Comics Amazing Spider-Man sales chart from 1965 to the Present

[stillanerd]

The Comichron website has collected sales data for the Amazing Spider-Man going as far back as 1965. They've gave special attention via highlighting the Total PAID circulation average in the data. The results might prove surprising--especially when you consider what was going on during that time in the comics. And you'd be really surprised which year was the highest selling period in Spider-Man history and which is the worst.

http://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html

 

[Blader5489]

I don't see what's so surprising about it, wasn't 1992-1993 around the same time as Death of Superman?

 

[Themanofbat]

Interesting... I love looking at stuff like that...

 

[Dragon]

Some very striking results there. For one thing, we see that there's no question Spidey's first big "event" of Gwen's death was due to falling sales. What's also interesting is that it didn't work, as sales continued to drop until the issue when Gwen was brought back (In clone form).

Another thing is that the Ben Reilly era saw a drop in sales from which Spidey has never recovered. And of course, the lowest point in sales would be Brand New Day. I wonder if Marvel has actually read these charts..

But if you want to see some really insane peaks and valleys look at sales for Batman!!!

 

[farmernudie]

wow...that really was quite interesting and very well researched and put together.

Yeh....it is sad that the Clone Saga really obliterated readership.
And it was a no brainer...as in, a road they really should have NEVER gone down...to say the real spidey we've read about all this time was a fake!

I stopped reading at that time for the first time ever in the life of spidey.....it was sad. Kinda like Clone Saga is happening again, since nwo it is the second time i cannot see anything redeeming in the character and what they're doing. Oh well, they'll reboot this reboot eventually, i keep reminding myself, and then i can collect my fav again!

Thanks for the post!

 

[Meehaul]

What's bad is that the overall trend, and not just for Spidey, is down. BND or no, comics are struggling. In 1965, the population of the USA was around 190 million. The population today is just over 300 million, but far, far fewer people are reading comics, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the population. I guess that just represents more competition for the entertainment dollar. I suspect comics need to go digital. And I also suspect, like daytime soap operas, they long form story sequence for comics may just be dying. Batman is actually the reference comic used to chart for all the comics on the Diamond list (from which these numbers are derived, except subscriptions).

 

[Meehaul]

And, interestingly enough, 2008 was actually a better year than 2005. You have to figure in "returns," in which news stands are allowed to send back unsold issues. ASM had some horrible years throughout this decade.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I don't believe marvel allows returns, only DC.

 

[Meehaul]

Technically, they're listed as "copies not distributed" and subtitled "returns" in the listed columns. It doesn't matter whether Marvel allows returns or not, either way, they are comics that remain unsold and eat substantially into the bottom line in terms of sales. The companies have to keep track of these numbers for advertising purposes. The ComicChron numbers, which I use, suggest that both subscriptions and news stand sales are included in these figures. I'm curious as to where they managed to locate the news stand sales, those numbers are really, really hard to find. You can also see why Marvel went to thrice-monthly ASM, as the 3x book sells more than the combined ASM (1x) + FNSM + WOSM (or whatever). I guess they figure they lose some sales to cost, as 10-12 a month for one title isn't cheap, but gain the completists who need to purchase EVERY ASM and the folks who buy via subscription.

 

[Donald Thomas]

Technically, they're listed as "copies not distributed" and subtitled "returns" in the listed columns. It doesn't matter whether Marvel allows returns or not, either way, they are comics that remain unsold and eat substantially into the bottom line in terms of sales. The companies have to keep track of these numbers for advertising purposes. The ComicChron numbers, which I use, suggest that both subscriptions and news stand sales are included in these figures. I'm curious as to where they managed to locate the news stand sales, those numbers are really, really hard to find. You can also see why Marvel went to thrice-monthly ASM, as the 3x book sells more than the combined ASM (1x) + FNSM + WOSM (or whatever). I guess they figure they lose some sales to cost, as 10-12 a month for one title isn't cheap, but gain the completists who need to purchase EVERY ASM and the folks who buy via subscription.

Aloha,
I'm curious as to where they get their subscription numbers from.I've read that Marvel makes more from subscriptions than going through a third party.Also you have to figure that although sales of comics are down from 10-20 years ago, the price has increased.And you're right 3x Amazing/month sells better than combined individual Spidey titles.
Spidey rules

 

[Dragon]

Well, one thing to remember about "returns" is that they still sell after the month of release. Comic shops keep issues on the shelves for several months and then place them in the back issue bins.

But then. if you look at it, when Spidey sold well, one issue of ASM pretty much outsold 3 issues per month now and other Spidey titles sold in addition to ASM. Also, as they're producing more issues, they have to pay for the production of each issue which still greatly effects their bottomline.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

But when one issue was out selling the current three, that was probably true of the whole industry.

I think the only way to accurately claim which was doing better is to compare it to the rest of the industry at that time

 

[Dragon]

It isn't simply a case of falling sales industry-wide. If there were 2-300,000 folks willing to buy Spidey comics for 30 years, there's a reason why that number suddenly dropped other than comics falling out of favor. Or maybe the reason comics have fallen out of favor in general are the same reasons Spidey has fallen in particular. The comics aren't very good.

