Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[rjrjr]

15 hours ago, Chadwick said:

+1

I haven't read this whole thread, but why doesn't marvel just go back to printing on newsprint and drop the price point to $1? They are just going to end up in a trade anyway, if you enjoy heavy glossy pages get them there. I know I would buy into way more runs if they were a dollar an issue. Let LCS's and conventions do variants.

I recently picked up a dozen or so of the $1 true believers to give to a friend's 12 year old and they blew his mind, she said he couldn't wait to bring them to school to show off. I gave the same kid a few issues of superior spider-man last year - he thumbed through them and went back to halo, but give him Xmen #1, GSXM 1, wolverine 1, hulk 181, etc and he went nuts. So, now that I got him hooked, what am I supposed to tell him? Go spend $4.99 on an issue of the new wolverine run? Nope, get a trade that has a full story.

Marvel needs to bring back a single unified voice to the brand, give me a soapbox to read, give me back a bullpen, house ads, give me back the feeling of being in a club and grow excitement for new artists and writers in the books and not on variant covers or online. Bring back legacy numbering, and when they hire Starlin and Perez to do 12 issues of Spider-gwen, just put the run number on the cover next to the series number, then stick those issues in a trade.

I would be way more interested in a marvel with 10 solid running series and not the mess I see when I look at the racks now. 

 

The largest cost in a comic is not the paper, it is the creators.  Even if Marvel did newsprint, that isn't going to drop the prices as low as many people think.

Edited April 27, 2017 by rjrjr

[rjrjr]

13 hours ago, romanheart said:

titling-at-windmillls-259-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-marvel-comics-anyway

Here's someone's take on their downfall.

I think there is a lot of merit to the conclusions drawn in that article.  Thanks for sharing.

[ComicConnoisseur]

8 hours ago, rjrjr said:

The largest cost in a comic is not the paper, it is the creators.  Even if Marvel did newsprint, that isn't going to drop the prices as low as many people think.

I know I was reading somewhere where DC tried to get Neil Gaiman to write Sandman again, and that he was flabbergasted at how low their offer was compared to being paid big by mainstream book publishers for his novels. 

Maybe Marvel and DC should pay decent wages to get the top creators? They each have billion dollar franchises, so throwing a million to Alan Moore or John Bryne to write for them should not be an issue.

Edited April 27, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Prince Namor]

10 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Yet, John Byrrne's best work was under Jim Shooter's editorship.Those great runs of Uncanny X-Men and Fantastic Four by John Byrne were under Jim Shooter deadlines. Jim Shooter demanded the best from Byrne, and he got the best work John Byrne has ever done.

That's a slap in the face to the creators. All of them have done great work outside of Marvel (especially Frank Miller, who's DKR is the most reprinted work of his career)...

Did Jim Lee do his best work under Tom DeFalco on X-Men or Todd McFarlane do his best work on Spider-man under DeFalco....NO.... they handled their biggest, most popular, well known characters at the ascent of their careers. When DeFalco LOST all of those creators, Marvel faltered.

It was no different than Shooter.

When the quality writers and artists left, the books suffered. He could't 'bring out the best' in others.... you either have the talent to do quality work or you don't.

When sales suffered because he ran off the creators - on top of alienating everyone he worked with - he lost his job.

10 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Same thing with Walter Simonson's Thor.

Shooter had a way with getting the best work out of talented creators. Shooter was a taskmaster. Think of Steve Jobs at Apple. People hated working for Jobs, but in the end Jobs pushed them to be the best.

Jim Shooter had that talent to bring out the best in creators that Alonso does not.

The best proof is Valiant. Valiant was awesome until they replaced Shooter.  Shooter got the Valiant creators to do great work, as soon as he left it went all downhill for Valiant.

Man, does history ever get reworked by people.

Valiant sold more comics the year AFTER Shooter left than it did in it's first year and a half and even MORE in 1994. They sold MILLIONS of comics after Shooter was booted and gained an even larger share of the market. The numbers don't lie. Valiant was printing it's most titles in 1995, almost THREE YEARS after Shooter was shown the door and hung on during the bubble crash with help from Acclaim until almost 1999.

