|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 28, 2008 0:29:55 GMT -5
www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18583Read about a third of the way down the column... Man if that's for real I'll probably go from a dozen titles to maybe four, or none. I don't think I'll be able to support this industry anymore. And the guy who writes the column makes a very good point about the "inflation" argument...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 28, 2008 5:50:46 GMT -5
Here in the UK, our comics are already OVER your equivalent of $3.99... (Even when the exchange rate was *good*). and it looks like they're about to recieve a further price hike even if American comics don't, thanks to the exchange rate. My only consolation comes from the fact that my local store is doing an indefinite sale with every single back-issue about the equivalent of 60 cents.  |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 28, 2008 8:50:07 GMT -5
Well it's an imported product. I buy Britain's Total Film magazine and it costs me quite a bit as well (almost as much as three comics!!)...
But Marvel's sales are up according to Quesada and we're in a recession and the inflation rate doesn't support a price hike of this magnitude. It seems a bit unsupportable.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Oct 28, 2008 8:52:08 GMT -5
If it does go up, I may have to look into slashing my monthly intake. I'm going to have to anyways, but still . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 28, 2008 9:42:18 GMT -5
Marvel could save a bunch of money by trimming the fat from their monthly offerings. All of the mini-series, specials, one-shots, etc. all require paying more people. A simple tightening of the belt in terms of product would allow them to pay fewer people and increase circulation on their core titles. Pretty simple economics. Instead they continue to try to glut the market with some of this drivel that is forgettable as soon as it's "read".
|
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on Oct 28, 2008 14:39:17 GMT -5
Amen. I have been considering switching to TPBs at some point, mainly for storage convenience (and because, with a new baby around, my individual comics no longer seem quite so "safe!"). This might seal the deal.
I wonder if the TPBs will be going up 33% as well...??
|
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Oct 28, 2008 15:10:57 GMT -5
Marvel could save a bunch of money by trimming the fat from their monthly offerings. All of the mini-series, specials, one-shots, etc. all require paying more people. A simple tightening of the belt in terms of product would allow them to pay fewer people and increase circulation on their core titles. Pretty simple economics. Instead they continue to try to glut the market with some of this drivel that is forgettable as soon as it's "read". dlw66 hits the nail on the head, when quantity supercedes quality, increasing prices is a real slap in the face. I used to love the Marvel Monthly Checklist that appeared with the Bullpen Bulletins in the 70's-80's marvel comics. Can you imagine what a monthly checklist would look like now?(one page probably couldn't cover all the Marvel titles) Oh yeah, they do include all the upcoming titles in PREVIEWS- a comic-sized book of solicitations that they charge 99-cents for. Oh wait, they increased PREVIEWs cover price to $1.25. *groan*  c'mon Quesada, wake up and do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 28, 2008 23:27:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately as long as there is a market for all these mega events, both companies will keep doing them. Apparently they appeal to the vast majority of readers - just look at sales. I have no doubt they will continue to sell well, even at a $3.99 price point.
What galls me about all of this is they can't even get books out on a regular schedule. It seems as though they have no sense of professionalism in this regard, putting out books "whenever", with no apologies. Look at the mess now over at DC with Final Crisis (I will say, Secret Invasion may bore me, but at least I can understand it - unlike FC). They hire artists and writers who simply can't keep to a schedule.
Let's see, back in the 60's, Stan wrote just about the entire Marvel line every month, and Kirby storyboarded most of the books! I guess they were just over-achievers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 29, 2008 10:22:35 GMT -5
Let's see, back in the 60's, Stan wrote just about the entire Marvel line every month, and Kirby storyboarded most of the books! I guess they were just over-achievers. It really isn't comparable. I have a deep and abiding love for the silver age, but if that stuff was coming out now, there's no way anyone would accept it. We're FAR more tolerant of flaws in older books than we are in new- and that's understandable and justifiable, but it's still true. The problem is, who decides what books Marvel should slash? Lots of the miniseries' these days are event tie-ins (E.G. Secret Invasion: Fantastic Four), and they sell extremely well. THere's the entire Marvel Adventures line or the "Marvel Classics" line, neither of which sell well at all in single format but both of which do great in TPB. There's the Ultimate Universe which is soon to undergo a resurge in popularity as well. What exactly are the books they should be cropping? (Bearing in mind that DC put out far more books than Marvel already) |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Oct 29, 2008 10:33:22 GMT -5
Marvel could save a bunch of money by trimming the fat from their monthly offerings. All of the mini-series, specials, one-shots, etc. all require paying more people. A simple tightening of the belt in terms of product would allow them to pay fewer people and increase circulation on their core titles. Pretty simple economics. Instead they continue to try to glut the market with some of this drivel that is forgettable as soon as it's "read". dlw66 hits the nail on the head, when quantity supercedes quality, increasing prices is a real slap in the face. What does quality have to do with it? I don't understand this arguement. The price of comics would be going up no matter who the creative teams were. Bendis, Millar, Brubaker, Busiek, Lee -- if Jack Kirby rose from the dead and put his zombie hand to Avengers again, the price would still be going up! The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter who writes or draws comics. The price will/may go up. And Doug, no offensive, but you don't even read comics from Marvel anymore. How would you even know if it's forgettable? |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 29, 2008 10:45:06 GMT -5
