Marvel.1 or Marvel.What?

[JohnMayo]

In my opinion, the Marvel.1 program is complete nonsense. Every issue should be a viable jumping on point and needing to do a #x.1 issue as a specific jumping on point seems to be a potentially damaging practice since it seems to explicitly point out that most issues are terrible jumping on points.

This concept as applied to Uncanny X-Force is particularly insane since they are also reprinting #1-3 (which cost $3.99 each) in a $4.99 comic listed in the same Marvel Previews as the #5.1 issue. Why get Uncanny X-Force #5.1 when you can get a reprint of the first three issues and then grab the next two off the rack and start pre-ordering with #6? It make no sense at all.

Bob and I discuss this is topic a few times during the Previews Spotlight episode the will go up on Wednesday. I am curious what you all think about the Marvel.1 program.

[comicm]

I absolutely hate it. It means for completists, they have to purchase 2 issues during the month. I also think you can jump on at any new story arc. Uncanny X-force just started and there is no reason for it.

[spid]

I have no problem with the .1 program. A clear visual way to tell a new reader this is a good place to jump onto a title is a good thing in my opinion. People are still complaining that it is hard to find a good place to jump on so clearly something like this should be tried.

[BobBretall]

I have no problem with the .1 program. A clear visual way to tell a new reader this is a good place to jump onto a title is a good thing in my opinion. People are still complaining that it is hard to find a good place to jump on so clearly something like this should be tried.

The challenge I have is that the .1 issues don;t actually seem to be jumping on points for the series.

For instance:

Thor 620.1 is by Abnett & Lanning & tells a story about Grey Gargoyle. Thor 621 (the next "logical issue" I should be jumping onto) is the finale of a story arc by Matt Fraction. I don't see how a one-shot by a different author is supposed to jump me onto the last issue of a 6-issue arc

I'm also curious as to why you need a "jumping on" issue for a series that has only been going for 6 issue so far (Uncanny X-Force)

[spid]

The books have not come out yet so it seems a bit early to say the system is flawed. It is just one more tool in the bag to make it easier for new readers to jump on. I say give a while before saying the idea is a bad one.

[BobBretall]

The books have not come out yet so it seems a bit early to say the system is flawed. It is just one more tool in the bag to make it easier for new readers to jump on. I say give a while before saying the idea is a bad one.

Fair enough. All I can say right now with a certainty is the soliciting for them seems flawed. I cannot speak to actual content.

Even sales #s will not speak to the success or failure, though, since the sales #s are based on what stores order based on the solicits and their perception of the program, not on the reality of what customers actually buy.

Here's a thought, Marvel should make the .1 issue fully returnable to encourage stores to order them and make them available as a jump on to new readers without risk.

[JohnMayo]

The books have not come out yet so it seems a bit early to say the system is flawed. It is just one more tool in the bag to make it easier for new readers to jump on. I say give a while before saying the idea is a bad one.

I disagree.

By putting this program in place, Marvel is clearly admitting that most issues are not good jumping on points. That re-enforced that idea within the reader and retailer community which furthers the tendency for the first issue to be the high water mark for the sales of a title. The .1 program encourages sales drops on every non .1 issue out there.

Now, it is too early to judge if these .1 issues will be good jumping on issues or not. We need to wait for them to come out before making that determination.

The problem here is that readers can't jump on to a title with just an issue. The solution should be to make each issue more accessible, not to make further distinctions between the increasingly fewer jumping on points and all of the other issues.

[comicm]

Marvel already has that first page that tells us what happened previously. That is enough, I think

[spid]

The books have not come out yet so it seems a bit early to say the system is flawed. It is just one more tool in the bag to make it easier for new readers to jump on. I say give a while before saying the idea is a bad one.

I disagree.

By putting this program in place, Marvel is clearly admitting that most issues are not good jumping on points. That re-enforced that idea within the reader and retailer community which furthers the tendency for the first issue to be the high water mark for the sales of a title. The .1 program encourages sales drops on every non .1 issue out there.

Now, it is too early to judge if these .1 issues will be good jumping on issues or not. We need to wait for them to come out before making that determination.

The problem here is that readers can't jump on to a title with just an issue. The solution should be to make each issue more accessible, not to make further distinctions between the increasingly fewer jumping on points and all of the other issues.

Not every issue can be an easily accessible jump on point. One of my favorite shows was Lost. If you jumped into the middle of any season it would be hard to figure out what was going on. So they started doing these catch up episodes i.e. .1 episodes that were designed for new viewers. Does CSI or Law & Order do these kinds of episodes? No, there is no need because those show do not have much depth.

I could understand your point if your saying the industry needs more CSI or Law & Order titles, but not every book should be forced to follow that model.

[ctowner1]

I could understand your point if your saying the industry needs more CSI or Law & Order titles, but not every book should be forced to follow that model.

yah...but these .1's aren't basically extended "Previously On...."s, like the Lost ones were. They're basically, "good spot to start." I don't have a problem with the idea per se, although, as Bob pointed out, it's pretty weird to put one out when you're in the middle of a multi-part story. Why not wait until the right moment. Also, why bother to call it a ".1" (aside from a cheap sales ploy)? why not just put a "new storyline starts here" tag on the cover? Or something like "Three, part 1"? I just hate having to buy an extra issue to keep my collection intact.

e
L nnny

[JohnMayo]

Not every issue can be an easily accessible jump on point. One of my favorite shows was Lost. If you jumped into the middle of any season it would be hard to figure out what was going on. So they started doing these catch up episodes i.e. .1 episodes that were designed for new viewers. Does CSI or Law & Order do these kinds of episodes? No, there is no need because those show do not have much depth.

I could understand your point if your saying the industry needs more CSI or Law & Order titles, but not every book should be forced to follow that model.

Every issue can be a jumping on point. Most of the episodes of Lost were jumping on points. Did they get new viewers up to speed on all of the characters and plot lines? Of course not. But each one delivered a solid amount of story with some plot line having a clear beginning, middle and end (which is not to say a finality to it) and did a good job of introducing the new viewer to at least one regular character if not a handful of them. With each subsequent episode watched, more is learned.

When they went back to the Hatch in later seasons, they often explained what it was which both reminded long time viewers about it and gave new viewers the essential information. As Lenny pointed out, the "jump on episodes" were basically extended "previous on" memory jogs and tended to be aired after a long break either in the middle of or between seasons.

I'm not suggesting that every comic be done-in-one stories or recap everything that happened before it. I'm suggesting that central characters be named in every issue. That there is enough plot and information in each installment to make sense of that installment.

You know, like comic book stories used to be told.

[spid]

I could understand your point if your saying the industry needs more CSI or Law & Order titles, but not every book should be forced to follow that model.

yah...but these .1's aren't basically extended "Previously On...."s, like the Lost ones were. They're basically, "good spot to start." I don't have a problem with the idea per se, although, as Bob pointed out, it's pretty weird to put one out when you're in the middle of a multi-part story. Why not wait until the right moment. Also, why bother to call it a ".1" (aside from a cheap sales ploy)? why not just put a "new storyline starts here" tag on the cover? Or something like "Three, part 1"? I just hate having to buy an extra issue to keep my collection intact.

e
L nnny

Since the comics have not come out yet, it is really hard to judge what exactly they will contain in terms of content. They could take the Lost "Previously On..." approach.

[JohnMayo]

I could understand your point if your saying the industry needs more CSI or Law & Order titles, but not every book should be forced to follow that model.

yah...but these .1's aren't basically extended "Previously On...."s, like the Lost ones were. They're basically, "good spot to start." I don't have a problem with the idea per se, although, as Bob pointed out, it's pretty weird to put one out when you're in the middle of a multi-part story. Why not wait until the right moment. Also, why bother to call it a ".1" (aside from a cheap sales ploy)? why not just put a "new storyline starts here" tag on the cover? Or something like "Three, part 1"? I just hate having to buy an extra issue to keep my collection intact.

e
L nnny

Since the comics have not come out yet, it is really hard to judge what exactly they will contain in terms of content. They could take the Lost "Previously On..." approach.

You are correct. Until these come out, we are only guessing at the content of them and that would/is very unfair of us to do.

[ctowner1]

I'm not suggesting that every comic be done-in-one stories or recap everything that happened before it. I'm suggesting that central characters be named in every issue. That there is enough plot and information in each installment to make sense of that installment.

You know, like comic book stories used to be told.

I'm actually not big on the old school Marvel approach of forcing the dialogue into exposition to bring readers up to speed. I much prefer the new approach of a "previously on..." page that's not part of the story. The one exception I'm a little on the fence with is Marvel's new approach, at least on the X-books, of little character identification blurbs - but you can see why you'd need that on the X0books, with their gajillion different characters.

e
L nny

[BobBretall]

I much prefer the new approach of a "previously on..." page that's not part of the story.

I like these pages too. They help remind me where the story left off last time and I can jump into the new issue better when it's been a while since I read the last issue.