By 1999 Shooter had already failed two other start up comic companies and had been out of comics for a few years. Bob Layton briefly retired after making millions at Valiant.

So if Shooter, himself, was so great, and honestly I think you just don't even close to know the whole story - why did Defiant fail then? Why did Broadway Comics fail?

Because as the characters Shooter had to work with became less known, and the creators he had to work on them weren't as good, his 'talent' got exposed for what it was: he was an EDITOR. And without great characters or great creators, he was just another editor. Shooter's ego and knack for dressing up history is well documented.

But he hasn't been able to succeed in comics without playing with someone else's toys.

Marvel sales figures actually grew to their highest levels since the Golden Age under Tom DeFalco. DeFalco just never got a big head and tooted his own horn and made it sound like he was a genius. 

Editors don't make comics. Creators do.

If Jim Lee came back and started doing X-Men again and Todd McFarlane came back and started drawing Spider-man again, the numbers would explode. REGARDLESS of who the editor was.

Shooter's strength was organizing Marvel, being the editor the company needed - instituting deadlines. But that doesn't sound glamorous enough. He had to become a celebrity.

But like anyone that works for Marvel, those creations of Stan and Jack and Steve's will ALWAYS be bigger than the people who work on them.

[ComicConnoisseur]

All I know is Marvel and Alonso better do something soon to turn around their sales.

Disney who owns Marvel also owns ESPN. 

ESPN who has a drop in many long-time viewers had a massive firing yesterday by Disney.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170426/espn-lays-off-some-100-employees-in-latest-purge

If Disney would fire the ESPN guys for bad performance,than I could see them doing the same thing to Marvel staffers.

 

 

[Logan510]

12 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

That's a slap in the face to the creators. All of them have done great work outside of Marvel (especially Frank Miller, who's DKR is the most reprinted work of his career)...

Did Jim Lee do his best work under Tom DeFalco on X-Men or Todd McFarlane do his best work on Spider-man under DeFalco....NO.... they handled their biggest, most popular, well known characters at the ascent of their careers. When DeFalco LOST all of those creators, Marvel faltered.

It was no different than Shooter.

When the quality writers and artists left, the books suffered. He could't 'bring out the best' in others.... you either have the talent to do quality work or you don't.

When sales suffered because he ran off the creators - on top of alienating everyone he worked with - he lost his job.

Man, does history ever get reworked by people.

Valiant sold more comics the year AFTER Shooter left than it did in it's first year and a half and even MORE in 1994. They sold MILLIONS of comics after Shooter was booted and gained an even larger share of the market. The numbers don't lie. Valiant was printing it's most titles in 1995, almost THREE YEARS after Shooter was shown the door and hung on during the bubble crash with help from Acclaim until almost 1999.

By 1999 Shooter had already failed two other start up comic companies and had been out of comics for a few years. Bob Layton briefly retired after making millions at Valiant.

So if Shooter, himself, was so great, and honestly I think you just don't even close to know the whole story - why did Defiant fail then? Why did Broadway Comics fail?

Because as the characters Shooter had to work with became less known, and the creators he had to work on them weren't as good, his 'talent' got exposed for what it was: he was an EDITOR. And without great characters or great creators, he was just another editor. Shooter's ego and knack for dressing up history is well documented.

But he hasn't been able to succeed in comics without playing with someone else's toys.

Marvel sales figures actually grew to their highest levels since the Golden Age under Tom DeFalco. DeFalco just never got a big head and tooted his own horn and made it sound like he was a genius. 

Editors don't make comics. Creators do.

If Jim Lee came back and started doing X-Men again and Todd McFarlane came back and started drawing Spider-man again, the numbers would explode. REGARDLESS of who the editor was.

Shooter's strength was organizing Marvel, being the editor the company needed - instituting deadlines. But that doesn't sound glamorous enough. He had to become a celebrity.

But like anyone that works for Marvel, those creations of Stan and Jack and Steve's will ALWAYS be bigger than the people who work on them.

