Ace Comic Con Seattle — June 22-24, 2018 0

[BassGMan]

12 hours ago, stephenshamus12 said:

So we sold out of 3-Day passes and Saturday Passes. The Saturday Civil War panel had 12,000 people and was covered on Deadline three times due to Tom Holland announcing the title to Spider-Man 2. Sunday was a near sell out as well. The Flash panel had 8000 people and the Scarlet Witch/Vision panel had 7000 people. Even the close of Sunday Loki panel had 5000 people. I'm sorry you missed out, but the place was packed, ask any of our dealers or Artists. Thanks!! 

Perhaps so. Glad you did well, but keep in mind alot of potential customers never even heard of this thing. I was shocked personally. ECCC was advertised everywhere and there was quite a bit of talk about it on social media. Granted that is a more established con and I don't expect equal coverage. With this? ONE person on my feed even mentioned it. ECCC dozens. Apparently you were able to get word out to enough people to do well, but there would have been even more demand, and likely sold out on all days had marketing and promo been better. I do realize that more promo is expensive and it is always a gamble with how much of the budget should be put into that. 

[stephenshamus12]

Hey BassGMan - I respectfully disagree. This was not sold or marketed as a comic book show (ala the other Seattle event). This was a superhero event with premium VIP tickets geared towards a whole new audience (as has been the case with all our events). It's a completely new event, and quite frankly, had you come expecting the number of booths and tables that you've become accustomed to at ECCC, you would have been disappointed and then calling us out on these boards that we had only a few comic dealers and 60 Illustrators. We were extremely pleased with our results, and how can you not be?? We doubled the largest halls that exist in the comics industry with our Q&A Panels. We had a total sellout of 3-Day and Saturday passes and a near sellout of Sunday. With the exception of 2 Artists/Celebs, we completely sold out of all Ops and Autographs to the extent that Tom Holland and Tom Hiddleston even added a 3rd day. ACE Events are catering to a new audience, and we have found our place. We also got global pickup on the Spider-Man panels in all major news outlets. Perhaps you will try ACE in the future, perhaps not, but the measure of a successful event is number of tickets sold, did the fans get their ops/autos, and did people have fun?? The answer is yes. The dealers did extraordinarily well, as I had multiple vendors tell me this was THEIR BEST SHOW EVER! Same for celebs and artists. We had over 14,000 images so far posted on Instagram just from this event. Anyway, add us to IG or Facebook and you can't miss us!! -Stephen

P.S. - Feel free to reach out to our exhibitors or check the hashtag #acecomiccon on IG and you will see what I mean

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hi Stephen,

I was impressed with the layout and execution of the ACE Seattle show. It was quite well done! I particularly liked that the exhibit hall was situated away from the panels, so that the one didn't interfere with the other.

However, there is one particular thing I wanted to address with you: I was very disappointed to see the continuing practice of discriminatory prices charged by creators for people wanting to get books slabbed by CGC, as well as the beyond intrusive "is this for CGC?" question asked of people, about what they intend to do with their own property. I've heard all the rationalizations and justifications that have been made, but the bottom line is that people are being charged different prices for the exact same service...a signature...which is the definition of discrimination.

For example...I had a shortbox of books for a certain creator. His "representative" informed me that it was "first two free, then $10 a book...$20 for CGC, and no free books." 

I didn't argue, I didn't protest, I didn't attempt to negotiate, I didn't say a word about it, I simply put the books away and called it a loss. A loss for me, a loss for the creator, a loss for CGC. I got my two free, non-slabbed books signed, and that was that. I probably would have been fine with the $10 charge, at least for most of them, but being charged twice the price as others, with nothing of value to make up the difference, is particularly galling.

Your organization doesn't ask people what they intend to do with their admission when they purchase it. And you certainly don't charge different prices for the exact same level of admission, and rightfully so. So how long will creators charging different prices for the exact same service be tolerated...?

If there's anything you can do to address this, it would be most appreciated. Other than that, I thought the event was very well done. Thank you for your time.

PS. I'll send this to Alex, but I thought it was appropriate to mention here, too.

