How to use this Page

Thanks for this great interview

I just want to say that I like your posting. In fact I am using your site regularly. Your articles are very effective and i am very thankful to you for sharing this site with knowledgeable content .

Everyone do yourself a favor and please pick up Vision, there’s two issues out so far (third issue hits on 1/6) and it’s really something different, but not odd for odd’s sake, just a unique narrative voice with great art too.

‘The next step will be anniversary relaunch issues: “look, it’s the 10th relaunch of this series, let’s celebrate it!”’

This is a hilarious and oddly foreseeable eventuality, and, given the sales on the current volume of Captain America (the ninth, by your count), one Marvel could have the opportunity to inaugurate in only a matter of months.

While I think the general idea of evaluating the benefit of the relaunches is sound, I do think that expectations for upticks on books from this particular relaunch might not need to be high. Marvel didn’t relaunch individual books based on the need to gain sales for that book. They relaunched everything, pretty much just on the basis of “we’re only going to do Secret Wars for a couple of months”. So while they may have taken the opportunity to rearrange some creatives, the only reason a lot of them relaunched was just because everybody was doing it. Peer pressure, as it were. What this DOES tell us is how relaunches (regardless of reason) are not as effective as they used to be.

Tom King’s work, including Vision and Omega Men, seems to be developing a habit of garnering critical praise but netting minimal sales. I think a part of this is the character driven marketing the big two are pushing. Few people are going to pick up a book that focuses on a C/D list character if you market it on the strength of said character.

If the big two marketed these no-name books as TOM KING stories, and pushed the hell out of him rather than their small potato properties, it’s possible that they’d see sales rise.

Wasn’t The Vision in that last Avengers movie?

Conventional wisdom probably dictates that The Vision charts higher than Tom King at this point. And Marvel is generally more likely to push their stable of characters over an online favorite.

I lived and participated (slightly) in the 90’s speculator bubble. Looks like it is happening again but this time, I am not buying multiple copies of every #1. Guess I learned a little something in my youth.

Tom King did write the digital smash Injustice Gods Among us based on the video game. true, but he is a best selling author.

@Tim – that logic just doesn’t hold up. Media ties in having varying effects, particularly when there’s media that’s just based on one thing (Watchmen, Walking Dead) vs media that’s based on multiple series (most superhero stuff).

I’m pretty sure it was Tom Taylor that wrote the video game comic. And a quick web search suggests that the best selling author is another person altogether.

On MIRACLEMAN: “Renumbering the title for each reprinting period has done wonders for it.”

We were just discussing this at our store ordering meeting today, as we’re being asked to order #1 & 2 of “MIracleman by Gaiman & Buckingham: The Silver Age”, where the NEW NEIL GAIMAN COMICS will be printed as issue #3 (and forward) of that series.

Interest is pretty low in the reprints (we’re somewhere in the 20 copy range at the main store), but I don’t see how I’m expected to order up on #3? How many people are going to jump on at that point? I actually think more people would grasp it if it was #25, honestly — I mean “#3” will be Neil’s ninth issue of MM, right?

Re-serializing MM was almost certainly a tactical mistake — the early issues just aren’t very good, in the context of 2015, and it created a fair amount of ennui about the character as a whole. In retrospect, they really should have just gone straight to book, monthly on the first four volumes, then did “New” MM as a #1 from the material that was supposed to be in #25 originally, and done a “#0” bumper of #23 & 24 — then they would have had some real excitement. Not now, though.

-B

that is sweet

The podcast appears to be an hour and a half long. Any chance we could read the highlights somewhere?

That is what treadmills are for. Get fit with podcasts!

If you’re going to talk about the current comics market, I think you might want to actually talk to someone who currently sells comics in some capacity instead of making wild speculative guesses about what the individual businesses’ model and reasoning and viability might possibly be?

You guys got it maybe 25% right, but the other three quarters was really kind of massively misinformed in so so so many ways about how the math works for who and how and when :(

From the little I know, you have it entirely wrong about Bergen St.’s profitability and motivation, in an entirely insulting way.

-B

“how do you get people to buy #4?”

Have #1-3 be transcendent wonderful of-the-moment comics.

But, really, for non-name non-exciting product the game is actually to get to the third TP collection (5-800 pages of material) — once you hit 6 inches of spine-out rack space then, maybe, you get enough shelf presence to move work to the next level.

-B

It’s rare to have a transcendent #1-3… but it happens more often than a #4 increase in sales, I’m sure you’ll agree. Which is why the question needs asking, I think.

As for the other stuff… yeah, you’re probably right. But it’s a casual conversation, not an essay. I thought we (or I) embraced it for the rant it was. I’m not looking to be dispositive. You should have stuck your fingers in your ears like I said! For what it’s worth: I owned a store for a long time–and throughtout and for almost 10 years after I left, it was very successful. One of Diamond’s Top 100 accounts by dollars. And that was all comics, as we were direct with most card, games, T-shirts, and statue companies. In the 10 years I’ve worked in publishing, I’m sure a lot has changed. But it doesn’t LOOK like a lot has changed. That being said: I know as much as anyone that you can’t get a real picture from the outside looking in. So YMMV.

There is always always always always always a drop in consumer sales in a series from #1 to #whatever — whether that is comical books or Netflix views — so for a comics series to GROW in sales with issue #4, the *only* way that can happen is that the first three issues were *under*-ordered. Which is exactly why it happens in the rare occasions that it does.

-B

We all know #1 will sell the most copies. But what about when a major publisher forwards a creator an chart that says a 69-74% drop by #4 is considered normal–the “standard” in standard attrition… with more drops each following number? I think there’s a whole lot of room to improve between the impossible 101% and the accepted-as-normal 26%.

You can blame the content–but I think that’s likely unfair in a world where comics content is ubiquitous and in-demand across all media.

And while a significant minority, it is not a rare thing that books–especially early numbers–are under ordered:

1) Anecdotally, I’ve seen many books where #2 and/or #3 are cut too much. Reorders go quick and then those numbers are gone. Not just from Diamond, but off the shelf. And I think a lot of retailers are hesitant to up #4’s significantly above their total sales on #3–that’s a tough mentality to crack because they don’t know if the customers who lost out on #3 will instead opt to wait-for-the-trade.

1a) If Saga-like comics get their numbers bumped at 6, 11, 16, 21 (ie: singles after a trade)–that’s evidence singles were under ordered.

2) With all due respect to all retailers, I think it’s safe to say that some retailers cut orders on #2-4 more based on habit that close scrutiney of actual sales.

3) I’ve done it. I’ve hand-fed multiple, major stores sold out issues from my personal stock. Telling them I’ll take them back if unsold. When I did that with 1s, 2s, & 3s, orders for 4s, 5s, 6s increased. And it’s continued growth as I restock #4s, 5s &c when Diamond is out of those. I see the inititial orders, I see FOC, and I get the calls for restock. It’s hundreds of copies per issue–a little more than 5% of total Rocket Girl sales are by me, after Diamond sells out.

4) #1’s sell the most… with 100% of the marketing budget. It makes sense, but maybe a small but significant part of that is self-fulfilling-prophecy. When did anyone ever push a #4? And you don’t even have to make #4 a discrete marketing project–how about pushing “the series” three months after a launch–never happens, not even if the book is “transcendent.”

Now, maybe paragraphs 1-4 above don’t add up to a revolution. But maybe they do make a favorable dent of a few points in that “standard attrition” (which a cynic would say is code for “not my fault”) of the 75% drop some say you shouldn’t try to stop by #5. I call bullshit and we can do better. And, again, those are just small ideas that came to my head in an unscripted, unplanned podcast chat. Where’s our #4 Manhattan Project (the thinktank, not the Image book)?

Check this article about Netflix: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/09/24/netflix_knows_what_episodes_of_our_favorite_tv_shows_got_us_hooked.html

“Netflix analyzed data for 25 shows, and found the episode within each series after which 70 percent of people continued watching for the rest of its first season.”

So a 1/3 *OR GREATER* drop is *absolutely normal* in serialized fiction in general

If you read that article, ARROW’s transitional episode came at #8, so, at best, .7 of .7 of .7 of .7 of .7 of .7 of .7, which, if I did the math right (I Might not have done so!!!) says that like only 6% of the audience for episode #1 made it to #8?

People like to sample a whole lot of stuff, but those who FOLLOW it, is a substantially lower number. Trying to deny that is, basically, nuts, and I suspect that, overall, comics keep a higher percentage, over all, at #4 of a serialization from another media because we have an actual culture around buying comics on a particular day!

[My personal rule of thumb in ordering is 80% of #1 for #2, and 80% of that for #3, for whatever that is worth — 10, 8, 6 — but here’s the FUNDAMENTAL place that your 10-years-out-of-date ordering experience lets you down — WE HAVE FOC TODAY, and we can make radical changes in orders 3 weeks out from publication]

Now, is it true that some retailers miss maximizing sales on some titles because of the non-returnable nature of comics, and the conserrvatism that engenders?? Oh yes, of course — but I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of full-service retailers are looking to maximize the number of copies they sell of every comic that they carry. Why? Because if they don’t do so THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

The actual math of the DM says that if you don’t order mostly right, most of the time, you go out of business.

The market isn’t supposed to look like you or I or a neutral third party might *want* it to be — it’s supposed to look like it *is*, and the cold fact is that the overwhelming majority of titles are bought at the “right” level, in that there are still plenty of copies on the market to purchase, and that demand for later issues isn’t scaling up for the market as a whole — for every anecdote you can show about providing 5% in restock, I suspect I can find you five stores that have 20% leftover in overstock.

