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

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think "retailer incentive ratios" is a better term than "distribution numbers" as clearly the books are neither printed nor distributed according to these numbers.

 

That's not true.

 

They are distributed according to those ratios.

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, you need to understand that the entire premise of your belief system - that "publishers print whatever they want" is in fact even more speculative-based than the foundation a person who is making reasonable estimates based on actual retailer orders as reported by Comichron is.

 

Yes! That's precisely the point! It's speculative! We don't know!

 

I would say you were starting to get it, but you still don't see the problem.

 

Your statement, however, doesn't make sense. Your claim is, essentially, "well, you're saying we don't know how much the publishers print, so my using Comichron numbers is more valid, because those are actual numbers."

 

It's like saying "well, you don't know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, but here are labor statistics from the last time he was seen alive, which is more valid, because those are actual numbers."

 

The numbers have no meaning if they have no relevance. Comichron numbers have no relevance to the INCENTIVE ORDERING PROGRAM RATIOS.

 

It is a fact of reality: publishers print what they want.

 

And yet, here you are, denying that reality.

 

It's jaw-dropping in its denial of simple, basic common sense.

 

There are no gov't dictates telling publishers what they must print. There are no secret Illuminati cabals ordering print runs.

 

Publishers simply print what they want. They always have. Just like you (presumably) pick what you want to wear, or eat, or listen to, or read.

 

The biggest difference being , one is based on publishing standards and publicly reported data,

 

What "publishing standards" are you referring to?

 

And...again...what good is "publicly reported data" if said data has...one more time...nothing whatsoever to do with the incentive ORDERING program...?

 

and the other (yours) is based largely on fear -mongering and anecdotes extrapolated from an infinitesimal sample size that, again , is simply a product of the inexact nature of the publishing industry.

 

What is there to be afraid of? What "fear-mongering" is involved in understanding how the INCENTIVE ORDERING PROGRAM works...?

 

Are people afraid of dry recitations of retailer ordering minutiae...?

 

I already told you: ENOUGH with the qualified words, like "infinitesimal", and start putting REAL NUMBERS to the things you're claiming. You're not even using the word "anecdote" correctly.

 

The routine sales of incentive variants after the fact aren't anecdotal; they're documented. Chuck's documented them multiple times on this board.

 

So what's the "fear-mongering", then? Telling people to be careful with their money, because things have a habit (and established history) or someone claiming something is "rare", only to show up in large® quantities down the road...?

 

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

 

 

And by the way, none of the books you mention , Bats 608RRP, Spider-Man Platinum , etc were ratio variants , so I don't see the relevance of brining them up in this conversation.

 

Of course you don't see the relevance, because it refutes what you've said.

 

Your quote:

 

since publishers do not make it a habit of printing thousands of books that no retailer has ordered

 

That is incorrect. When it's shown to be incorrect, you then say "oh, wait, I didn't mean THAT, I meant THIS!", thereby changing the parameters of your comment, so as not to appear inaccurate.

 

Too late.

 

You see, those books are examples, whereby it is demonstrated that publishers do, in fact, print "thousands of books that no retailer has ordered." And, if we know that's the case for NON-incentives, why would we assume that's NOT the case for incentives, when...and this is critical now...we don't have any other information to go on...?

 

By the way...printing "thousands of books that no retailer has ordered" is how the entire comic book market...indeed, the entire publishing market...has worked for decades and decades. Publishers printed tens to hundreds of thousands, to millions, of copies, and hope for a sell-through of about 30-50%.

 

And, in the Direct market madness of the early 90's, publishers routinely "overprinted" tens of thousands of copies that "no retailer ordered", to make sure they had enough on hand if the distributors reordered.

 

It was such a problem that when Quesada took over in 2000, he instituted the policy of "print to order", which was a really big deal at the time.

 

You don't know your comics history.

 

And I think you know the difference between a publisher printing up a couple of cases of a special book as a promotional giveaway or reward to retailers versus the silly notion of them deliberately over printing ratio variants that no one has ordered just to store in a warehouse and later sell for pennies on the dollar.

 

-J.

 

You start with a conclusion: that they are "overprinting"...then building your "argument" around that conclusion, instead of starting with a hypothesis and proving (or disproving) that.

 

That's junk science.

 

You're also constructing straw men again. No one said anything about printing "just to store in a warehouse and later sell for pennies on the dollar" (whatever that means...aren't 99 pennies still pennies on the dollar? But I digress...)

