The Pure Hate in this Article is Astounding 1 1

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, nickdemeato said:

Cheers, but just because you work within a budget does not mean you are in danger of being evicted.

He walks into a store and he sees Hells Arisen #3 cover price. He knows he can sell it for $x. He does so and comes back next week and gets a trade or that titty statue he had his eye on. Has that been a bad thing or a good thing for the comic shop? I understand he may not spend it there at all but the idea that everyone who would do that is some mass drain sucking the very life out of the industry. That guys putting back in.

Also they may only be 9, trying to fund their hobby that their parents think is just dumb comics,so they are happy to get rid of them on ebay... No titty statue for them tho

I probably shouldnt have said for the pull list that gave the wrong idea. Supplement.. buy more comics? Some people just want to buy more comics. I hear they are very good.

This is bad argumentation, because you're ignoring the loss of the reader on the other side AND assuming the "profit" will be put back into the store, at least on some level. That has proven not to be true, over and over and over again, since the mid 90s. The loss of the readers has far, far outstripped the short term gain of the flippers.

Children cannot enter into contracts.

[Deadpoolica]

[nickdemeato]

54 minutes ago, BL4Z3 said:

Now you're moving the goalposts. You were talking about first prints that the LCS didn't have enough of in the first place.

Moving the goalposts again. What does this have to do with people who don't order from Previews in the first place?

But to answer, let me review the past 25 years...

Nope.

I have intentionally not ordered a comic because I didn't want to commit/stick my LCS with extra copies, and then purchased that  one off the rack. If they sold out of a book like that, guess whose fault that is: mine. Too bad so sad for me, suck it up buttercup.

No, I say he can only deal with what he has in the shop. That deals with your point about pulling them from his butt. You see he cant do that, he doesnt have any in his butt, he only has the ones delivered to his shop. So he has to make sure he keeps those for his regular, loyal customers and not sell them to some rando hes never seen before. Then I start a new sentence, on a new topic, to offer the information that all is not lost for the shop keep as he can still take orders for later printings. Making him money.

Moving the goalposts again. What does this have to do with people who don't order from Previews in the first place?

Twice no. You ask why dont people open a pull list in advance, why not order from previews. I offered my answer in the form of a question. Tricky I know. The idea, you see, is to get you to consider the idea, if only for a fleeting moment. That if you could forget something, then you could consider that not everyone knows every single comic which is getting released every month. That someone, even one with the coveted pull list, would be so remiss and utter the words "ah, what? I didnt know that was out this month." Shocking I know but this tale has root in fact. Fact I tell you. Basically Im saying, with all the stuff released, even if they did advance order they could have missed it. Forgot about it.

I have intentionally not ordered a comic because I didn't want to commit/stick my LCS with extra copies, and then purchased that  one off the rack. If they sold out of a book like that, guess whose fault that is: mine. Too bad so sad for me, suck it up buttercup.

Is this real or is this sarcasm, Im not sure I can tell anymore. So you wanted a book couldnt get it and you think thats fine. You know, if thats not sarcasm, that you agree with me. That if something goes on sale and you miss it thats too bad. Please dont be sarcasm.

 

[thunsicker]

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by THE_BEYONDER

[Deadpoolica]

[nickdemeato]

19 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You did. Children are not capable of flipping comics, because they are children, and aren't allowed to sell.

 

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yeah, children cannot legally enter into contracts, so I'm not sure why you think the kid who reads Spiderman is going to flip a copy of Hell Arisen #3 to fund his future purchases.

Children have parents and or guardians who can act on their behalf. So the contract would be between the parent and the buyer. Im a little in disbelief I had to write that. Is it really so far beyond your imagination that this could be happening? Im not talking about a large % im not even saying its a lot. For you to dismiss it like its just not possible. Did you really never sell something when where youger to buy something else? I think I even said before that the parents would sell it on ebay. 

 

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And that's why you don't understand why retailers have a problem with people buying who have no intention...and history has borne this out...of becoming regular customers.