dlw66 hits the nail on the head, when quantity supercedes quality, increasing prices is a real slap in the face. What does quality have to do with it? I don't understand this arguement. ... And Doug, no offensive, but you don't even read comics from Marvel anymore. How would you even know if it's forgettable? I don't think I said anything about creative teams. My comment was toward the vast number of periodicals Marvel (and DC, too) puts on the market each week. My suggestion was for the firm to lower its costs by cutting expenses -- hence my suggestion that periphery books like mini-series and one-shots be done away with. From a quality standpoint, however, I would argue that this would decrease the number of creators in the field, thus hopefully improving the overall quality of what would then be offered for sale. So, by cutting wages/benefits for a large number of the company's creative personnel, and slashing printing expenses as well as shipping costs, Marvel could save mucho dinero -- a price hike wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed. I wasn't also aware that I needed to announce when I was going to read Marvel again -- not sure anyone knows if I am or if I'm not (I do read a few books...). That being said, I do remain a faithful reader of the Previews capsules for books I once enjoyed, and I do occasionally thumb through books at the LCS. So I am aware of what is going on, even if I don't completely read the books. |
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Oct 29, 2008 11:22:52 GMT -5
Let's see, back in the 60's, Stan wrote just about the entire Marvel line every month, and Kirby storyboarded most of the books! I guess they were just over-achievers. It really isn't comparable. I have a deep and abiding love for the silver age, but if that stuff was coming out now, there's no way anyone would accept it. We're FAR more tolerant of flaws in older books than we are in new- and that's understandable and justifiable, but it's still true. The problem is, who decides what books Marvel should slash? Lots of the miniseries' these days are event tie-ins (E.G. Secret Invasion: Fantastic Four), and they sell extremely well. THere's the entire Marvel Adventures line or the "Marvel Classics" line, neither of which sell well at all in single format but both of which do great in TPB. There's the Ultimate Universe which is soon to undergo a resurge in popularity as well. What exactly are the books they should be cropping? (Bearing in mind that DC put out far more books than Marvel already) My final comment in my post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what I am trying to say is that there seems to be a general lack of professionalism - ie, meeting one's deadlines, not hiring artists or writers who are known to have problems making deadlines, or not having a backlog of material for such creators before going to print. I really respect what George Perez did before starting Brave and the Bold: knowing his limitations, he only committed to 10 issues, and he had several in the can before the title was published. I think this constant lateness of books is inexcusable. It's one of the reasons I am frustrated with the market as a whole. Perhaps if both companies weren't shoving so much junk out on the stands, we might actually get a series that comes out monthly, or doesn't throw off a bunch of other titles because of delays. |
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Oct 29, 2008 11:52:45 GMT -5
Comics are already this much at the grocery store.  |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 29, 2008 14:33:55 GMT -5
Let's see, back in the 60's, Stan wrote just about the entire Marvel line every month, and Kirby storyboarded most of the books! I guess they were just over-achievers. It really isn't comparable. I have a deep and abiding love for the silver age, but if that stuff was coming out now, there's no way anyone would accept it. We're FAR more tolerant of flaws in older books than we are in new- and that's understandable and justifiable, but it's still true. The problem is, who decides what books Marvel should slash? Lots of the miniseries' these days are event tie-ins (E.G. Secret Invasion: Fantastic Four), and they sell extremely well. THere's the entire Marvel Adventures line or the "Marvel Classics" line, neither of which sell well at all in single format but both of which do great in TPB. There's the Ultimate Universe which is soon to undergo a resurge in popularity as well. What exactly are the books they should be cropping? (Bearing in mind that DC put out far more books than Marvel already) Actually Marvel has done quite well in recent memory. In fact according to Diamond sales, Marvel achieved over 50% of every book ordered by retailers in Sept. www.newsarama.com/comics/081020-diamond-sales-charts.htmlNow considering that, why exactly would they need to raise prices so significantly? The reason you raise prices is because you're not making enough money to cover your costs and create a profit. But if you're Marvel, you're outselling your rivals and your books are priced well above inflation already. So why the extra cost? It would actually make far more sense for DC to be considering the price increase as they are having a tougher road to profitability. I'm sure there's a ton of reasons Joe Quesada can give, but I think this is a terrible time to consider a HUGE price increase. |
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Oct 29, 2008 16:01:35 GMT -5
Joe Quesada probably has very little to do with this decision. He's EiC. This decision is probably handled more by Dan Buckley and other higher-ups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 30, 2008 5:40:40 GMT -5