I hate that you're making me feel like I have to defend Shooter  But he deserves more credit than just keeping the lights on.

 

And really, you're going to give credit to the guys that came after him for the rise in sales? They were responsible for the speculator glut?

Editors don't make comics? When did this happen?

[ComicConnoisseur]

21 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Valiant sold more comics the year AFTER Shooter left than it did in it's first year and a half and even MORE in 1994. They sold MILLIONS of comics after Shooter was booted and gained an even larger share of the market. The numbers don't lie. Valiant was printing it's most titles in 1995, almost THREE YEARS after Shooter was shown the door and hung on during the bubble crash with help from Acclaim until almost 1999.

The numbers do not lie, and you are correct about sales,but people will also tell you the best written and best Valiant stories were under Jim Shooter's watch.

That first year and a half of Shooter`'s Valiant is what caused the buzz that made Valiant, and it was the junk Valiant published and sold after Jim Shooter that did them in.

The first year and a half of Shooter`'s Valiant was awesome because Shooter's vision was to make Valiant tell good comic book stories, while after Shooter Valiant had no vision and just sold junk that can now be found in .25 cent bins.

The facts show that all the Valiant comics produced under Jim Shooter are considered the most sought after and collectible Valiant comics,while the Valiant Comics in the few years after Jim Shooter are considered drek.

So under Jim Shooter's watch the Valiant comics are considered the holy grails of Valiant,while right after he left they are considered over produced drek.

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Prince Namor]

14 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I know I was reading somewhere where DC tried to get Neil Gaiman to write Sandman again, and that he was flabbergasted at how low their offer was compared to being paid big by mainstream book publishers for his novels. 

Maybe Marvel and DC should pay decent wages to get the top creators? They each have billion dollar franchises, so throwing a million to Alan Moore or John Bryne to write for them should not be an issue.

Neil Gaiman DID write Sandman again... it was a series called Sandman Overture, a 6 issue series from 2013-2015. It sold in the Top Ten its first two issues 92,000 and 89,000 copies, falling just outside the Top Ten for #3 and #4 (73,000, and 58,000) and falling to 29 (53,000) for #5 and back up to 18 (though only 48,000) for the finale.

Meaning, it sold about 413,000 copies. At $4.99 for #1 and $3.99 for the others, and figuring if DC makes 40%, NOT counting all of their other usual expenses... the profit would be roughly $675,000 on the whole series....

BUT after the usual expenses... another 100,000 dollars? $200,000? Printing, editorial, paying the artist, staff, shipping...

yeah...to give him a million dollars to write it... they'd have lost their butt on the deal.

[Prince Namor]

13 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I hate that you're making me feel like I have to defend Shooter  But he deserves more credit than just keeping the lights on.

I said he did! HE gave Marvel much needed organization and structure. And ideas. I mean... I think Secret Wars is dumb. But it was a good idea to sell comics. 

Quote

 

And really, you're going to give credit to the guys that came after him for the rise in sales?

Why aren't they afforded the same credit as Shooter? They sold more books. They gave us even more gimmicks. They gave us Liefeld. Liefled sold more comics in his career than Jim Shooter did as a creator. If it's all about the sales, well there are the numbers.

13 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

They were responsible for the speculator glut?

They played their part. Marvel played a huge role in it.

Quote

Editors don't make comics? When did this happen?

Creators make comics. Editors edit. Without creators there are no comics.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Neil Gaiman DID write Sandman again... it was a series called Sandman Overture, a 6 issue series from 2013-2015. It sold in the Top Ten its first two issues 92,000 and 89,000 copies, falling just outside the Top Ten for #3 and #4 (73,000, and 58,000) and falling to 29 (53,000) for #5 and back up to 18 (though only 48,000) for the finale.

Meaning, it sold about 413,000 copies. At $4.99 for #1 and $3.99 for the others, and figuring if DC makes 40%, NOT counting all of their other usual expenses... the profit would be roughly $675,000 on the whole series....

BUT after the usual expenses... another 100,000 dollars? $200,000? Printing, editorial, paying the artist, staff, shipping...

yeah...to give him a million dollars to write it... they'd have lost their butt on the deal.

