Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[Prince Namor]

5 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Chuck that was a long time ago that I said that(maybe 2011?). Once I got Comixology Unlimited and Marvel Unlimited I caught up. I am probably reading more comics now than I have in a long time. The Image and new Valiant stuff is very good. I want the Marvel stuff to be that good. Comixology Unlimited is just like  Spotify and You-Tube in that I have expanded my music interests beyond rock n roll. 

When I read the Marvel Universe I want to read about the heroes I grew up with and the ones in the highly successful movies.

I want the real deal.

Iron Man = Tony Stark

Captain America = Steve Rogers

Wolverine = Logan

Spider-Man = Peter Parker

So what Marvel titles DO you like? What one's ARE you reading?

(Oh and Peter Parker IS Spider-man.)

5 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am pretty sure in that feeling that is the consensus with most loyal comic book fans.

The sales are the final barometer and Marvel is finding this out as their sales are falling.

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying Marvel's sales are falling (still dominating the retail market share at 35.41%, 7 points higher than DC), but blaming it on the titles YOU want to believe are at fault, but look at what is actually dropping:

Peter Parker as Spider-man. DOWN.

Original Doctor Strange. DOWN

GOTG: DOWN

Original Silver Surfer: DOWN

Original Daredevil: DOWN

Jane Foster Thor: Sales are UP/Steady

Ms. Marvel: Sales are UP

Riri Iron Man: Sales are UP/Steady

I GET that YOU aren't interested in reading these titles. That's ok. They aren't for everyone. But someone IS reading them.

They release those sales numbers every month. Follow them. Watch and see what happens.

What you WANT to believe and what is ACTUALLY happening are two different things.

 

And Valiant is at 1.14% of the retail market share. Great stories doesn't mean you dominate the market.

[Prince Namor]

14 minutes ago, Readcomix said:

Because they are not carrying the names of the series' icons...they are their own characters. A team is a little more fungible. Iron Man is not just a suit of armor, it is Tony Stark. That's the fan reaction near as I can gather on here.

super genius kid (of whatever race/gender) inspired by Iron Man, imitates with her own armor, has her own approach .... Cool concept. Simply supplant the original with the same genius kid and their armor...not as popular. Lots of fans like continuity. Add to it, don't blow it up. World of difference. 

I'm just trying to answer your question. 

Not as popular? Sales of the book are about the same.

[ComicConnoisseur]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Jane Foster Thor: Sales are UP/Steady

 

Riri Iron Man: Sales are UP/Steady

They are up now. Let us see if they still will be up in 6 months to a year.

Also what the odds they both get cancelled and Marvel comes back with shiny number 1 multiple variants of each of them in a reboot?

That is the problem they have been thinking short-term success and not long-term success. Now it has caught up with them.

Honestly, I think DC is now in much better shape than Marvel is making modern comics. DC Rebirth is awesome! Marvel is way behind the game now.

It was a brilliant move by DC hiring Jim Lee to run their ship. 

[Prince Namor]

4 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

They are up now. Let us see if they still will be up in 6 months to a year.

Also what the odds they both get cancelled and Marvel comes back with shiny number 1 multiple variants of each of them in a reboot?

That is the problem they have been thinking short-term success and not long-term success. Now it has caught up with them.

Honestly, I think DC is now in much better shape than Marvel is making modern comics. DC Rebirth is awesome! Marvel is way behind the game now.

It was a brilliant move by DC hiring Jim Lee to run their ship. 

Jane Foster has been Thor for almost 3 years now. THREE. YEARS.

And Rebirth has given DC a much needed boost. It'll be interesting to see how this BIG COMPANY WIDE CROSSOVER DOES FOR THEM beginning next week.

Marvel still dominates Retail market Share over DC and especially everyone else.

[Prince Namor]

17 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

I always thought Marvel should/could change their titles for say 6 months and just focus on the villains. New stories, fresh looks at villains never looked at before and an approach that hasn't been done since say Acts of Vengeance. They have the established base to do it with. They don't have to alienate fans because they all know the villains and Spider-man can be on vacation for a few months. What have they got to lose. They can try it with a couple of titles and branch it out. Ive enjoyed villain stories over the years. Think of how many you could tell from the Avengers, FF and Spider-man.

 

You never know. That might be next.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Jane Foster has been Thor for almost 3 years now. THREE. YEARS.