 

Publishers print what they want, for their own purposes. Even if they DID sell for "pennies on the dollar" (whatever THAT means), do you not understand how comic book publishing works? Say Marvel was to have Diamond sell a bunch of incentives for 75 cents each.

 

Do you know how much it cost Marvel to make those...? Since the only thing different is the cover art, it can cost as little as 25 cents a copy for Marvel to have them printed OR LESS. Marvel is the biggest comic publisher in the world. They have clout, and they pay a lot less per copy because of the volume of business they do.

 

So, if they're selling them for 75 cents a copy...and they paid 25 cents a copy to print them, and perhaps 10 cents a copy to Diamond...guess what?

 

They're still making a profit, AND..,it's all gravy, as the costs were already sunk into the original incentive program. That is, the incentive succeeded in convincing (some) retailers to order more REGULAR product than they might have otherwise, which was the whole point of the incentive. It did its job.

 

You don't think like a publisher. You think like a collector/speculator. To you, a single copy is important. To Marvel, which publishes millions of printed comics every single month...500 to 1,000 copies of anything is nothing. Literally nothing.

 

But ultimately, we don't have any idea what publishers actually do, other than what is in front of us (and Comichron numbers ain't it.)

 

We. Don't. Know. What. Is.

 

But we DO know what is NOT, and that's sometimes as valuable, if not moreso, than what we don't know, and from that, we have a solid idea as to what we can, and cannot, reasonably conclude.

 

And what we DO know is this: the incentive program ratios only mean one thing, which is how many copies of the regular a retailer must order to receive one copy of the incentive. That's it. Beyond that, they have no meaning. Trying to shoehorn them into Comichron numbers is like trying to use the calorie count of a cup of Greek yogurt to explain Oprah's weight loss for the year.

 

They're not related in any way.

[bababooey]

[rjrjr]

Are the numbers that Comichron reports actual numbers from Diamond? I was always under the impression that they are numbers that are calculated. I could be wrong here and would like to know, but aren't those numbers themselves just educated estimates?

[Bird]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

[drotto]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

 

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for.

Edited October 16, 2016 by drotto

[mysterio]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

 

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for.

 

Exactly. You hit on the salient point in the middle of your post. It could be summed up as:

 

Words. Words. We have no idea how many were actually printed. More words.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

 

No. You're muddying the waters and looking at it backwards.

 

Understand what I'm saying. The ratios are EXACTLY how they are distributed. Again: for every X copies of the regular book you, the retailer, order, you will get/be able to order (that is, it will be distributed to you) ONE (1) copy of the incentive. There's nothing potential about it. If, say, 437 retailers make 879 qualifying orders for a 1:25 incentive and order that incentive (which information isn't available to the public), then 879 copies of that incentive WILL BE distributed to those retailers.

 

It has nothing to do with what you're saying. Incentive books aren't distributed based on the print runs of the regular books. They have nothing to do with the print runs of the regular books. They're distributed based on what is actually ordered, according to the ratio offered.

 

The ratios have nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of any books, ever, which is your error here. We're not talking about the distribution of anything except the incentive copies according to their ratios. Everything else is a completely separate discussion.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

 

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for.

 

Exactly. You hit on the salient point in the middle of your post. It could be summed up as:

 

Words. Words. We have no idea how many were actually printed. More words.

 

Words.

 

 

I would change it to say "We have no idea how many were actually printed and, more importantly, we cannot know, with the information we have available, so making estimates based on irrelevant data is useless at best, and foolish and misleading at worst."

[RockMyAmadeus]

The books are POTENTIALLY distributed according to the ratios. 8000 books does not mean 800 1:10s, 80 1:100s and 8 1:1000s are distributed, but that they could potentially be so. They are potential distribution numbers. aka retailer incentive ratios.

 

And this is an additional variable we can't account for. If they print 8000 books and have a 1:10 incentive, we have no idea how many stores buy the needed 10 copies or the 100 copies. It is possible only 100 stores purchased 10 copies and nobody purchased 100 copies. Which by the ratio means only 100 of the 1:10 were put into circulation and 0 of the 1:100. This would lead to a perception of rarity since only 100 variants were released, but released is the key word. We have no idea how many were actually printed. The comic company may have anticipated that enough stores would order at least 10 copies to justify 800 copies and they printed 800, but there is no way to know. So now we have 700 books in existence that we have no way to know about or account for.

