Forbes article 2 2

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm not saying that is what people collect, only that the movies are the younger generation's connection to comics. Ours was to comics. We were the generation that grew up not just having them, but the idea of collecting them as an organized hobby. Not all, but the vast majority of fans of these strong people in tights characters seem to be coming from the movies these days. To me, that's where the disconnect is going to come with the OA hobby, and why I see props as a more natural through line.  I know others here disagree.

I see the logic, though, I'm personally skeptical about props.  Why?  Because there's just SO MUCH content being produced nowadays that it's hard to keep up or to have the time to go back and discover or re-discover things.  Are people really forming enduring attachments to these franchises when they binge through seasons and don't have time to re-watch them?  Meanwhile, I think back to growing up in the '80s and '90s and having all the time in the world to read my favorite comic book runs over and over (or to watch movies over and over) while getting one part of an ongoing story every month kept me engaged, excited and full of anticipation in a way that I do not feel with any form of media nowadays, because who has the time???  

I saw that Profiles in History is having an auction of props from the Marvel Netflix series.  Is anyone going to care about any of this stuff even a few years from now?  Is anyone really lusting after Iron Fist props RIGHT NOW?  It's like when the TV show "Lost" came to an end and PIH did a huge auction with props from the show.  I thought it was obvious at the time that these items would fade into irrelevancy very quickly (which they largely have).  Since then, the content congestion has gotten even worse; aside from a handful of iconic pieces, I think most props from this era will probably just reach their highest value in close proximity to the date the content was most popular and then largely fade away.  I think people buying these things are going to wake up 30 years from now and realize that nobody GAF about the 30-year old junk that they own.  As if anyone is even going to care to stream Iron Fist in 2049 as opposed to the literally thousands of TV shows that will have been created between 2019 and 2049 and all the content produced before 2019 (probably 98% of which is/will be better than the rather poor Iron Fist series). 

I think so much pop culture being produced, even the quality material, has a definite sell-by date in this new content/media reality we find ourselves in; I would not be holding any of it for any other reason than passion, love and/or appreciation of the art and objects, as I wouldn't count on them holding their appeal (or value) in the coming decades.   

Edited July 3, 2019 by delekkerste

[Peter L]

Blade Runner is among my favorite films.  And when I first saw it in the theater I thought it was a reasonable vision of the future.  Today you have to suspend belief that there are no smartphones or that people talk to each other because there are no smartphones.  The future is so hard to predict, and there are so many factors involved it's hard to know.

I would not have predicted that Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse would have been so well received and won an Oscar.  I never thought in my lifetime an animated superhero cartoon would win an Oscar.  Spider-man is going to be much more popular 20 years from now.  Disneyland in Hong Kong is transforming a whole section based on Marvel.  Look at the attached photos for Disney's California Adventure.  Every kid in America will know Spider-man like they know Mickey and Minnie.  

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec's art was disregarded in his lifetime.  His posterwork is hugely valuable today but back then was tossed aside.  He even resorted to drawing on cardboard or whatever was around.  People like looking at it and the high value brings interest and makes it sexy to collect.  Money will do that.  I saw the recent Babe Ruth card that broke a record at Heritage.  No one around collecting saw him play but still sets records.  I wish I bought a Jackie Robinson card a few years ago that I always wanted.  Now it's out of my price range.  I never saw him play.  But he's iconic and it would be great to have.  When Action Comics #1 was #8,000 I begged my parents to buy one as an investment.  Of course they said no.  They never thought it would reach the heights it has.

I think younger generations will still want some of the same things that older generations would want.  Urban Outfitters was not a store with wide appeal.  They had to try to change their business model to survive.  Rental instead of buying is not a first choice but a forced choice to continue to look good with the means at hand.  Millennials have less money because of student debt and other issues, but it doesn't mean they don't want a Tesla and a HGTV model home at the end of the day.  Putting aside the politics inherent in Margret Thatcher's famous quote, the basic idea is still true that when you are in your early 20s, your limitations and life stage will develop, and you will want different things and have different priorities as you get older.  Some people with money will always want stuff and buy stuff.  Disney and other corporations will influence them greatly on what to spend that money on.

 

 

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

I see the logic, though, I'm personally skeptical about props.  Why?  Because there's just SO MUCH content being produced nowadays that it's hard to keep up or to have the time to go back and discover or re-discover things.  Are people really forming enduring attachments to these franchises when they binge through seasons and don't have time to re-watch them?  Meanwhile, I think back to growing up in the '80s and '90s and having all the time in the world to read my favorite comic book runs over and over (or to watch movies over and over) while getting one part of an ongoing story every month kept me engaged, excited and full of anticipation in a way that I do not feel with any form of media nowadays, because who has the time???  

I saw that Profiles in History is having an auction of props from the Marvel Netflix series.  Is anyone going to care about any of this stuff even a few years from now?  Is anyone really lusting after Iron Fist props RIGHT NOW?  It's like when the TV show "Lost" came to an end and PIH did a huge auction with props from the show.  I thought it was obvious at the time that these items would fade into irrelevancy very quickly (which they largely have).  Since then, the content congestion has gotten even worse; aside from a handful of iconic pieces, I think most props from this era will probably just reach their highest value in close proximity to the date the content was most popular and then largely fade away.  I think people buying these things are going to wake up 30 years from now and realize that nobody GAF about the 30-year old junk that they own.  As if anyone is even going to care to stream Iron Fist in 2049 as opposed to the literally thousands of TV shows that will have been created between 2019 and 2049 and all the content produced before 2019 (probably 98% of which is/will be better than the rather poor Iron Fist series). 

I think so much pop culture being produced, even the quality material, has a definite sell-by date in this new content/media reality we find ourselves in; I would not be holding any of it for any other reason than passion, love and/or appreciation of the art and objects, as I wouldn't count on them holding their appeal (or value) in the coming decades.   

Totally agree with you to a point. With props, like with art, a material is gonna be a material. Thor Hammer, Cap shield, Iron Man helmet. 

And replica props, which I think could be a huge seller for Disney. So not screen used, but like lightsabers, 1:1 scale issues. Maybe not big money for a single piece but maybe close enough for someone to be satisfied by. A small collection of Avengers A list replicas... I could see it.

Yes there is a ton of content. But I could see the kids of today being awed as the adults of tomorrow by having a piece of their favorite film(s).

Plus it’s not as bad as OA collecting, where it never ends. Props for some could be a one and done scenario. 

But yeah, I get it. 

I don’t think any doors will be knocked down to get t-shirt worn by Rick Grimes in episode 84 during the 2nd act.

Edited July 3, 2019 by ESeffinga

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, Peter L said:

  Disney and other corporations will influence them greatly on what to spend that money on.

 

 

Of course they will. They’ll be pumping that IP for all the money they can get.

It just won’t be comic art.

 

 

[Peter L]

6 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Of course they will. They’ll be pumping that IP for all the money they can get.

It just won’t be comic art.

 

 

Previously in the Marvel area of California Adventure, they had a store area of canvases of comic panels and images, kind of like Roy Lichenstein others like 70s posters and Silver age comic covers.  Currently in Downtown Disney they sell original art from animators or artists who draw other Disney characters.  I don't see a far connection between eventually having original comic art for sale, once Disney management realizes there is money in it.

[glenbru]

The reason Disney doesn't or won't sell original art is that they don't own any.  They have no inventory.

They would have to buy and resell, and that's not the business they're in.  Much better to have Spider-Man mugs purchased from China that they have good margins on and no trouble getting inventory.

Trying to buy quality art for resale would be a major headache for them.

The closest would be prints of giclees that could be mass produced -- again no inventory problem. But these are hardly original.

[ESeffinga]

And all those folks that visit the Met and buy an Andy Warhol print are one day going to show up at Sotheby’s and start bidding...

[chrisco37]

Interesting discussion (as usual in this particular forum).   I haven't read the Forbes article yet, and I just read the thread from the beginning.   Too many individual posts to respond to, but I'm going to try and put some of my thoughts down based on what I've read:

1.  Mickey Mouse, as others have said, is still gigantic.  Definitely more than just a "trademark" for Disney.  My daughter is 11 now, so we're past Disney Jr., but I definitely watched countless hours of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.  Definitely bought all the toys (all the figures, the Mickey Camper, Minnie's Boutique, etc...).  Will that translate to back-issue and/or OA sales?   Dunno.  But, I'd bet there are a few kids out there today watching that stuff that might end up comic collectors.  Maybe some of them end up going for the Barks books.

2.  Spider-Man is massive.  And, with Disney behind him, he'll be around for a long time.  No chance they let that cash cow die.  I would definitely think some of the future collectors will be interested in the source material.   I'm 43 and I like Timely's.  I have no connection to them at all.  It's a natural progression for collectors to "go back" further.  Heck, I wasn't even born during the Silver Age, but those are my favorite books.

3.  With regards to the Millennial generation, in general, they do appear to not place as much emphasis on "ownership of stuff" that most of us posting here do (or our parents/grandparents).  They appear to value experiences over stuff.  They also seem to value "mobility" more than previous generations.  Just had a kid I work with turn in his notice.  Super smart kid with tons of potential in my field.  He would do really well if he "stuck it out" (he was already making really good money for a 26 yr old kid).  He wanted to try something else.  He felt he's young enough that he should try something else.  No chance my parents (or even me) would've jumped ship on a guaranteed good career at that age. 

4.  Piggybacking on #3, "mobility" is a big thing for the younger generation.  They don't seem to be as concerned with owning a house/being tied down to a specific area.  I've actually been trending towards that thought.  I've owned a few houses now, but I actually currently rent (I still own one house, that I rent out and I'll probably be looking to sell in the next year or so).  I'm not sure I'd ever try and buy another place (unless I hit the PowerBall and would have the ability to buy something outright). Not really sure what (if anything) that has to do with the discussion, but random thoughts and all...

    

 

[exitmusicblue]

19 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

Interesting discussion (as usual in this particular forum).   I haven't read the Forbes article yet, and I just read the thread from the beginning.   Too many individual posts to respond to, but I'm going to try and put some of my thoughts down based on what I've read:

1.  Mickey Mouse, as others have said, is still gigantic.  Definitely more than just a "trademark" for Disney.  My daughter is 11 now, so we're past Disney Jr., but I definitely watched countless hours of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.  Definitely bought all the toys (all the figures, the Mickey Camper, Minnie's Boutique, etc...).  Will that translate to back-issue and/or OA sales?   Dunno.  But, I'd bet there are a few kids out there today watching that stuff that might end up comic collectors.  Maybe some of them end up going for the Barks books.

2.  Spider-Man is massive.  And, with Disney behind him, he'll be around for a long time.  No chance they let that cash cow die.  I would definitely think some of the future collectors will be interested in the source material.   I'm 43 and I like Timely's.  I have no connection to them at all.  It's a natural progression for collectors to "go back" further.  Heck, I wasn't even born during the Silver Age, but those are my favorite books.

3.  With regards to the Millennial generation, in general, they do appear to not place as much emphasis on "ownership of stuff" that most of us posting here do (or our parents/grandparents).  They appear to value experiences over stuff.  They also seem to value "mobility" more than previous generations.  Just had a kid I work with turn in his notice.  Super smart kid with tons of potential in my field.  He would do really well if he "stuck it out" (he was already making really good money for a 26 yr old kid).  He wanted to try something else.  He felt he's young enough that he should try something else.  No chance my parents (or even me) would've jumped ship on a guaranteed good career at that age. 

4.  Piggybacking on #3, "mobility" is a big thing for the younger generation.  They don't seem to be as concerned with owning a house/being tied down to a specific area.  I've actually been trending towards that thought.  I've owned a few houses now, but I actually currently rent (I still own one house, that I rent out and I'll probably be looking to sell in the next year or so).  I'm not sure I'd ever try and buy another place (unless I hit the PowerBall and would have the ability to buy something outright). Not really sure what (if anything) that has to do with the discussion, but random thoughts and all...

    

 

Pretty much this.

Also, the biggest keys are already entrenched in today's lore more than 99% of obsolete forms ever have been.  Mainstream folks know that the right comics are $$$$.  And unlike most brands that still depend on quality, an old key is akin to a letter written by Napoleon.  History.

[exitmusicblue]

Also posted on the History angle in the capital: 

 

[Squeezy McSphincter]

I haven't read the article that headlined this discussion, but I'll throw a couple of points out there.

I bought Super Hero Squad cardboard books for my kids, and they could name them all before they were two.  They don't care about superheroes now (6 and 8), and it doesn't seem like their friends do either.  They'd watch the movies, but they don't care and don't ask for them.  They don't care about Star Wars.  Maybe they'll change--who knows.

They never cared about Mickey Mouse, but we didn't have the Disney channel so that may be the difference.  They want to go to Disney World, but not for the characters.  They prefer to watch people playing kids video games on YouTube and forgettable shows on Netflix.  We went cable free a few years ago.  The first time they saw commercials at a friend's house, they cried because they couldn't understand why their show was interrupted.

I tried introducing them to the Charlie Brown specials we grew up with.  They didn't sit long for those.  I don't know who is going to be buying Peanuts strips in 20 years at these price levels.

I'm friends with a couple:  the woman is about age 33, the guy about 28.  A year ago they said they'd never own a house because they wanted experiences.  The woman is pregnant now.  They're planning on moving away from Vancouver and buying a house somewhere cheaper.  It's easy to not worry about financial security when you don't have responsibility, but having a kid changes things.

[Bronty]

Last paragraph is on point!

A mother wants a nest.   Period.  Not a frickin airbnb

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Last paragraph is on point!

A mother wants a nest.   Period.  Not a frickin airbnb

The choice is not between home ownership and AirBnb, it's between home ownership and renting, the latter of which this couple could only afford to do in an expensive market like Vancouver.  Many families "make their nest" by renting, especially if they don't have the option like this couple to move to a cheaper location to buy; there is no inevitability of home ownership just because a couple decides to start a family.  In the bigger picture, though, it's not solely about preferring experiences to things, it's that experiences are quite often less expensive (and take up less space!), which matters to the younger generations that, in the U.S. at least, are often saddled with horrific amounts of student loan debt and bleak economic prospects.

Of course, I'm generalizing and speaking in the aggregate. But, it's not difficult to see, in the aggregate, that these younger generations will not be able to clear inflated collectible markets at ever-increasing prices given how much price appreciation has outstripped earnings prospects (again, even Gen X and the Baby Boomers, as a group, couldn't afford to repurchase their collections if they were starting from scratch given where prices are).  Less buying power + more scattered interests = near-mathematical certainty that not just our hobby, but, other inflated collectibles markets tied largely to previous generations, will enter secular stagnation/decline if you look out far enough

It's probably not going to happen over the next 1, 2 or 5 years, maybe not even 10, but, if you go out far enough to completely age out the Gen Xers (say, another 30 years), I don't see how this dynamic can not play out.  I think people are looking at the wrong things - just because there's a Disney Channel and kids want to go to Disney World doesn't mean that everything Disney is going to keep rising in price just because it's staying in the public eye.  Those of us who make it to 30-40 years down the line will look back and see that it was sadly obvious that the Great Comic and OA Boom largely just mirrored the boom in other art, collectibles and even financial assets due to a multi-decade secular bull market in demographics and cheap credit which inflated almost all asset values, along with the steroidal injections of globalization through e-commerce, standardized grading for comics, and advancements in technology which brought all the content to filmed entertainment in a big way.  After the pre-1996 (marking the end of the speculator era, the Marvel bankruptcy, and the point where the younger generations' interest is split into a near-infinite number of directions due to the revolution in technology, media and communications) generations age out, I think our hobby is going to look like a very different place from what we have been used to.  

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

The choice is not between home ownership and AirBnb, it's between home ownership and renting, the latter of which this couple could only afford to do in an expensive market like Vancouver.  Many families "make their nest" by renting, especially if they don't have the option like this couple to move to a cheaper location to buy; there is no inevitability of home ownership just because a couple decides to start a family.  In the bigger picture, though, it's not solely about preferring experiences to things, it's that experiences are quite often less expensive

Here's "an experience."   Having three kids and a life in a neighborhood and getting booted the eff out and having nowhere to go when your landlord decides to sell.    People rent because they have to; not because they want to.    Given the choice between renting in vancouver (or similar) and owning in the burbs many will choose the burbs.   Relatively few IMO will  truly choose to rent in perpetuity.  Perhaps they will have that choice thrust on them by circumstances, but then its not much of a choice is it?

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

People rent because they have to; not because they want to.    

By that logic, high end rentals would not exist, since presumably all of those renters are capable of buying.  

People rent for many different reasons, and millions of families "make their nest" in rental properties.  

[Bronty]

11 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

By that logic, high end rentals would not exist, since presumably all of those renters are capable of buying.  

People rent for many different reasons, and millions of families "make their nest" in rental properties.  

Yet the majority own.

Of course there are exceptions.   But Joe and Jane Average with 2-3 kids want a house with a yard if they can afford it.

THey want space for their kids.  Heck they might even buy the apartment next door if they live in one and tear the walls down!  Sound like anyone you know? 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

10 minutes ago, Bronty said:

And billions have actual, you know, homes.

So people who rent don't have homes?   65% of under-35 households and 41% of age 35-44 households rent in the U.S. (that's an enormous amount of young families making their nest in rental properties).  

In any case, what matters for our purposes is what is happening at the margin, and the share of people renting has climbed in recent years to near-record levels, in keeping with what we should be expecting looking at how the underlying long-term fundamentals are evolving - the younger generations are turning more to renting having had more of their numbers priced out of buying.  And, guess what:  they're priced out of OA vs. their older peers as well (and it's not just because of their age, it's because prices have outstripped earnings by hundreds/thousands of percentage points over the past 20 years). 

Edited July 5, 2019 by delekkerste

[vodou]

27 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

(again, even Gen X and the Baby Boomers, as a group, couldn't afford to repurchase their collections if they were starting from scratch given where prices are).

I absolutely could not. Quick math, I could -maybe- do 10% replacement (value, not piece count) at current prices, over say, the next ten years time. Being approximately middle-aged (actually MA+), it took me thirty years to get here (most of the action was compressed into a fifteen year period though) and it would take another fifty to seventy years -assuming frozen present values and income- to do it again. That's due more to being early than it all being "obvious". Not so different than single-family housing in the early 90s v the early oughts.

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

So people who rent don't have homes?   65% of under-35 households and 41% of age 35-44 households rent in the U.S. (that's an enormous amount of young families making their nest in rental properties).  

In any case, what matters for our purposes is what is happening at the margin, and the share of people renting has climbed in recent years to near-record levels, in keeping with what we should be expecting looking at how the underlying long-term fundamentals are evolving. 

I just think we are talking past each other a little here.   I don't really care that much what the statistics are.   I'm saying most mothers, if they can swing it, prefer to own the place they raise their children in.  

Whether or not people can swing it is (what you're answering) is different than what I'm saying (that regardless, ownership is what people are going to prefer at child rearing stage of life, polls and lies 20 year olds tell themselves notwithstanding).

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[vodou]

18 minutes ago, Bronty said:

People rent because they have to; not because they want to. 

Maybe lifetime renters cite the appeal of mobility never being more than 30 days out. For some that's likely a justification masking embarassment over lack of finances, but it's also reflective of a scattered job/opportunity market now too. Owning RE can be a heavy burden if things don't work out and you can't get out (easily, at fmv), think: Detroit, (soon) Chicago, (soon) Dallas, (any day now) LA.