I understand that they want to get the repeat business. So do all business.

 

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure they can. Why? Because that someone will not be around next month to put money in their till. And, the reader who missed out on that copy gives up.

So, instead of having two sales of two issues, you have a single sale of a single issue. Yay for shortsightedness.

Wash, rinse, repeat, and there goes an entire industry.

Well of course they can, they can even do sweary articles about it telling people not to come to the store. Is it a good idea tho.

While some potential is better than no potential all you have at that moment either way is one comic sale. Nothing more. If someone is reaching you cash for something your selling take it. You have no way of knowing. So take things in your own hands and manage your stock for the benefit of your regulars. Complaining about speccers helps no one.

 

48 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You tell 'em. Those dummies want to read the story in the format they like can go jump off a cliff. You'll read it in digital or not at all!!

You need to decide how much they want to read it. Is it really important to them and they need to read it. Well its there, if you want to read it, all you have to do is read it. How important is the story? If its not that important you couldnt stand reading it digital then wait for a reprint. These can not be controversial opinions.

 

54 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

but this is the comic book industry delays in getting what you want should be expected at this point.

56 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Wha....?

Oh sometimes comic books get delayed. They are supposed to come out one month but it doesnt come out until the next month. You know, not getting it when you thought you where. Cause it was delayed. It happens. People should be used to not getting things the month they expect. Like waiting for a reprint. A little joke. No I guess was the problem.

 

[Lazyboy]

4 hours ago, nickdemeato said:

While some potential is better than no potential all you have at that moment either way is one comic sale. Nothing more. If someone is reaching you cash for something your selling take it. You have no way of knowing. So take things in your own hands and manage your stock for the benefit of your regulars. Complaining about speccers helps no one.

Why do you never acknowledge the fact that if a comic is as hot as the one(s) in question that it's a seller's market? There's no reason for a store to sell a hot new book to somebody that they know is ultimately hurting them for their own benefit. Smart stores consider more than just short-term gain.

If the comic isn't new or hot, that's a different story, but in that case they aren't getting any money from those who expect to go shopping and find a $20 bill on the shelf marked at $5.

[theCapraAegagrus]

14 hours ago, Deadpoolica said:

Pick a side, dingus!

[1Cool]

Is it just me or did books selling out and becoming $20 books overnight part of the reason you started collecting comics way back when?  I loved reading (and rereading) the books and loved to complete sets but part of the thrill was knowing my books could jump in value.  The search for that sold out issue of Green Arrow Long Bow Hunter was what really got the collecting juice going. The argument that readers should get first shot at books is kind of moot since any reader of comics can preorder books and have them waiting for them to read.  Readers of comics do not see the headlines of a hot new book and run out to the shops and buy a copy to read.  They want the complete set and they would have bought issues 1 - 3 via preorder.

Can readers hear about a hot book they skipped over and want to pick up a copy to see what the hype is about - sure.  A ton of readers are collectors so I'm sure they are pissed they can't get the books they want but that has been the market forever since Independent Black and White books sold out in minutes way back in the 80s.  Is anyone actually reading these recent hot Batman books - are they good?

[D84]

21 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

Is it just me or did books selling out and becoming $20 books overnight part of the reason you started collecting comics way back when?

Nope, not me.

[FlyingDonut]

2 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Is it just me or did books selling out and becoming $20 books overnight part of the reason you started collecting comics way back when?  I loved reading (and rereading) the books and loved to complete sets but part of the thrill was knowing my books could jump in value.  The search for that sold out issue of Green Arrow Long Bow Hunter was what really got the collecting juice going. The argument that readers should get first shot at books is kind of moot since any reader of comics can preorder books and have them waiting for them to read.  Readers of comics do not see the headlines of a hot new book and run out to the shops and buy a copy to read.  They want the complete set and they would have bought issues 1 - 3 via preorder.

Can readers hear about a hot book they skipped over and want to pick up a copy to see what the hype is about - sure.  A ton of readers are collectors so I'm sure they are pissed they can't get the books they want but that has been the market forever since Independent Black and White books sold out in minutes way back in the 80s.  Is anyone actually reading these recent hot Batman books - are they good?

No. Not "collecting" comics. I started "collecting" comics because I loved 1975 Marvels and couldn't get enough of them.

I started "selling" comics because I found out that I was (1) good at it (2) was able to buy low and sell high and (3) it allowed me to buy more comics (and eventually beer). 

I think they're two different things.

[1Cool]

16 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

No. Not "collecting" comics. I started "collecting" comics because I loved 1975 Marvels and couldn't get enough of them.

I started "selling" comics because I found out that I was (1) good at it (2) was able to buy low and sell high and (3) it allowed me to buy more comics (and eventually beer). 

I think they're two different things.

I never sold a book until college but i still loved reading Overstreet market reports and knowing my collection had gone up in value (at least on paper).  Would I have stopped collecting if the books had become worthless?  Not sure but it would have put a crimp on my spending since part of the thrill was maintaining a collection that had value.

[Turtle]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 11:56 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

He's 10,000% correct. Hate? I don't see any hate. I see a retailer who has been in the business 35 years pleading with people to stop destroying the artform.

Speculation on brand new books has resulted in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of readers left. The artform is being destroyed by jags who run into a store to scoop up all available issues to sell to other idiots online.

It wasn't so bad when there are available copies for readers to buy. But it's been virtually impossible for over 20 years now, because of the tight ordering required to stay afloat.

If you're buying something brand new to flip online, denying a reader the chance to obtain it, you're contributing to the problem. Not sorry if that offends people. People in the 90s lost everything...sometimes due to their own mistakes and stupidity, sometimes not...because the buying public treated all new comics like potential goldmines, like the latest hot piece of kitsch from the Franklin Mint. It hasn't changed. 

You want to speculate on new books? Put your damn order in with Diamond. The FOC is now a mere three weeks before publication. Stop ruining the ability of retailers to get comics to readers. It's hard enough as it is.

Respectfully,

I'll start by saying that I don't have a strong opinion on this subject just yet, but I do have a strong opinion on another subject where I see a lot of parallels.  That subject is creators charging more for signatures/sketches at conventions when the book is going to be graded vs. a book that will remain raw.  I think it's a silly practice rooted in misinformation and I believe you think the same thing.  I certainly agree with your assessment that (paraphrasing) "it's not the creator's business what I intend to do with my property once they sign it."  I don't want to misrepresent your thoughts, so please correct/clarify as necessary. 

In any case, I agree with the sentiment.  The creator is going to sign my book.  I may have it graded.  I may keep it raw.  I may throw it in a swimming pool to see if it floats.  I may line a bird cage with it.  In any case, the work is the same for the creator.  Why should the price vary depending on my intentions?  Why should my interaction with the creator vary depending on my intentions?  I believe it shouldn't and I think you do too.

I see some parallels between this subject and the one in this thread, only you've taken the other side this time.  In this thread, it very much matters what the buyer is intending to do with his property.  If he's going to buy the book and keep it because he's a Batman fan, he's welcome in the store.  If he's going to buy it to flip it on ebay, he's not welcome.  In either case, the retailer is selling the book for the same price just like in either case in the earlier scenario, the creator is making the same money per signature regardless of the intention.  In both cases, the retailer and the creator cite the fact that the buyer's actions impact their business.  Why is one correct while the other isn't?

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on this whole Batman issue because I don't frequent comic stores, mostly because I've never felt I've had a great one that was local.  However, this topic got me thinking and I wanted to get your input on how you resolve these two opposing viewpoints on what appears to be two very similar scenarios. 

[SkintDoctor]

19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you're going to move the goalposts, how can anyone be expected to answer?

So those children are going to buy a copy of Hell Arisen #3, flip it on eBay, so they can afford to buy another comic...? So the person reading for fun is going to do the same? 

You're constructing straw men and knocking them down. That's not how it works.

And you're fine with denying someone who actually DOES want to read Hell Arisen #3, so someone else can make money off of it...? 

Sure, which is why you don't understand the special rigors that comics retailers go to just to stay afloat. There's a whole separate discussion about whether they should, but that's for another thread. You should go to a Diamond Retailer Summit...it's pretty eye opening.

So that poor reader is denied access to the book, just so someone else can profit...? And if they don't want to read digital, because they prefer holding a copy in their hands...? Too bad, so sad.

I'm labeling this ahead of time, so there's no misunderstanding: this is a paraphrase "too bad, reader, you have to wait for a reprint, cuz there's CASH to be made, sucka!!"

And you don't understand how and why that frustrates readers and drives them away...?

I should not have had to...on the day of release!...try to scramble to get a copy of Walking Dead #193 because Robert Kirkman wanted to play games, and be told "it's selling for $30 online!" as if I cared. I will NEVER buy another Kirkman book new because of it. I supported him by buying my copy, month in and month out, for several years. And because speculeeches just HAD to make that extra $20, I couldn't buy a SINGLE COPY. On the DAY OF RELEASE. ANYWHERE.

Wash, rinse, repeat, over and over and over, and you destroy an entire industry.

 

Couldn't have been said better

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 hour ago, Turtle said:

Respectfully,

I'll start by saying that I don't have a strong opinion on this subject just yet, but I do have a strong opinion on another subject where I see a lot of parallels.  That subject is creators charging more for signatures/sketches at conventions when the book is going to be graded vs. a book that will remain raw.  I think it's a silly practice rooted in misinformation and I believe you think the same thing.  I certainly agree with your assessment that (paraphrasing) "it's not the creator's business what I intend to do with my property once they sign it."  I don't want to misrepresent your thoughts, so please correct/clarify as necessary. 

In any case, I agree with the sentiment.  The creator is going to sign my book.  I may have it graded.  I may keep it raw.  I may throw it in a swimming pool to see if it floats.  I may line a bird cage with it.  In any case, the work is the same for the creator.  Why should the price vary depending on my intentions?  Why should my interaction with the creator vary depending on my intentions?  I believe it shouldn't and I think you do too.

I see some parallels between this subject and the one in this thread, only you've taken the other side this time.  In this thread, it very much matters what the buyer is intending to do with his property.  If he's going to buy the book and keep it because he's a Batman fan, he's welcome in the store.  If he's going to buy it to flip it on ebay, he's not welcome.  In either case, the retailer is selling the book for the same price just like in either case in the earlier scenario, the creator is making the same money per signature regardless of the intention.  In both cases, the retailer and the creator cite the fact that the buyer's actions impact their business.  Why is one correct while the other isn't?

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on this whole Batman issue because I don't frequent comic stores, mostly because I've never felt I've had a great one that was local.  However, this topic got me thinking and I wanted to get your input on how you resolve these two opposing viewpoints on what appears to be two very similar scenarios. 

The issue is not parallel. Why? Because what I do with something I already own is different from what I may potentially do with something that does not (yet) belong to me. Not to ME...but to the retailer who sells to me. Allow me to explain: the issue ultimately isn't what the buyer intends to do with the item he's bought. You're not going to see me argue that people can't do whatever they want with their property.

Let me repeat that, so that everyone is completely clear about where I stand: you're not going to see me argue that people can't do whatever they want with their property.

Even when there are circumstances...like the Valiantfans projects...where I openly argued, angering many people, that they shouldn't be participating just to flip...I still argued that people could flip them...but that they shouldn't. There's a difference. And that's the difference you see in my original post in this thread. 

But these new books aren't their property...yet. And that's the pivot point in this discussion. The retailer has to decide what he wants to do: cultivate clientele, or sell to anyone indiscriminately. As has been shown since the 90s, the person who buys the hot issue just to flip...the "speculeech"...does not come back. The people who ran to the stores to buy Superman #75? 99% of them didn't come back to buy #76. They had no interest. But I bet you anything there were casual readers of Superman who suddenly couldn't get a copy of the latest issue, and get really annoyed. I know. I was one of them. And I worked for a distributor at the time, and that a-hole wouldn't let me buy even ONE copy! 