 

What you're saying is accurate, but you're still looking at the overall issue incorrectly. You're speaking in terms of the print runs of the regular books, and that's just not how it has ever worked. Those ratios, those numbers, are for ordering purposes only. Beyond that, they mean nothing. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of the regular copies. They aren't related to those print runs in any way. Trying to apply those ratios to the print runs of the regular books ("if they print 8000 books...") is an error from the get go.

 

So, not only is it an additional variable we can't account for, it's a variable that doesn't even exist, because those ratios have nothing to do with print runs.

 

But it does highlight the persistence of the misunderstanding.

[Jaydogrules]

So in summary...

 

1) No one "knows" the exact print run of any comic printed, ratio variant, or otherwise (I don't believe anyone has ever actually claimed this, but since RMA enjoys endlessly repeating it anyway, it should be acknowledged).

 

2) Comichron provides industry accepted estimates of comic books ordered by retailers.

 

3) The FOC (final order cut-off) is in place to give publishers a very good idea of how many comics they will need to print.

 

4) Publishers do not make it a habit of frivolously printing books no one has ordered (no, specially printed reward, surprise, RRP, giveaway books are not relevant to this conversation since those books never had a chance to be "ordered" in the first place). Doing so would utterly defeat the entire purpose and function of the FOC.

 

5) The very limited and occasional over-stock of variants produced by publishers is a normal part of the business and are either liquidated in subsequent variant sell-offs or through secondary retailer channels (though those are usually NOT ratio variants), and are certainly not, in and of themselves , any example of a vast publisher conspiracy. And asking the silly and hypothetical question of "well why don't they just tell everybody how much were printed" is pointless , since , even when publishers or retailers do disclose such information , they are still either met with open skepticism or outright accused of lying. Furthermore , publishers have no duty to disclose such proprietary information , any more so than KFC has a duty to publicly disclose its secret recipe for chicken , just to prove there isn't arsenic in it. Silly, silly, silly

 

6) It is possible to come up with a reasonable estimate of a ratio variant's print run based on the numbers reported by Comichron , more often than not, to the highest amount printed , rounded up to the nearest case pack. I say the highest because not every retailer will qualify (or necessarily order if they do qualify ) ratio variants and Comichron numbers include the numbers for "all" copies of the issue printed , including variants, thus using Comichron will give you a high estimate of books that one could reasonably expected to be produced.

 

7) It is RMA's opinion (hence , "RMA's Rule") that this is not a reasonable way to estimate the print run of a ratio. RMA is certainly entitled to his opinion and his own self-imposed rules.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So in summary...

 

1) No one "knows" the exact print run of any comic printed, ratio variant, or otherwise (I don't believe anyone has ever actually claimed this, but since RMA enjoys endlessly repeating it anyway, it should be acknowledged).

 

Wrong. The publisher and printer know. That information is not released publicly.

 

You can't make things up that I never said, and then claim I said them, much less "endlessly." That is dishonest and fraudulent.

 

2) Comichron provides industry accepted estimates of comic books ordered by retailers.

 

No. Comichron gives this: "Estimated Comics Sold to North American Comics Shops as Reported by Diamond Comic Distributors."

 

"Ordered by" and "Sold to" aren't necessarily the same thing, though they usually are.

 

What does "industry accepted" mean...? They're just the numbers that Diamond gives to Comichron. Since Diamond is the only distributor for Direct market comic books, the "industry" doesn't really have a choice, does it...?

 

And who is this "industry" that is going around "accepting" things...? Those are just weasel words you use to trick people into thinking your point has more merit than it does, like "many people agree..." and so on.

 

3) The FOC (final order cut-off) is in place the give publishers a very good idea of how many comics they will need to print.

 

Yes, and not only that, but a nearly precise idea of how many they will need to print. Note: that word is "need" not "want."

 

4) Publishers do not make it a habit of frivolously printing books no one has ordered

 

True, and no one, in the entire course of this entire, multi-year conversation, has ever claimed otherwise, so it would be realllllllllllllllly nice if you would stop saying that is if someone was.

 

(no, specially printed reward, surprise, RRP, giveaway books are not relevant to this conversation since those books never had a chance to be "ordered" in the first place).

 

But they ARE relevant to your debunked claim that publishers "aren't in the habit of printing books that nobody ordered." They've done it for decades, and probably will continue doing so.

 

Doing so would utterly defeat the entire purpose and function of the FOC.

