"The evidence is there. Whether or not you choose to look at it is up to you.
I am actually looking at evidence. You seem not to want to consider anything other than bad editorial decisions as the result of the decline in comic book sales. I think thats a simplistic view that fails to consider all the available evidence.
If its bad editorial decisions in the mid-90s, that covers a lot of territory. It also fails to explain why every 10-year period shows a decline in readership in ASM starting in 1966--1966-76 (57,996 decline), 1976-86 (6,095 decline), 1986-96 (59,285 decline), and 1996-2008 (110,831 decline, the decline might be slightly less, as we dont have the 06 data). There is a trend going on. Now, If its the bad editorial policies of the mid-90s, why the drop in the 66-76 and 76-86 periods? Its true that 1996-08 has the largest drop, but thats also the contraction in the demographic, the rise of video games, and the rise of the net. Moreover, if at least some of those policies were reversed, why do the declines continue? And why are the declines not only on ASM, but throughout the comic book industry? I find it hard to believe, and insufficient evidence to support, industry wide declines being solely attributable to bad editorial decisions.
For ASM, you cite the Clone Saga as the specific culprit for ASMs problems. Yet, that cant be a complete explanation. The reason I have problems pinning the ASM decline on the clone saga is that the numbers dont appear to support it fully. The Clone Sage is generally accepted as having run from October 1994-December 1996, with the crazy stuff really happening in 96. However, the largest drop in ASM sales occurs in 93-94 (well prior to the start of the clone debacle) where the books shed 239,417 readers. But presumably the drop occurs in significant part because of the stories in 93. But the stories in 1993 werent bad: Venom, Carnage, and the Hulk all feature prominently. I didnt love 1994, as you get sort of a mental breakdown, the return, and death of Petes robot parents, and Aunt May in peril yet again, but we get a big drop. Then, between 1994-1995, before we get the Clone Sagas big revelations (and really, the whole thing doesnt get going until mid to late 1995), the book sheds an additional 118,735 readers. Again, the drop would likely have been because of the crummy 94 stories. In fact, 95 was actually a pretty interesting year. So, we lose 239,417 readers prior to the launch of the Clone Saga and a total of 358,152 readers before the Clone Saga either plays out or has any substantial impact. Now, its fair to argue that bad editorial polices, bad art, and bad writing, accounted for those drops as well, but its clearly not attributable to the Clone Saga. And the fact that similar drops occur industry-wide suggests that something more is at work.
Interestingly, from 95-96, the height of the saga, where we get the replacement of Pete with Ben, the book sheds only 17,511 readers. Ben Reilly staunches the loss of readers, apparently! These readers presumably would know about the replacement, but may or may not know that the original idea to replace Pete was reversed, depending upon when they dropped the title. During and post Clone Saga, 96-97, the book sheds 56,829 readers. Now, as a practical matter, those folks are most likely (but hardly conclusively) to be the readers most dissatisfied with the whole mess and who just decided to quit the title altogether. These readers would know, however, that Pete was not replaced (unless they dropped in early 96, as the story line doesnt conclude until December, so thats possible)so they stuck with the title through the worst of times, but then decided to drop it after the status quo was actually returned? Odd, unlikely even, but not impossible. In 97-98, the book loses another 40,403 readers, one to two years after the clone saga has ended. Now, even if we grant a lag effect, that is, it took readers time to allow their subscriptions to expire or to stop the inertia of picking up ASM at the LCBS, theres a clear break in any causative factor of the Clone Saga. Because from 1998-99, the book actually gains 8,368 readers, and the Clone Saga is now ancient history in comic book years. From 1999-2000, however, the book loses another 14,230 readers and, along with all other comic books, dwindles ever down-ward, with slight upticks in 2002 and 2004 and then another significant loss in 2005. We dont have numbers posted for 2006 and 2007, but from 2004-05, we have a loss of 10,976 readers, and from 2005-2008 (a three-year period) we have a smaller loss of only 6,616 readers. Depending upon what happens this year, it appears BND wont have had much of an effect on readershipbut again, there could be a lag effect working here.