 

 

[stephenshamus12]

Hello,

I hear what you are saying. We have little control over this, and we do ask creators what, if anything, they are charging, and we try to post before the event. In the case of someone like Todd McFarlane, he makes it clear there are no CGC witnesses allowed at his public signings and they are all free. There are other creators, who shall remain nameless, who specifically told us they would be charging X or Y and then on gameday decided to charge more or ask for a CGC tax. At that moment in time, there is little we can do as the creator is on-site and it's best not to cause a scene. If we bring these creators back, we will certainly mention it. We have done our best to clean up vendors and artists of Swipe artists, Home amateur artists stealing IP, State Farm Insurance and Teeth Whiteners and Aluminum Siding. We actually turn down more booths than we accept, and we could take a lot more money in, but we prefer to curate the experience and only promote those folks who are actually part of this world. That is not to say that we think others should do it our way, simply that we have chosen a different path. That's why when I see comparisons to other events, I immediately try to explain that our events in no way resemble any other events out there. Are apples and oranges fruits?? Yes. Are they similar in any other way? Certainly not. We will be more careful about addressing the issue you are bringing up, as it's an important one we are aware of. With the Artists/Celebs, it is very clear what the pricing is. Thanks for coming, and hope to see you at the next ACE event. -Stephen

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, UnderachieverJoey said:

I wouldn't worry about it too much.  It's a valid topic but RockMyAmadeus aka  is crazy insane about it. It's his windmill to tilt at, his white whale.  Please don't upset the artists because of someone like .  He sells SS for a living so you can see his real motivations. 

 

"Stu Cathell" (the guy I'm quoting) has been banned from these boards literally hundreds...no exaggeration...of times. He continues to make up new names to harass various people because he's angry at having been banned by a company he despises: CGC.

So, when speaking of "windmills to tilt at", the source must be considered.

[RockMyAmadeus]

14 hours ago, stephenshamus12 said:

Hello,

I hear what you are saying. We have little control over this, and we do ask creators what, if anything, they are charging, and we try to post before the event. In the case of someone like Todd McFarlane, he makes it clear there are no CGC witnesses allowed at his public signings and they are all free. There are other creators, who shall remain nameless, who specifically told us they would be charging X or Y and then on gameday decided to charge more or ask for a CGC tax. At that moment in time, there is little we can do as the creator is on-site and it's best not to cause a scene. If we bring these creators back, we will certainly mention it.

Thanks...it's appreciated. 

Even McFarlane engages in the same practice, which is unfortunate. Creators are and should be free to charge whatever they want. That is capitalism. But charging a different price for the exact same service, and having people demand to know what you intend to do with your own property.....that's a bridge too far. Whether you keep it, sell it, eat it, or burn it, it's no one's business but yours. You won't find such a practice anywhere else in the legitimate business world. Imagine, calling a painter and him asking you what you intend to do with your house after he's painted it. You'd throw the guy out.

I agree, scenes should never, ever be made. But because comic collectors behave like addicts...and I'm certainly no exception...nobody says anything at all, for fear of being "cut off",..which is a very real fear, as it's been threatened by "facilitators" in the past, for merely questioning the practice politely. I make an issue of it because, while I get a lot of agreement about it behind closed doors, again, too many people are afraid of saying anything for fear of being cut off...or, they themselves benefit from this arrangement.

As a convention promoter, though, you have quite a bit more clout than the average collector, so being aware of the situation, and taking proactive steps to end this practice is very much appreciated.

Thanks for your time and consideration. 

[Logan510]

Somehow I don't think creators are going to take kindly to being told how much they can charge for their signature or that they're not allowed to have tiered pricing 

 

[BassGMan]

18 hours ago, stephenshamus12 said:

Hey BassGMan - I respectfully disagree. This was not sold or marketed as a comic book show (ala the other Seattle event). This was a superhero event with premium VIP tickets geared towards a whole new audience (as has been the case with all our events). It's a completely new event, and quite frankly, had you come expecting the number of booths and tables that you've become accustomed to at ECCC, you would have been disappointed and then calling us out on these boards that we had only a few comic dealers and 60 Illustrators. We were extremely pleased with our results, and how can you not be?? We doubled the largest halls that exist in the comics industry with our Q&A Panels. We had a total sellout of 3-Day and Saturday passes and a near sellout of Sunday. With the exception of 2 Artists/Celebs, we completely sold out of all Ops and Autographs to the extent that Tom Holland and Tom Hiddleston even added a 3rd day. ACE Events are catering to a new audience, and we have found our place. We also got global pickup on the Spider-Man panels in all major news outlets. Perhaps you will try ACE in the future, perhaps not, but the measure of a successful event is number of tickets sold, did the fans get their ops/autos, and did people have fun?? The answer is yes. The dealers did extraordinarily well, as I had multiple vendors tell me this was THEIR BEST SHOW EVER! Same for celebs and artists. We had over 14,000 images so far posted on Instagram just from this event. Anyway, add us to IG or Facebook and you can't miss us!! -Stephen

