http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...publisher.html
Excellent article! Marvel's growth falls far behind IDW, Image, Dark Horse, and DC so far this year.
http://www.theouthousers.com/index.p...publisher.html
Excellent article! Marvel's growth falls far behind IDW, Image, Dark Horse, and DC so far this year.
You're kinda misrepresenting in that topic headline.
means that they have actually surpassed profit targets and made growth.Quote:
Marvel has picked up an additional 780,000 units this year.
The article merely highlights that the industry as a whole has had a successful year, fuelled by smaller publishers whose growth in previous years have been small.
Marvel have far from failed. Same with DC.
A very positive article generally though.
That entirely depends upon what your interpretation of "failure" is.Quote:
You're kinda misrepresenting in that topic headline.
For me, when you are the biggest comic publisher, the number one industry leader, and your main competition (DC), as well as three much smaller companies, all beat you in the numbers that show growth of sales, putting you FOURTH on that list in terms of growth in the last year...all I am saying is, if ANYBODY at all at Marvel HQ is pleased about that, they should be shown the door immediately.
As the article states;
I think i made my case that Marvel has not had a banner year, and has been surpassed by 4 of their competition (in new growth of sales over last year).Quote:
In addition, I also calculated the change in sales percentage (how much did sales grow or shrink compared to the prior year) and compared it to the overall monthly change in sales percentage (the overall growth or shrinkage in total monthly sales compared to the prior year). This helps to put into perspective how much better or worse a publisher was doing than the industry average.
Further breaking down those numbers, it becomes clear that Image is the biggest mover of the three this year. It’s sold nearly a million more comics than it did during the same time period in 2011 and is only 200,000 comics shy from matching its 2012 totals with five months of sales remaining. In fact, Image’s sales growth (how many more actual comics it’s sold this year than it did last year) is greater than Marvel’s by nearly 200,000 units.
Image, a company that publishes creator-owned titles with very little market exposure has actually grown its sales more than Marvel, the biggest publisher on the block.
IDW and Dark Horse have also had very respectable years. The two companies have both increased sales by more than 25%.
All in all, the three companies have added about 1.8 million in comic sales to the market. DC, of course, has added its fair share, having added about 5 million in sales, while Marvel has picked up an additional 780,000 units this year.
Amendment: Sorry. Marvel has been surpassed by Image and DC for sales growth; the combined sales growth of Image, Dark Horse, and IDW is 1.8 million; if you subtract Image's 1 million, that leaves IDW and Dark Horse with a COMBINED total of 800,000 versus Marvel's 780,000, so i correct myself on that point.
Yeah, but the point is it's year on year growth and it's always harder for the Number 1 Company in anything to make growth.
If you're number one and have 9 sales out of 10 already, getting that elusive 10th is always going to be nigh-impossible, especially when lower companies up their game.
Marvel hasn't lost sales and it's beat projected and expected targets and growth.
It's not always about looking at how everyone else grows, it's about realistic growth and hitting targets.
To fail in sales would be to lose sales. They haven't. They've increased.
Everyone else's growth is irrelevant as it just means that their last year wasn't as good as it should have been. Their new sales are up because people weren't buying their books last year, but were buying Marvel's.
They're still buying Marvel books. They haven't dropped Marvel books to buy these Image, IDW, DH books; they're buying both.
Yes, Image sold 1million more books this year than last and Marvel only sold 780,000 more, but that's not a directly comparable sum.
Sometimes in a plan, staying constant is good and Marvel are still the industry leader. That's not failiure.
Plus a healthy marker and competition is good for everyone.
Let's look specifically at August:
http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/...ticleID=124266
Attachment 2637
Marvel's & Image's sales clearly don't compare.
And that's not taking anything away from Image.
(My 2 favourite books each month are from Image and I buy more titles than I do from Marvel; it's not a case of bias.)
That's a phenomenal growth from Image, which the deserve and long may it continue.
The Walking Dead TV show is the best thing to happen to comics in years.
If I started a comic company tomorrow and sold 1million & 1 copies, then next year my growth would be 1million and 1 sales, and 1million & 1 percent.
Does that mean I'm better than Marvel, DC and Image? No. (And not saying that you've said Image etc are better, just using the point)
Does that mean my growth is better than Marvel, DC and Image? Yes.
Does that mean Marvel, DC and Image have failed? No.
Um. Doesn't that also mean that Marvel's growth is ALSO irrelevant? You can't make the case for all the others, and not for Marvel. If sales at DC, Dark Horse, IDW, and Image, are up significantly (and more significantly than Marvel's, in half of those four cases) because people were NOT buying their books last year but now ARE, then the same must be said of Marvel as well - all this means is that Marvel's last year wasn't very good, and the 780,000 sales growth is irrelevant.Quote:
They've increased.
Everyone else's growth is irrelevant as it just means that their last year wasn't as good as it should have been. Their new sales are up because people weren't buying their books last year, but were buying Marvel's.
Only I don't believe that. Growth IS relevant. If i am running a business, and it grows, that makes me happy. Likewise, if my business was best in it's class, and now it sees two of its competitors have significantly more growth than I did, then i'm very concerned. It means those other businesses did something better than I did, took better advantage of people being willing to spend more money on my product than i did, or the quality of my product is no longer seen as being as superior as it once did. Slips like this could become a trend, than a downward spiral - companies that DON'T get worried about this sort of thing, don't last.
Never mind the fact that DC is outselling Marvel in sales right now.
Another point of interest to point out: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/20851.html before this upturn in sales all across the board, sales of comics were previously DOWN 8%, with even the superhero movies in theatres not driving comic sales up. So, if comic sales were previously down 8%, and now they are up 19.3%, only 11.3% of that is real growth, isn't the rest just (presumably, if not actually provable-y) people coming back to the industry?
Irrelevant to everyone but Marvel; yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
Image won't judge themselves by Marvel's standards and targets.
How does it mean that though?Quote:
all this means is that Marvel's last year wasn't very good
What slip though? There isn't a slip.Quote:
Slips like this could become a trend
They're not though. Year on year Marvel are still ahead.Quote:
Never mind the fact that DC is outselling Marvel in sales right now.
But, even if DC do outsell Marvel, fairplay to them; they're called the Big Two for a reason.
The New 52 initiative worked. As Marvel NOW! will work.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/june...-analysis.html
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=40249
DC HAS topped Marvel recently, though, and the first article says that only Marvel's events kept them tied or ahead lately.
Phil, you said (and i do quote):
I merely turned that equation around.Quote:
To fail in sales would be to lose sales. They haven't. They've increased.
Everyone else's growth is irrelevant as it just means that their last year wasn't as good as it should have been. Their new sales are up because people weren't buying their books last year, but were buying Marvel's.
Let's take Image as an example. Marvel's growth would be irrelevant to Image, based on what you said, because Marvel's last year wasn't good just as you said that Image's last year wasn't good. If product demand (and supply) goes up from last year, then last year wasn't good. Comparatively speaking? I dunno, you were the one who said it, only backwards-like. You also said, "Their new sales are up because people weren't buying their books last year, but were buying Marvel's", which isn't actually true, or at least there is nothing to suggest that the people who weren't buying Image last year but are this year did so because they bought Marvel last year.
Sigh. My head hurts.
Anyways, out of all this, we can see why Marvel chose to go the route of their new relaunch. Or...not? Ponder this; didn't Marvel just lay off a bunch of people, and cancel such titles as Alpha Flight (the mini-turned-ongoing-turned cancelled), and yet here we are and Marvel (and almost every other company imaginable) have all had GAINS in their sales figures this year...This has me scratching my head. So, did Marvel know that DC was gaining on them, and people were also flocking to other companies (even if not Marvel buyers leaving Marvel, still their competition are picking up people at a greater rate than Marvel are), so they decided to follow DC's move (but call it their own, and state they had the idea first - which, granted, they may have, but made them sound small and petty for even saying it) as a way to move back out in front? But isn't that spending money and changing proven products, which if they are such a stable company over the years in sales why would they bother if they weren't worried or concerned? Also, if they they knew their sales were going up, why cancel series (a la AF) and fire staffers? Isn't that counter-productive?
Do you see why sometimes i feel like Marvel is run by people who don't know their own business very well? Is it just me, or does anybody else see the paradox in all that?
Phil, I love you, and our conversations, but i disagree with this one. i can almost GUARANTEE that when these figures came out, the champagne flowed freely in the Image office, both because they gained a lot of customers AND because they topped Marvel's sales growth.Quote:
Image won't judge themselves by Marvel's standards and targets.
On occasional months, yes they have. I'm not disputing that, or taking anything away from DC or saying Marvel are better; just that they haven't failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
And even if it is only events keeping them tied or ahead they're still tied or ahead. From a business point of view it doesn't matter how they've done it. If they're tied or ahead, they haven't failed.
From a creative and personal point of view how they're tied or ahead using events is a whole different kettle of fish; but we're on about business failure here, nothing more.