 

That's bad, no, terrible logic. The FOC is in place to tell publishers how much they need to fulfill orders. If a publisher wants to print more than they need, that doesn't "utterly defeat the entire purpose and function of the FOC."

 

That's absurd.

 

5) The very limited and occasional over-stock variants

 

Stop. Using. Qualified. Terms. Like. "Very."

 

If you refuse to QUANTIFY (that is, use actual numbers and other data) your arguments so you won't get "pinned down" later when those arguments are disproven, then your arguments don't have much merit to start with.

 

What does "very limited" mean to you? 10 copies available? 25? 50? 100? 200?

 

What if Diamond had 668 copies available...? Is that "very limited" to you...?

 

produced by publishers is a normal part of the business and are either liquidated in subsequent variant sell-offs or through secondary retailer channels (though those are usually NOT ratio variants),

 

If they're NOT ratio variants, they have no bearing on this discussion.

 

and are certainly not, in and of themselves , any example of a vast publisher conspiracy.

 

Again with the BS "conspiracy" claims. WHAT conspiracy?

 

One more time: if the publishers make NO CLAIMS as to how many incentives they print....AND THEY DO NOT...then they cannot be LYING about those non-existent claims, can they? There is no "conspiracy", vast, tiny, or other.

 

See how that works...?

 

6) It is possible to come up with a reasonable estimate of a ratio variant's print run based on the numbers reported by Comichron , more often than not, to the highest amount printed , rounded up to the nearest case pack.

 

Wrong. Those ratios are only for purposes of ordering. They have no relevance to the sales numbers reported at Comichron. None. They only tell retailers how many of the regular edition they must order to receive/purchase a single copy of the incentive.

 

Period.

 

Therefore, trying to use them to "estimate from estimates" is fatally flawed from the outset. They have no bearing on the numbers at Comichron, and never have.

 

And your "rounded up to the nearest case pack" meme is just more speculation on your part. Diamond ships out partial cases all the time. There's no reason a printer can't, either. Maybe they do...maybe they don't. But until and if you get documented evidence (NOT "my friend has a cousin whose mother's uncle's half-sister from Hoboken once worked at a printer in the 40's, so that info's solid as far as I'm concerned" claims), then your "rounded to the nearest case pack...which ITSELF is NOT a consistent number...is it 150? 200? 250? 225? 300?...then I'll keep pointing out that fiction.

 

I say the highest because not every retailer will qualify (or necessarily order if they do qualify ) ratio variants and Comichron numbers include the numbers for "all" copies of the issue printed , including variants, thus using Comichron will give you a high estimate of books that one could reasonably expected to be produced.

 

Wrong. You're trying to estimate using numbers that have no meaning for what you're trying to do. "1:25" has nothing whatsoever to do with the print runs of anything, much less the SALES of anything. "1:25" (and all the other ratios) is ORDERING information, and has no meaning beyond that. None.

 

It's like trying to estimate the height of a mountain using the size of a pebble you found on the ground and a ruler. After all, it's all rocks, right...?

 

7) It is RMA's opinion (and nothing but) that this is not a reasonable way to estimate the print run of a ratio. RMA is certainly entitled to his opinion.

 

-J.

 

And I've explained why your "opinion" is void of facts, relying on faulty premises and misunderstandings, trying to apply those misunderstandings to estimates of estimates of estimates, to get....mud.

 

You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

 

 

[jsilverjanet]

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the census as a way to determine actual number of existing copies

[Jaydogrules]

RMA, remind me please of exactly what "facts" you are using ?

 

The entire premise of this thread is "mud". Heck, even the thread title is "mud".

 

Why?

 

Because in it you make an affirmative statement, as if it is well settled fact, for the seeming purpose of beginning a conversation, when it is, in reality just a cleverly disguised jumping off point to discuss your opinion. That "1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 are RETAILER INCENTIVE ratios not PRINT RUN numbers".

 

But how do you know this ? Where has this ever been announced by any publisher ? Do you have any evidence of this ? Has a publisher ever come out and said that the ratios aren't closely mirrored to their print numbers ? You know, so that they don't constantly print product that retailers haven't ordered ? For some reason you assume that they are not. And that is most certainly an assumption. Why is your assumption (essentially based on nothing ) any more valid than a person who chooses to rely on standard publishing practices , publicly available data and common sense to reach their own reasonable conclusions?