Yes,but if they ever make a TV/Movie adaption out of it on HBO  or wherever than they could make a killing on it.

The MAIN reason why nobody is creating anything for Marvel and DC is because they fear Marvel/DC will make millions off their stuff, and they won't get a decent cut.

My million dollar proposition is to entice the top creators to create new stuff for Marvel and DC ,so they feel like they are not getting screwed now or in the future.

 

[Prince Namor]

7 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

The numbers do not lie, and you are correct about sales,but people will also tell you the best written and best Valiant stories were under Jim Shooter's watch.

That first year and a half of Shooter`'s Valiant is what caused the buzz that made Valiant, and it was the junk Valiant published and sold after Jim Shooter that did them in.

The first year and a half of Shooter`'s Valiant was awesome because Shooter's vision was to make Valiant tell good comic book stories, while after Shooter Valiant had no vision and just sold junk that can now be found in .25 cent bins.

The facts show that all the Valiant comics produced under Jim Shooter are considered the most sought after and collectible Valiant comics,while the Valiant Comics in the few years after Jim Shooter are considered drek.

So under Jim Shooter's watch the Valiant comics are considered the holy grails of Valiant,while right after he left they are considered over produced drek.

 

 

 

Now it's about the unmeasurable 'content'.

Go ask some Valiant fans. There are people who LOVE Shadowman way past 'Shooter' being there and Rai and X-O and many of the Valiant titles Shooter had NOTHING to do with.

In fact NEW Valiant has found it's place in the market WITHOUT the Magnus or Solar or Turok.

Valiant was MUCH more than just pre-Unity Shooter. FAR more.

[Prince Namor]

1 minute ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Yes,but if they ever make a TV/Movie adaption out of it on HBO  or wherever than they could make a killing on it.

The MAIN reason why nobody is creating anything for Marvel and DC is because they fear Marvel/DC will make millions off their stuff, and they won't get a decent cut.

My million dollar proposition is to entice the top creators to create new stuff for Marvel and DC ,so they feel like they are not getting screwed now or in the future.

 

A million dollars ain't jack squat to some of these guys. 

Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee were millionaires before they ever left Marvel Comics.

[Logan510]

17 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I said he did! HE gave Marvel much needed organization and structure. And ideas. I mean... I think Secret Wars is dumb. But it was a good idea to sell comics. 

Why aren't they afforded the same credit as Shooter? They sold more books. They gave us even more gimmicks. They gave us Liefeld. Liefled sold more comics in his career than Jim Shooter did as a creator. If it's all about the sales, well there are the numbers.

They played their part. Marvel played a huge role in it.

Creators make comics. Editors edit. Without creators there are no comics.

Not really!

Why should they be afforded more credit? The speculator glut would've happened regardless of who was in charge, or were all the guys who cashed in at Marvel, DC, Darkhorse etc etc geniuses?

As far as editors go, I don't know how it works now, but I have talked to enough creators back in the day to know that most editors were much more than proof readers. it's possible that certain talents were afforded more leeway, but most of them were following editorally dicated directions.

[Prince Namor]

17 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Not really!

How do you make comics without creators?

17 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Why should they be afforded more credit? The speculator glut would've happened regardless of who was in charge, or were all the guys who cashed in at Marvel, DC, Darkhorse etc etc geniuses?

And Marvel would've sold a lot of comics without Shooter in charge. 

17 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

As far as editors go, I don't know how it works now, but I have talked to enough creators back in the day to know that most editors were much more than proof readers. it's possible that certain talents were afforded more leeway, but most of them were following editorally dicated directions.

Of course. 'Properties' have to be protected with guidelines. Once Gerry Conway killed off Gwen Stacy, it became necessary to keep Marvel's properties reigned in.

However, PLENTY of comics get created without the need for more than basic editor/proofreader. It's the Big Two that need it the most, as they don't want damage to their cash cows. Independent creators create independently of corporate interference. 

[drotto]

10 hours ago, rjrjr said:

The largest cost in a comic is not the paper, it is the creators.  Even if Marvel did newsprint, that isn't going to drop the prices as low as many people think.