The industry as a whole wasn't as good. 2012 is better all over the board than 2011.Quote:
Marvel's growth would be irrelevant to Image, based on what you said, because Marvel's last year wasn't good just as you said that Image's last year wasn't good.
You misunderstand me so I've probably phrased it badly; I apologize.Quote:
which isn't actually true, or at least there is nothing to suggest that the people who weren't buying Image last year but are this year did so because they bought Marvel last year.
I didn't mean that people were choosing Marvel books over Image books, just that X Marvel books were sold but only Y Image books were sold in 2011.
X people were buying Marvel, Y people were buying Image. X-Y people(Z) were buying Marvel but not Image. (This would be easier if I had year on year figures, so apologies again) (and people is the wrong word, it's more about copies as a person can buy multiple books from multiple publishers)
In 2012 so far, X +780,000 people are buying Marvel Y +1million people are buying Image.
That gives Image a stronger 2012 Y, sure but it's still not eclipsing Marvel's X, 2011 or 2012.
But they're not expecting to.
A quick, short term cash injection. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not defending that. New #1's are a cheap marketing ploy, but it works.Quote:
Anyways, out of all this, we can see why Marvel chose to go the route of their new relaunch.
Temporary sales spikes bring in money. That's the business.
They've had gains BECAUSE they laid off people and cancelled titles.Quote:
Ponder this; didn't Marvel just lay off a bunch of people, and cancel such titles as Alpha Flight (the mini-turned-ongoing-turned cancelled), and yet here we are and Marvel (and almost every other company imaginable) have all had GAINS in their sales figures this year...This has me scratching my head.
They managed their costs better.
Because the competition was selling less to start withQuote:
(even if not Marvel buyers leaving Marvel, still their competition are picking up people at a greater rate than Marvel are)
Yup, that's exactly it.Quote:
so they decided to follow DC's move (but call it their own, and state they had the idea first - which, granted, they may have, but made them sound small and petty for even saying it) as a way to move back out in front?
But the products aren't proven and the company (and industry as a whole) isn't stable.Quote:
But isn't that spending money and changing proven products, which if they are such a stable company over the years in sales why would they bother if they weren't worried or concerned?
They didn't know sales would increase though, they can't predict the future.Quote:
Also, if they they knew their sales were going up, why cancel series (a la AF) and fire staffers? Isn't that counter-productive?
Sales have increased due to multiple shipping, $3.99 titles over $2.99 ones, and due to product refining.
Having Alpha Flight meant having to pay an extra writer(or in this case 2, presumably splitting 1 writer's wage between them equally), an extra penciller, inker(for the first few issues), colourist, letterer, editor, and then printers, distributors etc... If the cost of all of that is more than the amount of sales the comic makes then it HAS to be cancelled.
They can then assign those same creators to titles that do sell and bam - sales increase.
I really don't.Quote:
Do you see why sometimes i feel like Marvel is run by people who don't know their own business very well?
The profit they make and the fact they're still going means they do.
They'd be bankrupt otherwise.
But likewise, that may just be me.
I get a lot of what you're saying I just don't agree with the fail part.
There was most likely a celebration, yes - it's a great achievement that deserves it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
But by that logic, if Marvel's 2013 gains are significantly larger than Image's, will the people at Image be crying or killing themselves? (exaggeration for use of point)
If Image are making the best product they can, with the creative freedom they want, and they're still making a profit and hitting their targets then it doesn't matter how Marvel are doing.
Image don't exist to imitate Marvel. They don't have the same ethos or the same targets. They also don't have Disney backing.
They do what they do and they're doing it well.
Good conversation! However, i will correct you on one point.
I was meaning "gains" as in "added sales figures". Firings, layoffs, and cancellations don't add sales figures.Quote:
They've had gains BECAUSE they laid off people and cancelled titles.
They managed their costs better.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=40908
Slightly off the original topic, but at least Marvel admits that they will likely restart/reboot things all over again in the future. Don't mean to be a naysayer, but the trend of the future may be that every year or two all our comic series go back to issue 1 for the umpteenth time.
Groan.
'Future'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
But they do.
Cancelling Alpha Flight and spending the same production cost on a title that outsells it adds sales figures.
Whether it be a new title, or making Amazing Spider-Man (or whatever) twice a month.
Instead of having 2 editors edit a title each for $X a year, lay one off and make 1 edit both for an additional $0.5X a year then you save $0.5X which can be spent on production costs of a new title.
I'm with you on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flightpath07
I can see the logic as it's like TV Seasons so will be easier for new readers, but as a long term reader I hate new #1's for the sake of it.