 

[Donald Thomas]

Aloha,
If I'm not mistaken, several years back, Marvel made a business decision to reduce their initial print run.For the past several years, Marvel Publishing has shown a profit stock wise.
Spidey rules

 

[iloveclones]

It isn't simply a case of falling sales industry-wide. If there were 2-300,000 folks willing to buy Spidey comics for 30 years, there's a reason why that number suddenly dropped other than comics falling out of favor. Or maybe the reason comics have fallen out of favor in general are the same reasons Spidey has fallen in particular. The comics aren't very good.

I could use this same fact to point out to folks how the marriage devastated Spidey comics. In 1985, right before the marriage, they were selling 326,695. In 1987, the year of the marriage, it sold 284,692(a "stunt" that obviously failed). By most people's admission, JMS' run was the "best" that the marriage had been portrayed. And yet 123,540 was the best that was done under his run. So, by your same reasoning (which I don't believe, I'm just making a point) the marriage, was responsible for a 130-160% drop in sales. (And by the way, isn't it strange how JMS rise in sales coincided with a rise in the total industry? But that must just be a coincindence.)

You can dismiss the fact that the general industry simply doesn't have the volume that it used to. But I find it a bit ridiculous to expect Amazing to be selling at 300K a month, while the second best selling comic sells at under 100K.

 

[Meehaul]

Apparently the marriage killed the entire comic book industry! Seriously, though. I think a lot of it has to do with changes in popular taste. When Superman and Batman appeared in the 30's, there was no TV, no internet, no video games, no significant competition for the entertainment dollar. Spidey, back when he was relevant, was one of the MOST popular icons on college campuses in the 60's. Now, no comic book character even comes close, and most people's connection to Spidey & Bats, arguably the two most consistently popular individual characters, is through the movies and vide games. Even the movies haven't had the same sort of impact on readership that the old Batman TV series appeared to have had on Batman sales back in the day. It's also hard to argue that comic quality is "worse" than in days past. The writing and artwork, if anything, are much better than in the Gold or Silver Ages.

I think what's hurt Spidey the most, as a character, is that he has ceased to be culturally relevant or to be edgy. Marvel feels like it can't take chances with the character, and I don't mean things like whether he's married or not, but whether he takes on issues of drug use, or abortion, or homelessness or other social issues. The Obama issue would have been the perfect time to make an interesting statement about the Iraq War or the financial crisis, but instead it has the impact of those old Hostess Twinkie ads. That might have made people think a bit, but instead Marvel gave us a banal story about the Chameleon and basketball. Of course, making something socially relevant is always risky for companies to do, as it doesn't translate to sales. If Pete turns out to be pro life and pro gay marriage, he offends everyone, and no one reads the thing. But if you're not pushing the social relevancy envelope (and I'm not sure that would drive sales any more), then you've got to be entertaining. It's there where comics may suffer, as they have to compete against the net, TV, video games, etc. for people's time and cash. There also appear to be more titles available today to read (not to mention the influx of Manga and the availability of free digital comics), so there's competition even among comics. The fact that the population has increased substantially from the 60's, but comic book readership has dwindled (at least paying readership, no one knows how many people pirate and stick with free net comics, so its possible over all readership is actually up), should tell us something. It's just not clear what.

 

[iloveclones]

I'm willing to bet that if you were able to close down all the download sites (an impossibility, but just for sake of argument), comics would see a noticeable rise in sales. Because I believe that a lot of people do read online. Which is why I hope that the discussion inside Marvel offices(or DC or Image etc) about digital comics doesn't begin and end with their current online service. It's a nice system, and will do for now. But I think they need to be discussing an iTunes-like system. Something that people can pay for and keep. Or, if they're completely wed to their current system, it wouldn't hurt to be linked to something like the Kindle. If there were something like that commercially available that I could read Marvels current digital library on, I would probably spend a fair amount of time there. I think the first company that figures this out will benefit hugely from it.

 

[Meehaul]

I think that's dead on. If you could have a Kindle/Sony Reader device in full color (comics need color) and hooked to the net, with a price point that was reasonable, I think comics would do better. The biggest difficulty is bringing the cost down without shortchanging talent (the artists and writers). Part of the reason comics have jumped in price is not just due to increased printing, delivery, paper, whatever costs, but because talent is being paid more. Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby worked practically for free. Jim Lee makes a small fortune. Stan Lee wrote 2/3 of the Marvel books himself, while Bendis and Grant Morrison are doing well. So the trick for comics is to eliminate the costs of printing (which a digital service does) while at the same time keeping talent happy. Apple did a lot to thwart music piracy by coming in with a product that was easy to use and a price that was cheap. 99 cents and slick software reduced piracy. The trouble for comics is that while musicians can rely on touring and swag to make up for lost music sales, writers and artists have far fewer alternatives. That suggests that comics may still not fall to a price point that will make piracy a less desireable alternative. It's a real pickle. I'm not sure DC or Marvel has quite cracked it yet.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I'm willing to bet that if you were able to close down all the download sites (an impossibility, but just for sake of argument), comics would see a noticeable rise in sales. Because I believe that a lot of people do read online. Which is why I hope that the discussion inside Marvel offices(or DC or Image etc) about digital comics doesn't begin and end with their current online service. It's a nice system, and will do for now. But I think they need to be discussing an iTunes-like system. Something that people can pay for and keep. Or, if they're completely wed to their current system, it wouldn't hurt to be linked to something like the Kindle. If there were something like that commercially available that I could read Marvels current digital library on, I would probably spend a fair amount of time there. I think the first company that figures this out will benefit hugely from it.

