The Distribution of US Published Comics in the UK (1959~1982) 15 15

[Malacoda]

On 10/25/2023 at 10:41 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

And you think five comics were enough to prove that? 

Well....why not? I've no idea, but I find the fact that they did 4 in July and then added on the Flash from August quite compelling.  Although the Flash has a cover date a month later, these were all printed within about 8 days of each other, so basically a week's output.  I think the Flash was added because it was GS and therefore a different quantity by weight & size, so a good test.  The fact that it was five kind of makes me more convinced, tbh.  If there was a commercial / UK sales reason for it, it would have gone on for months (until the sales figures were in).  If there was some other reason, maybe they would have done a whole month's issues.  But 5 may be a handsome number in terms of shipping.  Maybe 5 x 10,000 = a pallet?  You're saying 5 like it's not a lot, but 50k thousand comics is literally half a ton. 

I guess, to bounce your question back at you, what would you learn from 10 or 15 that you wouldn't learn from 5?

I think this was driven by IND or even Sparta (who were presumably getting an increased print run and a separate job out of it) rather than T&P.  I imagine T&P were definitely interested in (1) reduced costs  (2) reduced aggro (3) a clearer proposition for newsagents (4) clean, freshly minted copies rather than returns and (5) consistent batches of comics every month rather than the random madness we know rocked up......however.......I reckon their super cheap deal on the returns would have been VERY hard to wave goodbye to.  

 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:56 AM, Malacoda said:

Maybe 5 x 10,000 = a pallet?  You're saying 5 like it's not a lot, but 50k thousand comics is literally half a ton.

So if they have this defined volume to ship, they would approach the shippers and be quoted a price to ship them under the new model. Or did they ship them blind, and then get invoiced?

Again, what is the unknown that compels them to run the test?

[Malacoda]

On 10/25/2023 at 10:41 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Why would they not already know the costs, or be able to predict them by simply adding each component part up? What are the unknowns here?

Very good question.  So we're on day one of container shipping, so the huge cost savings are still theoretical at this point, but I agree they'd have estimated numbers.  However, why wouldn't you just print a batch of PV's? It would take a couple of minutes to change the plates over and then literally quarter of an hour to knock off 10,000 issues. The effort & cost to test the system was virtually non-existent. 

I also assume that the whole chain of events in distribution was changed by containers, so to actually know how it would affect IND, the best thing to do was a test.  

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:06 PM, Malacoda said:

Very good question.  So we're on day one of container shipping, so the huge cost savings are still theoretical at this point, but I agree they'd have estimated numbers.  However, why wouldn't you just print a batch of PV's? It would take a couple of minutes to change the plates over and then literally quarter of an hour to knock off 10,000 issues. The effort & cost to test the system was virtually non-existent. 

I also assume that the whole chain of events in distribution was changed by containers, so to actually know how it would affect IND, the best thing to do was a test.  

Why wouldn't cents priced copies satisfy that shipping test?

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:07 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Why wouldn't cents priced copies satisfy that shipping test?

Exacty.

[Malacoda]

On 10/25/2023 at 10:44 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

What I'm struggling with is why UKPVs existed well before your proposed DC five book cost / system experiment. Charlton, Dell, King, Marvel, all had long periods of UKPV production. Marvel did so alongside stamped cents copies. If the crux of your argument is that those activities preceded the addition of the Product Identifier, which you say facilitated the container shipping process, then why did Marvel stop the stamps but DC continued (by that I mean the distributors of them)? Why does DC differ? 

I am loving these questions.  This is really hammering the steel.  Thank you.  

Well, Marvel stopped the stamps because container shipping enabled them to switch distributors but World's different system required PV's, so the two things go hand in glove.  Let's keep in mind that when you import a US product into the UK for sale, the normal thing is to have a UK price on it. The only reason T&P had stamps on the comics is because they were second hand US rejects. 

DC differs because they continued to take returns.  I get the feeling that you're making a deeper point than this which I'm failing to grasp.  When Charlton, Dell King & Marvel had PV's they were first prints of new comics shipped directly to the UK.  DC's were returns. 

An interesting question at this point is:  when Charltons, Dells & Kings were stamps, were they returns or were they freshly minted cents copies? 

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:56 AM, Malacoda said:

I think this was driven by IND or even Sparta (who were presumably getting an increased print run and a separate job out of it) rather than T&P.  I imagine T&P were definitely interested in (1) reduced costs  (2) reduced aggro (3) a clearer proposition for newsagents (4) clean, freshly minted copies rather than returns and (5) consistent batches of comics every month rather than the random madness we know rocked up......however.......I reckon their super cheap deal on the returns would have been VERY hard to wave goodbye to.  

The UKPV copies were printed because T & P asked for them to be printed, surely, and not because they had been forced to accept them.

Keeping the machine running on cents copies would have saved time.

And T & P could have laid off a few of Ethel's colleagues.

Wonder if they considered going on strike over the threatened redundancies.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:17 PM, Malacoda said:

I am loving these questions.  This is really hammering the steel.  Thank you.  

Good, others would take offense I'm sure, but we're above that nonsense in this thread.

On 10/25/2023 at 12:17 PM, Malacoda said:

Well, Marvel stopped the stamps because container shipping enabled them to switch distributors but World's different system required PV's, so the two things go hand in glove.  Let's keep in mind that when you import a US product into the UK for sale, the normal thing is to have a UK price on it. The only reason T&P had stamps on the comics is because they were second hand US rejects. 

DC differs because they continued to take returns.  I get the feeling that you're making a deeper point than this which I'm failing to grasp.  When Charlton, Dell King & Marvel had PV's they were first prints of new comics shipped directly to the UK.  DC's were returns. 

An interesting question at this point is:  when Charltons, Dells & Kings were stamps, were they returns or were they freshly minted cents copies? 

I can't answer that, other than to say that there is no evidence that I have found to show that they were returns (in the form of, say, US date stamps).

Rich, you've presented many words, sub-divided under many headings, to tell us your theory on why five 1971 DC UKPVs exist. I'm excited to read them. Having done so, I've distilled it all down to one sentence, clarified that I've understood you, and am now testing it. And it isn't working for me. 

I feel like there is a circle, at the heart of which is one simple question. There are hundreds of considerations floating around in the circle. I feel that you have discussed them all at length, admirably, but that you have not tied them together to deliver one compelling reason that answers the central question. 

Is it hiding in there, and I'm not seeing it?

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:21 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Good, others would take offense I'm sure, but we're about that nonsense in this thread.

I don't take offense, although those across the pond might.

I don't even take offence, it takes more than these musings to offend me.

[Get Marwood & I]

We keep posting over each other, so I'll finish this comment without checking what lands as I'm doing it (Albert has posted as I type).

I feel like you (Rich) are saying that some people, who had DC cents returns shipped to the UK for ten years, being the same (original, at least) people who solicited and distributed Marvel UKPVs in the UK for ten years, were faced with a new, container based shipping opportunity, with cost and process being the unknowns. That opportunity, you're saying, was facilitated by the addition of Product Identifier codes. These people, who had total understanding of the costs of both UKPV and cents returns distribution historically, are suddenly clueless as to the new shipping cost and procedure. Their reaction is to run off five DC UKPVs.

All they had to do was ship existing returns to identify the shipping cost and process under the new shipping container model. All they had to do was ask the shippers the new cost, and then factor that into the existing E2E model (of which they had experience).

Can you see why I'm struggling, Rich? Do I need to better understand who was distributing Marvel, and who DC, and how those two camps differed in their knowledge and processing?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:23 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

I don't take offense, although those across the pond might.

I don't even take offence, it takes more than these musings to offend me.

Take a chair then 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:23 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

I don't take offense, although those across the pond might.

Rich has put a lot of work into this, and I'm jumping all over it. I know he loves that though. I don't need to sugar coat things with him, as I do others.

You do love it, don't you Rich? 

Remember - he may still be right. I find my comprehension skills diminishing with age, so all I might be doing is missing the point spectacularly and therefore unfairly dropping a turd on all his great work. What is your take, Albert? Do you buy this theory?

[Get Marwood & I]

I'm off to make some lunch. Back in an hour or so.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:33 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

What is your take, Albert? Do you buy this theory?

A great deal of thought and effort has gone into this, obviously, but I still cannot grasp why T & P would have believed that soliciting UKPVs at that point would have been advantageous, unless it cut the cost of labour involved in the stamping process, but surely that would have been tiny compared to the other costs of running the business, rent and or/rates, record keeping, transport and fuel, and all the rest.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:49 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

A great deal of thought and effort has gone into this, obviously, but I still cannot grasp why T & P would have believed that soliciting UKPVs at that point would have been advantageous, unless it cut the cost of labour involved in the stamping process, but surely that would have been tiny compared to the other costs of running the business, rent and or/rates, record keeping, transport and fuel, and all the rest.

..........but of course they would have got their hands on the books that much sooner than if they had waited for returns, which may not have arrived in the desired quantity.

UKPVs would have been supplied in exactly the quantities ordered, but the original question still remains, why then, and why was it discontinued? Why not roll it out across all titles?

There is a lot to digest in the original post, I will go through it again, slowly and carefully, over my half a mild in t'Rovers this evening, to see if I can tease out the nub of the argument. 

Possibly there are some red herrings in there, but then again, maybe all the pieces of the jigsaw are needed to complete the picture, we shall see.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 12:49 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

A great deal of thought and effort has gone into this, obviously, but I still cannot grasp why T & P would have believed that soliciting UKPVs at that point would have been advantageous, unless it cut the cost of labour involved in the stamping process, but surely that would have been tiny compared to the other costs of running the business, rent and or/rates, record keeping, transport and fuel, and all the rest.

And this is the same T&P, remember, who distributed UKPVs and/or cents stamped copies for Marvel, but only stamped copies for DC, throughout the 1960s. If the costs of doing one was greater than the other, why do the most expensive one all those years? Why did T&P want to 'guarantee' UK deliveries via printed UKPV production, but not care about DC continuity which was reliant on what sold in the US? It's like someone cared more about Marvel than they did DC. 

I just cannot settle on a test to determine the cost and procedure of a new container shipping model as the reason why five DC UKPVs pop up in one tiny production window.

If you think about it, Charlton overprinted their US copies massively. I've posted about this in other threads. And yet Miller solicited printed UKPVs for 3 years in the early 1960s. Why didn't he just go for the - we're assuming - cheaper option of buying the US returns up cheap, as we're guessing was the case with the DC returns, and stamping them as he had always done? There was no issue to issue story continuity in Charltons to mess up - hell, they didn't even have issues numbers on the covers - so who in the UK would've cared about missing an issue? And if Miller could solicit Charltons with a printed cover price of 6d versus the 9d of T&P - 30% cheaper - why couldn't T&P have a grip on the best way to import and distribute DCs? If UKPV solicitation was more expensive than cents returns, how did Miller make a buck at 6d?

Charlton, Marvel, Dell - they all have periods of concurrent UKPV distribution. Why not DC? Did the UK public care more about Charlton and Dell than DC?

[Get Marwood & I]

Lunch was nice by the way. 

[Malacoda]

On 10/25/2023 at 11:19 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

You argued it wasn't the reason that one UKPV existed and the other didn't.

Taking the helicopter view, my simply presented coincidence above looks a hell of a lot more plausible to me than your PI/Container test one currently does. And remember when I pointed out that the DC UKPVs coincided with the US cover price increases? 

Right, but I think 1979 is a 5th hiatus, which I don't think you do? That's a much bigger headbanging session. Let's park that one for a minute. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/25/2023 at 1:43 PM, Malacoda said:

Right, but I think 1979 is a 5th hiatus, which I don't think you do? That's a much bigger headbanging session. Let's park that one for a minute. 

We disagree on the definition of 'hiatus'. There has to be an absence for it to be called one. But yes, one for another day (again).

[Get Marwood & I]

Rich, I'm going to hold fire posting until you give me the nod that you've finished answering my posts @Malacoda