JLA 166-168...

[UnrulyAppendage]

I think the hotness of JLA 166-168 and some other books helped to extra hype the new crisis books that were coming out

 

The reason they are hot is because of the new crisis books.

[matewan1990]

I think the hotness of JLA 166-168 and some other books helped to extra hype the new crisis books that were coming out

 

The reason they are hot is because of the new crisis books.

 

You're exactly right. Until Identity Crisis came out, you could find these books in quarter bins and dollar boxes. No one paid any attention to them, until ID came out and then the books were big. Then, when Infinite Crisis came out and ID tied into it, everything associated with IC got hot. DC was smart to reprint those, since ID and IC are still so very popular. Reprints are cheap for comics companies, because the material is already done, so, when something like ID and IC ties into older stories, it gives DC a good opportunity to make some easy money by reprinting those old tie-ins.

No, I don't believe DC Comics has a responsibility to the back issue collectors. The creative end is what they should be worried about. The back issue market is in our hands and ours to worry about.

[grider67]

No, I don't believe DC Comics has a responsibility to the back issue collectors. The creative end is what they should be worried about. The back issue market is in our hands and ours to worry about.

 

Maaan, there's a tear in my beer.

[the blob]

"No, I don't believe DC Comics has a responsibility to the back issue collectors. The creative end is what they should be worried about. The back issue market is in our hands and ours to worry about."

 

Who said they had a responsibility? But if you and they don't think that ONE reason why "hot" books have 75-150K print-runs nowadays rather than 450K print-runs (let's forget about 7 figure print-run for now because not nearly as many people care anymore) is because everyone knows it'll be out in TPB 3 months after the series wraps up, then someone is being silly. There have been like 20 threads on that point here. Of course, the TPB of 20-25 year old reprints is another story. I just wanted to hand out my quote from the DC executive. If they don't think their $2.99 cover prices have something to do with collectors out there (which is what I told him), then they're being silly too. This is why they were able to jack up prices so rapidly in the early/mid 90s to get to the point they're at now. If everyone read comics with the expectation of tossing them afterward then DC would sell even fewer of these overpriced comics.

[the blob]

Finally, for many years DC was getting KILLED selling new books. You don't think the fact that DC back issues were generally worthless until you got into 10 cent cover prices impacted sales of new books? I never bought DCs off the rack (other than the occasional NTT or something like Ronin) because, why bother? Seemingly everything from the last 20-25 years was sitting in the 50 cent box.

[UnrulyAppendage]

You don't think the fact that DC back issues were generally worthless until you got into 10 cent cover prices impacted sales of new books?

 

No. I think uninspired and stale storytelling was the reason DC was about dead in the late 70's and early 80's.

[matewan1990]

"No, I don't believe DC Comics has a responsibility to the back issue collectors. The creative end is what they should be worried about. The back issue market is in our hands and ours to worry about."

 

Who said they had a responsibility? But if you and they don't think that ONE reason why "hot" books have 75-150K print-runs nowadays rather than 450K print-runs (let's forget about 7 figure print-run for now because not nearly as many people care anymore) is because everyone knows it'll be out in TPB 3 months after the series wraps up, then someone is being silly. There have been like 20 threads on that point here. Of course, the TPB of 20-25 year old reprints is another story. I just wanted to hand out my quote from the DC executive. If they don't think their $2.99 cover prices have something to do with collectors out there (which is what I told him), then they're being silly too. This is why they were able to jack up prices so rapidly in the early/mid 90s to get to the point they're at now. If everyone read comics with the expectation of tossing them afterward then DC would sell even fewer of these overpriced comics.

 

See, this is the completely crazy and off-topic rant that keeps me from posting more regularly.

You took my quote and somehow twisted it and got off the subject of what I was saying.

Okay, I don't care if you like what I'm saying or not. DC Comics has no responsibility to BACK ISSUE COLLECTORS. They're in this business to make comics, which in turn helps them license their characters for underwear, toothbrushes, cereal, cookies, fruit rollups, movies, TV shows and whatnot... I'm sure their executives aren't sitting in a meeting talking about how they can keep their back issues hot.