Completely agree.

 

[iloveclones]

^ Which part? I'm curious if other people would use a Kindle-like system for comics. Would you mind reading them on that kind of a screen? Would you be alright with on-line vs. downloaded?

 

[iloveclones]

I think that's dead on. If you could have a Kindle/Sony Reader device in full color (comics need color) and hooked to the net, with a price point that was reasonable, I think comics would do better. The biggest difficulty is bringing the cost down without shortchanging talent (the artists and writers). Part of the reason comics have jumped in price is not just due to increased printing, delivery, paper, whatever costs, but because talent is being paid more. Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby worked practically for free. Jim Lee makes a small fortune. Stan Lee wrote 2/3 of the Marvel books himself, while Bendis and Grant Morrison are doing well. So the trick for comics is to eliminate the costs of printing (which a digital service does) while at the same time keeping talent happy. Apple did a lot to thwart music piracy by coming in with a product that was easy to use and a price that was cheap. 99 cents and slick software reduced piracy. The trouble for comics is that while musicians can rely on touring and swag to make up for lost music sales, writers and artists have far fewer alternatives. That suggests that comics may still not fall to a price point that will make piracy a less desireable alternative. It's a real pickle. I'm not sure DC or Marvel has quite cracked it yet.

I wouldn't mind if initially it were in Black and White. It seems to work for Essentials. I think it's more important to get it going, rather than wait for color technology.

 

[Meehaul]

I'm torn. I would read them there, but I like "having" them in physical form as well.

 

[moraldeficiency]

well I'm about the furthest thing from a computer guy so I'm not up on much of this, but all the parts. Digital downloads definately hurt some of the sales. The online stuff for either company isn't quite good enough and something iTunesesque would do very very well in this market. The current way you read comics at marvel's site is a bit annoying I feel there's a lack of control you have when reading a paper book (turning to see different angles, jumping back and forth between pages easily, zoomming in and out to make sense of some stuff). Downloaded would give a sense of ownership that I feel most comic buyers (myself being the exception) prize. First company to get on this with a good program will do very well.

 

[Meehaul]

It will be interesting to see how the "motion" comics do. I bought a couple of the Batman B&Ws. They were OK. But just OK. I think people are still searching for the best way to present them. I actually like Marvel's reader.

 

[Dragon]

I could use this same fact to point out to folks how the marriage devastated Spidey comics. In 1985, right before the marriage, they were selling 326,695. In 1987, the year of the marriage, it sold 284,692(a "stunt" that obviously failed).

Except that in 1986 the year before the marriage, sales were down to 276,064. So 1987 saw an increase in sales. But then, not being a big fan of the marriage, this doesn't really matter to me anyway.

By most people's admission, JMS' run was the "best" that the marriage had been portrayed. And yet 123,540 was the best that was done under his run. So, by your same reasoning (which I don't believe, I'm just making a point) the marriage, was responsible for a 130-160% drop in sales. (And by the way, isn't it strange how JMS rise in sales coincided with a rise in the total industry? But that must just be a coincindence.)

By MY reasoning? You'll note that I "reasoned" above that the CLONE SAGA caused the most serious drop in sales (Although dreck like Maximum Carnage obviously helped things along), from which Spidey never recovered. I could even "reason" that since the year prior to the clone saga Spidey saw unprecedented sales that the marriage was very successful. But I won't since I know that when Spidey was selling nearly 600,000 copies per month, that was during the "speculator" period when Marvel was pushing with mulitple covers and people were buying not as fans, but as investors. Hell, I could reason that Stan leaving the book in '72 was devasting since it took nearly 20 years for the title to reach the numbers it had when Stan was on the book. But again, I won't do that.

You can dismiss the fact that the general industry simply doesn't have the volume that it used to. But I find it a bit ridiculous to expect Amazing to be selling at 300K a month, while the second best selling comic sells at under 100K.

There's no question looking at the sales charts that Marvel's choice of making Reilly Spider-Man was a disasterous one. Another is taking six months to tell a story that only needed 3 at best. Bad quality plus hire prices mean lower sales.

If you want to talk about dismissing, how about your dismissal that Spidey average sales between 2 & 300,000 for 30 years but for the last 12 can't even reach 150,000? Add to that how many folks here are constantly saying they WANT TO buy Spidey comics but the only thing stopping us is that they aren't any good?

There are absolutley industry-wide problems (It isn't like DC hasn't made some poor editorial choices). But the fact remains that there are folks willing to buy the comics. The comics just need to be better.