P.S. - Feel free to reach out to our exhibitors or check the hashtag #acecomiccon on IG and you will see what I mean

Apparently wherever you marketed your show it seemed to work out, so mission accomplished, I was just surprised that as a regular con attendee that I did not see any advertising anywhere. Nor any media or fans talking about it. But if you were marketing to a different target audience than I had assumed, that would be why. You are however very wrong in that I would be disappointed in the amount of comic booths and illustrators. Though I'm here on a CGC board I buy very few comics these days and could care less about illustrators or artists anywhere. I go to the cons for fun and media/pop culture, not to buy comic books. Surely I'll attend one of your local Seattle area shows in the future if I hear about it at least a few days in advance. 

[BassGMan]

36 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Somehow I don't think creators are going to take kindly to being told how much they can charge for their signature or that they're not allowed to have tiered pricing 

 

I find nothing wrong with this practice as well. Creators do not want to be used to make other people money. McFarlane and similar know that if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it. Some artists have a problem with this and I can understand why. They are being used to make someone else money. These artists will sign a book for you, but not a book for you to make money on selling to someone else. Others don't care, but I definitely understand the sentiment for those creators who feel this way. With that said, not sure if I can name CGC competitors here, but there is another respected grading service that will authenticate signatures in-house, without any witnessing. If you get your book signed legitimately, even without being witnessed, send it in to them and they'll have their professional signature authenticators verify and label the book accordingly. 

[Logan510]

2 minutes ago, BassGMan said:

I find nothing wrong with this practice as well. Creators do not want to be used to make other people money. McFarlane and similar know that if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it. Some artists have a problem with this and I can understand why. They are being used to make someone else money. These artists will sign a book for you, but not a book for you to make money on selling to someone else. Others don't care, but I definitely understand the sentiment for those creators who feel this way. With that said, not sure if I can name CGC competitors here, but there is another respected grading service that will authenticate signatures in-house, without any witnessing. If you get your book signed legitimately, even without being witnessed, send it in to them and they'll have their professional signature authenticators verify and label the book accordingly. 

From my understanding, those books generally do not do well in the aftermarket.

[BassGMan]

23 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

From my understanding, those books generally do not do well in the aftermarket.

I was unaware of that as I don't follow prices. But at least it is an option for those with an unauthorized signature. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Logan510 said:

Somehow I don't think creators are going to take kindly to being told how much they can charge for their signature or that they're not allowed to have tiered pricing 

 

Except nobody is telling anyone how much they can charge for their signature.

That is a red herring that you have brought up multiple times, in multiple discussions, in an attempt to muddy the issue.

"Tiered" pricing for the exact same service is discrimination. 

[solitude]

I found out on here they were adv for on site grading etc and saw it was in Seattle..I cannot say anything negative ...went with a friend early on Sunday... got to see Sam Kieth again and met up with Clayton Crain for the first time...Got all of my books signed and witnessed by CGC with no problems at all i think it took maybe an hour..so Kudos to the Shammy Bro...Course More Artists of the top mentioned level would have been nice most of the other guys i never heard of or briefly..Like Jim Lee and Mcfarlane..John Byrne...but hey i had fun thanks a bunch 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

I find nothing wrong with this practice as well. Creators do not want to be used to make other people money. McFarlane and similar know that if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it. Some artists have a problem with this and I can understand why. They are being used to make someone else money. These artists will sign a book for you, but not a book for you to make money on selling to someone else. Others don't care, but I definitely understand the sentiment for those creators who feel this way. With that said, not sure if I can name CGC competitors here, but there is another respected grading service that will authenticate signatures in-house, without any witnessing. If you get your book signed legitimately, even without being witnessed, send it in to them and they'll have their professional signature authenticators verify and label the book accordingly. 

Creators don't want to be used to make other people money...?

Someone better tell them that publishers, distributors, printers, retailers, and yes, even con promoters, are using them to make money...and worse, they agree to it.

And if you work for someone else, your employer is using you to make money. How do you feel about that...?

McFarlane and similar know that if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it? How do you know that? 