And your analogy about how DC Comics sat in back issue, 50-cent bins without anyone buying them causing people to not buy their current comics is lame and stupid. I've never heard anyone try to rationalize DC's poor quality output during the 1970s as a result of poor back issue sales.

Their storytelling way back then was pretty bad compared to Marvel's and it showed in their sales. When you compare 1970s DCs to 1970s Marvels, the quality of Marvel's comics stands head-and-shoulders above DC (and this is coming from a hardcore DC Comics fan). That's why their sales declined.

And sales have declined throughout comics. They're expensive, they don't reach the general public and they're marketed toward more adults rather than children (which is where most of us got into comics).

DC's sales declined from the 1960s into the 1970s and into the 1980s just like Marvel's sales did. It was a problem the whole industry faced and the direct sales market didn't help matters, either.

Sure, knowing a series can be bought in trade paperback format does affect sales these days. But, what's that got to do with the back issue statement I was making.

People Magazine doesn't care about collectors, even though there are people who collect People Magazine.. They sell their magazine to people who want to read. DC Comics, just like Marvel, doesn't care about collectors. They publish their comics for people who want to read them. Anything else is secondary and probably not one of the DC executives' worries.

Mike B.

[the blob]

Why are you getting so agitated? Just calm down. Put some more cream cheese on your bagel.

 

DCs had started getting better in the 80s (JLA, Batman (NTT was treated like a Marvel book by most collectors), better than Dazzler and a lot of junk Marvel was putting out, but me and my pals (and I suspect a world of other 12-18 year olds who actually mattered in comic economics back then) certainly looked down on the new stuff, in part, because DCs were essentially uncollectible.

 

Someone here has a better recollection I'm sure, but weren't even objectively excellent books like Adams Batmans going for squat?

 

Finally, there would be no more comics if not for collectors and the back issue market, so that's why I have a real problem when someone who makes their living because of this says "F-them" These companies would have gone out of business a long time ago. Comics really would have gone the way of the pulp. Do you think Marvel and DC could have survived selling 60 cent comics in the 80s if there weren't shops and collectors buying extra copies to stash away? DC lost money every year with 75K print-runs, TW may have shut them down (even if it didn't help the movie business) with 25K print-runs. Perhaps at today's ridiculous prices comic cos can break even selling mainly to people who only care about reading the issue and not much else, but I sort of still think 25% of the print-runs are still winding up as back issues. Take that out of the equation and their razor thin margins evaporate and Chapter 11 is on the way. Heck, they're probably staying in business right now with gimick covers and limited editions. How is that a focus on creative output?

[COI]

ake that out of the equation and their razor thin margins evaporate and Chapter 11 is on the way.

 

 

Monthly books are a small part of Marvel and DC's(Time/Warner) revenue. The make the lion's share of their profits from licensing out products like Video games,movies, toys and cartoons. These are things that are being consumed by non-collectors, and are keeping Marvel and DC in business. .

[the blob]

chapter 11 for the publishing subs

 

tw didn't need to be printing comics in the 80s-90s to make superhero movies/tv shows and they don't now

[matewan1990]

Why are you getting so agitated? Just calm down. Put some more cream cheese on your bagel.

 

DCs had started getting better in the 80s (JLA, Batman (NTT was treated like a Marvel book by most collectors), better than Dazzler and a lot of junk Marvel was putting out, but me and my pals (and I suspect a world of other 12-18 year olds who actually mattered in comic economics back then) certainly looked down on the new stuff, in part, because DCs were essentially uncollectible.

 

Someone here has a better recollection I'm sure, but weren't even objectively excellent books like Adams Batmans going for squat?

 

Finally, there would be no more comics if not for collectors and the back issue market, so that's why I have a real problem when someone who makes their living because of this says "F-them" These companies would have gone out of business a long time ago. Comics really would have gone the way of the pulp. Do you think Marvel and DC could have survived selling 60 cent comics in the 80s if there weren't shops and collectors buying extra copies to stash away? DC lost money every year with 75K print-runs, TW may have shut them down (even if it didn't help the movie business) with 25K print-runs. Perhaps at today's ridiculous prices comic cos can break even selling mainly to people who only care about reading the issue and not much else, but I sort of still think 25% of the print-runs are still winding up as back issues. Take that out of the equation and their razor thin margins evaporate and Chapter 11 is on the way. Heck, they're probably staying in business right now with gimick covers and limited editions. How is that a focus on creative output?

