Marvel March 2013 Solicitations

[Specter313]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=42630

[THANOSRULES]

-Nothing really stands out here...The Avengers books look interesting and the directions in some of the other A list books seem decent (such as Cap and Hulk)

-GOTG i fear with Ironman's presence will be to Bendis Avengers feeling..i wish desperately they had used someone else.

-Nova solicit is clearly telling me this is almost a reboot of Nova, a book clearly focused on new readers and not picking up pieces from DnA..maybe understandable but I hope I am at least part wrong on this.

-What is disappointing me is the quality of the fringe books. Captain Marvel still doesnt look interesting, and I supported Carol's old ongoing. T-bolts I hear is good but not much of a tease. This new Defenders book does not interest me. Avengers Arena looks as bad as any comic ever.

-What I like to see is oddball or underused characters popping up..and there are a few cases of this but not many. Tombstone in Gambit looks neat, as does Toxin in SS.

-

[runawayboulder]

So how many books does Bendis have for Marvel NOW? 4 counting Age of Ultron?

Speaking of which, wasn't that Ultron story originally supposed to run through the Avengers Annuals? Now it's 10 issues...? Geez.

[Max J Power]

-Is Age of Ultron an event, or is it more like a mini-series with "big" effects on the Marvel Universe? It has two tie-in issues, but they're separate from their respective main series, so it might be more accessible than the last 7 years of Marvel events.
-It looks like my prediction that John Cassaday would only be on Uncanny Avengers for five issues before getting a fill-in artist, a second artist to help with finishes, or a replacement was right on the mark.
-Cornell and Davis on Wolverine is something I'll probably be interested in when the trades hit.
-Speaking of trades, I've noticed that Marvel is putting them out faster, and I like that. The first volume of Uncanny Avengers (issues 1-5) will come out in the same month as issue 6, so people can easily catch up if they want to collect the issues. Much better than DC's method of keeping the trades a whole arc (more or less) behind the issues.
-I haven't any Guardians of the Galaxy comics, but Iron Man seems like an odd fit. I'm guessing it'll be like Slott's Mighty Avengers, where they had a couple popular characters in the first arc and then wrote them out.

[Colossal Spoons]

Cover to Cable & X-Force #6...new phone wallpaper.

Loeb is acknowledging that the Nova Corps is more than just Nova? Wow.

Avenging Spidey features the return of Electro. Of course it does, and it's racially ambiguous. Coincidence surely.

[Thwip!]

Interesting note on Alpha's series there

[Midnyte_Sun]

Still no god damn Ghost Rider

[runawayboulder]

I'm surprised that he didn't end up on the new incarnation of Thunderbolts.

[JustinJ]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Still no god damn Ghost Rider

I gave up on GR when the last series made her a female. Seemed like marvel was trying to make the new series bomb. Now I'm waiting for original GR Omnibus... or trades.... but I think I'll be waiting for a while.

[venom892]

I'm surprised to see Moon Knight, Ghost rider and Punisher didn't get Marvel Now series.Then again, All three have gotten multiple shots over the last five years.Iron fist could really use a new book.

[THANOSRULES]

Moon Knight looks to factor heavy in Age of Ultron (may get somthing out of that)....Punisher will be a matter of time..Ghost Rider not as optimistic.

As far as moon knight...I love the character but he's had his shots.

[JewishHobbit]

Originally Posted by THANOSRULES

-Nova solicit is clearly telling me this is almost a reboot of Nova, a book clearly focused on new readers and not picking up pieces from DnA..maybe understandable but I hope I am at least part wrong on this.

I read an interview recently that gave me the impression that they might be pulling from DnA's stuff. The story is supposed to start prior to AvX and show how Sam got the powers, why he's the only Nova in the cosmos, and how he deals with all that. I kinda sorta have a feeling that it's going to start with Sam and show him getting his powers as some sort of ramification of Richard Rider's sacrefice, then it'll jump forward to the now.

