The $3.99, 22-page comic book—threat or menace? Please write your answer down on a scrap of paper before reading the next paragraph for the correct answer.
Did you write “threat” down? Well then, you’re wrong. Did you write “menace” instead? Well, you’re still wrong. Ha ha! It was a trick question! As the $3.99, 22-page comic book is both a threat and a menace, as well as many other negative things, including “extremely annoying,” “a poor investment” and “to the direct market as a giant asteroid was to the dinosaurs.”
Does that last one seem melodramatic? Maybe. So let me be more specific. I don’t think the introduction of $3.99, 22-page comics are exactly analogous to an asteroid slamming into prehistoric earth; it’s more like a new star appearing in the prehistoric sky, and getting bigger and bigger each month. It’s an indicator of an extinction level event, not the event itself. Or perhaps it’s just the start of the event, but not the really destructive part.
See, it’s as clear as a demonstration and a declaration as we’re going to get that the direct market’s leaders—the so-called Big Two—are fully committed to a strategy of selling as many comics as possible to the people who already buy their comics to make as much money as possible, instead of actively trying to increase the existing market (that is, the number of people who buy their comics in the direct market). And, once those readers are stretched as thing as possible, buying all of the books they’re going to buy (Marvel currently things there’s an audience for two Deadpool books, but there aren’t any fans who will buy a third Deadpool ongoing series, are there?), then if you want to keep making more money, you have to raise the price.
A lot.
Now I’ve complained about the 33% increase that a selling a $2.99 comic for $3.99 represents so much that even I’m getting sick of listening to myself complain about it, but I don’t think I’ll be stopping complaining about it any time soon. After all, I’ve got all this extra free time on my hands to blog about it now that I’m reading fewer and fewer super-comics every week.
See, $3.99 is the big, bright line I won’t cross for 22-pages of super-comics. I probably would have gone along with $3.25 or $3.50, as those seem like more gradual and natural increases, but $3.99 is just too fast and too soon. At least for me. But then, I’m a underemployed, semi-professional blogger. Other DC and Marvel readers with better-paying jobs may not be quite as tight-fisted as I am.
But DC and Marvel don’t have to charge $3.99 for their 22-page comics*, there are a couple of easy ways the companies could increase their profits without increasing their prices. I think. But then, I don’t run a big, New York City-based, market-leading comic book publishing company, or even a comics store, nor can I figure out how to make enough money to afford $3.99 comic books, so keep in mind the fact that I actually have no idea what I’m talking about.
1.) USE CHEAPTER PAPER. The first comics price increase I lived through was in the ‘90s, when the only corporate super-comics I was reading had the word “Bat-“ in the title, and I remember reading that part of the rationale for the increase was that DC was going to be switching to a slicker, heavier paper stock. I hated the new paper (it reflected light in a way that made it harder for me to read panels), but eventually got used to it. They might have switched paper stock a few times since then, I don’t know.
I do know that the paper that DC and Marvel use in a vast majority of their books is slicker and heavier than that used in one of my favorite ongoing comics, Tiny Titans. That paper, like that used in the other Johnny DC books I read regularly, is pulpier, grainier and, well, more paper-y. It looks and feels like comic book paper should look and feel (in my experience, anyway). It’s the same sort of paper used in the last few Vertigo trades I’ve read, too, which means DC uses it in their books aimed at children and aimed specifically at adults, but not for the DCU stuff that’s aimed directly at the direct market.
Is that paper cheaper than the paper used in Teen Titans or Titans? I assume so. The Johnny DC books are, after all, only $2.50, just recently increased from $2.25. Maybe their price point is to make them more friendly to people with allowances, but I suspect the paper stock has something to do with that.
Now, a lot of people might say, “Hey, I prefer the slicker paper stock used in DCU and Marvel comics! Who cares what Caleb thinks?” I hear these people. Or I imagine I do.
Here’s my big idea. Switch to cheaper, pulpier, more comic book-y paper for all your titles, Marvel and DC, which will allow you to either drop the price, or, to be more realistic, keep it at $2.99. And then, when you re-publish the comics as trade collection, then use the nicer, fancier, slicker paper.
It’s no secret that both companies are now committed to publishing everything in trade, and that the serial, monthly comics have simply become a way to make money off of the direct market to help offset the cost of creator salaries and publishing and selling the trades. DC and Marvel have switched to a serial comics-then-trade strategy. So why not let the paper quality follow suit?
The serial books would continue to serve the audience they already serve, those who want to read the comics for the stories, to find out what happens next as soon as possible. The trades would continue to serve the audience they already serve, people who don’t mind reading their super-comics in big, fat chunks and/or want a more permanent, easier-to-read version of a story they’ve already read in serialized form.