And in both instances, this is where Marvel may do well to cut the number of titles and aim to sell more of each issue. This would cut costs of both production and creator cost.

 

Takes me back again to the idea that Marvel should drastically reduce the number of titles, and even go quarterly on some. So aim for 30 to 40 monthly books, with a lower price point of say $2.50.  The idea being that instead of selling 20k average runs for 60 plus titles, concentrate on getting that up to an average 40 to 50 k run. The increased sales on one title combined with the decreased overhead, would in theory offset any profit reductions in lowering the per book cost. Over time, hope to slowly build those numbers, by increasing both the per book quality, and circulation. These monthly titles should concentrate on the established teams and high profile characters, but not too many books. For instance X-Men should be 2 to 3 books, Avengers 2 books, FF one book.  Make it easy to follow and collect again.

 

For newer readers and "trendy" characters targeted at new audiences go to a quarterly format.  As some have said the new reader is more likely to buy online or graphic novels.  So give them a compromise.  Print titles like Squirl Girl, Ms Marvel, Spider Gwen, etc.  Make the books the same paper stock as regular comics, but maybe use the square bound style. Give 64 page complete stories, and charge $6 to $7 for the book. Get these sold in Graphic Novel sections of books stores, which the larger page count and square binding should allow for.

 

I am not a business person or marketing genius.   It seems logic however that if you want new readers you need to give them value, accessibility, and quality. Despite any price drops, profit margins could be maintained or even increased by increased circulation, and decreased overhead.

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by drotto

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

A million dollars ain't jack squat to some of these guys. 

Todd McFarlane and Jim Lee were millionaires before they ever left Marvel Comics.

Yep. They made millions in the early 90s during the boom. I bet if they both started out today they wouldn't.  So today if you are a top creator you will not give Marvel/DC your best. That is why I proposed a good bonus for today's top talents to incite them to give their best for Marvel/DC.

[Logan510]

29 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

How do you make comics without creators?

And Marvel would've sold a lot of comics without Shooter in charge. 

Of course. 'Properties' have to be protected with guidelines. Once Gerry Conway killed off Gwen Stacy, it became necessary to keep Marvel's properties reigned in.

However, PLENTY of comics get created without the need for more than basic editor/proofreader. It's the Big Two that need it the most, as they don't want damage to their cash cows. Independent creators create independently of corporate interference. 

[drotto]

9 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Yep. They made millions in the early 90s during the boom. I bet if they both started out today they wouldn't.  So today if you are a top creator you will not give Marvel/DC your best. That is why I proposed a good bonus for today's top talents to incite them to give their best for Marvel/DC.

For the top level creators, it would also serve them well to go to a profit sharing model, where the creators are encouraged to crate new characters, by insuring that the will retain some of the royalties on those characters moving forward.  Similar to where musicians get residuals each time a record is sold or a song is played, even years later, or actors get royalties for when shows are seen in reruns.

 

This could help keeping top talent, and keeping more stable creative teams on books for longer runs.  The companies need to remember that most of the creators today got interested in comics because of DC and Marvel, and the are living a childhood dream to get the work and create for that big sandbox. So the publishers have that advantage, but once that novelty runs out they need something else to keep them there.

Edited April 27, 2017 by drotto

[Logan510]

8 minutes ago, drotto said:

For the top level creators, it would also serve them well to go to a profit sharing model, where the creators are encouraged to crate new characters, by insuring that the will retain some of the royalties on those characters moving forward.  Similar to where musicians get residuals each time a record is sold or a song is played, even years later, or actors get royalties for when shows are seen in reruns.

 

This could help keeping top talent, and keeping more stable creative teams on books for longer runs.  The companies need to remember that most of the creators today got interested in comics because of DC and Marvel, and the are living a childhood dream to get the work and create for that big sandbox. So the publishers have that advantage, but once that novelty runs out they need something else to keep them there.

Interesting that you mention that because one of the things Shooter helped institute was character creation incentives.

[kav]

Maybe Marvel can sell more Wonder Woman after the movie: