Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[rjrjr]

22 hours ago, drotto said:

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.

 

This would be a huge gamble on Marvel's part for an unknown outcome.  It will never happen unless they were in a hugely desperate situation that they have no choice but to do this or fail.  And, they are far from facing that situation.

They are better off understanding why their sales are faltering and to fix the problem directly.  Stop the variants.  Stop events.  Stop rebooting titles.  Bring back the main characters.  Tell compelling stories.  Make it a requirement in contracts that writers actually create new heroes and villains in their stories that are not derivatives of existing characters.

It sounds like they almost have the correct idea on how to right the ship, but we'll have to wait and see.

[rjrjr]

22 hours 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.

Or just put it in the contracts that they must create X number of new (not derivative) characters a year.

[rjrjr]

22 hours 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.

I like this idea.

[ComicConnoisseur]

15 minutes ago, rjrjr said:

Or just put it in the contracts that they must create X number of new (not derivative) characters a year.

Yep, those are the key words (not derivative).

Thunderbolt Ross as the Red Hulk is the perfect example of Marvel going to the derivative well, once too often.

Edited April 28, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[ComicConnoisseur]

One thing about this thread is I see a lot of passion, and fans still do care about these Marvel characters.

Marvel characters are up there with Star Wars characters as most beloved.

So if anyone from Marvel is reading this thread than try to take some of the advice seen in this thread, and try to fix the problem that is turning off so many long-time loyal fans! 

'nuff said!

 

[Hamlet]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:32 AM, 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.

I think this is what a lot of people are missing.  There just isn't much money to be made in physical comics ( or really any printed periodical these days ). 

One good movie makes more than they are ever going to make printing comics.

So there just isn't much reason for Disney to spend much effort on the comics themselves.  Like James Bond, the characters have moved past their original medium and are now movie franchises.

The comics themselves really don't matter much anymore.

[Logan510]

22 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Yep, those are the key words (not derivative).

Thunderbolt Ross as the Red Hulk is the perfect example of Marvel going to the derivative well, once too often.

From what I can gather through reading and conversations. Creators who came into the business in the late 60's-70's and were the real first fans turned pros ( before the royalties and bigger money) looked at creating new characters has an honor and a privilege in the sense of " something I created is now part of the same universe that Stan, Jack et al created!". Sometime in the late 80's, early 90's this changed to creators feeling potentially ripped off if they "gave" the next Mickey Mouse over to Marvel. I can understand and appreciate both points of view, though the inner fanboy prefers the former.

[kav]

If you want to get super powers the best way seems to be to become associated with an existing super hero.  Your time will come and you will get bit by a gamma ray spider or something.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/27/2017 at 2:19 PM, Logan510 said:

I'm not talking about creator owned, I'm talking about character creation incentive.

When John Byrne was prepping to do Alpha Flight, Shooter asked him if he had any new characters to add to the group ( those ended up being Puck and Marrina ) so he could take advantage of their new policy / incentive. Byrne basically got a bonus for creating the new characters and then a small % of any money that might come in down the road for the use of those characters in other media.

Right.. a system put in place to compensate creators for their work. DC did that and Marvel HAD to follow the program so they wouldn't lose more creators. 

By the time Alpha Flight #1 came out, Marvel had already lost Marv Wolfman, Roy Thomas, Doug Moench, Dave Cockrum (twice!), Frank Miller, Jim Starlin, Gerry Conway, Gene Colan, George Perez, Gil Kane... that's a LOT of talent.

The Miller Ronin deal was made a year earlier (so he could take time off to do the book), and it's considered the situation that made Marvel HAVE to reassess things. Shooter of course always claimed his program was first, DC heard about it and rolled out their own to beat him. 

The creators I've talked and written to and read about have told a different story. 

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, Logan510 said:

From what I can gather through reading and conversations. Creators who came into the business in the late 60's-70's and were the real first fans turned pros ( before the royalties and bigger money) looked at creating new characters has an honor and a privilege in the sense of " something I created is now part of the same universe that Stan, Jack et al created!". Sometime in the late 80's, early 90's this changed to creators feeling potentially ripped off if they "gave" the next Mickey Mouse over to Marvel. I can understand and appreciate both points of view, though the inner fanboy prefers the former.