 

You've said some completely idiotic statements.

The only true statement you made was about DC's quality improving in the 1980s.

No, Adams Batmans were not going for squat in the 1980s. They were still high-priced back then, as they are now.

"Finally, there would be no more comics if not for collectors and the back issue market, so that's why I have a real problem when someone who makes their living because of this says 'F-them'"

Huh? Have you completely lost your grasp on reality? You're saying that DC Comics wouldn't be here if not for the back issue market and collectors?

What about Batman the movie in 1989 that was one of the top-grossing movies, or the Batman The Animated Series that was big back in the 1990s? What about the Batman action figures, the Superman action figures, the JLA action figures and all the likenesses that appear on nearly everything that have DC heroes and villains on them?

Razor-thin margins? Where do you get that? DC Comics makes a good profit each year. I don't recall them ever having financial troubles like Marvel did.

And DC didn't enter the variant cover market this decade until the last couple of years.

Blob, you're just posting these stupid statements to start an argument because nothing you say is based in fact.

Do you not realize that comics companies don't make their money off of the $2.50-$2.99 cover price of their comics. They make their money from advertising and licensing. Ads sell for big bucks in comics and licensing brings in a nice chunk of change. Put that together with the movies that are coming out all the time now and it looks to me like DC Comics — and Marvel — aren't having any financial troubles.

DC is a publishing giant. They don't stay in the business because they're worried about back issue collectors. They make their money when comics sell more because they can charge more for ads as circulation grows. That's why you put out a limited variant, because they know that someone will want that 1:65 variant, so their circulation numbers grow because shops have to buy that extra amount of comics to get the variant, which in turn helps ad rates increase, which, in turn, brings in more cash. Plus, the more people who see the comics, the more people who are likely to buy that Superman notebook or the Justice League T-shirts or Wonder Woman underoos. So, a variant helps sales of comics and provides inroads to other avenues of cash revenue.

When DC publishes a comic, though, their executives aren't sitting around a big table, wondering what will create a stir in the back issue market. They focus on the quality of their comics, so that people will buy them. I think you forget that comics are for reading first and foremost and it's people like us who buy them on the back issue market because we have the available cash and want to recapture that feeling we had when we first read that comic or we want to fill in a hole in our collection.

To comic company officials, the back issue market isn't important. Heck, they're not seeing a dime of the money made when someone resells a comic for more than they initially sold it to the distributors for. They don't make a red cent, so why should they care about the back issue market or collectors?

At the age of 12 you were a speculator? Way back before there was a speculator boom and bust? Way back in the early 1980s? If all you were buying comics for was the investment potential, then why didn't you take your money and invest in stocks and bonds instead?

I read my DCs in the 1970s and 1980s because they were good, solid reads. Not because I thought they were going to go up in value. I still don't buy comics for investment potential. I buy them to read. Heck, I haven't bagged and boarded comics in more than three years and don't intend to bag and board them anytime soon. Why? Because I like to read comics. Making a profit off of them later is a bonus.

I never, ever said "Well, I'm not buying DCs because their back issues are dead in the bins and aren't going to go up in value."

I bought my comics because I said "Wow, the Flash has Carmine Infantino art in it again," and "Wow, I love All-Star Squadron because Roy Thomas writes some mean retro stories."

I bought Crisis on Infinite Earths in the 1980s and that was selling like crazy. But, I bought it because it was a great story with all these wonderful DC characters in it.

Did you miss out on all of that because you thought DCs weren't a good investment? If so, I feel really, really sorry for you.

Mike B.

[UnrulyAppendage]

Why are you getting so agitated? Just calm down. Put some more cream cheese on your bagel.

 

The back issue market started when kids would read an issue and it refrenced old issues. They would trade for those issues they didn't have or buy them. When it was a storyline that was in big demand, then the price of that issue went up because more people wanted to read it that issue.

