Marvel titles, so this decline had been very disappointing to me, especially at this newest reboot, I'm not even interested in whatever garbage else they are putting out .

[kav]

Eventually Marvel will only print #1's with variant covers.  Every issue will have like a new version of Thor.  Female Thor.  Muslim Thor.  Hulk Thor. Aunt May Thor.  Disabled Thor.

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, kav said:

Eventually Marvel will only print #1's with variant covers.

 

[Lazyboy]

29 minutes ago, kav said:

wow you totally got me man that totally like makes up for me making a fool out of you before well done sir!

What are you talking about and what is wrong with you?

[Prince Namor]

On 4/11/2017 at 2:25 PM, 1Cool said:

The worse thing about the forced diversity in books that it really stinks of desperation.  A drowning man flapping his arms in a last ditch effort to stay afloat.  I don't like to think of Marvel or DC comics as being in that situation.

What makes you think it's FORCED devirsity?

When Black Panther was introduced by two white guys in the 60's, was that forced diversity?

In fact the majority of non-white, non-male superheroes were all created by white men, does that make them a forced use of diversity?

Just because Marvel decides at various points to incorporate non-white/male characters, doesn't mean they are forcing anything. They're simply introducing an angle, or trying, that's different than what they've done before.

Comics have ALWAYS did this in my lifetime.

When Jimmy Olsen appeared as a fish boy on the cover of a 60's comic, it shocked people - they bought it to see what happened - would he ever be the same?

Of course he would. By the end of that issue.

Over the years, they've expanded that idea in terms of who (Women, frogs, homosexuals, different minorities, etc.) and how long (two part story all the way up to over a year).

Same thing with killing off a character.

Robin's dead on the cover of the latest Batman! Oh no! - Back to life by the end of the issue. NOW, they can carry it on for over a year (Wolverine).

Did anyone really believe Wolverine was/is dead for good?

None of this is FORCED. It's all very carefully calculated to manipulate you.

To make you think something NEW is going on, when really, it's just the same old, same old.

None of these new characters is going away. Marvel created them for a reason and they will try and find a way to capitalize on them outside of antiquated comic books and the primarily closed minded individuals that rigidly cling to the dogma of it. 

It's a big freakin world out there and 'I want my Steven Rogers Captain America' COMIC BOOK buyers are a minuscule... MINISCULE part of it.

If Speedball can still show up here and there, you can bet these characters will as well.

 

[kav]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

What makes you think it's FORCED devirsity?

When Black Panther was introduced by two white guys in the 60's, was that forced diversity?

In fact the majority of non-white, non-male superheroes were all created by white men, does that make them a forced use of diversity?

Just because Marvel decides at various points to incorporate non-white/male characters, doesn't mean they are forcing anything. They're simply introducing an angle, or trying, that's different than what they've done before.

Comics have ALWAYS did this in my lifetime.

When Jimmy Olsen appeared as a fish boy on the cover of a 60's comic, it shocked people - they bought it to see what happened - would he ever be the same?

Of course he would. By the end of that issue.

Over the years, they've expanded that idea in terms of who (Women, frogs, homosexuals, different minorities, etc.) and how long (two part story all the way up to over a year).

Same thing with killing off a character.

Robin's dead on the cover of the latest Batman! Oh no! - Back to life by the end of the issue. NOW, they can carry it on for over a year (Wolverine).

Did anyone really believe Wolverine was/is dead for good?

None of this is FORCED. It's all very carefully calculated to manipulate you.

To make you think something NEW is going on, when really, it's just the same old, same old.

None of these new characters is going away. Marvel created them for a reason and they will try and find a way to capitalize on them outside of antiquated comic books and the primarily closed minded individuals that rigidly cling to the dogma of it. 

It's a big freakin world out there and 'I want my Steven Rogers Captain America' COMIC BOOK buyers are a minuscule... MINISCULE part of it.

If Speedball can still show up here and there, you can bet these characters will as well.

 

If you don't get it there's not much anyone can say to explain it.  Pretty much everyone else can see the forced diversity, and it has nothing to do with making Jimmy Olsen a fish boy.  Not even close.

[1Cool]

8 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

What makes you think it's FORCED devirsity?

When Black Panther was introduced by two white guys in the 60's, was that forced diversity?