It's not just from the creators perspective why it happens either....Marvel in some respects didn't WANT the new characters, because they didn't want to have to deal with the possible litigation that could follow down the road. You let 30 different creators create as many new characters as they want, bringing in impossible to determine revenue to Marvel Comics, who then get taken to court over the rights... well, it just leads to a big mess.

I'm sure now they sign Disney-like contracts and any thought that appears in their head is property of Marvel while there under contract....

Still... a contract doesn't protect them completely in a court of law. If I get you to sign a contract saying you'll shine my shoes every morning regardless of where I am, and you DO it... it doesn't mean you can't sue me later for talking you into unfair practices.

[Logan510]

30 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Right.. a system put in place to compensate creators for their work. DC did that and Marvel HAD to follow the program so they wouldn't lose more creators. 

By the time Alpha Flight #1 came out, Marvel had already lost Marv Wolfman, Roy Thomas, Doug Moench, Dave Cockrum (twice!), Frank Miller, Jim Starlin, Gerry Conway, Gene Colan, George Perez, Gil Kane... that's a LOT of talent.

The Miller Ronin deal was made a year earlier (so he could take time off to do the book), and it's considered the situation that made Marvel HAVE to reassess things. Shooter of course always claimed his program was first, DC heard about it and rolled out their own to beat him. 

The creators I've talked and written to and read about have told a different story. 

So, they "lost" all that talent because of creator compensation? That is absolutely not true in several of those scenarios. We can both agree that DC instituted a royalty program before Marvel, but can we also agree that the bar to receive those royalties was so high that only 1-3 books per month sold enough at DC to garner those royalties for the creative teams?

Edited April 28, 2017 by Logan510

[Ken Aldred]

6 hours ago, rjrjr said:

... Make it a requirement in contracts that writers actually create new heroes and villains in their stories that are not derivatives of existing characters...

 

Or, this could cause more writers and artists to go elsewhere, such as Image, or even to self-publish, rather than accept Marvel's strictures.

[Prince Namor]

17 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

So, they "lost" all that talent because of creator compensation? That is absolutely not true in several of those scenarios. We can both agree that DC instituted a royalty program before Marvel, but can we also agree that the bar to receive those royalties was so high that only 1-3 books per month sold enough at DC to garner those royalties for the creative teams?

No, they didn't lose all of that talent just because of creator compensation, but they did lose THE talent, Frank Miller, because DC made him a special creator ownership deal, that was unheard of at the time. 

Regardless of talent, the Big Two treated creators simply as work for hire. THEY didn't see these guys as anything other than interchangeable cogs in a machine to pump out creations that THEY owned. DC changed this. They may have done it for selfish reasons (they were losing to Marvel), or they may have done it because Jenette Kahn was a visionary, but it nevertheless changed how business would be done.

Jim Shooter saw no difference between Roy Thomas or someone walking in off the street (slight exaggeration), as long as the creator told a story how HE thought it should be done. But once DC changed things, he HAD to follow. Those creators had left, not necessarily because there wasn't a creator compensation program, but they DID leave because they were treated as replaceable faceless people who created under the work for hire program. And the work for hire system only existed because comics didn't see these people as necessary talent.

Shooter may have gone along with the program, but as the success of 'his' Marvel grew, he became more of a monster to people.

[Prince Namor]

46 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

but can we also agree that the bar to receive those royalties was so high that only 1-3 books per month sold enough at DC to garner those royalties for the creative teams?

This is the Shooter argument. 

As DC Comics was lagging behind Marvel, it made sense to create a program to lure creators to do their BEST WORK, to increase sales and get the BONUS.

It worked. DC Comics exploded in the late 80's, not only due to all of that creative talent, but because they took chances on the creative talent to let them do what they do best: create.

Marvel, meanwhile, didn't put the incentive program in place so that creators could EASILY make the extra money. They raised the bar a few times, and any compensation earned had to be approved at a level higher up than Shooter. 

In fact, it wasn't until after Shooter had left, that any talent at the company (other than Byrne) really made big money.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Chuck Gower

[Logan510]

4 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

This is the Shooter argument. 