I could be wrong but I'd be alright with that. I love Richard and would rather him be back, but if as long as they provide a passing of the torch moment, I'd be okay with reading about the new kid. I just don't want DnA's final story to be ignored. He took all the Nova Force with him and then died. There shouldn't be any Nova's left out there. As long as they explain that, I'm cool.

[THANOSRULES]

Originally Posted by JewishHobbit

I read an interview recently that gave me the impression that they might be pulling from DnA's stuff. The story is supposed to start prior to AvX and show how Sam got the powers, why he's the only Nova in the cosmos, and how he deals with all that. I kinda sorta have a feeling that it's going to start with Sam and show him getting his powers as some sort of ramification of Richard Rider's sacrefice, then it'll jump forward to the now.

I could be wrong but I'd be alright with that. I love Richard and would rather him be back, but if as long as they provide a passing of the torch moment, I'd be okay with reading about the new kid. I just don't want DnA's final story to be ignored. He took all the Nova Force with him and then died. There shouldn't be any Nova's left out there. As long as they explain that, I'm cool.

I actually have very high hopes for the book. I think this may the type of book loab has needed since his son died ...I really detect a special vibe for this book despite loabs other books since his son passed (and how bad they have been)

I do want Rider back, but I figure the chances are good for that if this book is successful. I also don't really recall it being delt with that the force was completely gone..I mean they can address this in so many ways. I don't remember seeing any centurions saying there powers were gone in the aftermath maybe I'm wrong..I'll have to re-read TI.

[Snikt8]

Does anyone know if the new Superior Spider-Man will be in the Age of Ultron and is he filling Spider-Man's role in the Avengers?

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by venom892

I'm surprised to see Moon Knight, Ghost rider and Punisher didn't get Marvel Now series.Then again, All three have gotten multiple shots over the last five years.Iron fist could really use a new book.

That's precisely the reason why they aren't getting Marvel NOW! books. They have been given multiple chances, Ghost Rider has flopped every time; the Punisher and Moon Knight got excellent chances with writers like Matt Fraction, Rick Remender, Greg Rucka, Gregg Hurwitz, and Brian Michael Bendis giving it their all. When they can't make these characters sell, almost nothing can. IMO it's best to just put Ghost Rider and Moon Knight on hiatus and give the Punisher a reprieve and treat him the way they're treating Black Panther.

And I'm surprised that there is no new Iron Fist book as well.

[The Infernal]

Originally Posted by Snikt8

Does anyone know if the new Superior Spider-Man will be in the Age of Ultron and is he filling Spider-Man's role in the Avengers?

It seems like it will be Peter. Though I'm not sure when AoU is set.

[THANOSRULES]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

That's precisely the reason why they aren't getting Marvel NOW! books. They have been given multiple chances, Ghost Rider has flopped every time; the Punisher and Moon Knight got excellent chances with writers like Matt Fraction, Rick Remender, Greg Rucka, Gregg Hurwitz, and Brian Michael Bendis giving it their all. When they can't make these characters sell, almost nothing can. IMO it's best to just put Ghost Rider and Moon Knight on hiatus and give the Punisher a reprieve and treat him the way they're treating Black Panther.

And I'm surprised that there is no new Iron Fist book as well.

I do miss the days when marvel would be just content to sell certain books ,perhaps at a loss. (though thats difficult to tell)

I do agree with you about Moon Knight, if Finch and Bendis can't sell then Moonie will probably never be a top 20 seller. I've just never understood why marvel needs books to sell 30k to exist when Darkhorse or image have long running books in great shape with half the sales.

There's a theory that you let some books plug along to bring up the overrall product and line..I'm a firm believer in that...you also galvanize a base following for characters that can provided a good base for sales thereafter.

Especially when marvel puts out these movie spinoff tales and books like Captain America Corps (which was actually good) that sell 8k.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by THANOSRULES

I do miss the days when marvel would be just content to sell certain books ,perhaps at a loss.

Since when has Marvel ever done that? Maybe Runaways and a few MAX books, but I can't think of anything else.

Marvel has gotten better though, remember when Marvel cancelled Voodoo and S.W.O.R.D. after 5 issues.