In fact the majority of non-white, non-male superheroes were all created by white men, does that make them a forced use of diversity?

Just because Marvel decides at various points to incorporate non-white/male characters, doesn't mean they are forcing anything. They're simply introducing an angle, or trying, that's different than what they've done before.

Comics have ALWAYS did this in my lifetime.

When Jimmy Olsen appeared as a fish boy on the cover of a 60's comic, it shocked people - they bought it to see what happened - would he ever be the same?

Of course he would. By the end of that issue.

Over the years, they've expanded that idea in terms of who (Women, frogs, homosexuals, different minorities, etc.) and how long (two part story all the way up to over a year).

Same thing with killing off a character.

Robin's dead on the cover of the latest Batman! Oh no! - Back to life by the end of the issue. NOW, they can carry it on for over a year (Wolverine).

Did anyone really believe Wolverine was/is dead for good?

None of this is FORCED. It's all very carefully calculated to manipulate you.

To make you think something NEW is going on, when really, it's just the same old, same old.

None of these new characters is going away. Marvel created them for a reason and they will try and find a way to capitalize on them outside of antiquated comic books and the primarily closed minded individuals that rigidly cling to the dogma of it. 

It's a big freakin world out there and 'I want my Steven Rogers Captain America' COMIC BOOK buyers are a minuscule... MINISCULE part of it.

If Speedball can still show up here and there, you can bet these characters will as well.

 

I get what you are saying and I can sort of agree to an extent.  The general populace has become so jaded over the years that it takes more and more extremes to get people's juices flowin.  Killing off Wolverine for an issue won't do it - we have to kill him off for a year and temporarily replace him with an Asian girl to get everyone fired up.  I'm not 100% sure Marvel is that smart but maybe it is all one big long game that they have been planning for years.  If they are it may blow up in their faces since people tend to move on if strung along too long and most will never come back. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by 1Cool

[drotto]

The concept of forced diversity is not because Marvel is creating minority characters.  The perception of forced diversity is from those characters replacing long established ones, being given media coverage way beyond the characters popularity, and the characters being given solo books, and prime storyline roles ahead of established characters.  Essentially the characters are being given the spotlight without "earning" it or having the popularity to deserve it.

[ADAMANTIUM]

4 minutes ago, drotto said:

The concept of forced diversity is not because Marvel is creating minority characters.  The perception of forced diversity is from those characters replacing long established ones, being given media coverage way beyond the characters popularity, and the characters being given solo books, and prime storyline roles ahead of established characters.  Essentially the characters are being given the spotlight without "earning" it or having the popularity to deserve it.

+1 

Black Panther was a welcomed NEW character! Maybe "forced" is a strong word, but I can see where people are coming from. If the diversity comes from out of nowhere and replaces a established character, I wouldn't turn it away at least not right away. But it would have to seem justified and that's why I think X23 is popular, if they hadn't of killed off Wolverine then X23 would still be in the background and not at the forefront as a character. A sidekick if you will. As far as other diversity, maybe, Marvel wanted us to take a hard look at a different way of doing things. If that's it, so be it. But then to come out and tell us that we're stubborn because we miss the old style and that "we" won't embrace diversity and that loyalty aint but a thang, is a different story entirely.

If they were actual "new" characters with diversity with a "soul" these would be different arguements.

[classicaaron]

I know we all want legacy numbering but its not likely it will ever stick or last.  this latest ploy is just marketing to hit some milestone numbers and they will be right back to vol 20 # 1 in no time.  So instead of starting over time and time again at random would it be better off if they just used an yearly number system.  for instance each year has 12 issues, so right now for april the book would be labeled 2017 #4, come January its 2018 #1 and it runs through #12.  at least we could keep track of when things came out and would be much easier to know what volume these books are in.

I really noticed how frustrating all these different volumes are this past month as I converted my comic spreadsheet over to a comic app and had to search 10 volumes of punisher to find the right #1's.  and its like this for basically every title now and will only get worse.

Edited April 13, 2017 by classicaaron

[OrangeNemesis]

i cant even build up enough energy to discuss Marvel anymore. That's how much of a sour taste i have regarding them and their antics.

[Doktor]

8 minutes ago, classicaaron said:

I know we all want legacy numbering but its not likely it will ever stick or last.  this latest ploy is just marketing to hit some milestone numbers and they will be right back to vol 20 # 1 in no time.  So instead of starting over time and time again at random would it be better off if they just used an yearly number system.  for instance each year has 12 issues, so right now for april the book would be labeled 2017 #4, come January its 2018 #1 and it runs through #12.  at least we could keep track of when things came out and would be much easier to know what volume these books are in.

I really noticed how frustrating all these different volumes are this past month as I converted my comic spreadsheet over to a comic app and had to search 10 volumes of punisher to find the right #1's.  and its like this for basically every title now and will only get worse.

That's something that Brevvort had been pushing for, for a long time already. Essentially aping the TV model of "seasons". He was talking about it on his Twitter & Tumblr accounts for about a year (from right before he was made VP of publishing until about 10 months later) right before Marvel switched over to a constant-relaunch system. Except that they neglected to note the season # on the cover alongside the issue #. Maybe that would help? Because as it stands, without digging into the indicia for a publishing year or using some online service, if you have any of a few different Wolverine or Punisher volume #1's in a box at a store or a con, the customer can't tell "is this the one I need for this run? Or is this a variant? Or a one-shot? Or what?"

But either way, this has been Marvel's attempt to ape the TV "season" model in comic form because they thought it was less "intimidating" for potential new readers, not realizing that in creating "jumping on points" for these mythological "new readers", it created a lot of "jumping off points" for existing readers.

[classicaaron]

31 minutes ago, Doktor said:

That's something that Brevvort had been pushing for, for a long time already. Essentially aping the TV model of "seasons". He was talking about it on his Twitter & Tumblr accounts for about a year (from right before he was made VP of publishing until about 10 months later) right before Marvel switched over to a constant-relaunch system. Except that they neglected to note the season # on the cover alongside the issue #. Maybe that would help? Because as it stands, without digging into the indicia for a publishing year or using some online service, if you have any of a few different Wolverine or Punisher volume #1's in a box at a store or a con, the customer can't tell "is this the one I need for this run? Or is this a variant? Or a one-shot? Or what?"

But either way, this has been Marvel's attempt to ape the TV "season" model in comic form because they thought it was less "intimidating" for potential new readers, not realizing that in creating "jumping on points" for these mythological "new readers", it created a lot of "jumping off points" for existing readers.

ya, the tv model would at least be a compromise to me.  I love trying to explain comics to new collectors or non collectors and trying to explain which #1 is good or what cover is good and getting blank lost stares coming back.  I always get asked why is there 10 #1's, that doesn't make sense.  then I give them marvels excuse for it and they come back even more confused because they know its more confusing trying to figure out which #1 goes with which #2 and so on in order to try and complete a run if they even wanted to attempt it, so most times they just don't bother and just say the hell with it.  it would be so much easier for new customers to know 110 comes after 109 then to research vol 9 #1 comes after vol 8 #22.  I mean how can they say the legacy numbering is too daunting a task.  plus they have all these different story lines for jumping on points if they just stuck with the legacy numbering.  plus I know if I was a new customer a read a #1 that had no origin at all and was basically the middle of a story I would be even more confused and not pick up the next issue anyway.  its not like these #1's are true start overs, they just continue the last volumes story for the most part.  I know im preaching to the choir.

 

and as an aside, I love trying to tell the wife that I want a particular comic for a gift or something and have to tell her the volume, which cover, etc which makes her confused.  so I supply a picture but then she doesn't even know how to search for it.  would be so much easier just saying wolverine 50 and being done with it.

 

I also find it funny that "kids" comics like Sonic or Simpsons haven't done the renumbering approach but kids still buy them.  if kids aren't confused or even care why would marvel not give adults more credit on figuring this out.  plus most new readers would be kids anyways and they have proven not to care about high numbers.  and I really wonder if they did 10 covers of issue #13 would sales really be that much lower than issue #1 which are inflated just because they do so many variant covers over other issues.

Edited April 13, 2017 by classicaaron

[1950's war comics]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

The concept of forced diversity is not because Marvel is creating minority characters.  The perception of forced diversity is from those characters replacing long established ones, being given media coverage way beyond the characters popularity, and the characters being given solo books, and prime storyline roles ahead of established characters.  Essentially the characters are being given the spotlight without "earning" it or having the popularity to deserve it.

Perfect summarisation