[Prince Namor]

Oh, and David Gabriel added to the original news story:

Gabriel later issued a clarifying statement, saying that some retailers felt that some core Marvel heroes were being abandoned, but that there was a readership for characters like Ms Marvel and Miles Morales who “ARE excited about these new heroes”. He added: “And let me be clear, our new heroes are not going anywhere! We are proud and excited to keep introducing unique characters that reflect new voices and new experiences into the Marvel universe and pair them with our iconic heroes.

“We have also been hearing from stores that welcome and champion our new characters and titles and want more! … So we’re getting both sides of the story and the only upcoming change we’re making is to ensure we don’t lose focus [on] our core heroes.”

[Readcomix]

10 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Not as popular? Sales of the book are about the same.

Good Lord, Chuck, you're the retailer. Fine. Sales are the same. Probably a different mix, somewhat, of customers as the changes are clearly not too popular with a subset of long-time readers. I see your point. The thread should have been titled "Marvel's Flat Sales."

I'm just trying to answer your question about why the GOTG change is more palatable than the iconic character changes to long-time readers: I'm all for a 16-year-old Iron Man-inspired super genius with her own armor. But I want Tony Stark Iron Man around too. Now you've got a new character that can draw new readers AND a new angle for the established character (the dynamic between him and his unintended emulator.) 

I feel DC has examples of having done these sorts of things better. For example, Grayson evolved as a character before there was a new Robin. Now they co-exist in the same universe.

I don't know about the sales figures; I'm all for interesting new characters. I just want the foundational ones intact and fresh and interesting too. It's not racist to want only Tony Stark to be Iron Man; it just acknowleges that character does not equal costume. They are fully formed fictional creations beyond their costumes and powers. 

Why can't Marvel just create new characters? They know how to extend brand equity from established characters; the family concept has been a part of comics creation for quite a while. That's all I'm getting at.

[wombat]

It's not a real thread until people are accused of being racist. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, wombat said:

It's not a real thread until people are accused of being racist. 

Or Hitler.

[porcupine48]

[Prince Namor]

1 minute ago, Readcomix said:

Good Lord, Chuck, you're the retailer. Fine. Sales are the same. Probably a different mix, somewhat, of customers as the changes are clearly not too popular with a subset of long-time readers. I see your point. The thread should have been titled "Marvel's Flat Sales."

I'm just trying to answer your question about why the GOTG change is more palatable than the iconic character changes to long-time readers: I'm all for a 16-year-old Iron Man-inspired super genius with her own armor. But I want Tony Stark Iron Man around too. Now you've got a new character that can draw new readers AND a new angle for the established character (the dynamic between him and his unintended emulator.) 

I feel DC has examples of having done these sorts of things better. For example, Grayson evolved as a character before there was a new Robin. Now they co-exist in the same universe.

I don't know about the sales figures; I'm all for interesting new characters. I just want the foundational ones intact and fresh and interesting too. It's not racist to want only Tony Stark to be Iron Man; it just acknowleges that character does not equal costume. They are fully formed fictional creations beyond their costumes and powers. 

Why can't Marvel just create new characters? They know how to extend brand equity from established characters; the family concept has been a part of comics creation for quite a while. That's all I'm getting at.

I've explained this numerous time before, but as it'll add to some of the other things you've touched on here, I'll repeat it:

Marvel isn't going to create a whole bunch of new characters, because no creators want to create something for them that THEY individually don't own. Marvel OWNS it.

If they make a movie of this new character, the creators might get nothing, and it could go on to be a huge franchise for Marvel. Why wouldn't they just save it and try and publish it themselves?

So, by gleaming off of the established characters (something that's been done for DECADES in comics, Batgirl, Supergirl, super dog, she-hulk, spider-woman, etc.), what Marvel does is create something somewhat new that can possibly be morphed into something different (like War-Machine,w which really was just Rhodey taking over for Iron man, remember?), and secure any sort of copyright to a variation of their characters someone else might have.

No one at Marvel is going to create Techno-Girl, a young black woman who creates a battle suit of armor - because they won't OWN it. At the same time, Marvel doesn't want Brand X or Image or someone to create Techno-Girl, SPECIFICALLY about a young black woman who creates a battle suit of armor, because that might tap into a new market that could one day eventually tumble these old 60 year old characters they're still trying to come up with stories for. So by gleaming off of Iron Man, they kill two birds with one stone.