I do agree with you about Moon Knight, if Finch and Bendis can't sell then Moonie will probably never be a top 20 seller. I've just never understood why marvel needs books to sell 30k to exist when Darkhorse or image have long running books in great shape with half the sales.

Marvel's cut off point is when a book drops below 20k and has no stability in readership. Also, you have to take into account that both Marvel and DC have been lowering their cancellation standards for years. There was a time when they would cancel books that were selling much, much higher than the levels they're cancelling now.

It's also a rather poor comparison to compare Marvel (and DC) to smaller publishers like Dark Horse, Image, Dynamite, Boom!, Archie, and IDW. First of all, because the Big Two own the creations that they are publishing, they have to pay the writers to do the work. In the case of say Dark Horse and Image in particular, much of the stuff they put out is creator owned. So Image doesn't have to pay Robert Kirkman to write Invincible and Walking Dead and Dark Horse doesn't have to pay Mike Mignola to write and draw Hellboy. Marvel and DC have to pay royalties to creators. The publishers that put out indie comics don't have to do that. In a lot of cases when writers sign exclusive agreements with either Marvel or DC, they have to offer them benefits like health insurance and whatnot. And because DC and Marvel are owned by major media conglomerates, they can't get away with paying creators as low as say Dark Horse, IDW, and Dynamite do with licensed titles.

So what we have here is that costs to produce books at Marvel and DC are much higher than that of the other publishers. As a result, when a book drops below 20k, they have no choice but to axe it while Image can get away with publishing Invincible at below 15k no problem.

There's a theory that you let some books plug along to bring up the overrall product and line..I'm a firm believer in that...you also galvanize a base following for characters that can provided a good base for sales thereafter.

Ummmmm.....no. In the end, comics are a business and the point of business is to make a profit. Books that are losing money get the axe. It's why DC is letting Vertigo die a slow and miserable death, it's why they even recently said that they're not going to do what they used to do with books like Secret Six, Manhunter, and Blue Beetle.

Especially when marvel puts out these movie spinoff tales and books like Captain America Corps (which was actually good) that sell 8k.

More like people scratch their heads at what Marvel is smoking when they do things like that. You can't put out books that there is no demand for.

[THANOSRULES]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Since when has Marvel ever done that? Maybe Runaways and a few MAX books, but I can't think of anything else.

Marvel has gotten better though, remember when Marvel cancelled Voodoo and S.W.O.R.D. after 5 issues.


Marvel's cut off point is when a book drops below 20k and has no stability in readership. Also, you have to take into account that both Marvel and DC have been lowering their cancellation standards for years. There was a time when they would cancel books that were selling much, much higher than the levels they're cancelling now.

It's also a rather poor comparison to compare Marvel (and DC) to smaller publishers like Dark Horse, Image, Dynamite, Boom!, Archie, and IDW. First of all, because the Big Two own the creations that they are publishing, they have to pay the writers to do the work. In the case of say Dark Horse and Image in particular, much of the stuff they put out is creator owned. So Image doesn't have to pay Robert Kirkman to write Invincible and Walking Dead and Dark Horse doesn't have to pay Mike Mignola to write and draw Hellboy. Marvel and DC have to pay royalties to creators. The publishers that put out indie comics don't have to do that. In a lot of cases when writers sign exclusive agreements with either Marvel or DC, they have to offer them benefits like health insurance and whatnot. And because DC and Marvel are owned by major media conglomerates, they can't get away with paying creators as low as say Dark Horse, IDW, and Dynamite do with licensed titles.

So what we have here is that costs to produce books at Marvel and DC are much higher than that of the other publishers. As a result, when a book drops below 20k, they have no choice but to axe it while Image can get away with publishing Invincible at below 15k no problem.


Ummmmm.....no. In the end, comics are a business and the point of business is to make a profit. Books that are losing money get the axe. It's why DC is letting Vertigo die a slow and miserable death, it's why they even recently said that they're not going to do what they used to do with books like Secret Six, Manhunter, and Blue Beetle.


