Well it wasn't as bad as all that. Just a little hyperbole on my part. It just had a hint of "we are heading for disaster" feel to it for me. Just a tad. Lil bit.BobBretall wrote:I didn't feel like we were doing "doom & gloom", but if that's what you heard, that's obviously what came across to you.
BobBretall wrote:Yes, overall sales are booming (relatively), but that boom is (I believe) based on the success of what I believe to be unsustainable business practices (like re-booting to #1s all the time).
I guess the only question is 'is that unsustainable'? I personally don't feel the industry will collapse or succeed based on titles resetting to issue #1 time and time again. Will there be some buyers that reject that practice and swear off comics that do that? Sure. I have even seen a couple. But I have also seen a lot more buyers scream in anger and swear off titles for resetting, only to either buy the #1 anyway or come back a few issues in.
Most buyers get the comics they do for either the character, the writer, the art or for curiosity about one of those. I fail to see where coming in at issue #468 or the fifth #1 of a series matters in the grand scheme of things.
While the internet screams in disgust about the practice of another #1 (not pointing a finger at any one site, but all of them collectively), It just doesn't seem that important to the actual buyers.
Oh for sure there are marketing gimmicks that are coming back around (foil covers!! ), but I can't see the industry falling prey to that 90's horror again. But we, the buyers, have the power to quell the opening of the pathway by just not buying into those patterns.BobBretall wrote: We had a huge crash in the 90s. For people who were around back then, it's hard to not see similar patterns.
Absolutely not. But are we seeing a mass exodus of readers dropping books totally because of that practice or are we seeing a shift of what readers buy because of that practice? That is my point. If overall sales are increasing, month to month and year to year, while the individual titles are losing readership, doesn't that just mean that the buyers are shying away from the said shiny object and putting their money elsewhere into other titles?BobBretall wrote:What we are seeing is a shift to "short-attention-span buying". Titles don't seems to be able to hold on for very long at all unless publishers can continually wow readers with some new "shiny object". Is that sustainable?
WALKING DEAD has gone from 31,500 in sales (Jan 2012) to 70,500 (Jan 2013). I think it is fair to say that the comic industry did not bring in an additional 40,000 new people JUST from the WALKING DEAD in that year. Most chances are that a good portion of those increased buyers were already buying comics. And out of those, how many buyers just added that title to their pull and how many dropped another title just to add it to their pull?
That is another aspect of my point that most comic readers buy either a set dollar amount (needing to drop and add titles as their income allows) or a set title amount (dropping and then adding another title to maintain a self imposed limit) and that amount is on the low end of things. 25 titles a month is still a relatively high dollar amount for the average customer to spend. Spending some of that limited money on LUTHER STRODE instead of Amazing, when you can't or won't buy both, will show a decline in Amazing, but Luther will counter the overall loss.
Yeah, my point about the covers was more about what John said in regards to RED SONJA losing sales due to the multiple covers.BobBretall wrote:The observation I made about variant covers is that they appear to be playing out. What was once an assured sales bump is becoming less & less so. The market being pursued now seems to be the high-end "1:50 & 1:100" variants that can go for really large cash to the hard-core collectors who are willing to pay the price.