A lot of retailers angered a lot of readers in the days and weeks that followed Superman #75...and while that's the most extreme example, it's not alone, by any means. In the 80s, immediate sellouts were very rare. ASM #252, Thor #337, Batman #428...but in the 90s, there was a "hot new book" that sold out every other week: Ghost Rider #5, Solar #10, X-Factor #63 (yup!), ASM #361, Batman #457, Batman #492, Gen 13 #1, Lady Death #1...and as print runs plummeted because of the crash (because of "speculation"!), sellouts became necessarily more common, because retailers couldn't order more than they could sell...so any hint of a book being hot was scooped up...a la Batman #89 (it just happened with Batman #77 last year!)

So. You can sell to your reader and not frustrate them...or you can sell to a speculeech who's just going to flip it, and lose both for the next issue (and every issue after...unless it's "hot.") The issue isn't what the new owner of the book intends to do with it (and that seems to be the misunderstanding)...once it's bought, they can do whatever they want with it....it's the retailer deciding BEFORE it's sold who they want to sell it to and why. 

And, of course, a healthy dose of "just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD." It's a piece of cake to actually speculate in new comics. Ordering ends a mere three weeks before printing/shipping. There's no reason for people who want to to not take the risk and order through someone with a Diamond account extra copies of whatever, because that doesn't result in any copies being taken from others.

Edited March 3, 2020 by RockMyAmadeus

[Ryan.]

How does the retailer determine if someone is a reader or a flipper? 

[FlyingDonut]

14 minutes ago, Ryan. said:

How does the retailer determine if someone is a reader or a flipper? 

Someone you've never seen before buying multiple copies of the same book at the store opening while looking at Key Collector on their phone.

Edited March 3, 2020 by FlyingDonut

[RockMyAmadeus]

46 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I see some parallels between this subject and the one in this thread, only you've taken the other side this time.  In this thread, it very much matters what the buyer is intending to do with his property.  If he's going to buy the book and keep it because he's a Batman fan, he's welcome in the store.  If he's going to buy it to flip it on ebay, he's not welcome.  In either case, the retailer is selling the book for the same price just like in either case in the earlier scenario, the creator is making the same money per signature regardless of the intention.  In both cases, the retailer and the creator cite the fact that the buyer's actions impact their business.  Why is one correct while the other isn't?

To add to the above, I understand your point:

Creator: "what you intend to do with that after I sign it matters to me, and affects my willingness to sign it for you."

Retailer: "what you intend to do with that after I sell it to you matters to me, and affects my willingness to sell it to you."

And on the surface, sure, that may seem to be parallel...but they're not...at least, not really.

The item being signed already belongs to the person seeking the signature. They're buying something that isn't (technically) tangible, to add to the item they already own. And signatures are, because of their essentially intangible nature, theoretically infinite. Creators don't "sell out" of their signatures (until they can or will no longer sign.) There's little danger...aside from fatigue, which is curable...of someone seeking a signature to not get it because there aren't any "more" to be had. 

The new book being purchased, however, belongs to the retailer until it's sold. It's a tangible item. And it's certainly finite. And there are many, many, many examples of people going to the store to buy one and being unable to because someone else came and cleaned them out.

And due to the serial nature of the item...a periodical...there's a good reason to want to cultivate people to be repeat buyers, whereas signatures are not periodical, and there's no natural incentive for anyone to want to come back to get "the next signature."

So while yes, it doesn't matter what someone does with something after they own it, there's a difference in...call it "business development"...that exists for the retailer that doesn't exist for the creator signing.

 

[Ryan.]

13 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Someone you've never seen before buying multiple copies of the same book at the store opening while looking at Key Collector on their phone.

But what about the really clever flippers that simply wander in wearing a Batman t-shirt, phone still in pocket, buy a single copy, and wander out all innocent like? How do we suss them out and put a stop to their secret greed?