Here's hundreds of examples that disprove that claim:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=stan+lee+cgc+ss&_sacat=0&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1&_sop=15

Stan Lee's current signature cost, as I understand, is $150. Slabbing for Sig Series is a minimum of $30, and generally closer to $40, per books. eBay takes 10%. Paypal takes 3% if you're domestic.

That means, at a minimum, best case scenario, you have to sell a book for roughly $210 to break even...and that counts your time and labor...and the value of the book itself...at $0.

But there are over 500 listings that sold at a loss...and that's just considering the last couple of months' listings on eBay.

How about McFarlane...?

McFarlane charges, as I understand it, $50 a signature for graded books.

That means, with all costs, the book has to sell for $110 or so just to break even...again, not including your time, labor, or the value of the book.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xmcfarlane+cgc+ss.TRS0.TSS0&_nkw=mcfarlane+cgc+ss&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_sop=15&_osacat=0&_odkw=stan+lee+cgc+ss&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1

There's a couple dozen sold listings where the sellers sold at a loss.

So, how is it that McFarlane and similar knows that "...if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it."...?

The "money" that someone "makes" depends mostly on the following:

1. What the book is (is it Infinity, Inc #28? Is it Amazing Spiderman #300?)

2. The condition the book is in (is it a 6.5? is it a 9.8?)

Those two factors make up 95-99.9% of the value of ALL graded books, sig series or not. A signature added to a book that doesn't "make the grade" is a loss.

But...the creators don't have anything to do with purchasing that particular copy...or preserving that particular copy...or preparing that particular copy...or sending that particular copy in for grading...or anything else to do with that copy. So, the owner of the book takes all the risk...but the creator somehow deserves some of the reward, while taking NO risk...?

How does that work, again...?

And...again...how is it anyone's business what someone else does with their property? 

If you're going to count other people's money, you ought to be prepared to crunch the numbers. The argument you've made doesn't fly.

Edited July 1, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[BassGMan]

13 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Creators don't want to be used to make other people money...?

Someone better tell them that publishers, distributors, printers, retailers, and yes, even con promoters, are using them to make money...and worse, they agree to it.

And if you work for someone else, your employer is using you to make money. How do you feel about that...?

McFarlane and similar know that if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it? How do you know that? 

Here's hundreds of examples that disprove that claim:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=stan+lee+cgc+ss&_sacat=0&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1&_sop=15

Stan Lee's current signature cost, as I understand, is $150. Slabbing for Sig Series is a minimum of $30, and generally closer to $40, per books. eBay takes 10%. Paypal takes 3% if you're domestic.

That means, at a minimum, best case scenario, you have to sell a book for roughly $210 to break even...and that counts your time and labor...and the value of the book itself...at $0.

But there are over 500 listings that sold at a loss...and that's just considering the last couple of months' listings on eBay.

How about McFarlane...?

McFarlane charges, as I understand it, $50 a signature for graded books.

That means, with all costs, the book has to sell for $110 or so just to break even...again, not including your time, labor, or the value of the book.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xmcfarlane+cgc+ss.TRS0.TSS0&_nkw=mcfarlane+cgc+ss&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_sop=15&_osacat=0&_odkw=stan+lee+cgc+ss&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1

There's a couple dozen sold listings where the sellers sold at a loss.

So, how is it that McFarlane and similar knows that "...if their signature is authenticated on a book, then the seller is going to make money on it."...?

The "money" that someone "makes" depends mostly on the following:

1. What the book is (is it Infinity, Inc #28? Is it Amazing Spiderman #300?)

2. The condition the book is in (is it a 6.5? is it a 9.8?)

Those two factors make up 95-99.9% of the value of ALL graded books, sig series or not. A signature added to a book that doesn't "make the grade" is a loss.

But...the creators don't have anything to do with purchasing that particular copy...or preserving that particular copy...or preparing that particular copy...or sending that particular copy in for grading...or anything else to do with that copy. So, the owner of the book takes all the risk...but the creator somehow deserves some of the reward, while taking NO risk...?

How does that work, again...?

And...again...how is it anyone's business what someone else does with their property? 

If you're going to count other people's money, you ought to be prepared to crunch the numbers. The argument you've made doesn't fly.

