Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[Ken Aldred]

[rjrjr]

On 4/19/2017 at 11:50 AM, Logan510 said:

Don't forget also doing things such as cancelling titles that were making money over personal vendettas and lying about the reasons. I also recall the "classic" incident where Q and Jemas arm wrestled over whether a particular writer would be fired from the company. Don't forget it was during the Q era where they started doing "iconic only" covers as opposed to covers that told any of the story inside. So many things that turned me off as a fan ?

Thanks for mentioning those.  Joe Q.'s time as EIC at Marvel had done considerable damage to the publisher.  Sadly, his replacement has continued to follow his lead.

Edited April 20, 2017 by rjrjr

[rjrjr]

There is one things that keep being brought up in discussions over and over again that simply is not true:

Marvel and DC Choose Not to Distribute Comics to Non-Direct Market Retailers

The truth is, non-direct market retailers do not want to carry comics (they take up too much space and are too inexpensive; I imagine returning them is also a pain to deal with.)  The direct market is an avenue for comic publishers to continue to sell comics.  If the direct market had not come along, I suspect publishers would have adapted and found a format agreeable for retailers to continue to carry their product like trade paperbacks, but the format we traditionally associate with comic books would have disappeared.  While the direct market did save comics, the end result was a smaller audience for comic books.  Unfortunately, Marvel and DC have tried many, many times over the years to get comics back into general retail, with the attempts failing.  Maybe the recent Archie deal will help Marvel (although I don't think the deal is for tradition comics, so much as digest-sized comics), but I'm doubtful.

While comics are not at retail, mainstream trade paperbacks are.  That is a format that retailers can embrace and a limited selection of trade paperbacks can be found at both Target and Walmart, usually for the more mainstream characters like Batman, Superman, and such.  A larger selection can be found at bookstores, including online retailer Amazon.  Unfortunately, they are priced higher than comics and this might be the reason we still hear people complain that comics are not available at retailers.  I suspect the digest-sized books Archie will distribute for Marvel will be at a lower price point and is meant to address the price retailers have a complaint about and making the product affordable for kids.  If the complaint is comics are not found in convenient stores, well, there are many items no longer found in convenient stores.  I remember most of my trading cards being bought at 7-11 as a kid and I haven't seen trading cards in convenient stores for about as long as I haven't seen comics.  They also carry very few magazines and/or books if any at all.

Edited April 20, 2017 by rjrjr

[Prince Namor]

Well... there were still plenty of opportunities for comics to be carried at newsstands, drug stores (where I bought my comics as a kid), book stores, grocery stores, and even convienience stores as they grew more prominent. 

They are still carried in almost all chain book stores and grocery stores.    

Both Marvel and DC created higher priced type of comics to keep up with the growing price of magazines in the 70's (Giant Size, Treasury Edition, Magazines) and felt their space getting squeezed when magazines started to really go up in price by the early to mid-80's. 

But make no mistake about - it's fact - the PUBLISHERS decided to begin cutting ties with the newsstand disitribution system. It was a system they were at the mercy of - returns - no control - limited space vs the direct market where they could take advantage   of nerdom's glee for superheroes, selling their product with no returns. 

Mad Magazine, continued using the old distribution system and still to this day has a circulation of over 100,000 copies. (Wikipedia says 250,000+) They've never been much more than 50 cents higher than the average comic and these days only about $1 more than the average Marvel comic. 

Here Chuck Rozanski talks about his part in helping 'decimate' the newsstand system, but how it actually hurt the number of comics sold  http://www.milehighcomics.com/tales/cbg110.html

And his 30% sell through is a little misleading - any comic of the day that had that would've been canceled pretty quickly - even ASM in the worst of times was close to 50% sell through.

The Publishers chose to abandon the newsstand system.

 

[piper]

On 4/15/2017 at 8:11 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am starting to think that trade paperbacks and digital sales are a lot bigger than we think.

[Lazyboy]

5 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

But make no mistake about - it's fact - the PUBLISHERS decided to begin cutting ties with the newsstand disitribution system. It was a system they were at the mercy of - returns - no control - limited space vs the direct market where they could take advantage   of nerdom's glee for superheroes, selling their product with no returns.

Here Chuck Rozanski talks about his part in helping 'decimate' the newsstand system, but how it actually hurt the number of comics sold  http://www.milehighcomics.com/tales/cbg110.html

And his 30% sell through is a little misleading - any comic of the day that had that would've been canceled pretty quickly - even ASM in the worst of times was close to 50% sell through.