But if you truly and sincerely believe that #2 and #3 are *Systematically* under-ordered, then the solution seems simple (short term) — double or triple ship those #2s and #3s, believing that the market will correct orders at #4 and #5.

In fact, maximizing early orders seems to be the trick to get the market to perform better than its native conservatism would seem to suggest, but when you see a recurring pattern over and over and over again, perhaps, just maybe, orders reflect a pattern that reflects our ordering experience? We DO lost half the audience between #1 and #2…. except when we don’t. But if I had to place a bet on any random title, I’d absolutely place it as a big loss between issues because that’s how most books are for most issues.

There are, OF COURSE, exceptions to that pattern, but they’re generally fairly rare because inefficient markets almost always collapse, and the DM is so very far from collapse at the moment…..

-B

I don’t want to take the bait about having not worked in retail for 10 years and turn this into a quarrel, but: I’ve scriutinized exact Initial vs FOC numbers for every store in the world on a significant number of books over the years from Image, DC, Vertigo; here and there with Marvel books; pay attention when these subjects come up with publishers; and have had scores of conversations with retailers on FOC day about FOC.

And we’re not even saying very different things. What I’m saying is that there is value in addressing your specific above concessions with publisher tools: publicity, information, returnability, other incentive/sales support, etc (and it doesn’t even have to be limited to publisher interaction). I think addressing ‘standard attrition’ post-#1 is something that makes a difference. I’ve still never said it’s going to raise number 4 above #1–but I think there is room for improvement.

And some specific responses: I think, unfortunately, the human component of 10-8-6 (I stress: only for some retailers) sometimes supersedes FOC analysis based actual sales. I think conservatism that hurts the busiess can be ameliorated by the tools in the previous paragraph. I recognize (and this was the point most discussed in the podcast) that OVERordering is probably a contributing factor for most stores that go out-of-business. But that doesn’t mean UNDERordering isn’t also an issue that effects the chain of creator-publisher-distributor-retailer-fan. And for the record: despite the podcast’s provocative title (which I didn’t choose!) the audio goes at great length to say the DM is not only viable, but recognized by publishers as the supreme channel.

The Netflix stuff is very interesting… but still very far from the DM. The huge difference being everything being on-demand at once. There are people today sampling the first episode of Walking Dead or Breaking Bad today because their friends have been talking about it for years. And it’s free (assuming you have the service anyway). So of course the drop off should be higher with free, home-delivered video-on-demand than you find in an informed hobby audience that is investing money-per-book.

In the DM, if you’ve heard good things about a book (and I’m again talking core customers–not civilians) and all there is is #4 on the shelf–there’s very rarely going to be a sampling. At that point, we’re in wait-for-the-trade mode–which does have con’s as well as the pro’s.

And regarding the common wisdom of maximizing a #1 launch, because the higher you start, the longer you can shed readers until you have to cancel (and relaunch)… I think it’s both very true and very dangerous. You can’t deny it, but to live by it without expanding your worldview… it’s the death of 1000 cuts. Forget #1s and #4s… when you have the .1 to 1 to 2 to 3% standard attrition on books that have been around for years, you have a fundemental business problem. That’s how you go from 108,000 copies of 2005 non-#1 Green Lantern to 42,000 copies of 2015 non-#1 Green Lantern. At the end of the day: I’m saying there’s an opportunity in those 64,000 lost copies–but some publishers and retailers instead throw their hands up and say “That’s Life!” I don’t know if I have any of the answers–but I’m not so cynical to believe it’s not worth talking about.

Regarding the Rocket Girl anecdote for #2 & #3. I can be conservative and say I put 500 copies of each into a handful stores (this is AFTER overprints sold out from Diamond). I don’t think the math of your counterargument holds up, because it’s +5% of the entire DM–not +5% of those individula stores. I’d have to dig up the numbers, but stores (and to be fair, it was only is stores were RG sales were already strong) where I supplied extras had increases of ~50-300% over orders shipped + reorders. The restocked copies were not dumped all at once, but over multiple shipments as needed.

And I don’t think you will find a lot of stores with extra copies because RG 2 & 3 were returnable–and returns were so close to zero I don’t even remember them. (And if any retailer has extra 2s & 3s–I need them!). But overships and returnability are only part of the equation–so much more could be done.

Now, does my biased POV on Rocket Girl dispositively evidence a systemic problem? Of course not. But, again, I do think we as a business are missing opportunities to better sustain ongoing series sales (while undervaluing the importance of sustaining ongoing series).

Nobody understands better than me that a market is what it is. But we’re all actors! It is what we’ve made it. The market doesn’t exist outside of us!? We don’t respond to a market… we create it. We’re the manufacturers and distributors and consumers. Our actions have consequences that define the market.