Comments on: DC Hopes to Push Back Against Trade-Waiting: Will it Work?

By: Giveaways

Giveaways — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 01:04:11 +0000

Very educating story, saved your site for and hope to read more!

By: Torsten Adair

Torsten Adair — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:17:39 +0000

But isn’t DC launching a new series of original graphic novels based on Superman and Batman?

So… those who question the price of comics… what did you think of Unwritten #1? Since it only cost $1, and it had a great concept, I’m sure you bought a copy… (and if you were waiting for the trade, it only costs $9.99.)

Here’s what I think DC means:
1) They want to be #1 on the Diamond charts.
2) They publish as many comics as Marvel, but have a smaller share of the Direct Market.
3) It all starts with the comics. If the comics sell, then the graphic novel will sell even better. Perhaps what might have been a paperback will now be a hardcover.
4) DC will have digital comics in less than five years. Just as nobody makes a distinction now about DM-only and newsstand titles, soon the distiction of digital and floppy will be moot. DC cares about sales, and digital comics will drive sales of trades (and floppies, as BOOM! proved).
5) Comics died out on the newsstand a decade before magazines and newspapers did. Those 100K circulations will never return. Those readers are now digital. Just like back then, casual readers of digital comics might never set foot in a comics shop, but they might buy the book online.
6) Comics magazines pay the cost of production for the trade. Since the file is already digital, an online comic can pay those costs instead. Online tracking allows for precise advertising and marketing.

So I have to wait longer for a collection? Big deal. As long as it gets collected. And it will. The trade market is too big to ignore. I suspect that DC prints only comics titles it feels will sell in collected volumes. Meanwhile… there’s a pile of books I haven’t read yet. I can wait.

By: K Stevens

K Stevens — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:25:54 +0000

DC’s a lost cause

By: Tre

Tre — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:15:31 +0000

I agree. Here in Philly, I went to Atomic City Comics yesterday and spent nearly 40mins trying to decide what to buy; a lot of things seemed interesting, but none seemed worth the price of admission (save the new S.H.I.E.L.D. series). I’d like to read more comics, but with so many coming out the gate nowadays at $4, comics in general has stopped becoming an “impulse, fun” buy for me, and much more a deliberate purchase. As a result, I only bought 3-4 comics. It just doesn’t seem to make sense when I can get the trade.

By: artiepants

artiepants — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:35:33 +0000

@ Carl Walker: i was just listing the “Marquee” names that (theoretically) sell books on name alone ~ I’d love Loeb to go back to DC (and if i was lucky take Millar with him). Just responding to
Ravagers ove-generalization with my own (and Parker’s my favorite)

@Tucknie: That’s a really good point. what exactly is the motivation to pay more for a “lesser” product (ads, only part of a story)

I’d be really curious to see what happened if they rolled back prices to $2.50 (that’s my personal magic comfort zone) I just will not pay $4 (even with my stores 20% discount) for a floppy.

By: Tuckenie

Tuckenie — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:22:07 +0000

Hey maybe if the sold their comics for $2 an issue it would make economic sense to not trade-wait. As it is I spend an average of $6-$8 less on a hardbound collection with no ads in it. Why on earth would I choose the 32 page floppies?

By: Kyle Garret

Kyle Garret — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:54:34 +0000

What was the context, then, Greg? That seems like a pretty important thing to explain if you’re going to attack this column.

By: Greg Geren

Greg Geren — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:14:57 +0000

Take a single quote out of context, set up you own interpretation and then give reasons why it’s a bad idea.

What a waste of time.

By: Kyle Garret

Kyle Garret — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:44:50 +0000

Good stuff, Russ.
To echo Russ, this statement is really sad when given DC refusal to go digital. Matt Fraction made an interesting point when the iPad launched – 700,000 sold that first weekend, 700,000 people who now have instant access to comics for free (not all of the comics are free, obviously, but enough to garner interest). Sure, you have to subtract the people that already read comics and the people who have no interest, but say 1% of those who bought iPads the first weekend discover comics — that’s 7,000 new readers without even trying.
What’s even stranger about this is that Vertigo is obviously making a push for OGNs while DC, a company with recognizable characters and a built-in fan base for those characters, seems to be ignore that aspect of the market.

By: the Freaky Tiki

the Freaky Tiki — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:51:29 +0000

This is old news. DC has been stating this business plan for more than 3 years. Don’t believe me, go listen to the last 3 years worth of DC nation panels on iTunes.

the Tiki

By: Mario

Mario — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:44:31 +0000

This article was pretty good, but its a sad realization that they are slowly bringing almost everything back to before i was even born.

Historically i know who Barry Allen is but i dont KNOW who he is. Whatever, Marvel puts out their trades faster and thats how I get my fix.

By: matches

matches — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:31:27 +0000

It’s really pretty simple – if DC wants to funnel its customers toward the single issues, and honestly believes that’s a viable way to run and grow their business – they should stop publishing collected editions.