So, to answer the decline question, I have to be able to account for the two largest readership drops occurring before the Clone Saga in order to account for the general decline of ASM. I also have to account for the general downward trend in comic book readership as well as to understand why all other major comic book publishers experienced similar declines at roughly the same time. Pinning ASMs decline on the Clone Saga itself is not a sufficient explanation. Period. Thats why we have to look for other effects as well. Writing, story lines, art, demographics, shifts to other forms of entertainment, shifts to other media, etc. all likely play a role in the decline of both ASM and comics in general. So Im not saying you are completely wrong, Im just saying the policies of the mid-90s, and the Clone Saga in particular, do not offer a full account for the decline. Moreover, people do seem to have left the two mainstream publishers and stayed awayand stayed away from super hero comics in general, as the big readership seems to have occurred in the non-super hero genres.
I mean, you were asking about TBP sales, so I pointed you toward sales figures on those. You mention piracy. Well, even those sites will tell you how many users they have. And you have places like Hype and other comic book forums to tell you what fans are thinking. You have posts like the above from DocOck 4MUGEN saying exactly why he isnt buying. This really isnt rocket science. Ive been a member of Hype since the beginning (Even though my ID says 2000, I actually joined back in 1999). Ive yet to see anyone saying they stopped buying because of anything other than theyre unhappy with the comics.
You miss the point. I know what current tpb sales are (at least for a short period of time). What we dont know is how many people who purchase the tpbs forgo buying the monthlies and/or how many are duplicate buyers. So we dont know if the tpb buyers are a wholly new group of buyers or simply a subset of the monthly buyers. Nor do we have sales records for the tpbs that go back very far. Piracy is difficult to determine because the BULK of piracy takes place from user to user, not from Pirate Bay or Bit Torrents or any of the sites. We dont even have a good handle on how many sites exist, but again, user to user is estimated to be a far greater problem than any of the pirate sites. Hype users dont present an accurate view of the overall market (even if we are all truly wonderful, amazing people!). The folks here are, via self-selection, comic book geeks. Some will be more attuned to editorial/writing/art changes than the average buyer. Even so, it does not appear that the majority of hype ASM fans have dropped the title. Now, just like some Hype folks may be MORE sensitive to changes, others may be LESS sensitive to changes just because they want to stick with a character through thick and thin.
Yes, I did read comics in the 90s and no, I dont think all the changes were bad. And I disagree that such editorial decisions are the sole reason for the decline, across the board in readership. The totality of the evidence doesnt support itespecially given the fact that what constitutes bad is something of a personal taste decision. Attributing the drop solely to bad editorial decisions back then, with no subsequent recovery, does not seem tenable. If DC permanently replaced Batman or if Marvel permanently replaced Pete, then maybe your argument would be stronger. I think you are simply failing to consider that forces other than the Clone Saga and bad editorial policies of the mid-90s by ALL the companies contribute to the decline. Its not like, when some of the policies were reversed, that people came back to comics. Nor have younger kids, who would not have been as attuned to those policies, come back to comics published by the Big 2 (or Image, Darkhorse, or IDW, for that matter).
The sales numbers contradict your point.
Actually, they MAKE my point. Demographic shifts correspond almost precisely with the dips in comic readership. But Im not claiming that demographics are the sole cause of declines, Im positing that a number of different reasons have contributed to the decline. Interestingly, the population of the US grew by almost 100 million people from 1966 to 2006, so even with the boom in the 1990s, fewer kids, as a percentage of the population, were reading comics in the 90's than in the 60's. Readership (as a percentage of the population) was even better in the 30's and 40's. So you could say that the 50s and 60s represent a decline from an earlier glory period. But even so, the comics boom and bust cycles tend to rise and fall with the corresponding increase and decrease (absolute, as opposed to relative) in the number of kids.
But my question was changes comparable to the Clone Saga. Some changes you didnt mention which might have been along those lines were the recreation of The Flash, Green Lantern and The Atom as altogether different characters.