More like people scratch their heads at what Marvel is smoking when they do things like that. You can't put out books that there is no demand for.

I disagree with most of what you've said here..I mean Marvel pulled the plug on several books like GOTG and NOVA with mid 20's in sales.

Agreed, there were some older books Marvel pulled the plug on quick(like Machine man and Moon Knight vol 2) , it's not like they've ever ignored sales..but they had a much longer leash.

Moon Knight himself had two series run 30+ issues and Marc Spector: Ran 60 +...the book was never a great sales demon.

Namor ran 60+..

Marvel Comics Presents and What If? books usually struggled and marvel kept up with those consistently for years...more becuase what they offered the line as a creative outlet..I mean what other stage was someone like American Eagle going to get.

There are tons more even excluding the 90s where Marvel would give books a longer leash, which to me should be at least a couple years.

And even though Marvel still would cancel books, they got inventive and tried to shake up or tweak books to generate dwindling sales..now they resort to gimmick reboots.

And there are extreme examples of this working out..like say X-men from reprints and basically a cancelled book for years to best seller?

I don't agree with you about the business aspects of what I'm talking about. Take for example the NFL. They revenue share so the whole League benefits..in the end the whole product is the selling feature, not each team. Marvel is the product and the money maker not each book. Now marvel has a lucrative film company and the actual books do not even need to make much profit...they still are valuable as marketing and a creative playground for ideas that can grow.

Theres lots of ways how marvel used to play this off...and use fringe books to pick up the whole line. Right now Marvel is essentially hoodwinking fans of established books by the double ship and creating sales smoke and mirrors.

Lastly, I really don't know about your thoughts on 3rd party books. There are other costs your not considering for them such as big licensing costs for properties like GI JOE and STAR WARS..marvel also has utilized plenty of freelance work before and I don't think your statements on the benefits etc.. are totally accurate.

I think the costs at Marvel can be higher..but not always.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by THANOSRULES

I disagree with most of what you've said here..I mean Marvel pulled the plug on several books like GOTG and NOVA with mid 20's in sales.

Actually both GOTG and Nova were below 25k. But there are a lot of factors to take into account. I'm pretty sure that DnA were done with their space saga after Realm of Kings which would have put those books into flux for sure. Maybe Marvel was planning on relaunching them that just didn't follow through. Or maybe Marvel had different plans for the characters.

Agreed, there were some older books Marvel pulled the plug on quick(like Machine man and Moon Knight vol 2) , it's not like they've ever ignored sales..but they had a much longer leash.

Moon Knight himself had two series run 30+ issues and Marc Spector: Ran 60 +...the book was never a great sales demon.

Namor ran 60+..

Marvel Comics Presents and What If? books usually struggled and marvel kept up with those consistently for years...more becuase what they offered the line as a creative outlet..I mean what other stage was someone like American Eagle going to get.

Different time and era my friend.

There are tons more even excluding the 90s where Marvel would give books a longer leash, which to me should be at least a couple years.

It's a different time dude. Costs are up, sales are down. They can't just afford to put out books that don't sell for very long anymore.

now they resort to gimmick reboots.

I'll give you that one. Even DC is guilty of this.

And there are extreme examples of this working out..like say X-men from reprints and basically a cancelled book for years to best seller?

Different time.

I don't agree with you about the business aspects of what I'm talking about. Take for example the NFL. They revenue share so the whole League benefits..in the end the whole product is the selling feature, not each team. Marvel is the product and the money maker not each book. Now marvel has a lucrative film company and the actual books do not even need to make much profit...they still are valuable as marketing and a creative playground for ideas that can grow.

Let's see the NFL is a thriving mainstream business while the comic book industry is still in need to change and adapt with low profit margins and caters primarily to an incredibly niche audience. And the NFL costs are handled differently than the way a comic book has to deal with it. At least with the NFL, the NFL isn't hurt all that much if say the Jacksonville Jaguars go bankrupt. The Jacksonville team certainly is, but the NFL can continue on as if nothing happened. The NFL isn't the entity that is dealing with the costs of operating the Jaguars, Shahid Kahn is. Marvel on the other hand has to deal with all the costs of publishing and producing their books. So they're hurt if a book doesn't perform.

Theres lots of ways how marvel used to play this off...and use fringe books to pick up the whole line. Right now Marvel is essentially hoodwinking fans of established books by the double ship and creating sales smoke and mirrors.

Or how about they put out quality top tier books to promote the whole line. I agree that double shipping is hurting the overall line because people are buying the bigger books at the expense of the smaller ones now. But by using high quality upper tier books to promote the smaller ones, we get small successes like how Amazing Spider-Man built up Venom, Scarlet Spider, and maybe even Morbius or how Captain America built up Winter Soldier.

Lastly, I really don't know about your thoughts on 3rd party books. There are other costs your not considering for them such as big licensing costs for properties like GI JOE and STAR WARS..marvel also has utilized plenty of freelance work before and I don't think your statements on the benefits etc.. are totally accurate.

Writers who freelance for IDW and Star Wars get paid a bit less than those who work for Marvel and DC. But Dark Horse and Image are far less reliant on free lance than the Big Two because they put out a lot of creator owned stuff.

And yes, I am accurate on the benefits. You see when creators sign exclusive agreements, they aren't freelancers anymore, they're employees of either DC or Marvel. So in order to entice them to not work for the competition and not go into far more profitable creator-owned works, they have to offer them things like benefits, more favorable royalty deals, health insurance, etc.

I think the costs at Marvel can be higher..but not always.

The costs at Marvel are almost always higher. They have to pay more and they have to put up with the costs. It's why they resort to awful things like Ed Brubaker and Peter David taking pay cuts to prevent books like Winter Soldier and X-Factor from being $3.99 books.

[THANOSRULES]

Actually both GOTG and Nova were below 25k. But there are a lot of factors to take into account. I'm pretty sure that DnA were done with their space saga after Realm of Kings which would have put those books into flux for sure. Maybe Marvel was planning on relaunching them that just didn't follow through. Or maybe Marvel had different plans for the characters.

Agree with most of this...I do have a problem with stopping a book for 2-3 years (how long will it be?) simply because there are "rock star designs" on a book. Both these books essentially could have kept truckin to some degree. So agree this was a case of this, but disagree that it is acceptable. There were several unfinished arcs and unresolved plots in both books. Others seemed rushed near the end

EDIT: And my take on DnA's recent comments about these new books and the movie..i detect a trace of venom

Different time and era my friend.

But Joe Q era is the exception I'm discussing. With Marvel reaping movie dollars they have even more play. There were tough economic times before.

Let's see the NFL is a thriving mainstream business while the comic book industry is still in need to change and adapt with low profit margins and caters primarily to an incredibly niche audience. And the NFL costs are handled differently than the way a comic book has to deal with it. At least with the NFL, the NFL isn't hurt all that much if say the Jacksonville Jaguars go bankrupt. The Jacksonville team certainly is, but the NFL can continue on as if nothing happened. The NFL isn't the entity that is dealing with the costs of operating the Jaguars, Shahid Kahn is. Marvel on the other hand has to deal with all the costs of publishing and producing their books. So they're hurt if a book doesn't perform.

THE NFL WAS NOT ALWAYS THRIVING

The NFL does pick up a tab for the Jags, as there is revenue sharing...Kahn sees these profits as his bottom line. And the whole NFL benefits from the sale of MJD jerseys...but this actually a good example because the NFL would not pull the plug on a "weak sister" like JAX..if they do move it would be an internal decision by the owner. Again I'm not saying we have an exact comparison. BUT THIS IS HOW THEY PASSED BASEBALL.

Essentially there are many successful products or companies that plan for "losses" on a complementary product for a net gain. This is standard business. Another example of this are video games, who routinely take losses on console sales to make the money through games and software.

Writers who freelance for IDW and Star Wars get paid a bit less than those who work for Marvel and DC. But Dark Horse and Image are far less reliant on free lance than the Big Two because they put out a lot of creator owned stuff.

And yes, I am accurate on the benefits. You see when creators sign exclusive agreements, they aren't freelancers anymore, they're employees of either DC or Marvel. So in order to entice them to not work for the competition and not go into far more profitable creator-owned works, they have to offer them things like benefits, more favorable royalty deals, health insurance, etc.

Again I'm just not really seeing your point...Marvel has used non-exclusive talent for years...some of the best stuff under Joe Q really. It's getting less common. Books like Team Up/Presents/ What If? were great outlets , not only for characters, but new talent which was largely freelance.

Guys like Giffen did not have exclusives when he did Annihilation.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by THANOSRULES

Agree with most of this...I do have a problem with stopping a book for 2-3 years (how long will it be?) simply because there are "rock star designs" on a book. Both these books essentially could have kept truckin to some degree. So agree this was a case of this, but disagree that it is acceptable. There were several unfinished arcs and unresolved plots in both books. Others seemed rushed near the end

EDIT: And my take on DnA's recent comments about these new books and the movie..i detect a trace of venom

Yeah, it does indeed suck. But business is business.

But Joe Q era is the exception I'm discussing. With Marvel reaping movie dollars they have even more play. There were tough economic times before.

Doesn't matter, all of this is still a profit deal. You don't publish books that don't make money.

THE NFL WAS NOT ALWAYS THRIVING

It's thriving right now.

The NFL does pick up a tab for the Jags, as there is revenue sharing...Kahn sees these profits as his bottom line. And the whole NFL benefits from the sale of MJD jerseys...but this actually a good example because the NFL would not pull the plug on a "weak sister" like JAX..if they do move it would be an internal decision by the owner. Again I'm not saying we have an exact comparison. BUT THIS IS HOW THEY PASSED BASEBALL.

Yeah, there are revenue sharing deals, but in the end if say the Jacksonville Jaguars went bankrupt, it's going to fall on Kahn, not the NFL. If a book fails at Marvel, Marvel will be hurting. Look at how the MLB is surviving just fine when the Dodgers went bankrupt.

Essentially there are many successful products or companies that plan for "losses" on a complementary product for a net gain. This is standard business. Another example of this are video games, who routinely take losses on console sales to make the money through games and software.

Because you need the machine to play the games where the console makers will make money off of licensing. Companies that make losses often have a bigger picture in mind for something necessary. Marvel Publishing on the other hand, doesn't need their smaller books. They need books like Amazing Spider-Man, Avengers, and Uncanny X-Men to do well, but they don't need Red She-Hulk or Journey into Mystery (keep in mind that I'm not knocking these books, I do love them, but aren't needed in the grand scheme of things).

Again I'm just not really seeing your point...Marvel has used non-exclusive talent for years...some of the best stuff under Joe Q really. It's getting less common. Books like Team Up/Presents/ What If? were great outlets , not only for characters, but new talent which was largely freelance.

Yeah, they have produced with non-exclusive talent and will continue to do so, but costs at Marvel are still much higher than that of Dark Horse and Image. Marvel has to still pay the freelancers, they still have to give them royalties, they still have to deal with publishing costs, and they most likely have to pay freelancers more than say freelancers at the smaller publishers.

And the books you mention just can't thrive in today's event/big character dominated market.

Guys like Giffen did not have exclusives when he did Annihilation.

And Marvel wouldn't even consider something like Annihilation without an exclusive writer like Bendis in today's era. Things have rapidly changed from just a few years ago. What they would have risked just six years ago, they wouldn't do today. And chances of readers picking up something like Annihilation like they did six years ago, are rather slim. Times change bro. And they change fast. Remember when Thunderbolts was a huge success six years ago and now look at it.

[THANOSRULES]

What your saying just does not make sense about the economy. I agree the economy is ****..but not really for Marvel.

Marvel now has a lucrative movie industry, they are owned and backed by Disney who is incredibly strong financially. They just picked up Star Wars. The market for entertainment in general is incredibly resilient to the woes at hand. Avengers made zillions..Marvel has other blockbusters in the pipeline and toy lines, video games...an unprecedented diverse "portfolio" and money IS oozing everywhere.

We are not talking about huge losses... essentially we are discussing pushing back standard failed book cancellation from 8-12 issues to somewhere around 20 issues.

Also , I am not actually convinced there is any (definitive) re searchable way to even determine "what books are losing money" "what is the formula to see this" It depends on a lot of factors...certainly depending on issues like advertising, creative staff, and to a lesser extent physical production quality of the book (which is less of a factor nowadays but factored more in days of mixed quality paper styles/etc)

We may not even be discussing ANY losses per book actually occurring..only failed profit potential.

I do admit , the opposite may be true..and marvel could see losses on even higher end books selling at or way above the 20-30k mark depending on certain factors...but i strongly doubt it.

..and your not seeing my core point.. that building up a fringe character/ team with history and even a small following actually helps increase the whole marvel U and the product.

My dad and I had this discussion about a local restaurant which stopped carrying the fried catfish on the menu. The waiter said it just did not sell that well, so the owner switched to a different item. I said yeah but I only come here for the fried catfish, no restaurants serve anything like that around here ( I live in VT) and I am not going to come here anymore because there is no more catfish. So despite the fact you sold only 20 catfish today..it doesn't mean your going to attract the same person to your other products...they may just not come back.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by THANOSRULES

What your saying just does not make sense about the economy. I agree the economy is ****..but not really for Marvel.

Are you serious dude. Just because their licensing and movie businesses are doing well doesn't mean that their comic line has been doing well. As a matter in fact, that's why they're doing Marvel NOW! because their books were doing rather poorly.

Marvel now has a lucrative movie industry, they are owned and backed by Disney who is incredibly strong financially. They just picked up Star Wars. The market for entertainment in general is incredibly resilient to the woes at hand. Avengers made zillions..Marvel has other blockbusters in the pipeline and toy lines, video games...an unprecedented diverse "portfolio" and money IS oozing everywhere.

Just because a business is doing well financially, doesn't mean that they're going to be pumping money into failing products. Why do you think that Google shuts down products that don't catch on? Why do you think that Warner Bros. didn't make a sequel to Superman Returns? I'm willing to bet that Sony doesn't put out another handheld gaming device. I can go on, but financially strong businesses don't support products that don't sell. That's why they're strong businesses.

We are not talking about huge losses... essentially we are discussing pushing back standard failed book cancellation from 8-12 issues to somewhere around 20 issues.

It's dumb to support a book that is failing for 20 issues. 12 issues is quite reasonable to give a a book a chance.

Also , I am not actually convinced there is any (definitive) re searchable way to even determine "what books are losing money" "what is the formula to see this" It depends on a lot of factors...certainly depending on issues like advertising, creative staff, and to a lesser extent physical production quality of the book (which is less of a factor nowadays but factored more in days of mixed quality paper styles/etc)

Well considering that Marvel's cancellation threshold is below 20k, I think it's safe to assume that most books, though some such as the Oz adaptations are exceptions, are typically money losers below 20k.

We may not even be discussing ANY losses per book actually occurring..only failed profit potential.

There is no profit potential to begin with when there is no demand for certain books.

I do admit , the opposite may be true..and marvel could see losses on even higher end books selling at or way above the 20-30k mark depending on certain factors...but i strongly doubt it.

I doubt that Marvel is seeing losses with books selling above 20k. If that were the case X-Factor and Avengers Academy would have been cancelled a while ago, but they were quite stable at the 23k range.

..and your not seeing my core point.. that building up a fringe character/ team with history and even a small following actually helps increase the whole marvel U and the product.

You can't keep pushing characters that people aren't interested in. I want Marvel Publishing to be as profitable as possible. So that way, they can keep publishing comics. Putting out books that don't sell is just going to ruin them and maybe even get Disney to think that they don't need the comics.