I suspect this would sell more comics too, because readers would have more money to spend on more titles, and would be more likely to buy things in both serial and trade format.
There, problem solved.
2. SELL MORE COMICS BY PUBLISHING THE COMICS YOU ALREADY PUBLISH MORE OFTEN. Why are comic books monthly? I don’t even know. I know they were monthly back when they were sold more like magazines, which also tend to be monthly, just as I know that I can’t find most comics anywhere near a magazine in most stores, and must instead to a specialty shop.
The way comics are sold has obviously changed quite a bit over the last few decades, but they’re still monthly. Why is that?
Could they be sold twice a month? Every week? Many of the most ardent comics readers—the people Marvel and DC are determined to focus on getting money from—go to the shop every single Wednesday for new comics. So why not align release schedules to meet their buying habits?
One of my favorite comic books that Marvel publishes at the moment is Incredible Hercules. I like the characters, I love the writing, I generally like the art quite a bit, and it’s in my $2.99 price range. If it came out twice a month, I’d happily buy it twice a month. If it came out every Wednesday, I’d happily buy it every Wednesday. Any book I really, really love I’d be happy to buy weekly.
So why don’t you guys sell me them more often? Instead of getting $3 a month from me for Incredible Hercules, you could get $12 (or $6, I guess).
There would be problems of course. Marvel would have to pay writers Greg Pak and Fred Van Lente more money to produce more work, as well as the other creators involved (although I assume the extra money would offset those costs, otherwise a book like Trinity wouldn’t have been publishable), and the artists would have to change more frequently (but how many Marvel and DC books boast a single artist month-in-and-month out these days anyway?). But it might be worthwhile.
DC has been doing something similar with it’s weekly books for a while now. I’m not sure how much money they make, and I can’t vouch for the quality of all of ‘em, but they keep making them, so I assume they’re happy enough with the returns. When I dig the books, as with 52 and Trinity, I know I’m happy to have a book I dig waiting for me every week.
Marvel’s Spider-Man experiment is ongoing, so I assume that’s working well enough for them too, and seems like an easy model to replicate. Instead of having two Deadpool monthlies with different creative teams, why not have one Deadpool book publish twice a month, with creative teams doing ever other story arc? Why have four Wolverine monthlies, instead of a Wolverine weekly? Don’t most “franchises” sell strongest at the center (Wolverine) than the edges (Wolverine: Origins, Wolverine: Weapon X) anyway? That was part of the rationale for a thrice-monthly Amazing Spider-Man instead of a three monthly Spider-Man titles, right?
On the other hand, Marvel hasn’t done that with any of their other multi-title franchises, like The Avengers or X-Men yet, so maybe ASM hasn’t been super-successful for them, if they haven’t tried replicating it yet.
I don’t know. As I’ve stated.
Still, these are my two big ideas to be ignored. If they are completely insane and/or idiotic, please feel free to tell me so, specifically if you are knowledgable of things like the comics market and the price of paper.
*I used to think this was just a Marvel problem, and that one Kingdom Come special aside, DC had elegantly, even ingeniously solved the problem by adding back-ups to $3.99 books, but then this week DC charged $3.99 for Justice League: Cry For Justice #1, a comic containing 24-pages of comics and six pages of heavily illustrated prose, not unlike Marvel experimented with when they first started flirting with the $3.99 price point.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
How would publishing Hercules more often save money?
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Please, please, please … every time there’s a price increase, there’s an outcry for newsprint. Just stop. The cost of newsprint is about the same as glossy stock. Yes, slightly cheaper, but not enough to make a difference in the cover price. Paper stock is not what’s driving up the cost of comics.
And FWIW, if you publish a title more often, you incur the cost of publishing that title more often. And you incur that cost for a longer period before receiving any profits. In other words, a publisher needs even deeper pockets to increase publishing frequency. Many aren’t financially equipped to do that across a publishing line.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Joe himself thoroughly answered the “cheaper paper” argument… It seemed to make sense…
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21873
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I don’t like the idea of publishing comic titles more often. Writers and artists (especially those handling multiple projects) need the time. Many artists are already overworked and sleep deprived, trying to finish their panels by deadlines. If they were to be forced to produce more, then quality would surely dip.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
No, secret i.d., it doesn’t make sense. He said if Marvel were to keep the price at 2.99 by reducing the paper quality (and thereby the quality of the reproduction of the artwork) and the competition would print on better paper for 3.99, all Marvel artists would go to the competition. The problem with that argument is that the major competitor is printing comics on better paper for 2.99 and not for 3.99.
And Quesada completely ignored addressing that Marvel’s General Counsel recently admitted that the only reason for the price increase was maximising profits. Quesada just returned to his lies that Marvel had to raise prices because the cost of producing the comics increased.
Unfortunately not enough people stop reading those overpriced books. Unless Marvel looses more than a third of the readers, they will increase their profits.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
What I would like to have answered is how increasing prices is supposed to help the long-term viability of monthly comics. Sure, they may make more money short-term, but higher prices means fewer and fewer people reading those books in the long run. So, dollars go up but units go down. The bottom line looks nice, but how is shrinking your audience ever a good thing?
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I am in complete agreement with Caleb’s objections to the price increase. His solutions may not fix the problem as Michael H stated: the issue is maximizing profits (and probably high compensations to the creators).
Like most of us, Marvel should tighten their belts instead—or they’ll hemorrhage many more readers (as they already have).
Are they killing the paper-based comics business on purpose?
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
The cost of a paper is not the only factor driving up the cost of comic books. Ink is more expensive, shipping costs are higher, and employment costs are higher because the general cost of living is higher. Just going to a cheaper paper won’t really help reduce the cost of production that much.
Increasing the rate of production also means increasing the above expenses, which makes the initial cash outlay to produce a weekly comic fairly prohibitive. There’s a reason DC only does one at a time. But more importantly, increasing the rate of production increases the expense to the consumer, which will more than likely drive them to drop books. (Assuming the reader prefers the more frequent book to others.)
What is needed in my opinion are more avenues to sell: meaning more retailers, not just direct market, more versions of the product including digital and more robust hardback and paperback production. I think digital is key, though. An advertising campaign is desperately needed to let people know comics still exist. I’d get all publishers together to pool their money and go a general “comics are cool” kind of campaign using entertainers (actors, musicians, etc.) in print and TV.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
TonyJazz said: “Are they killing the paper-based comics business on purpose?”
I’m assuming that question (which is really more of a statement) was meant to be facetious and rhetorical, but it is worth asking nonetheless. While DC and Marvel may not intend to purposely kill a revenue stream, will this price hike kill paper-based comics once and for all? Will comic books go the way of the newspaper? Will this increase lead to cost conscious comic buyers seeking their comic fix on-line?
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I’m surprised nobody’s addressed another big reason for the inflated cover prices: The escalating prices of paying “exclusive” creators. These sweetheart deals are dramatically increasing the cost of producing comics even before they hit the printing plant.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
To follow up on Mark’s point, I’m wondering too about the deals handed out to all those that Marvel has brought in from Hollywood & TV, and if that is part of the problem as well.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I can’t think of any major American company that puts long term profits ahead of short term profits. So as long as Marvel and DC make money pricing their comics the way they do, it will continue. When it no longer works, the stockholders of the big 2 will sell off their stock, and go invest in something else.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Whassamatter, Mark? Isn’t that the Free Market at work?
July 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I’ve heard it said that with American comics, “Kids aren’t even part of the equation.” Maybe that’s part of the problem. I’ve also heard people say that kids don’t read, or they spend all their time playing video games. However, I think if the comic companies only market to the audience they already have, they are not going to survive.
I’m no expert, but what I’ve observed at most books stores like Barnes and Nobles and Borders is that for every one rack of American comics there are three racks of manga.
What that tells me is this:
1. Kids are digging the manga. I wonder why. For 7 bucks, you can get a pretty hefty paperback with a good chunk of story. Much more than the equivalent of two floppies for that price.
2. It appears to me, that the paper is cheaper, and you don’t have to look at the garish computer coloring you see in a lot of comics on glossy paper. Why does everybody think that’s the only kind of artwork that will sell? Again, look at manga, which has all kinds of interesting, diverse styles. They also have all different kinds of subject matter.
Look at a monthly book like Shonen Jump. Why couldn’t Marvel or DC put a book out like that. You could get about seven of the monthly comics in it. Even stories that appeared in floppies a while ago. Print it in black and white, and make sure they’re good stories. I bet it would sell. You could interest kids in these characters and eventually have more readers.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I liked that DC seemed to be resisting the price hike, even with reasonably prominent “event” titles like Flash: Rebirth.
It undoubtedly had an effect on what I bought. It’s a shame it doesn’t look like it’s going to continue in July.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I’m with Andrew. Why put out 5 Avengers titles a month when you could just put all of them in one magazine? No need to complain about the two Deadpool ongoings and mini if they’re all in one magazine. All the critical successes/fiscal failures (e.g. Captain Britain and the MI-13) can be tucked in with more popular titles. Just like the Golden Age, when you think about it.