Amazing Spiderman #796 shenanigans 1 1

[Mercury Man]

9 minutes ago, DarkPhantom13 said:

Have ASM in my pull at my LCS so i was able to get my copy. Unfortunately for my buddy he wasn't able to get a copy so he went to another shop across the city and that shop still had around 7 in stock...at $20 each! RIDICULOUS!!!!!

Nice gouging

[Mercury Man]

14 hours ago, 400yrs1 said:

It is and that's a large part of what nearly killed the industry in the 90s. 

Is it Emerald City you are talking about?  The speculators buying all the copies right when the shop opens is turning me off to the thought of buying new books to read.  I've seen dudes buy every copy of "hot" new books there for a while now and it's annoying.

I went there the day Ice Cream Man #1 came out at 11:30 and they were sold out.  Bummer that I can't get a copy to read thirty minutes after a shop opens probably because some dude bought every one to flip on eBay.  Feels like the 90s again.

I should have a copy of ASM in my pull though.

Not EC, although when they had 2 stores, it was my go to place.   Now that they merged into one big store, I have closer options. 

[ExNihilo]

1 hour ago, DarkPhantom13 said:

Have ASM in my pull at my LCS so i was able to get my copy. Unfortunately for my buddy he wasn't able to get a copy so he went to another shop across the city and that shop still had around 7 in stock...at $20 each! RIDICULOUS!!!!!

Are shops legally allowed to do that?  Sounds really shady, especially considering it's a new release.

[kairos70]

13 minutes ago, ExNihilo said:

Are shops legally allowed to do that?  Sounds really shady, especially considering it's a new release.

There are no rules against it.  Unethical maybe. Probably the only way to deal with this is customer protest. However, like I said previously, as long as they take care of their pull list customers I have no problem with them charging market prices for their comics after that.  Sad thing is there should have been an immediate market correction after everyone read #796 and found out this wasn't the first appearance of Red Goblin. That hasn't happen yet. Now this hype will move on to the next issue #797 and we get to do this all over again.

[speedcake]

How is it unethical? I don't know that I agree with the approach of charging a (in this case hefty) premium for a red hot book to anyone who doesn't have a pull list, but the shop owners aren't under any obligation to sell at cover. They are a business. Now is it the best business practice to charge that premium, especially considering hot books like the current spidey story line might bring in new readers who might get turned off by the price hike? Maybe, maybe not.  It's probably best to just limit to one per customer. The shops that let some person_too_unaware_of_social_graces come in as soon as they open and buy every copy would make me more upset than charging a premium for the books.  By far. By a long long shot.

[Mercury Man]

I wouldn't spend another dime at a place that just did that. 

[kairos70]

13 hours ago, speedcake said:

How is it unethical? I don't know that I agree with the approach of charging a (in this case hefty) premium for a red hot book to anyone who doesn't have a pull list, but the shop owners aren't under any obligation to sell at cover. They are a business. Now is it the best business practice to charge that premium, especially considering hot books like the current spidey story line might bring in new readers who might get turned off by the price hike? Maybe, maybe not.  It's probably best to just limit to one per customer. The shops that let some person_too_unaware_of_social_graces come in as soon as they open and buy every copy would make me more upset than charging a premium for the books.  By far. By a long long shot.

It's unethical because the price on the cover let's consumers know they are overpaying. It's price gouging plain and simple. It's not an agreed upon price between the vendor and the consumer. No different scenario than when during a natural disaster a gas station starts charging $10 a gallon or if a grocery stores charge $20 for a case of water. I know my state has laws against price gouging when it comes to necessities but like I said these laws don't apply to comics. Price gouging for comic retailers is legal but not ethical. 

[speedcake]

Fair enough. Comics aren't necessities in an emergency, but fine.  Limit to one customer. Any shop that lets the first person through the door buy every copy is equally as bad as raising prices on the first day of release. When is it ok for the shop to raise the price? Thursday?

[Old Fashion PB and J]

On 2/22/2018 at 7:47 AM, ygogolak said:

This one seems to have people pretty furious in the FB groups.

Plenty of LOLz

[D-Optimist]

I'm missing #792 794 & 795... probably gonna add ASM to the pull list... walked into two shops they had 796 in stock... the second shop had noticeably less copies... actually i don't remember if the first shop had many copies...

didn't know this book was hot like that...

needless to say the Red Goblin hype is real...

