|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 10, 2010 0:47:25 GMT -5
www.newsarama.com/comics/siege-3-dc-variant-100122.htmlHmm...good business or cutthroat kind of sleazy move by Marvel? the only way you can get this book is by sending in covers from 1st printings of 50 books. Doesn't that give the retailer incentive to short stock his 1st printings and put out 2nd printings? Second printings will likely still move and the distributor will still get a variant. I don't know if retailers get cashback anymore for unsold issues and I'm sure many keep them for their back issue bins and thanks to this move these issues won't be there. If it's a success it could lead to more of these moves, which overall would likely be bad for the industry. I dunno...Anybody have a really strong grasp on how distribution works these days? I know from a few years back and can't say that I'm completely current on how/if returns work these days.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Feb 22, 2010 19:01:59 GMT -5
I don't know if retailers get cashback anymore for unsold issues ... It may strike us as sleazy, or underhanded, or even humorous, but Marvel (or DC or any comic book company) has the right to set forth the terms of its sale to a distributor; and the distributor is expected to enforce the terms of that sale (to the retailer). Here Marvel is offering a variant issue as the premium (instead of a refund or discount. At least the "offer" is optional. Before the advent of the direct make/comic book retail stores, the accepted practice was that retailers could return unsold copies (by sending back the covers) and receive a discount or refund. Why return just the cover? The idea was that a "defaced" comic book could not be sold. Well, back in the day I bought many a coverless comic book from my neighborhood mom&pop candy store! These comics were a few pennies less than the new issues (at least, at the store I frequented) and usually just a few months older than the current issue on sale for a given title. I loved coming upon these comics; I relished the opportunity to collect "backwards." Anyway, this ancient "return covers for a refund" practice is largely a thing of the past, as for the last few decades Marvel/DC usually sells comics outright (at a discount) to the distributor with no return clause. In turn--and in accordance with the comic company's directions--the distributor sell the discounted comics to the retailers--again, with no return clause.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 24, 2010 13:46:56 GMT -5
I don't know if retailers get cashback anymore for unsold issues ... It may strike us as sleazy, or underhanded, or even humorous, but Marvel (or DC or any comic book company) has the right to set forth the terms of its sale to a distributor; and the distributor is expected to enforce the terms of that sale (to the retailer). Here Marvel is offering a variant issue as the premium (instead of a refund or discount. At least the "offer" is optional. Before the advent of the direct make/comic book retail stores, the accepted practice was that retailers could return unsold copies (by sending back the covers) and receive a discount or refund. Why return just the cover? The idea was that a "defaced" comic book could not be sold. Well, back in the day I bought many a coverless comic book from my neighborhood mom&pop candy store! These comics were a few pennies less than the new issues (at least, at the store I frequented) and usually just a few months older than the current issue on sale for a given title. I loved coming upon these comics; I relished the opportunity to collect "backwards." Anyway, this ancient "return covers for a refund" practice is largely a thing of the past, as for the last few decades Marvel/DC usually sells comics outright (at a discount) to the distributor with no return clause. In turn--and in accordance with the comic company's directions--the distributor sell the discounted comics to the retailers--again, with no return clause. Well that's the reason I didn't outright condemn Marvel for the move. However just because something is allowable, should it be done? One example I have is a friend owned a domain name. A person wanted the domain name and didn't want to pay a lot for it. The person decided to buy a bunch of similar domain names and said he would fill them with hardcore pornography, making it seem the original domain name would be too and thus people would be less inclined to visit the original site owned by my friend. The person never made a threat or specifically said I'm doing this to ruin your site to my friend, but the intent was clear. Marvel's intent was to have some retailers pull the 1st printing of a bunch of DC Comics that are part of a crossover story that is selling quite well (In Blackest Night, although to be honest I think the storyline is pure junk, maybe even worse than Marvel Zombies and that's saying something...) thus disrupting the enjoyment of DC readers and avid collectors who like the chase of 1st print runs. And this is something of a negative move. Imagine buying all the tickets to the new Harry Potter movie and forcing fans to wait a day or two to see the movie, after spoilers may be hitting the web. It's just obnoxious and says more about those who would such a thing. And wasn't the old buyback system was intended for issues past their saleability and not for fully viable issues that were still on sale?
|
|