As DC Comics was lagging behind Marvel, it made sense to create a program to lure creators to do their BEST WORK, to increase sales and get the BONUS.

It worked. DC Comics exploded in the late 80's, not only due to all of that creative talent, but because they took chances on the creative talent to let them do what they do best: create.

Marvel, meanwhile, didn't put the incentive program in place so that creators could EASILY make the extra money. They raised the bar a few times, and any compensation earned had to be approved at a level higher up than Shooter. 

In fact, it wasn't until after Shooter had left, that any talent at the company (other than Byrne) really made big money.

Where do you get your information, I find it fascinating.

 

So, I'm guessing Claremont didn't make any "really big money" before Shooter left? Simonson? Miller when he came back to do Born Again?

 

[Logan510]

18 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

No, they didn't lose all of that talent just because of creator compensation, but they did lose THE talent, Frank Miller, because DC made him a special creator ownership deal, that was unheard of at the time. 

Regardless of talent, the Big Two treated creators simply as work for hire. THEY didn't see these guys as anything other than interchangeable cogs in a machine to pump out creations that THEY owned. DC changed this. They may have done it for selfish reasons (they were losing to Marvel), or they may have done it because Jenette Kahn was a visionary, but it nevertheless changed how business would be done.

Jim Shooter saw no difference between Roy Thomas or someone walking in off the street (slight exaggeration), as long as the creator told a story how HE thought it should be done. But once DC changed things, he HAD to follow. Those creators had left, not necessarily because there wasn't a creator compensation program, but they DID leave because they were treated as replaceable faceless people who created under the work for hire program. And the work for hire system only existed because comics didn't see these people as necessary talent.

Shooter may have gone along with the program, but as the success of 'his' Marvel grew, he became more of a monster to people.

Please do not use my posts as a stepping stone to soap box style rants. Talk TO me, not AT me please 

[ComicConnoisseur]

22 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Frank Miller, because DC made him a special creator ownership deal, that was unheard of at the time. 

Question?

How come DC or Marvel don't offer the artists today that kind of Frank Miller deal?

That Frank Miller deal was about 34 years ago(1983). You would think 34 years later Marvel or DC could come up with an equal deal or even better deal now.

[SteppinRazor]

Interesting conversation.  I haven't followed comics for 20some years, and signed on here really to find out if comics had basically died, like my other childhood hobby, football/baseball cards.  I think it's very possible that the kinds of entertainment that came in comic form transition to video games and movies, however, I don't think that that is a very sustainable model either, it'll just take us through the next 20 years or so.  The reason being, comics were essentially low barrier to entry entertainment products.  A movie or video game is decidedly not low barrier.  So as much as comic creators skewed value towards themselves in the 90s and away from publishers, they'll start to price themselves out of the low barrier market (which is happening now), and the high barrier to entry markets are... tougher to enter.  One of two things will happen then.  The kinds of stories that appeared in comics will die, or print entertainment will go more subculture like comics used to be.  We'll have zines and graphic novels, not so much serial stories.  This I think is the right model for now, and internet versions in the future.  Companies like Marvel and DC should be transitioning into graphic novels or story runs in a TPB/electronic versions.  Creators would be more like novel writers - your book/story/art gets picked up on a project basis.  That is going to hurt creators, but if the market isn't there to sustain what creators want out of their creations, then they'll need to either adjust their ideas on income, or do something else.

 

What's also fascinating in this conversation is how appicable a lot of it is to any industry.  The short sightedness of businesses, the value a worker creates for their employer, etc..

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

10 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Where do you get your information, I find it fascinating.

 

So, I'm guessing Claremont didn't make any "really big money" before Shooter left? Simonson? Miller when he came back to do Born Again?

 

 

I can't find the link, but I remember reading somewhere that Claremont cleared $500,000 to $875,000 a year writing X-men during mid-1980s. If anybody wants to google that be my guest.

LOL.

[Prince Namor]

14 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Question?

How come DC or Marvel don't offer the artists today that kind of Frank Miller deal?

That Frank Miller deal was about 34 years ago(1983). You would think 34 years later Marvel or DC could come up with an equal deal or even better deal now.

They do. It's under the IKON imprint for Marvel.