Marvel Price Hike

[JohnMayo]

When going through the stack I came across Marvel Zombies 3 #2, which I noticed had a cover price of $3.99. Taken aback, I figured, "it must have extra pages." So, I flipped through and low and behold...22 pages. This ticked me off.

I have noticed that Marvel seems to be raising the base price on a lot of their minis that are "normal" comic length (Adam: Legend of the Blue Marvel, Big Hero 6, GR: Danny Ketch, Marvel Zombies, Marvels: Eye of the Camera, Punisher: War Zone, Sub-Mariner: The Depths, X-Men: Kingbreaker, X-Infernus, X-Men: Worlds Apart, X-Men/Spider-Man, X-Men: Magneto Testament, X-Men: Manifest Destiny), as well as their normal-length MAX titles (Punisher, Dead of Night)

Probably doing this to test the waters and pave the way for an across-the-board price hike.

If this is the case...do you think it's a fair comparison?

This wasn't the case with me, but I could see some buyers take the mindset of, "Well, it is $3.99, but it's only a four issue mini series." But when faced with an increase on regular titles, justifying $3.99 an issue becomes a bit more difficult.

Good point. A price hike is a bigger deal for an ongoing series.

I think the increased prices on limited series is more a way of getting readers and retailers used to the higher price. Jumping the ongoing title to the $3.99 price point without any sort of adjustment period would have seriously hurt sales. Now, while it will still hurt we can at least see the pain coming.

[HipHopHead]

With Marvel's success at the box office, why gouge us? Did not Sony and Fox cut Marvel a check for the successful Spider-man and X-Men movie franchises? Does any of the movie profits go into comic publication? Unlike DC, which is under the Warner Brothers umbrella, Marvel Studios is under Marvel Entertainment (?). I guess Marvel's gift to the fans is to give us never ending stories (Civil War, Secret Invasion and now Dark Reign). Nothing is ever truly resolved and we just keep buying.

[JohnMayo]

With Marvel's success at the box office, why gouge us? Did not Sony and Fox cut Marvel a check for the successful Spider-man and X-Men movie franchises? Does any of the movie profits go into comic publication? Unlike DC, which is under the Warner Brothers umbrella, Marvel Studios is under Marvel Entertainment (?). I guess Marvel's gift to the fans is to give us never ending stories (Civil War, Secret Invasion and now Dark Reign). Nothing is ever truly resolved and we just keep buying.

I don't think they are gouging us. Sure, they are making some money serious money off the movies. But Marvel wasn't able to put together a movie studio off the profits of the comics. The success of the Spider-Man and X-Men movies (and Blade for that matter) proved that comic book publishing companies could make a lot more money in Hollywood than from us on new comics day. Didn't Marvel have to borrow money to create Marvel Studios? If so, then some of the profits from the movies need to go towards paying that off.

The comics need to at least breakeven. Some are selling well but a lot aren't. While it would be nice for the movies to subsidize the comics it isn't unreasonable for a comic book publishing company to expect for the comic books to pay for themselves.

[Flash77]

The comics need to at least breakeven. Some are selling well but a lot aren't. While it would be nice for the movies to subsidize the comics it isn't unreasonable for a comic book publishing company to expect for the comic books to pay for themselves.

I do wonder if Marvel or DC would be okay with a small percentage loss in comics. But this would then be dependent on what their goal is with publishing comics. I think their number one goal would be to keep the characters consistently present. This awareness is essentially free marketing for their properties (if they are making a profit from sale) or very cheap marketing (if they take a loss). The bottom line being that this constant presence to both comic and non-comic buyers unconsciously encourages us to support their non-comic ventures (movies, clothing, etc...).

It kind of like the cartoons from the 80s. Many spawned a variety of products. Once the cartoon wasn't on ... these other products suffered and disappeared (of course their is the variable of the cartoons have a short life span at the time due to who they were marketed at - kids). But I wonder if Marvel stopped publishing the Amazing Spider-man in 1970, would it have anything beyond a cult following today?

[Flash77]

This is the sort of out of the box thinking I was waiting for. This is an interesting way to try and leverage the added interest in the first issue of a story arc.

I particularly like the idea of including a "what you need to know" recap of previous stories which would make the issue all the most accessible.

But, isn't it equally possible upping the price on the first issue of a stroy arc might result in reduce sales on both the first part of the new story arc and therefore the story arc as a whole?

And, wouldn't it be better to somehow encourage the idea that readers can and should jump on at any issue versus reinforcing the notion of periodic jump on issues and the implication that all of the other issues are bad jumping on points?

I'm wondering if there would be a way to make the first issue of a new story arc a little cheaper and include the "what has gone before" piece and find a way for the other issues in the story to recoup the cost. This would encourage readers to try out new story arcs and get publishers thinking a bit more in terms of reader retention.

Long term, the publishers need to do a better job of marketing and selling the comics. Part of that requires that the creators do a better job of hooking the readers and retaining them from issue to issue.

In the short term, your idea of leveraging the increased interest in the first issue of story arcs is a great suggestion.

I agree that a first issue price increase of a arc or new creative team could have affect sales negatively by turning people away from trying it. But with the continued downward trend of mini-series (standard sales drop between issues), I'm not sure a large publisher would want to potentially price hike an issue of an arc that wasn't going to be it's best selling. So, from a publisher standpoint, I think it would have to be a first issue hike.

I go back and forth on the accessibility of a comic book. What I don't want is are issues in a story arc that feel like stand along issues. Or for the reader to be spoon fed information throughout the book. On the flip side...I stopped buying Batman RIP because it was way too confusing. Plus I'd read one issue and the next one didn't feel like the next issue. It felt more as though I missed an issue. But this could fall more towards the style of the writer. But I do hear the point about accessibility. What I was a big fan of was back in the late 90s (I think) when Marvel provided the fold out cover (check out some of the Deadpool recaps by Joe Kelly...quite funny). This was nice because it got you caught up with who the players were and what's happening. AND it didn't count towards the 22 pages of story (like a 1st page recap does).

Something that Marvel has done that I think address a little of getting the reader interested in an arc is producing those free Saga comics. They did one for the Secret Invasion (I believe) and Daredevil (Brubaker storylines). While text heavy, it gave great backstory/history you would need to know before hopping aboard. So, what if Marvel or DC published a 99 cent comic which highlighted 3-4 series. It could give the who, what, when, and where. If text heavy with previously produced art...I don't think it would be a huge financial to them.

Regarding accessibility mid storyline, I'm not sure anything besides a beginning recap could be done. But even that is probably frowned upon as Marvel is keeping in mind that the story arc needs to read smoothly in trade form. But yes, if creators hook the readers in...then more likely than not...the reader sticks around (i.e. Walking Dead).

[HassanT]

With Marvel's success at the box office, why gouge us? Did not Sony and Fox cut Marvel a check for the successful Spider-man and X-Men movie franchises? Does any of the movie profits go into comic publication? Unlike DC, which is under the Warner Brothers umbrella, Marvel Studios is under Marvel Entertainment (?). I guess Marvel's gift to the fans is to give us never ending stories (Civil War, Secret Invasion and now Dark Reign). Nothing is ever truly resolved and we just keep buying.

I don't think they are gouging us. Sure, they are making some money serious money off the movies. But Marvel wasn't able to put together a movie studio off the profits of the comics. The success of the Spider-Man and X-Men movies (and Blade for that matter) proved that comic book publishing companies could make a lot more money in Hollywood than from us on new comics day. Didn't Marvel have to borrow money to create Marvel Studios? If so, then some of the profits from the movies need to go towards paying that off.

The comics need to at least breakeven. Some are selling well but a lot aren't. While it would be nice for the movies to subsidize the comics it isn't unreasonable for a comic book publishing company to expect for the comic books to pay for themselves.

For a company to be successful, each business line needs to profitable on its own. The price hike hasn't bother me as much. What has bother me is the flooding of product by companies.

[JohnMayo]

The comics need to at least breakeven. Some are selling well but a lot aren't. While it would be nice for the movies to subsidize the comics it isn't unreasonable for a comic book publishing company to expect for the comic books to pay for themselves.

I do wonder if Marvel or DC would be okay with a small percentage loss in comics. But this would then be dependent on what their goal is with publishing comics. I think their number one goal would be to keep the characters consistently present. This awareness is essentially free marketing for their properties (if they are making a profit from sale) or very cheap marketing (if they take a loss). The bottom line being that this constant presence to both comic and non-comic buyers unconsciously encourages us to support their non-comic ventures (movies, clothing, etc...).

It kind of like the cartoons from the 80s. Many spawned a variety of products. Once the cartoon wasn't on ... these other products suffered and disappeared (of course their is the variable of the cartoons have a short life span at the time due to who they were marketed at - kids). But I wonder if Marvel stopped publishing the Amazing Spider-man in 1970, would it have anything beyond a cult following today?