Edited February 24, 2018 by D-Optimist

[fastballspecial]

I rather sell on the way up any day.  I wont be holding any copies. I bought the Comic Exposure Variant because
it was the 1st cover app I only wish I would have bought more as I will no issue selling them. 

 

[Mercury Man]

11 hours ago, kairos70 said:

It's unethical because the price on the cover let's consumers know they are overpaying. It's price gouging plain and simple.

I don't disagree that it is a form of gouging.  I guess I am curious as how 'gouging' pertains to collectibles, because it certainly isn't illegal like supplies during a hurricane (living in FL I am all too familiar with this)?  So if a new release comes out that regularly sells for $3.99, what is the limit of time before a vendor should be able to tack on extra $$.   1 month when the next release comes out?   Or is it moot and a free market society?

[ADAMANTIUM]

6 minutes ago, Mercury Man said:

I don't disagree that it is a form of gouging.  I guess I am curious as how 'gouging' pertains to collectibles, because it certainly isn't illegal like supplies during a hurricane (living in FL I am all too familiar with this)?  So if a new release comes out that regularly sells for $3.99, what is the limit of time before a vendor should be able to tack on extra $$.   1 month when the next release comes out?   Or is it moot and a free market society?

I've heard my LCStores talk a little about it and they all agree that there is a grace period, and it is usually 2-3 weeks, I think. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by ADAMANTIUM

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 hours ago, kairos70 said:

It's unethical because the price on the cover let's consumers know they are overpaying. It's price gouging plain and simple. It's not an agreed upon price between the vendor and the consumer. No different scenario than when during a natural disaster a gas station starts charging $10 a gallon or if a grocery stores charge $20 for a case of water. I know my state has laws against price gouging when it comes to necessities but like I said these laws don't apply to comics. Price gouging for comic retailers is legal but not ethical. 

The price on the cover of the Batman #17 I just lost on eBay is ten cents. It ended at $381. Does that cover price let consumers know they are overpaying...? 

"That's different!" No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. It's supply and demand at work. The consumer and the vendor both have to agree on the price...the consumer doesn't get to dictate the price. You're conflating the two. 

Supply and demand is the only system that works. Frustrating, but true. And perfectly ethical.

And, by the way, having laws against price gouging is just another tentacle of socialism. "It's not FAIR!!!" is why those laws exist, never bothering to ask important questions like "why didn't you have your own supply already ready...?" 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and welcome to 1993.

[kairos70]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The price on the cover of the Batman #17 I just lost on eBay is ten cents. It ended at $381. Does that cover price let consumers know they are overpaying...? 

"That's different!" No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. It's supply and demand at work. The consumer and the vendor both have to agree on the price...the consumer doesn't get to dictate the price. You're conflating the two. 

Supply and demand is the only system that works. Frustrating, but true. And perfectly ethical.

And, by the way, having laws against price gouging is just another tentacle of socialism. "It's not FAIR!!!" is why those laws exist, never bothering to ask important questions like "why didn't you have your own supply already ready...?" 

  As stated in an earlier post, I have no problem with shops charging whatever the market will bear after they fulfill their pull list obligation. No need to hurl insults or give economic lessons. There is retail and there is the aftermarket. You're argument is incorrect since the Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents retail. It's $381 on the after market so your illustration is bupkiss.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

34 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

56 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The price on the cover of the Batman #17 I just lost on eBay is ten cents. It ended at $381. Does that cover price let consumers know they are overpaying...? 

"That's different!" No, it's not. It's the exact same thing. It's supply and demand at work. The consumer and the vendor both have to agree on the price...the consumer doesn't get to dictate the price. You're conflating the two. 

Supply and demand is the only system that works. Frustrating, but true. And perfectly ethical.

And, by the way, having laws against price gouging is just another tentacle of socialism. "It's not FAIR!!!" is why those laws exist, never bothering to ask important questions like "why didn't you have your own supply already ready...?" 

  As stated in an earlier post, I have no problem with shops charging whatever the market will bear after they fulfill their pull list obligation. No need to hurl insults or give economic lessons. There is retail and there is the aftermarket. You're argument is incorrect since the Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents retail. It's $381 on the after market so your illustration is bupkiss.  