My dad and I had this discussion about a local restaurant which stopped carrying the fried catfish on the menu. The waiter said it just did not sell that well, so the owner switched to a different item. I said yeah but I only come here for the fried catfish, no restaurants serve anything like that around here ( I live in VT) and I am not going to come here anymore because there is no more catfish. So despite the fact you sold only 20 catfish today..it doesn't mean your going to attract the same person to your other products...they may just not come back.

Oh dude.....what your restaurant did was a smart move. I work in a restaurant, items that don't sell well get dropped. And we aren't going to miss the 1 or 2 people who won't come back. You just don't keep putting an item on the menu when there is such a small customer base for it. Why put out an item that doesn't sell, when you can replace it with an item that sells far more? Yeah, they're be that 1 or 2 people that'll keep ordering it every so often, but those few people just aren't worth the effort to keep making it and the costs that are associated with ordering it. As a matter in fact, they were probably losing money on the catfish because they probably had to throw away more than what they sold.

You see, the point of business isn't to make an incredibly small group of people happy. It's to make money and make as much of it as possible. Catering to just an incredibly small group of people doesn't make money.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[THANOSRULES]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Are you serious dude. Just because their licensing and movie businesses are doing well doesn't mean that their comic line has been doing well. As a matter in fact, that's why they're doing Marvel NOW! because their books were doing rather poorly.

Just because a business is doing well financially, doesn't mean that they're going to be pumping money into failing products. Why do you think that Google shuts down products that don't catch on? Why do you think that Warner Bros. didn't make a sequel to Superman Returns? I'm willing to bet that Sony doesn't put out another handheld gaming device. I can go on, but financially strong businesses don't support products that don't sell. That's why they're strong businesses.

It's dumb to support a book that is failing for 20 issues. 12 issues is quite reasonable to give a a book a chance.

Well considering that Marvel's cancellation threshold is below 20k, I think it's safe to assume that most books, though some such as the Oz adaptations are exceptions, are typically money losers below 20k.

There is no profit potential to begin with when there is no demand for certain books.

I doubt that Marvel is seeing losses with books selling above 20k. If that were the case X-Factor and Avengers Academy would have been cancelled a while ago, but they were quite stable at the 23k range.

You can't keep pushing characters that people aren't interested in. I want Marvel Publishing to be as profitable as possible. So that way, they can keep publishing comics. Putting out books that don't sell is just going to ruin them and maybe even get Disney to think that they don't need the comics.

Oh dude.....what your restaurant did was a smart move. I work in a restaurant, items that don't sell well get dropped. And we aren't going to miss the 1 or 2 people who won't come back. You just don't keep putting an item on the menu when there is such a small customer base for it. Why put out an item that doesn't sell, when you can replace it with an item that sells far more? Yeah, they're be that 1 or 2 people that'll keep ordering it every so often, but those few people just aren't worth the effort to keep making it and the costs that are associated with ordering it. As a matter in fact, they were probably losing money on the catfish because they probably had to throw away more than what they sold.

You see, the point of business isn't to make an incredibly small group of people happy. It's to make money and make as much of it as possible. Catering to just an incredibly small group of people doesn't make money.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Your breaking the restaurant analogy down too simply...If I decide i want catfish I went to restaurant X to get it. I bring my family with me..maybe more..maybe I like the catfish so much I have my birthday party there. But no catfish and it doesnt mean i still go to restaurant X to buy the steak.

Its very standard for restaurants to have a few items on there menu that they think "by there presence" will add a few people through the door that normally wouldnt come. Pizza places that still carry anchovies..etc.But were getting crazy here.

Basically what I am thinking of here is something like Ghost Rider. Theres nothing really like that book and I have a few friends who only buy GR at marvel, but will check out more and more marvel books over time.

Essentially this is how Marvel was built..they came late to the party and established books over time. They built up core books and experimented with developing others , some flopped, some didnt and became core books.

You can't develop new core books without this. i don't think we disagree on this, more on what time you give to figure out if its working.

I see something like Green Lantern..which was a lower selling DC book for YEARS before it became a top 10 seller the past 5 years or so. It takes time sometimes.