I don't see any reason why DC or Marvel would be or should be okay taking a loss on the comics. That is the business they are in and they ought to be able to make a little money at it. If they can't make money on the comics, why would anybody think that the property would make money as a movie and invest the considerably larger sum of money on that gamble?

[Foe]

Didn't Marvel have to borrow money to create Marvel Studios? If so, then some of the profits from the movies need to go towards paying that off.

While it would be nice for the movies to subsidize the comics it isn't unreasonable for a comic book publishing company to expect for the comic books to pay for themselves.

A business is almost always better off financing new large ventures rather than using cash on hand. To do otherwise is economic suicide. And off the top of my head, I can't even think of an instance where it would be otherwise the case. (caveat: I have an Econ degree, not a business one, so...)

And I may certainly be wrong, but as far as I know, the cover price for published periodical print media almost NEVER can be counted on to cover the cost of producing it, e.g. newpapers, magazines, etc.

Hell, not even subscription rates from subscribers are counted on to make up for the total costs; subscription numbers are usually only tallied up to show potential advertisers the strength of one's publication.

So if comic book publishers are indeed utilizing a business model that depends on cover prices to generate meaningful revenues, then that's the HUGE flaw right there, IMO.

The main revenue stream, as far as I know, is---and always has been--gleaned from advertisement fees. If comic book publishers are not fully utilizing that business model, I would be stunned senseless.

Granted, all of this is verdant conjecture sprouting from seeds of educated guesswork, so take it as that.

But if by some chance my rant is somewhere in the ballpark, I would be willing to bet that there's some behind-the-scenes, bean-counting, accountant behind the push for these price-hikes. Just a another guess.

Anyway, Marvel, et al, needs to push comic books more in their movies to rope in some new readers, lower their cover prices, utilize the newstands & book stores more effectively, and simply increase overall readership!

If they can successfully do that, then charging advertisers confiscatory rates will "subsidize" serious fans like us who post on forums like these!

[JohnMayo]

I go back and forth on the accessibility of a comic book. What I don't want is are issues in a story arc that feel like stand along issues. Or for the reader to be spoon fed information throughout the book. On the flip side...I stopped buying Batman RIP because it was way too confusing. Plus I'd read one issue and the next one didn't feel like the next issue. It felt more as though I missed an issue. But this could fall more towards the style of the writer. But I do hear the point about accessibility. What I was a big fan of was back in the late 90s (I think) when Marvel provided the fold out cover (check out some of the Deadpool recaps by Joe Kelly...quite funny). This was nice because it got you caught up with who the players were and what's happening. AND it didn't count towards the 22 pages of story (like a 1st page recap does).

Something that Marvel has done that I think address a little of getting the reader interested in an arc is producing those free Saga comics. They did one for the Secret Invasion (I believe) and Daredevil (Brubaker storylines). While text heavy, it gave great backstory/history you would need to know before hopping aboard. So, what if Marvel or DC published a 99 cent comic which highlighted 3-4 series. It could give the who, what, when, and where. If text heavy with previously produced art...I don't think it would be a huge financial to them.

Regarding accessibility mid storyline, I'm not sure anything besides a beginning recap could be done. But even that is probably frowned upon as Marvel is keeping in mind that the story arc needs to read smoothly in trade form. But yes, if creators hook the readers in...then more likely than not...the reader sticks around (i.e. Walking Dead).

Accessiblity is big problem and a lot of why I think sales are down. Recaps are okay but I'd rather that they stories be told in a manner that doesn't require them.
Is it too much to ask for characters to get clearly named each issue?
Is it too much to ask that creators remember that we read comics for entertainment and don't necessarily want to have to dissect each and every panel to figure out what the basic storyline is?
The don't have to spoon fed us the story but it would be nice if they told the story instead of just implying it.

[JohnMayo]

For a company to be successful, each business line needs to profitable on its own. The price hike hasn't bother me as much. What has bother me is the flooding of product by companies.

Good point. There are a ton of comics being produced these days. I suspect that part of the problem is that Marvel and DC have certain overhead costs that they need to cover. If they can't do that on x titles but can on x + 20 then they'll do those extra 20. If we want less titles then individual titles needs to be more profitable for the publishers.

[thefreakytiki]

I have to agree with Chris Neseman from AC & 11 0'Clock when he states the exclusive contracts are the thorn in Marvel's side financially. Marvel even outright states this in their quarterly sales disclosures. I have no idea why this fact doesn't get more press.