But even that has its limits. You note that about Pérez, but he himself is now running horibly late on "Legion of Three Worlds" over at DC, so the same care was not exercised there. That said, I agree in principle- another example I can point to is Bryan Hitch, who, after being consistently late on the Ultimates, has been at least four issues ahead all the way through his Fantastic Four run. Sadly, that has been quite badly scuppered by huge inker problems leading to delays anyway, showing that no solution is flawless. I have to say, I doubt it. The only titles that affect other titles with delays are major crossover books (And if that bothers you, 'Secret Invasion' has been by far the best ever in that regard, so maybe companies are learning....) But I don't think reducing the amount of books would help, because most of the big-name 'slow' artists are only working on one at a time anyway. (Hitch, Perez, Coipel, Jones, Cho, McGuiness....) Actually, I find that to be a bad sign rather than a good one- and I think Tom Brevoort sums it up best: www.marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/1323Market share is irrelevant when you remember that the overall profits of the company have gone down, and we're in the middle of a recession which means Marvel profits overall are substantially down in any case. Beating DC isn't much comfort if you're fighting to be king of the scrapheap. But we need to remember that DC TPB sales are traditionally stronger than Marvels, and they are probabvly better money-makers- not to mention that Warner obviously have far more fiscal flexability than Marvel, and DC may well be considering a price rise of their own in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Oct 30, 2008 7:07:53 GMT -5
But even that has its limits. You note that about Pérez, but he himself is now running horibly late on "Legion of Three Worlds" over at DC, so the same care was not exercised there. That said, I agree in principle- another example I can point to is Bryan Hitch, who, after being consistently late on the Ultimates, has been at least four issues ahead all the way through his Fantastic Four run. Sadly, that has been quite badly scuppered by huge inker problems leading to delays anyway, showing that no solution is flawless. I have to say, I doubt it. The only titles that affect other titles with delays are major crossover books (And if that bothers you, 'Secret Invasion' has been by far the best ever in that regard, so maybe companies are learning....) But I don't think reducing the amount of books would help, because most of the big-name 'slow' artists are only working on one at a time anyway. (Hitch, Perez, Coipel, Jones, Cho, McGuiness....) Actually, I find that to be a bad sign rather than a good one- and I think Tom Brevoort sums it up best: www.marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/1323Market share is irrelevant when you remember that the overall profits of the company have gone down, and we're in the middle of a recession which means Marvel profits overall are substantially down in any case. Beating DC isn't much comfort if you're fighting to be king of the scrapheap. But we need to remember that DC TPB sales are traditionally stronger than Marvels, and they are probabvly better money-makers- not to mention that Warner obviously have far more fiscal flexability than Marvel, and DC may well be considering a price rise of their own in any case. Brevoort is talking about competition and a healthy marketplace, but it certainly doesn't put Marvel in a bad place. The domination in the US television market has shrunk since the advent of cable but the top money makers are still happy to be on top, obviously... And I thought that Secret Invasion was one of their top selling crossovers ever and was bringing new audiences to the books. I'm genuinely curious, is Marvel having a bad year or a good year? Either sales are good and the books are performing thanks to a several month long crossover and the other crossovers that preceded it, or they're not. Every thing I see from Marvel's promotion is that the books are killing DC and selling better than several years ago. Is this mistaken? Actually I just re-read the blog and the reader responses and one retailer was talking about how pleased he was with the fantastic sales on Marvel's product, so it seems that more than yours truly thinks they're doing well. Regardless of whose decision it is, Joe Q or higher ups, the public face and the guy who says everything is Quesada and I've yet to see him shy away from taking credit for the direction of Marvel, so I think he's gotta take the hit for a price hike as well |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Nov 10, 2008 3:57:55 GMT -5
I don't know in terms of present vs past, but according to the Diamond Comics website from a couple of weeks ago, in September (or even October) Marvel had 50% of the comics market against 25% by DC. That's a huge difference, they are earning twice as much  Regarding the price increase, being used to buy them over here, where they are more expensive than $2.99 anyway, it doesn't make a huge difference (and I doubt it's to do with importing, mangas have several times the amount of pages (200/250 vs 25/30) and are still pretty low-priced). A whole dollar does however look like a fairly high jump. Math has never been my thing but it's a 30% increase, isn't it? Price increases used to be in the range of cents from what I remember, not entire dollars. |
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Nov 18, 2008 13:15:38 GMT -5
That's just unfair. My local shop only started selling comics at US prices last year when we hit parity. I don't want to go back to the full price.
That said, its not like I'm exactly buying a lot of comics as it is.
I guess times are tough for everyone. Considering I paid 3.99 for years, this doesn't seem like a ridiculous hike or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Nov 20, 2008 21:58:25 GMT -5
Price increases used to be in the range of cents from what I remember, not entire dollars. Yep, I remember my shock when comics went from 12 cents to 15 cents! May not seem like much of an increase, but when I first started buying comics on my own, my allowance was a quarter--yep, that's right, 25 cents--a week...so I couldn't even buy two comics! |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Nov 21, 2008 11:38:06 GMT -5
Comics were a quarter when I started buying my own, although 20-centers were recent enough that I had several friends in possession of many of those. My big hit was when I stopped buying them at 35 cents and started again years later and they were 75 cents. I thought that was a crime!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hank Pym on Nov 21, 2008 19:48:15 GMT -5
My family was always moderately well off... so I could afford getting 4-5 books every month in the 80's! Now-a-days it would be a risky purchase to even buy one for myself!
|
|
