www.ComicBookPage.com

NiklasJ wrote: What I want to say is that just putting all the blame on DC and Marvel is onesided and flawed, its the retailers that actually sell the comics to customers and they also need to be able to change in a changing market not just selling to existing customers but going out and getting new ones.

while i agree, there are some free market forum members who would tell you that's what sells (on the top 300 chart) so that's what retailers buy

i don't like it but i get it, if i was a retailer using last month's revenue to buy next month's books i would probably be conservative and risk adverse to ordering small publishers without a guaranteed sale

i dont think its ever going to change as long as its a preorder non returnable print market, maybe if digital becomes a majority of sales in the future?

NiklasJ wrote:While one can certainly have MAJOR issues with Marvel (no more redundant #1s pleasee) and DC (do something interesting with a character that isnt batman...) you cant say they arent trying to give readers something new that isnt pure classic superhero stuff. Batgirl, Weirdworld, DrFate, RedWolf, Prez and lots more

Those new properties are a great thing for the industry and I wouldn't want to limit that at all.

I think we seem to all be in agreement that artificial #1s on existing or slightly renamed properties aren't a good thing. I'd much rather see something like Prez at DC than yet another Batman title. Or Red Wolf at MArvle than another Avenger, X-Men or Inhuman title.

NiklasJ wrote:If retailers still keep hanging on to only pure superhero books they will have a big problem since not only are the big two changing their output with a more diverse platter, Image is closing in with nearly as many titles every month and doing great stuff.

Retailers buy what they think can sell. Typically, that is superhero titles. It will take a while for that to change.

NiklasJ wrote:Then there are the unknown numbers of digital sales, if customers dont find what they want in a local shop getting stuff online is very easy. I wouldnt do it but a new reader looking for MsMarvel or Batgirl might?

True. So far digital sales haven't seemed to eat into print sales. That could easily change, particularly if readers can't find the print issues they want in order to complete a story.

NiklasJ wrote:What I want to say is that just putting all the blame on DC and Marvel is onesided and flawed, its the retailers that actually sell the comics to customers and they also need to be able to change in a changing market not just selling to existing customers but going out and getting new ones.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. Retailers can only sell the comics the publishers offer. Deciding not to sell a top title would cost a retailer both sales and customers which isn't a winning strategy. I agree that retailers need to be better sales people. Often it seems like they just put the comics on the shelf and expect them to sell themselves. Again, not a winning strategy.

I think the publishers and retailers need to work together better to get new readers into the marketplace. But until readers can be retained, I'm not sure how much of a point there is in getting new readers since the sales trends indicate they won't stick around.

JohnMayo wrote:I think we seem to all be in agreement that artificial #1s on existing or slightly renamed properties aren't a good thing.

Some are new retoolings or overhauls that makes a #1 slightly valid like wolverine, hulk, extraordinary x-men(new cast and setting), ironman(+bendis) but yeah, many of the new #1s Thor, spiderman, spidergwen, spiderwoman, ant-man, cap-falc, all-new xmen, silver surfer and more and more and more.... just continue as usual, these make no sense except if Marvel want to do a Nu52esque lineup of numbering for all properties. I think most are frustrated about this crap... Neither DC nor Marvel make their comics easy to follow.

Still, Hibbs write himself that his stores have traditionally carried mostly DC, and the other quote about they sell both kinds of comics "DC and Marvel superheroes" speaks a lot when indies are doing better and better. Just because retailers order what they think they can sell don´t mean necessarily that they order what the customers want to buy. If you primarily sell DC comics in a market that buy fewer and fewer DC comics its not a big surprise you don´t sell as much as you´d like.

It must be incredibly hard to predict whats going to sell or not...

NiklasJ wrote: and the other quote about they sell both kinds of comics "DC and Marvel superheroes" speaks a lot when indies are doing better and better

i think that quote was in jest - although i see many struggling comic shops do just that...

NiklasJ wrote:
It must be incredibly hard to predict whats going to sell or not...

i agree, but i know a few absentee/lazy shop owners who just order for the pull list and the top 40 selling titles from last month for the new release rack...they are too busy planning magic tournaments to be bothered with sales projections

While I agree with a lot of the points made my Mr. Hibbs, I don't agree with much of what this discussion thread has latched onto. Saying superheroes are the problem and there should be more non-superheroes is like Marvel and DC thinking the problem is the person in the suit and not the storytelling. I don't think the problem is superheroes; it is bad and lazy storytelling, it is unsatisfying issues, it is the incestuous cult of personality around creators, it is lack of accessibility, it is the ridiculous preorder through small hard to find niche stores, it is the soaring costs of reading. There are many problems in the industry and simply blaming the superhero genre is lazy analysis. The lack of any sense of history is also astounding to me. The number of times I hear "Image is gaining, Image is growing, Image will soon take over the big 2" is hilarious. At one point Image was the biggest publisher with the highest selling and most talked about books. When was that? Oh yeah, when they published superhero books. How quickly we forget 1.7 million copies of Spawn #1, not to mention all the other huge sales of the Image early books. Image isn't the next big thing, it is finally barely starting to walk again after having once really been in competition with the big boys.

fudd71 wrote: it is the ridiculous preorder through small hard to find niche stores, it is the soaring costs of reading.

we dont agree on much - but this i do 100%

fudd71 wrote:Image isn't the next big thing, it is finally barely starting to walk again after having once really been in competition with the big boys.

Interesting point, Im probably part of the problem... I still enjoy the modern superhero books as they are (femthor, wolvelaura, ironmary, spiderdollarman, allreds, delmundo, bring it on!!), not DC as much but I was never a big DC reader...

On a serious note it wouldnt hurt if there were more actual story content in more of the comics out there, especially with the increased price. (Which is remarked on a lot by the very clever comicbookpage podcasters here)

NiklasJ wrote: Interesting point, Im probably part of the problem... I still enjoy the modern superhero books as they are (femthor, wolvelaura, ironmary, spiderdollarman, allreds, delmundo, bring it on!!), not DC as much but I was never a big DC reader...

As a long time Marvel Zombie, this is what is making reading comics hard for me right now. It seems that Marvel thinks I'm in love with the title and not the actual characters in them. I have nothing against Jane Foster, Falcon, Laura (X-23), Kamala, nor Miles Morales but I love Thor Odinson, Steve Rogers, Logan, Carol Danvers, and Peter Parker (I know those last two haven't gone away). It just seems weird to me that they feel the need to try and take the popularity one character has garnered over decades and try to bestow that on another character. X-23 (or Laura) is one of my all time favorite characters, and I am loving All-New Wolverine, but every time it comes out it is a reminder that Wolverine (Logan) isn't being published right now (unless you count his geriatric book). And the same can be said of Thor and Captain America. And it's worse when I see the Thing show up in Guardians. With very few exceptions (Iron Man being one) there isn't a place for a legacy fan right now. If this was true of just one or two books it wouldn't be a big deal, but it seems like all of the classics are being replaced. I know that a publishing line needs new blood to thrive, but as Hibbs said comic readers are creatures of habit and many of these new characters haven't quite earned my devotion yet. In my opinion, they need to find some middle ground on this because the replacing the title character in these books pendulum has swung way to far in its current direction.

Brandon - what's the 4cast talking about now without an ongoing series?

drew102e wrote:Brandon - what's the 4cast talking about now without an ongoing series?

I review Secret Wars when it comes out since it's basically an F4 story. I just put up my full review of Fant4stic (the movie that just came out on DVD). And on off weeks I review back issues, right now it's the Waid/Ringo Unthinkable arc. So I find ways to fill the podcast.

Thanks for asking!

There really are three major fallacies in the conclusions Mr. Hibbs came.

Marlon1990 wrote:There really are three major fallacies in the conclusions Mr. Hibbs came.

This is a forum for discussion, so, please do elaborate. I'm anxious to read what you found to be 3 major fallacies in Mr. Hibb's article.

I'm also curious what points in Marlon1990 thinks were wrong.

[FYI, I' moved the previous three posts from other threads into this one since that is what they seem to be about.]

Marlon1990 wrote:

think this might be a spammer?

drew102e wrote:

Marlon1990 wrote:I'm sure you are aware of the subjectivity.
...

think this might be a spammer?

Agreed. I deleted the post.