And... have no fear, if 50 years of reading Marvel is any indication, Tony Stark isn;t going anywhere. Did you really believe he wouldn't be back?

Geez, Speedball still shows up now and then.

[Readcomix]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

Or Hitler.

Hey, I'm working my way up...have patience, geez 

[Prince Namor]

7 minutes ago, wombat said:

It's not a real thread until people are accused of being racist. 

Who got accused of being racist?

[kav]

This thread has helped me figger out why the caged bird sings.

[Logan510]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Racist would be not liking it solely because it's a Muslim, or solely because it's a black character.

Personally, I'm no more offended by Jimmy Olsen being turned into a fish boy in the 60's as I am someone else becoming Iron Man, as I see them as fictional characters open to interpretation by the 100 different writers/editors who've handled these characters over the years. Sales have sucked over the last 20 years, so they're going to try and shake things up somehow.

Were you currently reading any Marvel's or are you just opposed to this whole idea in principle?

Would you consider the current market as healthy or thriving? I know exactly who they're catering to. A blind man could see that with all the multiple variants and new #1's. Can they re-build a healthy, thriving market now? It doesn't look like it to me 

[Prince Namor]

Just now, Logan510 said:

Would you consider the current market as healthy or thriving?

 

Neither.

Just now, Logan510 said:

I know exactly who they're catering to. A blind man could see that with all the multiple variants and new #1's. Can they re-build a healthy, thriving market now? It doesn't look like it to me 

No. They can not. Not how it used to be anyway. People will never read paper comics in the numbers they used to.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

No one at Marvel is going to create Techno-Girl

Why not just call her Iron Woman or Iron Girl? You know like there is a Batman, Batwoman and Batgirl?

That probably would have been a lot simpler and had great sales.

I can see it now Iron Woman #1 with 5 shiny metallic variants.  I would have bought it.

So then we have Tony Stark as Iron Man and the brand new Iron Girl!  

[Readcomix]

6 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I've explained this numerous time before, but as it'll add to some of the other things you've touched on here, I'll repeat it:

Marvel isn't going to create a whole bunch of new characters, because no creators want to create something for them that THEY individually don't own. Marvel OWNS it.

If they make a movie of this new character, the creators might get nothing, and it could go on to be a huge franchise for Marvel. Why wouldn't they just save it and try and publish it themselves?

So, by gleaming off of the established characters (something that's been done for DECADES in comics, Batgirl, Supergirl, super dog, she-hulk, spider-woman, etc.), what Marvel does is create something somewhat new that can possibly be morphed into something different (like War-Machine,w which really was just Rhodey taking over for Iron man, remember?), and secure any sort of copyright to a variation of their characters someone else might have.

No one at Marvel is going to create Techno-Girl, a young black woman who creates a battle suit of armor - because they won't OWN it. At the same time, Marvel doesn't want Brand X or Image or someone to create Techno-Girl, SPECIFICALLY about a young black woman who creates a battle suit of armor, because that might tap into a new market that could one day eventually tumble these old 60 year old characters they're still trying to come up with stories for. So by gleaming off of Iron Man, they kill two birds with one stone.

And... have no fear, if 50 years of reading Marvel is any indication, Tony Stark isn;t going anywhere. Did you really believe he wouldn't be back?

Geez, Speedball still shows up now and then.

I understand the argument about creators and ownership. I love my Destroyer Duck #1, and My Fantasy Quarterly #1. I grabbed Captain Victory and Starslayer and Ms Mystic and Elementals and Grendel and Justice Machine off the racks as they came out. 

But Disney seems to know how to get creators to create new Disney-owned characters.

Surely there has to be some middle ground between corporate comics never seeing a new character, and creators bringing their fresh new concepts to life only at small, independent publishers. 

[Prince Namor]

3 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Why not just call her Iron Woman or Iron Girl? You know like there is a Batman, Batwoman and Batgirl?

That probably would have been a lot simpler and had great sales.

I can see it now Iron Woman #1 with 5 shiny metallic variants.  I would have bought it.

So then we have Tony Stark as Iron Man and the brand new Iron Girl!  

Because it still sold almost 100,000 copies doing it the way they did. And controversy sells books more than giving people exactly what they want.