The Publishers chose to abandon the newsstand system.

I notice that you conveniently ignored the part where (Mile High) Chuck says "That having been said, however, the flip side of the argument is that the newsstand market for comics was already disintegrating in 1979, so we helped stave off for twenty years the inevitable replacement of printed forms of entertainment by the newly created electronic forms. I can argue the issue both ways."

Also, if newsstand distribution was going so well, what happened to all the other publishers from the newsstand-only era? Did they all just decide they no longer liked money?

[ComicConnoisseur]

Marvel Reveals Captain America Was ALWAYS Evil.

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-hydra-evil-explained/

Cap’s freezing, heroic escapades, Civil Wars, and countless other memorable achievements and victories up until now? Those were the brainwashings on full display. So with the mystery solved, fans can now instead ask… whether this was even a somewhat good idea. We’re believers in not judging a story before it’s finished, and by now, twists and bombshells could come a half-dozen more time before then end.

But if controversy swamped Marvel, Spencer, the editorial team, and comic shops everywhere… we have to imagine this will make things worse, not better.

[Prince Namor]

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

I notice that you conveniently ignored the part where (Mile High) Chuck says "That having been said, however, the flip side of the argument is that the newsstand market for comics was already disintegrating in 1979, so we helped stave off for twenty years the inevitable replacement of printed forms of entertainment by the newly created electronic forms. I can argue the issue both ways."

Mad Magazine could effectively argue that isn't true at all. Essentially a comic book in magazine form, in Black & White no less, they continued to benefit and publish and be successful under that system. In 1986, while in college, the first comic book store opened in the small town where I went to college. But you could still buy comics at Toys R us, Wal-Mart, the various convenience stores, and the two book stores in the mall - all provided by the newsstand distribution system.

And 1979 was the year the Direct Market really began to kick in, of course it seemed as though the newsstand sales were dying! Marvel and DC were already moving away from it.

Quote

Also, if newsstand distribution was going so well, what happened to all the other publishers from the newsstand-only era? Did they all just decide they no longer liked money?

You really don't know? Wow, I thought this stuff was all pretty basic common knowledge....

When Marvel escaped from the crippling hold that DC's distribution held over them for most of the 60's (Yes, DC's distribution, also handled Marvel's books as well, because of an unfortunate business deal Martin Goodman had made), they made the most of it. No longer held to 13 titles a month under DC's rule (a number they fudged on regularly, with bi-monthly titles and a stagger system of releases, sometimes sneaking in as many 16 in a month), they set out to expand and glut the market.

Tales of Suspense became Iron Man #1 and Captain America #100, Tales to Astonish became Hulk #101 and Sub-Mariner #1, Strange Tales became Nick Fury #1 and Doctor Strange #169, Silver Surfer got his own book, Spidey had a magazine for a couple of issues, monster reprints, etc. -they set out to glut the market and bully their competition off the newsstand. Soon they were publishing 24 titles a month and by 1972, up to 32 and by 1974-75 up to 50+.

DC of course responded with their own expansion, with as many as 35 by 1975.

It squeezed smaller publishers like Charlton very hard, and even though they hung in there until late 1984, the demand for their books just slowly dried up. Didn't have to do with the newsstand distribution - no one was buying their books, they couldn't stay in business. Marvel and DC had both started experimenting with glossier covers, better paper - Charlton still looked like a newspaper folded together. 

Dell almost immediately went under in the early 70's, with some of their titles going to Gold Key - Gold Key and Harvey were hit hard, as kids growing up started to watch more and more cartoons - cartoon programs exploded in popularity in the 70's and grew even bigger in the 80's - even the books DC put out to purposely to infringe upon Gold Key's territory didn't last - it just made it harder for those publishers to stay in business.

Archie Comics, with it's powerful brand that only 5-6 years earlier had been the #1 comic published, saw a decline in sales, but was still able to benefit from the newsstand exposure, and continue to publish regularly just as easily as Mad Magazine did.

But Marvel and DC abandoning the newsstand, ended up making it a self fulfilling prophecy. They took countless comic book buyers out of the newsstand market and that loss of business effected everyone who still relied upon it.

No matter how Shooter or Marvel or DC try and sugar coat it - they abandoned the newsstand market for a sweetheart deal - then STILL raised the prices on their books, despite selling more at a higher profit.

They now had their suckers hooked and corralled in specific locations, with minimum purchase totals for the shops and a no return policy!

In the 80's, under the 'horrible' newsstand system, Archie was printing 60,000 - today? 15,000 copies.

Amazing Spider-man in 1977 under the crumbling newsstand system - 281,000 - today? 60,000 copies.

Which system was crumbling?

Demand for comics dropped in the late 70's - remember - the 'blockbuster' movie began in the late 70's - cable TV in the early 80's - but the answer Marvel and DC chose was a short term fix, that ended up creating multiple generations of kids no longer exposed to comic books. Even now, their methods to CURE their market, has continuously been gimmicks and short term band-aids meant to milk their aging and spent fan base.

To try and paint them as any type of victim for responding how they did is just short-sighted.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[romanheart]

Maybe the solution is to just move away from corporate mentality. Dare I say that capitalism isn't always best.

Instead of going for the short money as fast as you can they could work on actually building a franchise with a long term goal. I think other industries suffer from this problem as well.

I agree with others. They could share some residuals with the artists for new characters. Lowering the price point per comic and branching out back to newsstand outlets would be a great idea to reach a larger market as well.

[Prince Namor]

51 minutes ago, romanheart said:

Maybe the solution is to just move away from corporate mentality. Dare I say that capitalism isn't always best.

Instead of going for the short money as fast as you can they could work on actually building a franchise with a long term goal. I think other industries suffer from this problem as well.

I agree with others. They could share some residuals with the artists for new characters. Lowering the price point per comic and branching out back to newsstand outlets would be a great idea to reach a larger market as well.

Marvel, during Stan Lee's days, was just as driven to sell as Marvel/Disney is today. It was all about selling more comics. 

However, THAT wasn't the face of the company. Stan was. And he hyped and promoted and put new product out there that was different than before - nostalgia makes people remember all of it as good - but really, much of the Silver Age material is thin on story, repetitive in its style, and just plain boring when stripped of its hype. 

But Stan knew how to sell it. He connected with fans and made them feel as if they were a part of the Marvel Universe - Marvel was the underdog at the time. They weren't the #1 publisher with the top 10 books (as outlined here earlier) and a sense of rebelliousness against other more boring publishers worked as a rallying cry to build a fan base. 

Marvel doesn't have this now. THEY are the top dog and they don't have a cheerleader who can relate to people and rally them to Marvel. It's a different world. Social media can make you or break your balls in the change of a second. What once could be considered rebellious, going against the grain and taking on 'the man' is now seen as 'Social Justice' and whining. 

Marvel's plans coming up, according to their 'secret' presentation at C2E2 (no cameras/phone use allowed!) ties into their tease: Marvel Legacy. A return to classic characters, mixed with the new, with... well. You'll see. They've asked us to keep it quiet.

Before that we have to get through Secret Empire (The Mark Brooks covers look awesome - he does some amazing work). 

After it's all said and done, I suspect Marvel will sell more copies of certain comics and be closer to where they want to be. 

But it's still not going to be what it once was. 

The key, and we've already seen how this has been destroyed - is to reach younger readers at an impressionable age. 

Movies do it, games do it....

The power of it is astounding. Everyone here complaining about how comics aren't what they 'used' to be, are all doing it from the perspective of the first few years THEY discovered comics. It's everywhere from the Silver Age through to the McFarlane years. 

Some people think the McFarlane early 90's was the good old days!!!! It's all about when YOU discovered comics. 

I still think mid to late Bronze is the best -  - but honestly, Marvel released more garbage during that period as any other.

Marvel is RIGHT - it IS all about the characters - they just haven't figured out the best way to SELL them in comics here lately...

But that's the easiest part... 

We as a hobby aren't reaching that young reader correctly with COMIC BOOKS and it's costing us dearly in the long run.

 

[Ken Aldred]

10 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

.... And he hyped and promoted and put new product out there that was different than before - nostalgia makes people remember all of it as good - but really, much of the Silver Age material is thin on story, repetitive in its style, and just plain boring when stripped of its hype...

 

... I still think mid to late Bronze is the best -  - but honestly, Marvel released more garbage during that period as any other...

 

 

It's interesting to go back and look at what was on sale during a month in the 70s, using the Newsstand option at this website..

http://www.dcindexes.com/index.php

.... and realise that I'm struggling to find more than maybe a dozen issues at most that are of really high quality and memorable - and for me, a supposed Bronze Age fan, that's across all publishers, not just Marvel. 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

We as a hobby aren't reaching that young reader correctly with COMIC BOOKS and it's costing us dearly in the long run.

 

It is going to be tough . Hard to compete with a monthly $3.99 comic book when it goes against video games which offers hours of play,and tablets/smart phones that are loaded with apps.

Comic books never had this kind of competition before. Yes,they had TV in the 50s, and VHS in the 80s, but comics back then were still cheap enough were they could still compete.

Very tough future ahead competing wise. I look forward to see how the comics industry addresses this challenge.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, Ken Aldred said:

It's interesting to go back and look at what was on sale during a month in the 70s, using the Newsstand option at this website..

http://www.dcindexes.com/index.php

.... and realise that I'm struggling to find more than maybe a dozen issues at most that are of really high quality and memorable - and for me, a supposed Bronze Age fan, that's across all publishers, not just Marvel. 

 

Cool site. I just added it to my favorites. 

[zhamlau]

21 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Dear Lord, that was actually a marvel comic book?!?! This page? Was it .75 cents?

[Ken Aldred]

38 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

Dear Lord, that was actually a marvel comic book?!?! This page? Was it .75 cents?

Nope. Full price. 

Some consider it to be so brilliant and original that the issue was voted for and included in the Marvel 75th Anniversary Omnibus classic comics hardcover....

 

Captain America Comics (1941) #1, Fantastic Four (1961) #1, Incredible Hulk (1962) #1, Amazing Fantasy (1962) #15, Avengers (1963) #1, Amazing Spider-Man(1963) #31,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963) #32,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963) #33,  Fantastic Four (1961) #48,  Fantastic Four (1961) #49,  Fantastic Four (1961) #50,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963) #50,  Avengers (1963) #57,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963) #121,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963) #122,  Incredible Hulk(1968) #181,  Giant-Size X-Men #1,  X-Men(1963) #141,  Uncanny X-Men (1981) #142,  Daredevil (1964) #181,  MGN #1: The Death of Captain Marvel,  MGN #5: X-Men - God Loves, Man Kills,  Thor (1966) #337,  Amazing Spider-Man (1963)  #248,  Fantastic Four(1961) #285,  Marvels #1,  X-Men Alpha Thunderbolts (1997) #1, Amazing Spider-Man(1999) #36, Ultimates (2002) #1, Captain America (2005) #25, Amazing Spider-Man(1963) #700, Hawkeye (2012) #11.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

It is going to be tough . Hard to compete with a monthly $3.99 comic book when it goes against video games which offers hours of play,and tablets/smart phones that are loaded with apps.

Comic books never had this kind of competition before. Yes,they had TV in the 50s, and VHS in the 80s, but comics back then were still cheap enough were they could still compete.

Very tough future ahead competing wise. I look forward to see how the comics industry addresses this challenge.

 

It's easier for a parent to buy a $3.99 comic to pacify a kid in the grocery store than it is a $60 game. 

[topofthetotem]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It's easier for a parent to buy a $3.99 comic to pacify a kid in the grocery store than it is a $60 game. 

Assuming the kid even wants a comic. What is the demographic of the comic buyer? I bet it isn't children.

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

It's interesting to go back and look at what was on sale during a month in the 70s, using the Newsstand option at this website..

http://www.dcindexes.com/index.php

.... and realise that I'm struggling to find more than maybe a dozen issues at most that are of really high quality and memorable - and for me, a supposed Bronze Age fan, that's across all publishers, not just Marvel. 

 

I know, right? It's because it's an era when we first discovered comics, so it has a golden aura to it. 

Giant Size Super-stars #1 had a huge impact on me - walking into the drug store across the street from my grade school, seeing it on the stands in all of it's colorful glory. 

Tried to read that thing a few years ago - ugh - it's beyond moronic. 

Yes, it takes more than 5 minutes to read - thanks to Marvel's style of over pontificating every little thing that happens. It's essentially 20 pages of fight between the Thing and the Hulk. 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

9 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

It's easier for a parent to buy a $3.99 comic to pacify a kid in the grocery store than it is a $60 game. 

Except those $3.99 comics are not in grocery stores anymore,but I have seen $9.99 video games on the racks by the cashiers.

 

[Prince Namor]

5 minutes ago, topofthetotem said:

Assuming the kid even wants a comic. What is the demographic of the comic buyer? I bet it isn't children.

That's just it, they've abandoned the newsstand market and trying to aim their product at new younger readers.  

Everything has been geared toward the Direct Market and the aging fan base.