Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[World Devourer]

Chuck, yes, the angst angle was an eventual winner for them.  Lightning in a bottle again? I doubt it. For my money, the truly best stories are now all independent.

By the by, your avatar has me curious. How comparable were sales for the Archie titles in the 60's?

Edited April 19, 2017 by World Devourer
Grammar

[Logan510]

30 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Most likely not. Not for superheroes anyway.

But think about what made those characters popular - it was taking conventional story ideas and turning them inside out, using characters that were different than what comic book readers were used to. No, they didn't have a black female superhero, it would've never worked then - but they did have superheroes who argued, had flaws, weren't adults, and were at times full of self doubt.

The majority of the industry saw it as weird - these were the Muslim Ms. Marvel's and Riri Iron Man's of the day - going against popular convention and doing something different.

History likes to make us think these characters were an overnight sensation. For Marvel they were... In 1960 the highest selling book they had was Tales to Astonish, ranked at a paltry #43 with 163,000 average copies per issue (compared to Batman at #6 with 502,000 or Uncle Scrooge at #1 with over a million!). We have no publication data for those early Marvel Superhero books, so we don't know exactly how well they were doing.

We do know that 1964's numbers, with Giant Man in Tales to Astonish, Iron Man in Tales of Suspense and Thor anchoring Journey Into Mystery those books all jumped to just over 200,000 average copies per issue. Thor would be one of Marvel's top titles 3 titles by 1966, only beaten out by FF and ASM - were those two books selling just above 200,000 copies in 1964? We'll never know for sure, but if they were - that's only good for #35 on the charts!

By the time they DID show up with publication numbers, it was 1966 and ASM was at 340,00, FF at 329,000 and Thor at 296,000 - #16, 19, and 23 on the chart. They were NOT the most popular sellers - Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane out printed the ASM by 200,000 copies a month! Superman by more than 400,000 and Batman (thanks to the TV show) by over 500,000!

Spidey didn't crack the top ten until 1969, 6 years after it first began - and even then it was #7, still out printed by Superman (and Archie at #1) by 140,000.

 These characters were NOT runaway hits out of the box - the numbers might have been exciting for MARVEL, who only a few years earlier was on the brink of going out of business - but it took them a few years to really truly catch on - they had a smaller core following at first and that continued to grow as people started to accept the idea of a 'teenage superhero full of self doubt who doesn't always get the girl'.

Maybe Marvel, rather than recreate the same stories with the same heroes again - is actually trying to create something new and different again. 

 

Really? It looks like to me they're regurgitating classic storylines over and over. How many iterations have there been of days of future past just as one example?

The formula is simple: tell a good story and tell it well.

[World Devourer]

2 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Really? It looks like to me they're regurgitating classic storylines over and over. How many iterations have there been of days of future past just as one example?

The formula is simple: tell a good story and tell it well.

Amen to that. Hence the rise of the independents.

[Ken Aldred]

2 hours ago, World Devourer said:

Amen to that. Hence the rise of the independents.

A convert to that years ago, back in the 80s. I've always enjoyed mixing in 'slice of life' indies with my super-hero comics.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[World Devourer]

I occurred to me I did read Dreadstar. It was Epic and actually an off-shoot of Marvel but it was different. Then Elric. In the 90's it was Sandman, Preacher and the always excellent Lucifer. 

[Ken Aldred]

For me, Love and Rockets, and Eightball back then.

[World Devourer]

Hey, Love and Rockets! That brings back memories. And Madman. Strange but clever. And all those experimental Dark Horse Comics stories.

[Prince Namor]

25 minutes ago, World Devourer said:

Hey, Love and Rockets! That brings back memories. And Madman. Strange but clever. And all those experimental Dark Horse Comics stories.

In the late 80's, early 90's independents are what kept me reading comics. Love and Rockets, Eightball, Black Hole, Madman, Xenozoic Tales...

But we're experienced comic book readers.

How anyone still reads mainstream superhero comics with that much experience is beyond me.... unless there is something different to experience...

I read Batman #21 yesterday at the shop - in all of 5 minutes - big hype surrounding it - had to ask my store clerk what the heck was going on (back in the day they used to give you some background info in the story of where things were!) I won't spoil it but... it didn't sound too far removed from what DC does with these things.

Now I'm not knocking DC... they did what they needed to do to get up off the mat after Marvel kicked their head in over the last few years. BUT, all I hear is - they went 'back to basics.' I know what that means... the basic characters in familiar storylines. Here comes the Titans in Lazarus Contract crossover...

Marvel is trying to write for a new and different generation of people. That's what they did in the 60's, and it paid off as 14-15 year old readers in 1961-62 were still buying and responding to the comics in college a few years later. It grew and grew with NEW readers of comics, eventually catapulting Marvel to the #1 Comics Publisher in the early 70's, a position they've pretty consistently held since.

Are the stories the same?... I don't know.... I don't read all that many new modern superhero comics... I thought Ms. Marvel was certainly different. (I was happy to see Silk hanging in there with sales at my store yesterday, that's another one I like.)

Marvel has said, those characters aren't going anywhere... the core heroes will remain a focus, but the new characters are joining the Marvel Universe to stay. 

For the sake of COMICS I hope so. If all we continue to rely upon is who has read them before or who is reading them now, it's no wonder they regurgitate the same stuff. ALL Comics don't have to be for ALL people. It's ok to diversify. It's a big world.

I hope Marvel is able to bring more readers to it. THAT is the only thing that'll save comics.

 

[World Devourer]

I agree that most super-hero stories now are light on content. Marvel is really struggling on this front. I've had no interest since the 1998 titles disappeared.

Of the "modern" DC stories I have enjoyed the more serious storylines, such as Identity Crisis and the GL emotional spectrum arc. But that was pre-reboot, which I feel was a mistake.

I think that one day in the not too distant future content will be via subscription and online only. It is inevitable: the demise of print, shifting demographics, changing world culture etc.

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, Logan510 said:

Really? It looks like to me they're regurgitating classic storylines over and over. How many iterations have there been of days of future past just as one example?

The formula is simple: tell a good story and tell it well.

The other thing that has hurt mainstream comics so much in modern times is each of these characters becoming 'properties'. That meant something like Gwen Stacy dying, wasn't going to happen anymore, or if it did, it would be 'fixed'.

When I think of the number of tragic deaths that occurred in the ASM over the first 10 years of the book - Uncle Ben, Gwen Stacy and her father, then Norman Osborn, and the effect those had on the story and the character and then all of the deaths of major or important characters in the FORTY YEARS since - zero - well...

I believe one of the things that makes the Walking Dead so important to people is... characters in it Can and DO die... they have an emotional investment in the characters. The tragedy of it is compelling to people. You don't have that with mainstream, superhero comics. Everything's a property, everything is it's own 'franchise'.

All they can do is retell the same stories over and over, because there's nothing NEW they can tell. NOTHING is actually going to happen to the character or anyone around them. They HAVE death's, but none of those last - everyone comes back to life or however they retcon it - and it cheapens the event.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, World Devourer said:

Amen to that. Hence the rise of the independents.

Yep. Independents can tell new and fresh stories, unhindered by corporate editorial, undeterred by the dogma of a characters history, un... molested... by the expectations of an aging fan base....

[VintageComics]

On 2017-04-02 at 0:22 PM, Artboy99 said:

Diversity is not the problem at all. I do not care whether the character is white black green or pink or male or female!

It is a whole bunch of problems:

1. Changing long standing characters into someone else. It is the most ignorant decision they have made. They make movies that are great, and that can potentially introduce new readers that then go to a comic store to find Thor is a woman, Hulk is dead, Logan is dead, Punisher is a black guy, Iron MAN is a woman, etc. Just so baffling!

2. Killing selling characters. Hard to sell comics of a character that is DEAD you insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

3. Constantly rebooting. Number 1's every year are a great jumping OFF point.

4. Massive cross title story arcs. I don't want to have to collect Squirrel Girl because the recent story of my collected character ties in.

5. Variants. 1:15, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100, 1:200, 1:250, 1:500, 1:1000, 75 different covers, etc. Makes it impossible for the completist to collect them all.

6. Why can't characters stay unique? Spider-Man becomes Spider-Woman becomes Spider-Girl becomes someone else becomes Spider-Man becomes Spider-Gwen becomes Gwenom becomes Gwenpool, etc.

So frustrating.

It shows a lack of actual conviction and leadership from those that are highest up.

They need a Kevin Feige type editor who can tie it all together.

I especially agree on the bolded parts. They need to crossover better between movies and comics as one will be a gateway to another.

And Wolverine is dead and Punisher is black? 

They deserve what they are getting, and I'm a lifelong Marvel fan.

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, World Devourer said:

Chuck, yes, the angst angle was an eventual winner for them.  Lightning in a bottle again? I doubt it. For my money, the truly best stories are now all independent.

By the by, your avatar has me curious. How comparable were sales for the Archie titles in the 60's?

Archie Comics rocked in the 60's, but 1969 saw Archie jump to the #1 spot just ahead of Superman with 515,356 average copies per issue (58% sell through rate, Supes 53%, heavily down from just 2 years earlier at 65%, and ASM a very strong 64.8%). Betty and Veronica placed at #5 with 384,789 about 10,000 copies more than ASM.

Archie and Me at #11 and Life With Archie at #13 both in 320,000 range

Reggie and Me at #12  (Reggie!?) and Archie Giant Series at #16 with 270,000+ each

Archie Pals & Gals at #20 with 253,000

Comparatively, Marvel had 4 titles in the Top 20 - ASM, FF, Thor, and Hulk. though they placed in 5 of the next six positions 21 through 26 with Daredevil, Captain America, Sgt. Fury, Avengers and Uncanny X-Men respectively.

 

[Prince Namor]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

It shows a lack of actual conviction and leadership from those that are highest up.

They need a Kevin Feige type editor who can tie it all together.

I especially agree on the bolded parts. They need to crossover better between movies and comics as one will be a gateway to another.

And Wolverine is dead and Punisher is black? 

They deserve what they are getting, and I'm a lifelong Marvel fan.

I don't know of any comics retailer who says that the movies have increased the sales of that specific comic.

It's just two different types of audiences.

The Batman movies were monster hits. Batman sells today as well as it did ten years ago, no real shift in anything.

And the Avengers movies were the biggest hits of all.... the comics? Nope. Not even close.

Even Guardians of the Galaxy which with the movies introduced and made non-comic interested people suddenly love those characters.... saw no jump in sales. 

We all have stories of someone of a few people here and there who come in, say they saw the movie - wanted to check it out and see...

But the numbers just don't show any change.

[VintageComics]

On 2017-04-02 at 2:17 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Unsurprisingly, I agree with the point about forced diversity. 

If all you do is chase the money you eventually lose it too.

[World Devourer]

39 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Archie Comics rocked in the 60's, but 1969 saw Archie jump to the #1 spot just ahead of Superman with 515,356 average copies per issue (58% sell through rate, Supes 53%, heavily down from just 2 years earlier at 65%, and ASM a very strong 64.8%). Betty and Veronica placed at #5 with 384,789 about 10,000 copies more than ASM.

Archie and Me at #11 and Life With Archie at #13 both in 320,000 range

Reggie and Me at #12  (Reggie!?) and Archie Giant Series at #16 with 270,000+ each

Archie Pals & Gals at #20 with 253,000

Comparatively, Marvel had 4 titles in the Top 20 - ASM, FF, Thor, and Hulk. though they placed in 5 of the next six positions 21 through 26 with Daredevil, Captain America, Sgt. Fury, Avengers and Uncanny X-Men respectively.

 

Thanks. Very interesting. I'm also going do some research on the Whitman titles, as they were childhood favourites.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/2/2017 at 11:22 AM, Artboy99 said:

Diversity is not the problem at all. I do not care whether the character is white black green or pink or male or female!

It is a whole bunch of problems:

1. Changing long standing characters into someone else. It is the most ignorant decision they have made. They make movies that are great, and that can potentially introduce new readers that then go to a comic store to find Thor is a woman, Hulk is dead, Logan is dead, Punisher is a black guy, Iron MAN is a woman, etc. Just so baffling!

They haven't actually changed long standing characters into someone else. Tony Stark isn't a woman now. Thor did NOT transform into a woman. He DID once transform into a frog, but that was 20 years ago. And do you really believe Logan won't be back?

Oh and actually the Punisher first became a black guy back in 1991, thanks to Mike Baron, and he teamed up with Luke Cage. Storyline didn't last beyond that, as is always the case. Not sure what they're talking about NOW, but....

Quote

2. Killing selling characters. Hard to sell comics of a character that is DEAD you insufficiently_thoughtful_persons.

That last Wolverine series in 2014 was selling 30,000 copies a month. It was a dud.

X-23 as Wolverine is selling almost 50,000 copies a month, and is starting to rise.

Of course... Logan WILL be back.

Quote

3. Constantly rebooting. Number 1's every year are a great jumping OFF point.

It is VERY annoying. And it doesn't make anyone happy but Marvel, as they get a sales spike every time it happens. 

Quote

4. Massive cross title story arcs. I don't want to have to collect Squirrel Girl because the recent story of my collected character ties in.

When did this happen? 

And crossover tie-ins are not a NEW thing. That's been going on for over 20 years.

Quote

5. Variants. 1:15, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100, 1:200, 1:250, 1:500, 1:1000, 75 different covers, etc. Makes it impossible for the completist to collect them all.

I've personally never had a completist compulsion towards multiple variants like that... and as a retailer, I'd prefer Marvel gave us price break incentives on using orders.

Quote

6. Why can't characters stay unique? Spider-Man becomes Spider-Woman becomes Spider-Girl becomes someone else becomes Spider-Man becomes Spider-Gwen becomes Gwenom becomes Gwenpool, etc.

When did Spider-man become Spider-woman? Spider-Woman has been around for 30 years. Spider-Gwen isn't actually Gwen Stacy from the Marvel Universe proper (Gwen is still dead - I think), but rather an alternate universe version of what happened with the radioactive Spider. Sort of a 'What If' story that they've continued to tell.

And I'm not sure what alternate universe Gwenpool is from, but she didn't morph from Spider-gwen - she's another weird amalgam created from a variant cover that caught some people's attention and Marvel just sort of ran with as an idea. I actually have a picture of a cosplayer dressed as her at SDCC, less than a month after the variant had come out.

Quote

So frustrating.

 

It is....

Edited April 19, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[Prince Namor]

I think for Marvel, it's an unfortunate thing and...but, the 40 year old and up buyers of new comics, just isn't enough to sustain them. It's not a big enough pool of buyers...

I've got a handful of older customers who buy new Marvel and DC, and... I'm not knocking it, I just don't understand what they get out  of it...I'm really NOT knocking it, I just - at 53 years old, I just DON'T get any kind of satisfaction from reading superhero comics today. 

NOTHING, that I PERSONALLY enjoyed about it, is there. Now I realize, that IS different for others. But... I just don't GET it.

To ME, a superhero comic will always be done the way John Romita or Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko drew it and told in a style that actually has characterization in it, tells me what's going on, what has happened leading up to this and some sort of conclusion.... today's modern superhero comic, I just find to be a jumbled mess.

The younger readers seem to get it. And enjoy that style. But for me, I'm just not personally entertained. How anyone else my age IS, I just... I don't get it.

And the idea that comics are different NOW, right NOW is short sighted. Comics have been different for a LONG TIME. They changed in the 90's when those McFarlane, Lee and Liefeld guys became superstars and shifted Marvel away from what they did best. This isn't NEW. This didn't start with Ms. Marvel being Muslim. It's been different for a long long time.

[rjrjr]

On 4/17/2017 at 9:59 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

That was a point I was trying to make in an earlier thread that in the 90s Marvel lost all the artists to Image,then Marvel touted they were all about writers,until most of their major writers left as well to greener pastures.

My suggestion was since the movies make billions than maybe Marvel should go find talent and pay them real good money.

In baseball and basketball they are industries that make billions like the Marvel movies and they pay their bench players more than Marvel and DC pay their top talent ,so why can't Marvel pony up and pay these top writers and artists?

Offer them big contracts to develop and write top stories.

Pay Alan Moore,George Perez and Neil Gaiman talent types 1 million each a year to write or draw comics. One million is really considered peanuts when we are talking about billion dollar franchises.

 

If Marvel did this, they would have to raise cover prices.  The cost of the creators is the number 1 cost a comic company has and accounts for the higher prices.  And throwing more money at that same talent isn't going to do squat to bring in new readers.

[rjrjr]

On 4/17/2017 at 6:18 PM, fastballspecial said:

I always thought Marvel should/could change their titles for say 6 months and just focus on the villains. New stories, fresh looks at villains never looked at before and an approach that hasn't been done since say Acts of Vengeance. They have the established base to do it with. They don't have to alienate fans because they all know the villains and Spider-man can be on vacation for a few months. What have they got to lose. They can try it with a couple of titles and branch it out. Ive enjoyed villain stories over the years. Think of how many you could tell from the Avengers, FF and Spider-man.

 

So the answer to fans not getting their preferred heroes is to publish books about just villains?