What insult was hurled...?

Can you say...? 

And I know some people will claim  otherwise, but I am NOT argument. (Ok, yeah, terrible joke at his expense, but I love it.)

You've missed the point, as you did previously. The point is supply and demand. So, apparently, there IS need for economic lessons; if not for you, perhaps for others.

But let's look at your counterargument rationally:

1. How do you know that in every instance Batman #17 was "sold for 10 cents retail"? You don't know. I daresay no one does, and such information is unknowable now. But the allegation that every copy of Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents doesn't change that fact that newsvendors were not obligated to sell them for that price. They could, in fact, sell them for more. (What they could NOT do is sell them for LESS, which is why cover prices exist in the first place, but that was a function of agreements among distributors in that era, not law.)

2. There is no such thing as "retail" and "the aftermarket", in an economic sense. Those concepts do not exist in a free market in the manner in which you're trying to use them. There is only supply and there is only demand. There is only "I have this product I am willing to sell at this price" and "I desire this product, and I will pay this much for it." That's it. Suggesting that there be such things as "retail time periods", for which a product cannot be sold for more than such and such a price is not a function of the laws of economics. Such agreements, if they exist at all, must be entirely voluntary, or you do not have a free market, by definition.

3. Cover prices today, as for most things, are part of the concept of the "list price" or the "suggested retail price." No one is bound to sell those items at that price. They may sell them higher, or they may sell them lower. If retailers wish to survive economically, they must price them competitively. Nothing else matters, and here's the important part: nor should it. It is merely a matter of convenience that comic books have cover prices these days, both for the publisher and the retailer. After all...do you see a price printed on a razor? A bottle of wine? A pizza? A digital camera? No, these prices are set by the individual retailer.

You need to think critically and rationally, not emotionally. It is an emotional response to get upset that someone is charging more for things that they legally obtained than you think they should charge for them. That is not rational. It's not reasonable. It's emotional. 

The appropriate response is as speedcake and mercury man stated above: vote with your dollars, and do not do business with those shops that behave in manners which you find objectionable. I haven't stepped foot into a comic store to buy comics in 7-8 years, because I don't like the vast majority of their business practices. But I do not attempt to compare them to disaster situations, nor would I suggest by implication that there ought to be laws against it. I can reason, I can persuade, but ultimately, they are free to do what they wish, and I am free to do what I wish, and that is how it works. 

It's unfortunate, but it's the reality we live in: the new comics market is treated like the Franklin Mint, with everyone trying to cash in on "the latest hot thing." The publishers do it, because that's what the market has told them to do.

And the ultimate expression of that freedom is to do it yourself. If you don't like the way others are conducting business, that seems like a ripe opportunity to compete with them and force them, through the realities of the free market, to either adapt or perish. 

Of course, good luck trying to get addicts to curb their addiction...

[kairos70]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

What insult was hurled...?

Can you say...? 

And I know some people will claim  otherwise, but I am NOT argument. (Ok, yeah, terrible joke at his expense, but I love it.)

You've missed the point, as you did previously. The point is supply and demand. So, apparently, there IS need for economic lessons; if not for you, perhaps for others.

But let's look at your counterargument rationally:

1. How do you know that in every instance Batman #17 was "sold for 10 cents retail"? You don't know. I daresay no one does, and such information is unknowable now. But the allegation that every copy of Batman #17 was sold for 10 cents doesn't change that fact that newsvendors were not obligated to sell them for that price. They could, in fact, sell them for more. (What they could NOT do is sell them for LESS, which is why cover prices exist in the first place, but that was a function of agreements among distributors in that era, not law.)

2. There is no such thing as "retail" and "the aftermarket", in an economic sense. Those concepts do not exist in a free market in the manner in which you're trying to use them. There is only supply and there is only demand. There is only "I have this product I am willing to sell at this price" and "I desire this product, and I will pay this much for it." That's it. Suggesting that there be such things as "retail time periods", for which a product cannot be sold for more than such and such a price is not a function of the laws of economics. Such agreements, if they exist at all, must be entirely voluntary, or you do not have a free market, by definition.