 

Your notion of backissues driving new sales does not hold up to reality. New issues fueled collecting because that was the only way they could read the back stories. Now, most collectors buy for nostalgia and the best copies as they have already read the stories or they want a better copy from their childhood. The JLA issues you are holding up now as an example to support your idea does not help. They were bargain bin issues until the current Crisis stories came along.

 

Comic companies have to focus on current readers, not back issue collectors. They do not get any money from back issues. If they didn't, they were would not be back issues to collect.

[fastballspecial]

Why are you getting so agitated? Just calm down. Put some more cream cheese on your bagel.

 

DCs had started getting better in the 80s (JLA, Batman (NTT was treated like a Marvel book by most collectors), better than Dazzler and a lot of junk Marvel was putting out, but me and my pals (and I suspect a world of other 12-18 year olds who actually mattered in comic economics back then) certainly looked down on the new stuff, in part, because DCs were essentially uncollectible.

 

Someone here has a better recollection I'm sure, but weren't even objectively excellent books like Adams Batmans going for squat?

 

Finally, there would be no more comics if not for collectors and the back issue market, so that's why I have a real problem when someone who makes their living because of this says "F-them" These companies would have gone out of business a long time ago. Comics really would have gone the way of the pulp. Do you think Marvel and DC could have survived selling 60 cent comics in the 80s if there weren't shops and collectors buying extra copies to stash away? DC lost money every year with 75K print-runs, TW may have shut them down (even if it didn't help the movie business) with 25K print-runs. Perhaps at today's ridiculous prices comic cos can break even selling mainly to people who only care about reading the issue and not much else, but I sort of still think 25% of the print-runs are still winding up as back issues. Take that out of the equation and their razor thin margins evaporate and Chapter 11 is on the way. Heck, they're probably staying in business right now with gimick covers and limited editions. How is that a focus on creative output?

 

You've said some completely idiotic statements.

The only true statement you made was about DC's quality improving in the 1980s.

No, Adams Batmans were not going for squat in the 1980s. They were still high-priced back then, as they are now.

"Finally, there would be no more comics if not for collectors and the back issue market, so that's why I have a real problem when someone who makes their living because of this says 'F-them'"

Huh? Have you completely lost your grasp on reality? You're saying that DC Comics wouldn't be here if not for the back issue market and collectors?

What about Batman the movie in 1989 that was one of the top-grossing movies, or the Batman The Animated Series that was big back in the 1990s? What about the Batman action figures, the Superman action figures, the JLA action figures and all the likenesses that appear on nearly everything that have DC heroes and villains on them?

Razor-thin margins? Where do you get that? DC Comics makes a good profit each year. I don't recall them ever having financial troubles like Marvel did.

And DC didn't enter the variant cover market this decade until the last couple of years.

Blob, you're just posting these stupid statements to start an argument because nothing you say is based in fact.

Do you not realize that comics companies don't make their money off of the $2.50-$2.99 cover price of their comics. They make their money from advertising and licensing. Ads sell for big bucks in comics and licensing brings in a nice chunk of change. Put that together with the movies that are coming out all the time now and it looks to me like DC Comics — and Marvel — aren't having any financial troubles.

DC is a publishing giant. They don't stay in the business because they're worried about back issue collectors. They make their money when comics sell more because they can charge more for ads as circulation grows. That's why you put out a limited variant, because they know that someone will want that 1:65 variant, so their circulation numbers grow because shops have to buy that extra amount of comics to get the variant, which in turn helps ad rates increase, which, in turn, brings in more cash. Plus, the more people who see the comics, the more people who are likely to buy that Superman notebook or the Justice League T-shirts or Wonder Woman underoos. So, a variant helps sales of comics and provides inroads to other avenues of cash revenue.

When DC publishes a comic, though, their executives aren't sitting around a big table, wondering what will create a stir in the back issue market. They focus on the quality of their comics, so that people will buy them. I think you forget that comics are for reading first and foremost and it's people like us who buy them on the back issue market because we have the available cash and want to recapture that feeling we had when we first read that comic or we want to fill in a hole in our collection.

To comic company officials, the back issue market isn't important. Heck, they're not seeing a dime of the money made when someone resells a comic for more than they initially sold it to the distributors for. They don't make a red cent, so why should they care about the back issue market or collectors?

At the age of 12 you were a speculator? Way back before there was a speculator boom and bust? Way back in the early 1980s? If all you were buying comics for was the investment potential, then why didn't you take your money and invest in stocks and bonds instead?

I read my DCs in the 1970s and 1980s because they were good, solid reads. Not because I thought they were going to go up in value. I still don't buy comics for investment potential. I buy them to read. Heck, I haven't bagged and boarded comics in more than three years and don't intend to bag and board them anytime soon. Why? Because I like to read comics. Making a profit off of them later is a bonus.

I never, ever said "Well, I'm not buying DCs because their back issues are dead in the bins and aren't going to go up in value."

I bought my comics because I said "Wow, the Flash has Carmine Infantino art in it again," and "Wow, I love All-Star Squadron because Roy Thomas writes some mean retro stories."

I bought Crisis on Infinite Earths in the 1980s and that was selling like crazy. But, I bought it because it was a great story with all these wonderful DC characters in it.

Did you miss out on all of that because you thought DCs weren't a good investment? If so, I feel really, really sorry for you.

Mike B.

 

I have never met this guy above, but if I ever do the beers are on me. Thats the best argument for whats is right about collecting comics I have read in years. BTW - I currently think DC rocks right now and its a great day to like DC this coming from a Marvel fan. Its been years since I looked forward to DC comic on Wednesdays now all DC books are the 1st I read each week.

[the blob]

No, I didn't buy DCs OFF THE RACK back then because it didn't make sense to spend 60 cents on a comic when I could get them out of the 25 cent box 2 months later. I have a huge number of DCs I bought out of the 25 cent box in the early 80s, all in gorgeous shape except for the darn check mark on the back my [then] LCS would put on the back of the 25 cent box comics. But when it came to shelling out my hard earned 60 cents, that went to Marvels. Highly readable and collectible comics like Alpha Flight and FF that would never ever ever ever ever find themselves in the discount box because John Byrne was the greatest comic book artist ever (hah hah hah hah). Loved that stuff so much I bought them at the shop AND had a subscription to them! Hmmm, probably can't get 25 cents for most of them now, Luckily I enjoyed reading them way back when.

 

Anyway, I found the comment from the DC executive offensive given that a decent chunk of comic sales revenues (particularly in the mid-90s) would not exist if not for the back issue/collector market (and perhaps neither would "no returns" as a policy). If you think it's cool for a company to give the middle finger to a decent chunk of its customers, that's great.

 

Basically it came up in the context of a discussion about cover prices. At that point the back issue market for moderns had pretty much died. I think cover prices were like $1.50 or $1.75. He was talking about dropping sales figures. I told him the cover prices didn't help and that built into the inflated prices was some sort of "collectability" premium that may have been justified in 1992 when there was a market for back issues, but not in 1997, whenever I had this conversation and that they might consider scaling back on prices a little.

 

And as I said, DC didn't need to be selling comics to make the Batman and Superman movies. Those characters were already part of the American psyche. Wouldn't have made a big difference at the box office if they had stop publishing them monthly ten years earlier. Had comic shops not come on to the scene en masse in the late 70s/early 80s (and they were able to pay their rent via back issue sales), where would you buy comics today? Not all those news outlets that have no interest in carrying them. So yes, if not for collectors, there is a high probability that these companies would be out of the publishing business, or perhaps out of the business of publishing monthly periodicals and would focus on trades via book stores.

 

Anyway, as for reprinting JLA 166-168, sure, I guess you're right, that statute of limitations has run given that it has been 25+ years. But I'm still irritated that they're doing it before I had the chance to unload all my copies at inflated prices!

[Zonker]

For what it's worth, put me down on the side of those who say Make the new comics actually worth reading, and the collectibility will take care of itself. The more a publisher tries to rely upon customers doing anything with comics other than reading the silly things (collecting them, investing in them, what have you), the more they tend to move towards overprinting and gimmicks like variant chrome enhanced covers that fuel a speculative glut. Paradoxically, such a glut may actually help new issue sales in the short run but will absolutely kill back issue interest.

[matewan1990]

There are lots of things wrong with your statements with which I feel the need to take issue. I take issue with some of those now. Maybe later when you, Blob, anger me further I'll come back and comment more.

 

"No, I didn't buy DCs OFF THE RACK back then because it didn't make sense to spend 60 cents on a comic when I could get them out of the 25 cent box 2 months later. I have a huge number of DCs I bought out of the 25 cent box in the early 80s. But when it came to shelling out my hard earned 60 cents, that went to Marvels. Highly readable and collectible comics like Alpha Flight and FF that would never ever ever ever ever find themselves in the discount box because John Byrne was the greatest comic book artist ever (hah hah hah hah). Loved that stuff so much I bought them at the shop AND had a subscription to them! Hmmm, probably can't get 25 cents for most of them now, Luckily I enjoyed reading them way back when."

 

—If those 1980s Marvels can be found in the 25 cent box these days, then why isn't Marvel, as a company, suffering from the back issue sales lag you describe in your earlier posts? Wouldn't that hold true for Marvel, too?

 

"Anyway, I found the comment from the DC executive offensive given that a decent chunk of comic sales revenues (particularly in the mid-90s) would not exist if not for the back issue/collector market (and perhaps neither would "no returns" as a policy). If you think it's cool for a company to give the middle finger to a decent chunk of its customers, that's great."

 

—The sales for comic companies don't come from BACK ISSUE SALES. Can't you understand that? They come from sales to distributors, who then, in turn, sell the comics to comic shops, who, in turn, sell the comics to us and we, in another turn, sit down and read them, or bag and board them or sell them on the back issue market. The comic book SHOPS and collectors, themselves — not the comic companies — are the ones who should worry about BACK ISSUE SALES. I don't know a single comic book company, especially not DC, that makes a dime off of BACK ISSUE sales. Do you? There are no DC exclusive comic shops anywhere that I know of making money hand over fist from back issues. Please, tell me of one if you know of any.

My whole argument is based upon the fact that you keep spouting this ignorant garbage about how comic companies owe it to us, the collector, to create comics that are going to go up in value. That's what you're saying, right? Comic companies don't OWE us anything. They produce a product that we enjoy and they make money from that. If they write and draw comics we like, we buy them. If they're comics we don't like, we don't buy them. Later on, if they're good enough, or a comic some collectors needs, then the back issue market comes into play.

Comic companies should put out the most entertaining comics they can produce and WE — not them — should worry about buying and selling back issues. Frankly, I don't want Paul Levitz worrying about whether or not Teen Titans 34 is going to be a big seller on the back issue market; it's not his concern because 1) he's not making a penny off of the back issue market and 2) he's got to make sure his company publishes the best comics to make me want to read them. I want him to worry about the quality of the comics his company produces and not whether I can get 20 bucks for JSA Classified No.1 or whether it will be in the quarter box tomorrow. Why should he care about that?

Mike B.

[matewan1990]

For what it's worth, put me down on the side of those who say Make the new comics actually worth reading, and the collectibility will take care of itself. The more a publisher tries to rely upon customers doing anything with comics other than reading the silly things (collecting in them, investing in them, what have you), the more they tend to move towards overprinting and gimmicks like variant chrome enhanced covers that fuel a speculative glut. Paradoxically, such a glut may actually help new issue sales in the short run but will absolutely kill back issue interest.

 

Great point! VALIANTs are a great example of this. VALIANT COMICS were high-quality for the first couple of years, with Jim Shooter at the helm. He did things to encourage shop owners to buy his high-quality comics. Shooter was so sure his comics were the best they could be that he gave incentives for retailers to order more so that more people would see how great VALIANT COMICS were.

But, then Shooter was fired and VALIANT became just another comic company printing penny dreadfuls that no one wanted to buy after they realized how poor the quality had gotten.

VALIANT executives did push for higher print runs because people were snatching these older issues up and paying big bucks for them (they still weren't seeing any profits from the back issue sales, but they saw speculators enter the comic collecting hobby by the thousands and that caused them to jack up print runs), which fueled speculators to buy, buy, buy (and the Wall Street Journal to proclaim VALIANTs were good as gold) and caused an explosion and implosion when VALIANT went belly-up after all the speculators left the market. VALIANT's overall quality took a severe decline and the company paid dearly for marketing to the collectors.

VALIANT COMICS is the poster boy for how to wreck a company by focusing on collectors and not quality.

READ COMICS, for cryin' out loud! Don't sit around looking at boxes of unread comics all day waiting for the time when they will make you rich. Reading comics is what you should spend your money on. Getting rich off of comics is just one of the bonuses and should never be a primary reason for buying comic books.

Mike B.

[Foolkiller]

My whole argument is based upon the fact that you keep spouting this ignorant garbage about how comic companies owe it to us, the collector, to create comics that are going to go up in value. That's what you're saying, right? Comic companies don't OWE us anything. They produce a product that we enjoy and they make money from that. If they write and draw comics we like, we buy them. If they're comics we don't like, we don't buy them. Later on, if they're good enough, or a comic some collectors needs, then the back issue market comes into play.

Comic companies should put out the most entertaining comics they can produce and WE — not them — should worry about buying and selling back issues. Frankly, I don't want Paul Levitz worrying about whether or not Teen Titans 34 is going to be a big seller on the back issue market; it's not his concern because 1) he's not making a penny off of the back issue market and 2) he's got to make sure his company publishes the best comics to make me want to read them. I want him to worry about the quality of the comics his company produces and not whether I can get 20 bucks for JSA Classified No.1 or whether it will be in the quarter box tomorrow. Why should he care about that?

 

Blob:

 

This argument from Matewan, while a bit... aggressive in tone, is pretty much spot on... I'm not sure I understand where the debate is on this post...

[Fan4Fan]

I'd actually say that I'd like comic companies to be a bit more aggressive in reprinting back issues.

 

Since Identity Crisis was using JLA 166-168 as a jumping off point, what took DC so long to get a reprint out? Or did the delay not really impact them financially?

[the blob]

"My whole argument is based upon the fact that you keep spouting this ignorant garbage about how comic companies owe it to us, the collector, to create comics that are going to go up in value. That's what you're saying, right?"

 

That's not what I'm saying you ignoramus. I'm saying that they probably don't help themselves when they do things after the fact that HURTS back issues. New comics, on average, aren't going anywhere but down, with a few rare exceptions. That's the nature of the beast, particularly in the internet era.

 

And why are you getting into name calling anyway? I think the most offensive word I used was "silly." Wow, you people are vicious. Get a life folks. We're talking about frigging funny books here people. They're meant to be read while sitting on the can.

 

Now back on point. Classic example: Wolverine 75 hologram covers and the others put out around then. They were enjoying a nice little market as back issues, selling at cover, more than cover, etc. in the 90s when things were sliding. Then BAM, holy cow, apparently Marvel had like another million of them in a warehouse somewhere and they wind up appearing everywhere like in 4 packs at Odd Lot Trading for 99 cents, etc. Sure, I understand, they wanted their money, but my friend who owned a shop basically said "that's the last time I order extras. If anything winds up doing well Marvel is just going to dump a bunch more on the market and kill it." Perhaps this is a good thing as new comic speculation has been nearly sucked out of the hobby, I don't know, but it does hurt the publishers' bottom line.

 

Do you think the sales of Superman 204 came from people wanting to read that story? Sure, the first 50-75,000 did, the other however many gadjillion were bought by shops and other speculators hoping to cash in at some later date. So sales to comic companies DO COME FROM ANTICIPATED BACK ISSUE SALES! It is a sale to them whether the shop owner bought it with the expectation of selling it off the rack this week or with the expectation of hoarding it and hoping to make some money later (admittedly something that is harder and harder to do nowadays).

 

Anyway, make up your mind, should comic companies be creating fantastic new product that excites readers (I like that), or filling the racks and shelves with a bunch of reprints of old junk because it's cheap to do so and they want to capitalize on some temporary interest in some ancient story line? Actually, I think profits realized from pumping out reprints gets in the way of coming up with good new stuff. Easy money is going to be pursued before "hard money". So there!!