I have nothing against a creator getting all they can, I just think Marvel is seeing that they may have handed out "too many" exclusives and it's coming back to bite them in the bottom. I wouldn't be surprised if there are less exclusive signings next year.


the Tiki

[JohnMayo]

I have to agree with Chris Neseman from AC & 11 0'Clock when he states the exclusive contracts are the thorn in Marvel's side financially. Marvel even outright states this in their quarterly sales disclosures. I have no idea why this fact doesn't get more press.

I have nothing against a creator getting all they can, I just think Marvel is seeing that they may have handed out "too many" exclusives and it's coming back to bite them in the bottom. I wouldn't be surprised if there are less exclusive signings next year.


the Tiki

I completely agree that if they can't afford to do exclusive contract then they shouldn't do them.

I also completely agree that these same exclusive contracts are really good for the creators and I'd like to see them continue on that basis.

But, Marvel and DC should have considered the long term ramifications of these contracts years ago and planned accordingly.

Perhaps the solution isn't to cut back on exclusive creators but to shift the marketing departments more towards a incentive based model where those people do better at the sales do better.

[Flash77]

I don't see any reason why DC or Marvel would be or should be okay taking a loss on the comics. That is the business they are in and they ought to be able to make a little money at it. If they can't make money on the comics, why would anybody think that the property would make money as a movie and invest the considerably larger sum of money on that gamble?

If comics are looked at as a marketing tool...then I think a loss is exceptable for Marvel or DC.

I don't think we can equate the success of comic book sales to that what the risk of producing a movie would be. Iron Man moves what...30-40K per month. That's hardly anything great. So would you then say that it was a large gamble for them to produce an Iron-Man movie?

I would argue that Iron-Man being in circulation and visible to the public eye helps garner recognition of the character and a more likely position of having them see that as a movie over a property they are unfamiliar with. Thus...helping boost sales. If the Iron-Man comic doesn't exist, maybe there's not as much recognition for the character and thus the movie sells less tickets. Under this thinking, then I still believe that Marvel or DC can take a loss and still have it be beneficial. And that the loss they might take with the comics gets made up from revenue generated by other products or movies (which are a result of a consistent awareness of their characters).

[JohnMayo]

I don't think we can equate the success of comic book sales to that what the risk of producing a movie would be. Iron Man moves what...30-40K per month. That's hardly anything great. So would you then say that it was a large gamble for them to produce an Iron-Man movie?

Iron Man has been able to support a profitable comic book title for decades. Sure, it only averages around 41,441 units an issue an averaging a ranking of 45 on the top 300. While the number of units seems somewhat unimpressive that is more of a reflection on the overall low sales of comics than of Iron Man as a property. So, no producing an Iron Man movie wasn't a huge gamble. Part of that is also a matter of it being as much (if not more) of a science fiction sort of property as a super-hero property. There was also not reason to expect the movie to do anywhere near as well as it did based on the comic book sales.

I would argue that Iron-Man being in circulation and visible to the public eye helps garner recognition of the character and a more likely position of having them see that as a movie over a property they are unfamiliar with. Thus...helping boost sales. If the Iron-Man comic doesn't exist, maybe there's not as much recognition for the character and thus the movie sells less tickets. Under this thinking, then I still believe that Marvel or DC can take a loss and still have it be beneficial. And that the loss they might take with the comics gets made up from revenue generated by other products or movies (which are a result of a consistent awareness of their characters).

With very, very few expectations the sales data indicates that movies based on comics do not increase the sales of those comics.

It is good for those movies to be out there? Certainly. But there is no direct cause-effect relationship between a hit movie like coming out and the sales of the comic book increasing. On occasion it happens but not often.

I would suspect that a large percentage of the 7 million plus people that bought the Iron Man DVD have never read or possibly even seen an Iron Man comic book. If they have, it was probably over a decade ago.

Comic book publishers shouldn't be reliant on other forms of entertainment subsidizing the cost of keeping their core business afloat. I've got no problem with them profiting from those other revenue streams but the comics should at least breakeven on their own.

[Frank Castle]

Next up, we'll be seeing a salary cap for companies and their "exclusive contracts!"

My 2 cents about a price hike: I don't think it will effect my buying too much. It may cause me to drop a book or two but the books I'm buying now I would spend the extra buck on. It will however limit my trying a new book or mini series because when you pre order months in advance and it sucks, then your out even more $$$

I already buy a lot of indy books that have a 3.50/3.99 price tag so again, not going to change much. But if those 3.50/3.99 indies turn into 4.50/4.99 then I'll have a problem.

On top of all that, if I am going to have to start paying 3.99 then I will probably expect to see a couple more pages or extra back matter (not that does anything for me), nice paper or the heavy duty covers.