 

You're very good at demanding specifics and "proof" of things whilst you initiate a conversation, provide none yourself , disguise your opinions as "facts" , and then condescend to those who disagree with your opinions.

 

Another "RMA Rule" methinks.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

How cute. Some clever soul has changed the title of the thread to something that isn't the point. Brava!

 

Fixed.

[MetalPSI]

I think someone in this thread has a hard time understanding exactly the difference between opinion and fact, even though someone has clearly and concisely made the distinction. Without being a jerk about it too.

[everycomicshop]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, it works like this. For the sake of simplicity let's just assume that there are only 7 comic stores in the whole world that order from distributors. There is a new 1:100 variant.

 

Store 1 orders 100 copies.

Store 2 orders 100 copies.

Store 3 orders 50 copies.

Store 4 orders 50 copies.

Store 5 orders 50 copies.

Store 6 orders 25 copies.

Store 7 orders 25 copies.

 

400 copies were ordered by the stores. If we look at 1:100 as meaning "for every 100 books printed there is one incentive copy" we would think that there should be 4 incentive copies total available from these 7 stores. However, that is incorrect. There are actually only 2 available from the stores because only 2 of the stores ordered enough copies to get one of the incentives.

 

It seems like using the faulty logic probably gives us a number closer to reality for a 1:10 variant than a 1:100 variant since it is much more feasible for stores to order 10 copies as opposed to 100.

 

Or everything I just said could be complete trash.

 

 

Who's gotta 5 ??

Publisher?? Retailer?? Dealer??

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA, remind me please of exactly what "facts" you are using ?

 

Yes, because as everyone knows, when you don't have the goods, you attempt to shift the burden of proof elsewhere.

 

However, since you asked, I'll repeat them:

 

1. The ratios attached to these incentives are for ordering purposes only. They are not, and have never been represented as, anything beyond that. A retailer orders X amount of copies of the regular book, and they will receive/can purchase one copy of the incentive. The retailer orders 2X amount of copies, they will receive/can purchase two (2) copies of the incentive, and so on. Those numbers mean absolutely nothing beyond that. Neither the publishers nor Diamond have ever represented those numbers as anything other than what they are: an ordering program.

 

That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist?

 

2. The publishers routinely (not occasionally) print more of the incentives than is necessary to fulfill orders. We know this because they sell them/distribute them later. They know exactly how many they need to fulfill the incentive orders. And yet, they print more than they need on a routine basis.

 

Again...That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist?

 

3. Comichron, as it clearly states, is an estimate, based on Diamond's reports, of sales in North America of EVERY version of that book. It is NOT "print run data", and doesn't claim to be.

 

Again....That is a fact, jay, it is PROOF of my claim...you know, what you keep trying to pretend doesn't exist?

 

Conclusion: since we know that the ratios are ORDERING numbers, and since we know the publishers have stated that, and nothing more than that, and since the ABSENCE of evidence is NOT evidence of ABSENCE, we know that it's not possible to use the ratios, apply them to Comichron numbers, and get anything approaching reality.

 

Facts, Jay. Proof.

 

The entire premise of this thread is "mud". Heck, even the thread title is "mud".

 

Why?

 

Because in it you make an affirmative statement, as if it is well settled fact, for the seeming purpose of beginning a conversation, when it is, in reality just a cleverly disguised jumping off point to discuss your opinion.

 

So you have said over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, without bothering to actually prove how.

 

That "1:10, 1:25, 1:50, 1:100 are RETAILER INCENTIVE ratios not PRINT RUN numbers".

 

But how do you know this ?

 

Well, mainly because a ratio is not, by mathematical observation, capable of being a print run number.

 

That's fairly self-evident.

 

I see where your confusion is, though. You're repeating something I never said. Some cute soul CHANGED the title to what is NOT, because they thought they were being clever.

 

That's the problem you have, Jay: you're far too sloppy and loose with information. You don't see the contradiction in your question, you don't see that the statement was changed from the original, and you don't recognize something as simple as a mathematical impossibility staring you in the face.

 

Nitpicky? Maybe. But it highlights your complete disregard for solid, factual information. The details just don't matter to you.

 

Where has this ever been announced by any publisher ?

 

Nowhere. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Do you have any evidence of this ?

 

No. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Has a publisher ever come out and said that the ratios aren't closely mirrored to their print numbers ?