You clearly don't get it. First off, not everyone that gets a book signed in order to sell is going to get it graded first. Some sell the book signed and ungraded. Many do. Second of all, though I agree that sometimes economically, considering the expense of the cost of grading, it is going to negate any profit on the book, but sometimes the seller most definitely will make a profit on the sig. What matters here is intent, not in the end run if the seller actually makes a few bucks or not. If you want a sig for yourself, that is why most of these creators are there. To meet their fans and give them a sig or memento. They are not there in order for you to use them to make money for yourself, and we both know that many absolutely do go at creators with multiple books, or whatever they can get away with, in order to then sell at a profit. Also, your first statement is ridiculous. Totally out of touch, unless you are just trying to be funny. The creators are paid to do a job, their cog in the wheel, then the other cogs (publishers, distributors, printers, etc) make their cut as well. They all use each other to make a living. They know that going in. Same if the book is self published. That is completely different than a one-sided profit that you are talking about (regardless of if this profit is ever actualized) by a fan going in to get a sig with the intention of selling it for a profit. In that case, a mutually beneficial deal where more is paid to the artist for a book that is intended for resale would be beneficial to both. THAT would be fair. These creators do not want to be taken advantage of and I don't blame them. I respect these policies by McFarlane and others. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

You clearly don't get it.

Unnecessarily contentious.

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

First off, not everyone that gets a book signed in order to sell is going to get it graded first. Some sell the book signed and ungraded. Many do.

Not in dispute, and not relevant. This entire discussion is about creators charging a higher price for books that are going to be slabbed.

People who are not getting their books graded are not being charged a surcharge, which is the entire point of this discussion.

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

Second of all, though I agree that sometimes economically, considering the expense of the cost of grading, it is going to negate any profit on the book, but sometimes the seller most definitely will make a profit on the sig.

I'm glad that you've moved your position from "the seller is going to make money on it" to "sometimes the seller...will make a profit..." However, you're still making the same mistake: the "profit" isn't on the sig. The profit...if any...is derived from the book, and its condition. A signature CAN add value to a book...and, on the right books, generally does. But they must be the right books. I can't get any beat up copy of Detective #577 signed by McFarlane, have it come back a CGC 4.5, and expect to "profit." 

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

What matters here is intent, not in the end run if the seller actually makes a few bucks or not. If you want a sig for yourself, that is why most of these creators are there. To meet their fans and give them a sig or memento. They are not there in order for you to use them to make money for yourself, and we both know that many absolutely do go at creators with multiple books, or whatever they can get away with, in order to then sell at a profit.

Again...according to whom? You? Have you surveyed these creators and asked them? Let's set aside the argument that there's not always "money to be made" from the CGC Signature Series program. Again: so it's perfectly ok for publishers, editors, printers, executives, distributors, retailers, and yes, even con organizers, to profit off of creators, and for a whole lot more of the creators' time and effort than a simple signature, but the person who wants to get their book signed AND graded, on the CHANCE that they MIGHT "sell at a profit"...well, no, that just won't do? 

And your entire argument rests on the assumption that EVERYONE getting their books slabbed are doing it to sell. Are you aware that there are large numbers of people, who get large numbers of books signed, that ARE NOT for sale...?

You are clearly, as you admit above, not at all familiar with this market, or how it works.

No one is denying that people "absolutely do go at creators with multiple books"....and? That justifies charging a HIGHER price, why...? Those people are the ones taking ALL of the risk, but they have to pay a higher price, because they MIGHT sell the books...? 

Again: publishers, editors, printers, distributors, retailers, con organizers...all of these people are doing the exact same thing, "using" the creators to "make money" (AND VICE VERSA!)

, except they are SOLELY doing it "for the money"...but that's perfectly ok...?

You're making an argument from emotion, not reason.

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

The creators are paid to do a job, their cog in the wheel, then the other cogs (publishers, distributors, printers, etc) make their cut as well. They all use each other to make a living. They know that going in. Same if the book is self published. That is completely different than a one-sided profit that you are talking about (regardless of if this profit is ever actualized) by a fan going in to get a sig with the intention of selling it for a profit.

I don't think you're paying very close attention, here. The creators being discussed ARE NOT SIGNING FOR FREE.

You understand that there is MONEY being given to the creators IN EXCHANGE for their signatures, right...?

The last time I had Rob Liefeld sign any of my books, he charged me $20 each for 7 books. For literally 30 seconds worth of work, he made $140, cash. AND, I'd be willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that he didn't report that income. That's $16,800 an hour just to sign books. And it's a LOT MORE now than it was in 2013, AND he was charging that price to everyone.

And it doesn't matter to me, because that's none of my business. But your argument is utterly erroneous if you think this is a "one-sided profit"...and no, it's NOT "regardless of if this profit is ever actualized." THAT is ridiculous. If it's not "actualized", it's not "profit."

This is no different from any other transaction: you offer your services for a price, someone pays you, you execute the service, transaction finished.

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

In that case, a mutually beneficial deal where more is paid to the artist for a book that is intended for resale would be beneficial to both

In other words...the creator charges a HIGHER price for the exact same service, taking absolutely none of the risk involved, but expecting a cut of a reward that may not even exist.

These arguments have been made 1,000 times, including by you, and they don't hold water. People are being charged a higher price for the exact same service, which is discrimination, no matter how you may wish to pretty up the language to make it seem not so.

And don't imagine that buyers aren't getting fed up with this discriminatory practice. They most certainly are. What you advocate HURTS creators, as all such "well intended" programs do, it doesn't help them. Why? Because I had over 150 books, all ready, to be signed by a creator at ACE. I ended up with a grand total of SEVEN books signed for CGC, the seven that we determined were the ones that were "worth it" to get signed.

It hurts us, because we don't get the books that we want done FOR US to KEEP. It hurts us, because we don't get the additional books to SELL to PAY FOR these signatures and books we want to KEEP.

It hurts CGC because they DO NOT GET 150 books that they otherwise WOULD have gotten to grade. That's nearly $4,000 worth of submissions that will NEVER HAPPEN until and unless these books get signed. CGC will NEVER EVER see those books unsigned. 

And, it hurts the creator because, instead of getting perhaps $1500 for an hour's worth of work, that creator got NOTHING for those books. Zero, zip, nada. Sure, he made $140 on the books we felt were even worth the discriminatory price (remember: addicts.) But he could have made ten times that amount, with very little effort on his part.

The creator could have made an EASY $1500 on those books...but there's no way I'm going to pay him $3,000 for his signatures, and end up throwing good money after bad.

So...explain to me, then, how this is "mutually beneficial to both parties" again....?

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

THAT would be fair. These creators do not want to be taken advantage of and I don't blame them. I respect these policies by McFarlane and others. 

No. THAT is an argument from emotion, not reason. No one is "being taken advantage of"...that's a false claim. Creators are, and should be, free to charge whatever they feel the market will bear for their services. But the creator didn't buy my book. He didn't preserve it. He didn't take care of it. He didn't prepare it for signing. He didn't fill out the paperwork for CGC. He didn't submit it, or send it in. He took none of the risk that is 95-99.996% of the value of any book...why would he expect to get any of the reward...? And why should he then be able to demand to know what I intend to do with my property, and charge me a different, higher price, based on my answer...?

That's not how life works.

I would highly recommend involving yourself in the program before speaking out about it.

Edited July 1, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, BassGMan said:

You clearly don't get it. First off, not everyone that gets a book signed in order to sell is going to get it graded first. Some sell the book signed and ungraded. Many do. Second of all, though I agree that sometimes economically, considering the expense of the cost of grading, it is going to negate any profit on the book, but sometimes the seller most definitely will make a profit on the sig. What matters here is intent, not in the end run if the seller actually makes a few bucks or not. If you want a sig for yourself, that is why most of these creators are there. To meet their fans and give them a sig or memento. They are not there in order for you to use them to make money for yourself, and we both know that many absolutely do go at creators with multiple books, or whatever they can get away with, in order to then sell at a profit. Also, your first statement is ridiculous. Totally out of touch, unless you are just trying to be funny. The creators are paid to do a job, their cog in the wheel, then the other cogs (publishers, distributors, printers, etc) make their cut as well. They all use each other to make a living. They know that going in. Same if the book is self published. That is completely different than a one-sided profit that you are talking about (regardless of if this profit is ever actualized) by a fan going in to get a sig with the intention of selling it for a profit. In that case, a mutually beneficial deal where more is paid to the artist for a book that is intended for resale would be beneficial to both. THAT would be fair. These creators do not want to be taken advantage of and I don't blame them. I respect these policies by McFarlane and others. 

Amen.

I find it funny that some call it discrimination.

Discrimination is not letting someone eat at a restaurant based on their race / religion etc.

Charging more money for signatures to potential vultures is just smart 

[BassGMan]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Unnecessarily contentious.

Not in dispute, and not relevant. This entire discussion is about creators charging a higher price for books that are going to be slabbed.

People who are not getting their books graded are not being charged a surcharge, which is the entire point of this discussion.

I'm glad that you've moved your position from "the seller is going to make money on it" to "sometimes the seller...will make a profit..." However, you're still making the same mistake: the "profit" isn't on the sig. The profit...if any...is derived from the book, and its condition. A signature CAN add value to a book...and, on the right books, generally does. But they must be the right books. I can't get any beat up copy of Detective #577 signed by McFarlane, have it come back a CGC 4.5, and expect to "profit." 

Again...according to whom? You? Have you surveyed these creators and asked them? Let's set aside the argument that there's not always "money to be made" from the CGC Signature Series program. Again: so it's perfectly ok for publishers, editors, printers, executives, distributors, retailers, and yes, even con organizers, to profit off of creators, and for a whole lot more of the creators' time and effort than a simple signature, but the person who wants to get their book signed AND graded, on the CHANCE that they MIGHT "sell at a profit"...well, no, that just won't do? 

And your entire argument rests on the assumption that EVERYONE getting their books slabbed are doing it to sell. Are you aware that there are large numbers of people, who get large numbers of books signed, that ARE NOT for sale...?

You are clearly, as you admit above, not at all familiar with this market, or how it works.

No one is denying that people "absolutely do go at creators with multiple books"....and? That justifies charging a HIGHER price, why...? Those people are the ones taking ALL of the risk, but they have to pay a higher price, because they MIGHT sell the books...? 

Again: publishers, editors, printers, distributors, retailers, con organizers...all of these people are doing the exact same thing, "using" the creators to "make money" (AND VICE VERSA!)

, except they are SOLELY doing it "for the money"...but that's perfectly ok...?

You're making an argument from emotion, not reason.

I don't think you're paying very close attention, here. The creators being discussed ARE NOT SIGNING FOR FREE.

You understand that there is MONEY being given to the creators IN EXCHANGE for their signatures, right...?

The last time I had Rob Liefeld sign any of my books, he charged me $20 each for 7 books. For literally 30 seconds worth of work, he made $140, cash. AND, I'd be willing to bet, dollars to donuts, that he didn't report that income. That's $16,800 an hour just to sign books. And it's a LOT MORE now than it was in 2013, AND he was charging that price to everyone.

And it doesn't matter to me, because that's none of my business. But your argument is utterly erroneous if you think this is a "one-sided profit"...and no, it's NOT "regardless of if this profit is ever actualized." THAT is ridiculous. If it's not "actualized", it's not "profit."

This is no different from any other transaction: you offer your services for a price, someone pays you, you execute the service, transaction finished.

In other words...the creator charges a HIGHER price for the exact same service, taking absolutely none of the risk involved, but expecting a cut of a reward that may not even exist.

These arguments have been made 1,000 times, including by you, and they don't hold water. People are being charged a higher price for the exact same service, which is discrimination, no matter how you may wish to pretty up the language to make it seem not so.

And don't imagine that buyers aren't getting fed up with this discriminatory practice. They most certainly are. What you advocate HURTS creators, as all such "well intended" programs do, it doesn't help them. Why? Because I had over 150 books, all ready, to be signed by a creator at ACE. I ended up with a grand total of SEVEN books signed for CGC, the seven that we determined were the ones that were "worth it" to get signed.

It hurts us, because we don't get the books that we want done FOR US to KEEP. It hurts us, because we don't get the additional books to SELL to PAY FOR these signatures and books we want to KEEP.

It hurts CGC because they DO NOT GET 150 books that they otherwise WOULD have gotten to grade. That's nearly $4,000 worth of submissions that will NEVER HAPPEN until and unless these books get signed. CGC will NEVER EVER see those books unsigned. 

And, it hurts the creator because, instead of getting perhaps $1500 for an hour's worth of work, that creator got NOTHING for those books. Zero, zip, nada. Sure, he made $140 on the books we felt were even worth the discriminatory price (remember: addicts.) But he could have made ten times that amount, with very little effort on his part.

The creator could have made an EASY $1500 on those books...but there's no way I'm going to pay him $3,000 for his signatures, and end up throwing good money after bad.

So...explain to me, then, how this is "mutually beneficial to both parties" again....?

No. THAT is an argument from emotion, not reason. No one is "being taken advantage of"...that's a false claim. Creators are, and should be, free to charge whatever they feel the market will bear for their services. But the creator didn't buy my book. He didn't preserve it. He didn't take care of it. He didn't prepare it for signing. He didn't fill out the paperwork for CGC. He didn't submit it, or send it in. He took none of the risk that is 95-99.996% of the value of any book...why would he expect to get any of the reward...? And why should he then be able to demand to know what I intend to do with my property, and charge me a different, higher price, based on my answer...?

That's not how life works.

I would highly recommend involving yourself in the program before speaking out about it.

There are alot of different variables here for sure. And each one could be discussed, though what I am talking about are general policies, and how I understand and can agree with why some creators charge more for some services, based on perceived intent of the fan/dealer bringing in books for sigs. One thing for sure, I do feel bad for the fan that just wants his or her own book signed. Really this is probably the majority of the attendees standing in line waiting for a sig. But because there are certainly some that have taken advantage of these creators and used them in order to make a buck for themselves, I understand why some have adapted these polices. More power to them. 

Quick example using myself as the fan/dealer. Back in 2000 when Al Feldstein (of EC Comics fame) came to SDCC for appearances, he also was set up to do signatures a few times during the show. This had been advertised (EC reunion going on) so I knew to come prepared. I loaded up my suitcase with a ton of $2 EC reprints. I went through his line several times and each time had him sign 8-10 books, which he did gladly for free. I also had him sign a few originals! Anyway, with those reprints, I took them home and sold them on Ebay for $10-15 a pop. I also included a photo of him signing at the con to add to the authenticity. So we are not talking big bucks here, but making a few extra bucks on each book helped to feed my hobby. A few years later Feldstein came back for another signing and appearance at SDCC. This time he was charging $20 per signature. I still had the chance to talk with him for a bit but did not purchase a single signature from him. He shut my little operation down, as he should have. There are alot of guys out there like me, like I was back then. Gaming the system.

Yes, I don't follow every aspect of the system and do not follow how much is realized for CGC's competitors signed slabbed books, but I do follow quite a lot and have been in this hobby for a long time, as a fan, con dealer, comic store owner, and small time Ebay dealer for almost 20 years. There is actually no emotion here with my opinions on the matter. I don't care personally as I'm not involved. I really don't care about sigs anymore as the cost and time to wait in line is not worth it for me (though it used to be). I am using all reason, fairness and an understanding of where both the creators are coming from, as well as the dealers trying to make a buck off a creator and the innocent fan. 

Regarding the one-sided profit comment I made, again you are missing the point. No doubt that these guys are making good money for charging for a sig. This is what they charge you with the understanding that they are charging a fan for a signature on a book, NOT what they are charging a dealer for a book to resale. Had it not been for these dealers gaming the system (like I did with my Feldstein example) then odds are you may not be charged that $20 to begin with, or at least you'd be charged less. Though I do not know for sure, I think there is a pretty good chance that some of these creators have jacked the signature prices up KNOWING that some of these people will sell their signed books, and this is one way for the creator to make a buck for himself too off of this practice. 

Yes, lots of variables. We can each rattle off all kinds of scenarios and personal examples. My whole point is just to say that I understand and can agree with the steps some of these creators have taken in order to not be taken advantage of. Good for them. Sorry for the fan that just wants a signed book for their personal collection. 

Geez, you brought 150 books to be signed by one (or maybe it was several) creators? That is terrible. And you find that to be OK? For something like a that maybe a private meeting on the side could be arranged. Even if you had all those books signed, what about all the little guys behind you that wanted their one book signed? I'll admit I was terrible a few times when I brought up a small pile to be signed by a creator in the past. Sometimes other fans even looked at me like what in the hell am I doing? Selfish is what I call that, and I've had selfish moments in the past too so I understand it. 

[Logan510]

I love the analogy to the house painter. 

Of course it falls apart on its face...unless your house painter happens to be Michelangelo.

[BassGMan]

15 minutes ago, WooYeah said:

Oh, then you missed him when he did the show at the Space Needle in 2002. He was still signing for free then 

Dang, he was in Seattle? I totally missed that. I would have definitely been there, as I was much more the EC fan than I was the small time dealer trying to sell signed EC Comics. Yeah, it was 2000 when he signed all my books, and then I think 2005 when he started charging at SDCC. He died in 2014.