I know you have said the Clone Saga specifically killed ASM. I dont think thats correct. Similarly, as you mention, a number of Golden Age heroes were replaced with copies. And some replacements, like the Blue Beetle, were made not with years spaced apart, but much sooner. But again, the Clone Saga is not a sufficient explanation for the decline even of ASM.
Honestly, I think there is.
We disagree. The oath Pete made was a reflection of WGPCGR. He believed that letting Venom go was the correct thing to do at the time. Or at least something he should allow to happen. Same with letting Vermin go. Same with not hauling Curt Conners to the police. Same with not tracking down Morbius, another killer, and instead empathizing with his condition and letting him go free. Same with trying to help Norman and Harry instead of sending them to prison immediately. Same with dating the Black Cat, a criminal. Not clear that he lived up to his oath in every situation. He tries and sometimes fails, that's part of what has made Pete interesting.
As for your point regarding Gwen, the ONLY reason Peter didnt propose to her was because she reminded him of her hatred of Spider-Man.
Thats not entirely correct. It was also done in the context of I cant extend my circle of people who could get hurt if I reveal Im SM. Pete wanted to rid himself of his powers so that he could lead a normal life.
The notion that Peter has some sense of responsibility that keeps him from marrying makes no sense.
It may make no sense to you, but it was a common theme in the Lee books. Pete couldnt allow himself to get too close to anyone because he feared of hurting them or their being hurt because of him. It didnt prevent him from having relationships, but it did prevent him from having a normal life. Part of the reason he sought to get rid of his powers was so that he could lead that normal life, including getting married, something he believed he could not do. Obviously, Pete couldnt be a hermit, and he had by far the strongest group of supporting characters in comics, so he had a circle of friends. But then again, comics are notorious for inconsistency.
And, sorry to say, Petes web killed Gwen. She would have died, regardless, when she hit the ground, he just hastened it by several seconds. Theres a cool book by James Kakalios called The Physics of Superheroes, that establishes it was the sudden jolt that snapped her neck. Plus, Civil War: Casualties of War concurs with this explanation. Pete screwed up. He probably couldnt have saved her, in any event however.
Or, theres the more obvious reason, that I myself and others continue to state: That the comics got bad and didnt improve. I left when Morlun plucked Spideys eye out. I certainly monitor whats going on, but havent found anything that I can stomach following.
Thats not more obvious and just saying it doesnt make it so. I dont think your explanation is satisfactory, nor is it supported by all the facts. Identifying one potential cause (the Clone saga) and saying that it is the sole reason for the dip and that every other comics bad editorial policies were responsible for similar dips across the entire comic book industry does just not seem plausible. Thats like saying McDonalds is the sole reason for childhood obesity. Sure, you can demonstrate that since McDonalds opened its doors in the late 50s that kids are much fatter than before. But McDonalds is not the SOLE cause of fat kids.
Online comics may have existed from the first day the internet was made publicly available. It doesnt matter, because there werent the numbers of users at that point that would have made the type of dent in sales that occurred in the mid-90s. One can argue that online comics gained popularity as fans stopped buying, but not that fans stopped buying due to online comics. At least not in the 90s.
Im not saying it was the sole factor, Im just saying that I suspect it was a contributing factor. In 1995, there were 17 million internet users. By 1999, there were 117 million users. The availability of net penetration was amazing during that time. If you couple net use, plus demographic shift, plus the explosion in video gaming that occurred in the early 90s, you can fashion a pretty good explanation for both the 90s spike, as well as the 90s decline, in comic book readership.
Im not comparing apples to oranges at all. I am just saying that you are offering an inadequate explanation for the drop in comic book sales. I think theres more going on. While writing and art can always be improved, updated, whatever, if we think mid- 90s editorial policy is the sole reason for comic book sales declines, even just for ASM, then I think we have blinders on and are refusing to address larger cultural forces at work, not to mention understanding that entertainment options have dramatically changed in the past 20 years (in particular).
t:
