1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 are DISTRIBUTION numbers, not PRINT RUN numbers. 0

[Jaydogrules]

Is anybody debating that they print more than ordered to cover for damages?

 

I think majority understands that they print more than ordered to cover damages. Which is understandable. How much more is the question.

 

As it applies to "incentive" variants, based on the link I posted above, the answer looks to be 5%.

 

As for regular covers, according to multiple boardies, it is in the 5-10% range. Whatever they do above that for re-orders looks to vary by another potential 5-10% (at least from the data ChuckGower posted from ten years ago).

 

Either way, all of this is still based on how many copies of a book are actually ordered. None of these numbers exist in a vacuum.

 

-J.

 

Can we get a list, preferably with links to the relevant posts, of who these "multiple boardies" are and what they have said? "Multiple boardies" sounds awesome as a completely vague support for whatever you want it to mean, but having some idea of who these "multiple boardies" are and what their knowledge base on print runs is would be really useful.

 

If you can't/won't produce this, please stop citing these unnamed "multiple boardies" as support.

 

Already done. Scroll back a few a pages.

 

And the link directly from Diamond shuts down the dispute anyway.

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

[drotto]

From what I was told by a person that ordered a store variant was that he needed to order 3000 total copies. He only had one cover done, but from the numbers available given for store variants by other places that seems valid. That is why you see variant numbers for three different covers usually listed as 1500, 1000, and 500, or 2000 and 1000 for two covers.

 

I have no other source to confirm this so take it for what is is worth.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Is anybody debating that they print more than ordered to cover for damages?

 

No, but they can't have it both ways. Either they print overages for damages, or they print "to the case pack." The odds of an overage amount being precisely the same as a "rounded off case pack" are slim to none.

 

Do they always print overages? Do they always print overages for every issue? (The answer to the first is clearly yes, the answer to the second is probably yes.)

 

But publishers have printed overages historically since the beginning of publishing. When did cases become part of the industry? The 70's? Somewhere around there.

 

"But", some may complain, "those numbers include the Direct market AND the newsstand!"

 

Granted. But it does show that there's no "case pack" printing going on with the whole thing. Maybe the Direct market alone was printed "to the case pack." The important thing is that we just don't know, and have no way of finding out. There's no public distinction made in those numbers. We only know how many were printed (on average and for a single specific issue, probably the Dec issue), and how many were returned.

 

How many were Direct market? We don't know.

 

How many were Newsstand? We don't know.

 

But, clearly, those numbers indicate that, for whatever those numbers include (and remember: there WERE variants in 2005 and 2008), they weren't printed to any "case pack" numbers.

 

That's the point: we don't know.

 

So, those running around saying they can make "reasonable estimates" of the print runs of these incentive variants...as compelling as they make their arguments sound...are just blowing smoke. You can't make "reasonable estimates" using numbers (the ratios), trying to apply them to other numbers (the Comichron/Diamond sales numbers, themselves estimates) to come up with anything even remotely "reasonable."

 

Admittedly: on the surface, it's very, very appealing to try and do this. They are easy, handy, "quick" numbers that SEEM to make sense.

 

But, scratching the surface, understanding what these numbers really mean, very quickly shows how that falls apart.

[Prince Namor]

Yep. Which is really what the whole argument is.

 

Showing what we DO know and making assumptions

vs

Making assumptions based on things that are UNKNOWN

 

 

Bottom line: we have NO IDEA how many copies of a variant a publisher prints.

NO IDEA.

[Prince Namor]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

I don't need to reorder them. I just wait a few months and order most of them for 25-50 cents apiece!

[Jaydogrules]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

[Prince Namor]

Jay continues to make assumptions on information he does NOT have.

While the proof to refute what he says continues to prove him in error.

What will the goal posts be moved to now?

[Jaydogrules]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

 

The proof is (at least) Marvel's own public statements, summarized by you, and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies, as well as (once again) this link:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/732?articleID=109267

 

...specifically referencing only a 5% "over-print" for damages on the incentives on an issue that was also a pretty big event that year.

 

None of these things exist independently or in a vacuum. Taken together, they are more than enough circumstantial evidence to support what I and many others have said and suggested.

 

You are free to disagree, but the competing information that you have produced does not seem to be on point. I can't speak on the numbers for those 2 regular covers as reported ten years ago. That would seem to me to be a different conversation altogether. But I will observe that if Marvel was wasting that much product on every book they published every month, they probably would not have remained in the comic book publishing business for very long, thus suggesting that those two examples are outliers and not the norm (as to the regular issues of a book, back then).

 

-J.

[Prince Namor]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

 

The proof is (at least) Marvel's own public statements, summarized by you, and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies, as well as (once again) this link:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/732?articleID=109267

 

...specifically referencing only a 5% "over-print" for damages on the incentives on an issue that was also a pretty big event that year.

 

None of these things exist independently or in a vacuum. Taken together, they are more than enough circumstantial evidence to support what I and many others have said and suggested.

 

You are free to disagree, but the competing information that you have produced does not seem to be on point. I can't speak on the numbers for those 2 regular covers as reported ten years ago. That would seem to me to be a different conversation altogether. But I will observe that if Marvel was wasting that much product on every book they published every month, they probably would not have remained in the comic book publishing business for very long, thus suggesting that those two examples are outliers and not the norm (as to the regular issues of a book, back then).

 

-J.

 

Are you kidding?

 

In previous decades they wasted MORE. Go look at the numbers.

 

Had to be a hundred thousand a month combined easily. Go look.

 

Stayed in business. Did pretty well I'd say.

 

And it's cheaper to print today than ever before.

 

You keep following what Chuck Rozanski throws out there for the publishers, I know better.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Is anybody debating that they print more than ordered to cover for damages?

 

I think majority understands that they print more than ordered to cover damages. Which is understandable. How much more is the question.

 

As it applies to "incentive" variants, based on the link I posted above, the answer looks to be 5%.

 

As for regular covers, according to multiple boardies, it is in the 5-10% range. Whatever they do above that for re-orders looks to vary by another potential 5-10% (at least from the data ChuckGower posted from ten years ago).

 

Either way, all of this is still based on how many copies of a book are actually ordered. None of these numbers exist in a vacuum.

 

-J.

 

Can we get a list, preferably with links to the relevant posts, of who these "multiple boardies" are and what they have said? "Multiple boardies" sounds awesome as a completely vague support for whatever you want it to mean, but having some idea of who these "multiple boardies" are and what their knowledge base on print runs is would be really useful.

 

If you can't/won't produce this, please stop citing these unnamed "multiple boardies" as support.

 

Already done. Scroll back a few a pages.

 

And the link directly from Diamond shuts down the dispute anyway.

 

-J.

 

"WoWitHurts" is a user who has been here for about a year, and has 38 total posts.

 

Chuck wasn't saying what you claimed he was saying.

 

paul347 made the same errors you keep making.

 

And Larry certainly isn't in your camp.

 

So....either the "multiple boardies" were not reliable, or they didn't say what you were claiming they were saying.

 

Quick question: does this "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with compostable_fertilizer" shtick work for you elsewhere...?

[Lazyboy]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

 

The proof is (at least) Marvel's own public statements, summarized by you, and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies, as well as (once again) this link:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/732?articleID=109267

 

...specifically referencing only a 5% "over-print" for damages on the incentives on an issue that was also a pretty big event that year.

 

None of these things exist independently or in a vacuum. Taken together, they are more than enough circumstantial evidence to support what I and many others have said and suggested.

 

You are free to disagree, but the competing information that you have produced does not seem to be on point. I can't speak on the numbers for those 2 regular covers as reported ten years ago. That would seem to me to be a different conversation altogether. But I will observe that if Marvel was wasting that much product on every book they published every month, they probably would not have remained in the comic book publishing business for very long, thus suggesting that those two examples are outliers and not the norm (as to the regular issues of a book, back then).

 

-J.

 

 

How long is 70 years?

[Prince Namor]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

 

The proof is (at least) Marvel's own public statements, summarized by you, and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies, as well as (once again) this link:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/732?articleID=109267

 

...specifically referencing only a 5% "over-print" for damages on the incentives on an issue that was also a pretty big event that year.

 

None of these things exist independently or in a vacuum. Taken together, they are more than enough circumstantial evidence to support what I and many others have said and suggested.

 

You are free to disagree, but the competing information that you have produced does not seem to be on point. I can't speak on the numbers for those 2 regular covers as reported ten years ago. That would seem to me to be a different conversation altogether. But I will observe that if Marvel was wasting that much product on every book they published every month, they probably would not have remained in the comic book publishing business for very long, thus suggesting that those two examples are outliers and not the norm (as to the regular issues of a book, back then).

 

-J.

 

 

How long is 70 years?

 

Exactly!

 

Before the Direct Market, Publisher printed TONS of extra copies... I guess they figured maybe they'd sell, if not... trash them.

 

In 1970, once again for Amazing Spider-man, the #1 Comic Book of the day!

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 596,102

Sales thru Dealers: 319,664

Subscription Sales: 2,531

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 273,797!!!

 

They printed 273,797 MORE copies than they needed!

 

Sorry jay. Once again, the industry shows you, it's COMMON to overprint.

 

Ever go into a book store? Tons of extra copies.

 

And as I said before, Printing is cheaper now than it's ever been.

 

[bababooey]

One of the topics that has come up in this discussion is the idea that Marvel would NEVER print more copies of a book than they need

 

AND

 

They print up to the 'case pack'

 

Lets' look at some facts that show both of these to be questionable ideas.

 

Comichron's numbers for the Amazing Spider-man in 2005 show:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 150,833 (or 603.33 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 102,377 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,187

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 35,241 or 23.4% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

 

In 2008, they appear to have tried to tighten it up a bit:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 125,019 (or 500.76 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 95,141 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,807

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 17,515 or 14% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

These are from Marvel's own Statement of Ownership official forms, required by law.

And they show clearly that:

A) Marvel has most definitely printed more copies of a comic than they need and

B) They don't seem to be rounding up to any even case pack amount.

 

 

How does any of this prove a thing about the practice of printing up to a 'case pack'.

You can't use an average then calculate that back to PROVE they don't print to the 'case pack'.

 

Simply put, if you had two issues where you KNEW one issue had 80 case packs and another had 81 printed, the average is 80.5....and now the 80.5 average number is being used to prove they didn't print 80 & 81??

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

One of the topics that has come up in this discussion is the idea that Marvel would NEVER print more copies of a book than they need

 

AND

 

They print up to the 'case pack'

 

Lets' look at some facts that show both of these to be questionable ideas.

 

Comichron's numbers for the Amazing Spider-man in 2005 show:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 150,833 (or 603.33 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 102,377 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,187

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 35,241 or 23.4% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

 

In 2008, they appear to have tried to tighten it up a bit:

TOTAL # of copies printed (avg): 125,019 (or 500.76 CASES, an uneven case amount!!!)

Sales thru Dealers: 95,141 (Also an uneven case count)

Subscription Sales: 10,807

Copies not distributed (RETURNS): 17,515 or 14% MORE THAN THEY NEEDED!

 

These are from Marvel's own Statement of Ownership official forms, required by law.

And they show clearly that:

A) Marvel has most definitely printed more copies of a comic than they need and

B) They don't seem to be rounding up to any even case pack amount.

 

 

How does any of this prove a thing about the practice of printing up to a 'case pack'.

You can't use an average then calculate that back to PROVE they don't print to the 'case pack'.

 

Simply put, if you had two issues where you KNEW one issue had 80 case packs and another had 81 printed, the average is 80.5....and now the 80.5 average number is being used to prove they didn't print 80 & 81??

 

That's easily answered: if those books were printed to the "case pack", they would have averaged a ROUND number. Either those books WERE printed to the "case pack", which means the average would be a round number, or AT LEAST ONE issue during the year was NOT "printed to the case pack", which would mean they don't really print to the case pack.

 

What does the "issue published nearest to the publication date" say...?

 

Regardless, those numbers aren't round in any way.

[RockMyAmadeus]

and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies,

 

Are you even aware you do this...? What does "multiple other Diamond account holding boardies" have to do with anything, aside from you trying to shore up support for your position...?

 

"Multiple" people saying the same thing doesn't mean anything if it's wrong.

 

"Diamond account holding" doesn't mean anything if what those people are saying are wrong and/or aren't saying what you think they're saying.

 

"4 out of 5 dentists agree!" Well, gosh, that must mean it's good, right...?

 

How about just letting the truth speak for itself. If it is, indeed, truth, it doesn't need bonafides.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So if they print far and above the regular book based on ORDERS...

Above and beyond damages and reorders...

And the numbers don't add up to case pack size...

To the point where they're RETURNING 17-35,000 comics...

 

Why is that any different for what they'd do for variants which are also based on... ORDERS?

You're a retailer, correct? Do you, or do you not get ratio incentives for books that you reorder? If you don't, then that's a distinct difference between the incentive variants and order alls. A company knows that they're not going to need any additional variants for reorders. The number that they choose to overprint the regular editions for reorders involves some guesswork. Your numbers shows they've moved to err on the side of caution in recent years.

 

To actually answer your question.....to get the incentives, the orders have to be placed by the original FOC (final order cut-off) so no, re-orders at a later date would not qualify for an incentive, not even the drekky ones from the occasionally remaindered case pack.

 

Your point is well taken.

 

-J.

 

But they don't order up to the case pack. Did you not see the numbers?

What would the point be of order up to the case pack on a book that's a part of printing where overall you don't order up to the case pack?

According to Marvel's own numbers, documented per law, the numbers don't work out to case pack size.

PROOF.

 

The proof is (at least) Marvel's own public statements, summarized by you, and re-iterated by multiple other Diamond account holding boardies, as well as (once again) this link:

 

http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/732?articleID=109267

 

...specifically referencing only a 5% "over-print" for damages on the incentives on an issue that was also a pretty big event that year.

 

And...?

 

What does that have to do with standard operating procedure for incentive variants...?

 

It says this:

 

"By placing an order for the Amazing Spider-Man #666 Comic Shop Variant, you are agreeing to receive an overprint of 5% for free, as there will be no damage or shortage replacements except for severe cases."

 

This was a special event book; where in that press release do you see anything about 5% being standard for anything?

 

That 5% overage has to do with THIS book, with a specific term for retailers; you cannot extrapolate that to ALL books. It doesn't say a single thing about standard practice. You have no idea if this number is related to anything else at all.

 

It's irresponsible to claim otherwise.

 

On top of all of that, all that says is that retailers agreed to RECEIVE an overprint of 5% for free...it doesn't say Marvel is PRINTING ONLY 5% over. Do you not see the rest of the sentence: "....as there will be no damage or shortage replacements EXCEPT FOR SEVERE CASES." (emphasis obviously added.)

 

See that?

 

That means, if there ARE "severe cases" (however Diamond and/or Marvel defines that), there will be MORE THAN 5% overage available.

 

None of these things exist independently or in a vacuum. Taken together, they are more than enough circumstantial evidence to support what I and many others have said and suggested.

 

Are you kidding?

 

THAT is your "circumstantial evidence" that "overages" are at 5%? That retailers will receive 5% for that one special retailer event book? And that therefore is proof that Marvel prints a specific percentage as overage/damage insurance, so long as it rounds up to the "case pack"...?

 

That's not even circumstantial evidence.

 

You are free to disagree, but the competing information that you have produced does not seem to be on point. I can't speak on the numbers for those 2 regular covers as reported ten years ago. That would seem to me to be a different conversation altogether. But I will observe that if Marvel was wasting that much product on every book they published every month, they probably would not have remained in the comic book publishing business for very long, thus suggesting that those two examples are outliers and not the norm (as to the regular issues of a book, back then).

 

You really don't have any clue about the history of the comic book market, do you...?

 

And yet, you post and post, becoming increasingly denigrating, using hearsay and "appeals to authority" to "prove" your claims, not knowing at all what you're talking about.

 

Why...?

 

Is this the greatest trolling in the history of these boards....?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Is anybody debating that they print more than ordered to cover for damages?

 

I think majority understands that they print more than ordered to cover damages. Which is understandable. How much more is the question.

 

As it applies to "incentive" variants, based on the link I posted above, the answer looks to be 5%.

 

As for regular covers, according to multiple boardies, it is in the 5-10% range. Whatever they do above that for re-orders looks to vary by another potential 5-10% (at least from the data ChuckGower posted from ten years ago).

 

Either way, all of this is still based on how many copies of a book are actually ordered. None of these numbers exist in a vacuum.

 

-J.

 

Can we get a list, preferably with links to the relevant posts, of who these "multiple boardies" are and what they have said? "Multiple boardies" sounds awesome as a completely vague support for whatever you want it to mean, but having some idea of who these "multiple boardies" are and what their knowledge base on print runs is would be really useful.

 

If you can't/won't produce this, please stop citing these unnamed "multiple boardies" as support.

 

Already done. Scroll back a few a pages.

 

And the link directly from Diamond shuts down the dispute anyway.

 

-J.

 

How does the link "shut down the dispute"...?