www.ComicBookPage.com

More specially Tom Brevoort has been in a Twitter war with Bleeding Cool about Marvel's tactics to increase its market share. At one point, John Jackson Miller from Comichron interjects with a defense of the validity of Diamond's numbers and the purpose behind them. It's a good look at the the use of the numbers and publishers' manipulation of them.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/12/11/ ... -accurate/

This is yet another in a long line of cries that the data isn't accurate by people that stand to benefit from people thinking the data isn't accurate.

John Jackson Miller gives a great explanation of what the data is, how he, Milton at ICv2 and I are essentially cross-checking each other by getting the same estimates through our individual processes.

I can't speak to how accurate the data coming out of Diamond is but I have no reason to doubt it. In the past, a few errors were spotted and Diamond corrected them. I suppose it is possible there is something systemically wrong with how Diamond reports the numbers resulting in them being consistently low across the board. But there is absolutely no evidence of that happening and if it was, JJM, Milton or I would have seen that when comparing the Diamond data to other sources of data like the Statements of Ownership.

Brevoort's claims "That information isn't remotely accurate." without substantiating it is the equivalent of someone interjecting "Wrong." into a debate while the other person is talking. It makes listeners question what the other person is saying without the person interjecting having to support the claim the information is wrong.

I've been reporting on the sales data for over a decade and in that time, I have yet to have someone make a claim about the numbers being wrong and substantiate those claims with more than "I just know." Usually the claims come from creators or publishers which are comparing the data from Diamond to either royalty statements of presumably internal sales numbers, both of which include more than the Diamond sales. Rather than understand the caveats JJM, Milton and I give with our estimates, they just claim our information is wrong.

If someone how specific issues with the data and can substantiate them, I'd certainly take that seriously. But this is just another in a series of complaints that the Diamond data does measure what some people think it measures and getting misinterpreted as "wrong" when it is simple not measuring what they think it is.

I'm reporting on these sales because I find them interesting. I get no benefit out of sales being high, low or in between. Nor do I benefit from any particular publisher doing better or worse than another. I make no money on the website or podcast. CBR does pay me for the articles so I do profit there. But I get that same amount regardless of how the numbers turn out.

Brevoort is a spokesperson for Marvel and both he and Marvel benefit from the people thinking the sales of Marvel comics are higher than they are. I'm not saying he is being untruthful or malicious with his tweeting but simply that I disagree with him that the Diamond information isn't remotely accurate.

If Breevort wants to put this all to bed, the only people who fully know how many issues are printed are the printing company, and the company paying the bill. He is in the drivers seat when it comes to Marvel #s - the rest of us are along for the ride.

We can't expect Tom Brevoort to give any kind of a straight answer when it comes to sales. As far as Marvel is concerned, they view it like a supplier of goods to a restaurant in Little Italy. They don't give a crap how good the restaurant is doing. The retailer ordered and they supplied while cashing the check.

In this silly Twitter exchange, I agree that Mr. Brevoort needed to “put up or shut up”. Either share a link to the so-called “accurate” numbers or shut-up and not look like a fool for arguing with some random Twitterer with less than 10 followers. Even if the Batman fan lost the argument, Brevoort looks foolish with his defense. Everyone knows the numbers being reported aren't sell through numbers.

Everyone knows Marvel hasn't been doing great historically with the readers. Furthermore, is Amazing Spider-Man still in the top 20 books? Is Captain America still in the top 50? No and no. And where is Thor, Hulk, the Avengers? All being radically written (or re-written) and marketed.

And Mr. Bendis jumping into this Twitter fray in order to praise himself for Civil War 2 and another wildly incentivized number one issue of Iron Man (which is sans Tony Stark – who's story of his disappearance still hasn't been completely told in Civil War 2, so there's that) is ridiculous on its very face.

What is with Marvel staffers and their poor social media skills?

Yes please brevort - illuminate us with the "actual" numbers - that would be very helpful

This isn't about the number of copies printed or even how many copies Marvel sends to Diamond.

The numbers JJM, Milton and I report on is the invoices units sold from Diamond to retailers. It is sell-in numbers, not sell-through numbers. Presumably Tom Brevoort understands that and isn't questioning that. But, given the vague "not remotely accurate" claims with no specifics, there is no way to know how he thinks the numbers are wrong and why he thinks that. Brevoort either completely misunderstands the caveats given with the estimates JJM, Milton and I report on or he is accusing Diamond of misrepresenting the units sold through Diamond.

To prove of disprove the accuracy of the estimates what would need to be provided for a true apple-to-apples comparison is both how many units Diamond ordered from Marvel and how many of those units were sold to retailers.

Brevoort should have access to the first set of numbers for Marvel items but only the people at Diamond have that the second set. Given that DC and Marvel use Diamond as a sales agent, I would hope they have access to those numbers but Diamond in the only place that absolutely has that data.

Brevoort isn't likely to proved that information and might not be able to do so since it is presumably confidential business data for Marvel. Releasing that data could possibly get him in serious trouble. Of course, that is very convenient for him to not be able to release the data. If that is actually the case, maybe he can release it and just won't.

I don't think Brevoort wants to put this to rest once and for all. It is much more convenient to toss out the claims of inaccuracy periodically.

At the very least, he should be more specific on how and why he thinks the data is inaccurate. Maybe, he is right and if he explained his position in detail then maybe either Diamond could fix any potential problems in what they report and/or JJM, Milton and I could fix any flaws in our three independent processes which all arrive at the same results.

The only other source of the data is Diamond and presumably, that is what Diamond uses to calculate the indexed lists they release every month. That data is what Brevoort is stating isn't remotely accurate.

Claiming the data is "not remotely accurate" doesn't make it inaccurate. The burden of proof is on Brevoort.

If that data from Diamond is inaccurate, why hasn't Brevoort or anybody else worked to get it fixed?

I can't help but wonder if the timing of Brevoort's tweets was to undercut the reporting of the November numbers.

This whole conversation is one I have seen repeated over and over again in a metric I am most familiar with board-cast television ratings. In that realm there is an independent release of viewership levels, the Nielsen ratings (much like the Diamond list). Every time those numbers show a problem (loss of viewers) the network "losing" always claims there is some flaw in the metric or it isn't the whole picture. This a very predictable PR statement of whoever speaks for those losing. The thing is there tends to be a very predictable action when the company that claims the metric is flawed has to put their money where their mouth is. Shows with low ratings get cancelled those with good ones don't, it is very predicable. Regardless of what they say watch what they do, statements are irrelevant. The Diamond comics lists tend to work very similarly, books at the top of a companies sales continue while books at the bottom of a companies list get cancelled or replaced. When Marvel cancels a book from their top sellers on the list and keeps publishing one at the bottom for years, Brevoort can talk about the "wrong" numbers, until then, watch what he does, not what he says.