3. Cover prices today, as for most things, are part of the concept of the "list price" or the "suggested retail price." No one is bound to sell those items at that price. They may sell them higher, or they may sell them lower. If retailers wish to survive economically, they must price them competitively. Nothing else matters, and here's the important part: nor should it. It is merely a matter of convenience that comic books have cover prices these days, both for the publisher and the retailer. After all...do you see a price printed on a razor? A bottle of wine? A pizza? A digital camera? No, these prices are set by the individual retailer.

You need to think critically and rationally, not emotionally. It is an emotional response to get upset that someone is charging more for things that they legally obtained than you think they should charge for them. That is not rational. It's not reasonable. It's emotional. 

The appropriate response is as speedcake and mercury man stated above: vote with your dollars, and do not do business with those shops that behave in manners which you find objectionable. I haven't stepped foot into a comic store to buy comics in 7-8 years, because I don't like the vast majority of their business practices. But I do not attempt to compare them to disaster situations, nor would I suggest by implication that there ought to be laws against it. I can reason, I can persuade, but ultimately, they are free to do what they wish, and I am free to do what I wish, and that is how it works. 

It's unfortunate, but it's the reality we live in: the new comics market is treated like the Franklin Mint, with everyone trying to cash in on "the latest hot thing." The publishers do it, because that's what the market has told them to do.

And the ultimate expression of that freedom is to do it yourself. If you don't like the way others are conducting business, that seems like a ripe opportunity to compete with them and force them, through the realities of the free market, to either adapt or perish. 

Of course, good luck trying to get addicts to curb their addiction...

You need the economics lesson. You can't use the supply and demand argument because there is no way for you to quantify the supply. How many copies are for sale right now? retail? after market? Go ahead, I'll wait.  Furthermore, there are retailers who are honoring the suggested retail price on the cover but they are limiting the supply by only allowing one copy per customer. That would counter any price gougers who erroneously think the supply is limited but it's not. I bought 5 copies for less than the cover price. So some people are gouging the price and some are not. The asking price does not indicate the amount of supply. It's only indicative of the after market going rate at some venues which has nothing to do with supply.

[Mercury Man]

I  think Modern Comics have as much economic stability as Gone With The Wind Collector Plates.

Anybody paying above cover price for this issue is a fool at this point.  Unfortunately, I still like to buy Modern Comics to keep up with some of my childhood heroes.   5x Cover price for something that just got released Wednesday, is asinine.  I hope the locals give these shops a piece of their mind. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Mercury Man

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, kairos70 said:

You need the economics lesson.

Perhaps. Only the arrogant consider themselves incapable of learning, no matter from whom.

9 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

You can't use the supply and demand argument because there is no way for you to quantify the supply.

That statement has no meaning. How many boxes of Frosted Flakes are currently for sale right this moment? Is the law of supply and demand suspended because one does not know the amount of the supply? Of course not.

11 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

How many copies are for sale right now? retail? after market? Go ahead, I'll wait. 

Not relevant, for the reason stated above.

11 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

Furthermore, there are retailers who are honoring the suggested retail price on the cover but they are limiting the supply by only allowing one copy per customer. That would counter any price gougers who erroneously think the supply is limited but it's not.

The supply is not limited? In what way? Once the printers stopped printing that issue, the supply was limited. It's great that there are retailers who honor the cover price...truly...but they are not obligated to, nor should they be forced to by law. Those retailers should be rewarded with future consideration.

14 minutes ago, kairos70 said:

I bought 5 copies for less than the cover price. So some people are gouging the price and some are not. The asking price does not indicate the amount of supply. It's only indicative of the after market going rate at some venues which has nothing to do with supply.

Correct. Asking price has nothing to do with supply. However, the supply has a direct effect on the selling price; that is, the price sellers are able to get for the item in the free market. If the demand is higher than the available supply, the price goes up. If the available supply is greater than the demand, the price goes down.

"Gouging" is an emotional term, used by people in an emotional way. As it relates to pricing, it is never used in a neutral manner; it always indicates anger on the part of the person using it, as an expression of "that's not fair!" It may not be fair. Life, after all, isn't fair. But trying to force "fairness" on the free market is a sure way to centralized, planned economies, and ultimately, immense suffering.