 

No. That's the point. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Are you getting it yet....? That's the point. We know what the ratios ARE: ordering numbers. We know that because that's what the publishers have stated, to all: "order this many of the regular, and we'll give you/you can purchase a copy of the incentive." That's what they've said.

 

Beyond that...? We know nothing. You don't know anything. I don't know anything. That's. The. Point.

 

The problem comes when you and others try to then use those numbers and apply them to other numbers, to come up with a number that has no bearing on any of the other numbers.

 

COULD the publishers be "closely mirroring" the ratios? For some, they could be. Which ones...? You don't know. No one knows except the publisher.

 

But we DO know that, for SOME, they certainly ARE NOT "closely mirroring" the ratios, because they have been available in numbers that EXCEED the "incentive maximum", that EXCEED the "rounding off to the nearest case pack" (redundancy there), that EXCEED "overage in case of spoilage."

 

Of course, all of this is rendered moot by the very, very simple fact that "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

You know, so that they don't constantly print product that retailers haven't ordered ? For some reason you assume that they are not. And that is most certainly an assumption.

 

That's correct, as any rational, sane human being must do, because...watch me now...The. Absence. Of. Evidence. Is. Not. Evidence. Of. Absence.

 

Publishers "constantly print product that retailers haven't ordered." It happens every day, all the time.

 

Why is your assumption (essentially based on nothing ) any more valid than a person who chooses to rely on standard publishing practices , publicly available data and common sense to reach their own reasonable conclusions?

 

Because your assumption is demonstrably, provably, evidentially flawed from the outset. You are trying to use numbers to go with other numbers to come up with even more numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

That's why.

 

You're very good at demanding specifics and "proof" of things whilst you initiate a conversation, provide none yourself ,

 

Scroll up. You'll see plenty of proof for what I've said, right here. This entire thread is filled with proof.

 

You, on the other hand, are very good at making accusations, but are completely unwilling to provide anything at all to support those accusations.

 

disguise your opinions as "facts" ,

 

Well, there's your problem right there! If you fail to recognize proof, and call it merely "disguised opinion", then you've just fulfilled your own prophecy! You will NEVER see proof, because you CANNOT see it. If it contradicts what you believe, you simply wave your hand and dismiss it as "opinion."

 

and then condescend to those who disagree with your opinions.

 

I only condescend, Jay, to those who are condescending. If you don't want to be condescended to, stop condescending. It's very, very simple.

 

Another "RMA Rule" methinks.

 

Yes, another Jaydogrules Invention™

 

(patent pending)

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the census as a way to determine actual number of existing copies

 

Yes, he's done that before, which is a very bad way to measure extant copies.

 

We should revisit the ASM #301 discussion; it's been two years already.

 

Wonder of wonders, the census never "exploded", as predicted.

[Jaydogrules]

RMA, it has been explained to you by multiple Diamond account holding boardies, on multiple occasions, how the ordering system works, and that books are printed to the nearest case pack of 150-250 and shipped to Diamond. This is where I get my information from, and it is consistent with my own research. You have either chosen to ignore it or have forgotten this.

 

You have also evidently chosen to ignore or have forgotten the multiple boardies involved and familiar with the printing industry who have, again, on multiple occasions, explained to you that, no, publishers do not routinely over-print books just for the heck of it, comic book publishers operate on very tight margins these days, and that, at most, the print run will exceed orders by about 5-10% to cover damages and whatever courtesy copies they want to hand out (printed up to the nearest case pack of course).

 

It has also already been explained to you how and why the unclaimed/unneeded printing overages for a relatively small amount of books (usually not ratio variants) end up being sold at a later date through secondary channels.

 

Your conclusion appears to be, since that has happened, some times on some books, one should assume that all books must be needlessly over printed and sitting around somewhere taking up space waiting to be sold for under cover price.....just because, and that therefore no one should even bother making reasonable estimates on ratio print runs, in spite of these typical publishing standards and publicly available data that we have.

This is where your opinion comes in.

 

When in fact, all it proves is that those select books being sold had printing overages. (And again, most of those books are not even ratio variants, another point that you either have ignored or forgotten.)

Extrapolating that out to any book beyond the ones whose overages are being sold is where your assumptions come in.

 

Thus making this entire thread little more than a forum for you to express your opinions and assumptions (which is fine, as long as you are not attempting to sell or imply that those are "facts").

 

So since it is readily apparent that you will continue to grind your axe against variants no matter how many times, or by how many people you are corrected, I will bid you adieu on this topic for now.

 

-J.