They won’t do that, of course, because collected editions are big (and growing) part of their revenue stream. The reality of the marketplace in 2010 is that (a) publishers need to produce collected editions, and (b) the single issues cost too much to have much appeal to anyone other than existing collectors, and are a dead-end in terms of growing the readership.

Geez, I thought 1982 was pretty cool too, but it’s really amazing how focused DC is on re-creating it, both in terms of content and its business model.

By: Bytowner

Bytowner — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:27:51 +0000

“Note to creators: Not every community can be Coast City…and in fact, after Bludhaven, Montevideo and now Star City, we really don’t need any more DC cities to try.”

Yeah. And Montevideo is a real-’verse city. Like Santa Barbara, which was a by-blow casualty when Old Coast City died.

That aside, we’ve had enough of this for a while. Especially after Doha(which was the capital of Qurac in the DCU instead of the real world’s Qatar) was nuked by Cheshire, and the whole nation of Vlatava got “cleansed” by the Spectre in the Corrigan years.

Anyway: Enough.

And if you’re right about this new/old strategy of “dancing with the one that brung ya”…I guess we’re being warned to give up all hope of new stories featuring the Milestone characters as well, then? Be a shame to invest all that cash and time only to file them away in cold storage.

By: Joe H

Joe H — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:17:22 +0000

I wonder in what way they’re putting an emphasis on periodicals… if it’s the highly optimistic “making each issue the best damned story it can be!” idea as suggested by Huxford, well, why the fuck haven’t they been doing that before? Why choose now to do/announce that, if that’s what they have been doing?
So, unless they haven’t been trying to make quality stories before now and are using that as a new business plan, then the only other way to put the emphasis on floppies is by hamstringing their collection formats. But that’s a retarded move and as much of as I don’t like Johns’s stories I don’t think he’s so in love with the 1970s as to pull something that dumb. Plus, does his position even affect the collection department? Wasn’t he promoted just for creative responsibilities?

By: Carl Walker

Carl Walker — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 07:33:44 +0000

I like Mark’s list better than Artie’s (Loeb?!? Marvel can have him). I’m quite biased towards DC overall but it really seems like all they’ve got left lately is a weird tug-of-war between Johns and Morrison, with the former the obvious winner in terms of the line’s direction, and the latter perhaps the only one at the company who consistently makes good comics (and they just lost Rucka, too). Marvel’s current talent roster is quite enviable by comparison, in fact I’d take Mark’s list over Bendis generally speaking (not familiar with Gage though).

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 06:09:08 +0000

Ravager: Marvel only has Bendis?

What about – Brubaker, Fraction, Van Lente, Parker, Gage, Slott, Pak?

By: Kevin Huxford

Kevin Huxford — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:56:14 +0000

I’m all for trying to put out a product that makes people say, “god damn it, I HAVE to go get the single issues every Wednesday because I just can’t wait!”

But when the retail reality says that:

* it is harder to get shelf space for a small profit margin product….
* DM retailers won’t be overbuying like they did in the “World Without Trades” in order to have back issues to sell for a long time….
* there’s a whole subset of customer that only reads trades…

…you are running your company irresponsibly if you keep trying to fight against the business reality you face.

So, if they meant this any other way than that “well, gosh golly, we plan on making super books you can’t wait to read” snow job, it’s just sad.

By: Michael C. Lorah

Michael C. Lorah — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:27:16 +0000

This whole discussion really depends on the context of the quote.

From an editorial perspective, creating comics that are so exciting people can’t possible wait should be a mandate. Not as practical reality, but rather as a philosophical outlook on the quality of the books.

Realistically, I’m a diehard print type of guy, but I believe 110% that every day a comic (particularly the pop entertainment ones) spends being NOT online is another day that today’s young readers find something else to entertain them, and the day is coming – probably sooner than we’d guess – when DC and Marvel’s characters are going to be media franchises with little or no connection to their publishing roots. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it sure as hell ain’t comics.

Also, personally, going on nearly ten years of life post-serial comics, if trades were eradicated and I HAD to buy monthlies, I could quite literally count the number of titles I’d read on one hand. Going to a shop every single week is a chore beyond all reason; does anybody really believe that you can build a readership by expecting such fanatical dedication?

By: Artiepants

Artiepants — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 05:25:39 +0000

@ Ravager: Jason Aaron, Matt fraction, Ed Brubaker, Andy Diggle, Mark Millar, Jeph Loeb and many others would all like to have a word with you…

By: Ravager

Ravager — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 04:46:40 +0000

>They’re going to continue pimping the same five creators

is better than Marvel who only have Bendis alone

By: Potter

Potter — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 04:16:10 +0000

Why stop at that? Forget the monthly issue waiting. Go back to the 3-panel daily newspaper strip.

By: Kevin Huxford

Kevin Huxford — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:59:56 +0000

Amazing. From Jim Lee’s tone deaf continuation of DC Comics’ stance on going digital to this continued effort to not only resist change but try to forcibly push them back to how they used to be (I’m talking product format, not creative content), I don’t think I could be more disappointed with them if they fired everyone and replaced them with Luddites.