BREAKING NEWS:Marvel changes pricing policy...

[moraldeficiency]

But you didn't work for a discount did you? I mean, if they were offering 10 bucks, you didn't counter-offer with 8 did you (if so, I have some properties that need landscaping )

Marvel is a company that has employees that need paid, stockholders who put their money at risk for some kind of a return, and vendors, LCBS's, etc that make money off of their product. They have an obligation to make a profit, and a free market system almost demands that they maximize it.

If you were a Marvel employee (artist, writer, janitor, elevator operator), would you want Marvel to make more or less of a profit?

When I see Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, Verizon, and DirecTV all dropping their prices so "the children" will have viable entertainment at an affordable price, I'll totally conceded the point.

The first paragraph really isn't the same thing at all. But yeah if someone offers far too much for a simple job I will tell them what it actually costs. It's the difference between ripping someone off for one job and having a customer for life that actively recommends you to all his/her friends. Again long term gain wins out over short term profits. In my business word of mouth is by far the way I get the most work.

Yes, I know it's a business, but again it's a different kind of business. They're operating it right now based on fads which come and go. And while this is extremely profitable when you're on top of one, they enviably fade and then you're screwed.

If I was a marvel employee I would want marvel to turn out the best product possible because that would maintain long term success. If they're only going after maximum profit then they aren't doing this and while it might be good for a while, when they can't keep growth at that level and the stockholders get antsy because of previous expectations I'm probably going to lose my job.

Those companies are really based on adults and mostly adult products. They aren't something that you get into as a kid and begin a lifetime love of (hopefully). I feel no love for any of them. If one falls out and another takes its place I really don't care one way or another. They aren't companies that inspire love. They aren't things that if they went away would be something that made me sad for future generations missing out on something that made my childhood a bit more special. There's your difference.

 

[iloveclones]

I was just yanking your chain a little.

I know exactly what you're talking about, though. I rent properties as a side to my regular job. I spend a lot of time trying to price appropriately. In a lot of instances, I'm sure I could make more rent money, but you have to look at the whole picture: sometimes having a tenant who pays early every month is worth more in peace of mind than another $25 a month would be worth. Or giving a tenant an even larger break if they're willing to pay 6 months up front. That said, I don't price the units looking to immediately give people a break. I price them at what the market bears (it's a college town, so it bears pretty well...)

In general, I agree with you. I don't think you should be trying to suck every dollar out of your customer (which there have been indications that they have people on their financial side that want to do exactly that.) And, from a licensing point of view, I think it's even more important that they try out their ideas on as many people as they can. In fact, if I were Marvel Emperor for a day, I would set up a structure that the licensing partially subsidizes some titles that they really think will pay dividends down the line. Think of Publishing as the R&D division of a company. Say, a phenomenon like Runaways comes along. I would be willing to take a loss on publishing comics, trades, etc by pricing them low, so I could get them in enough hands that there would be a demand for Runaways notebooks, lunchboxes, and (the Holy Grail) a movie.

Bottom line: I think the days of getting comics in the hands of kids in the numbers of the past is over as we knew it. I really think there's no going back. But, I do think the coming generation is going to have no qualms reading these things in a digital format.

 

[Dread]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28921

This is a video interview with editors Tom Brevoort and Axel Alonso about a variety of topics, but pricing was the first.

I bring it up only because they finally list SOMEONE responsible for the pricing; apparently it is up to David Gabriel, the senior vice-president of sales and circulation. He's the one who imposes the price and apparently no editor or senior editor or editor in chief has any sway over him.

They go on about how they try to make every book their best regardless of the price and that a $3.99 book is not going to naturally be better than a $2.99 one because they try to make them all great. Am I a cynic or am I wrong that I interpreted that as, "your chances of reading something that is utter trash is just as high no matter the cover price?"

I mean, look, I am hard on Marvel, but they get about 90% of my comics business. I buy two DC books and maybe about 2-3 ongoing titles from Image as well as a few mini series (and I counted ASTOUNDING WOLF-MAN as an ongoing, which has one issue left). They do publish a lot of good and great stuff. But I seriously want to see someone sit with Tom Brevoort and go with him over the plot of, say, AVENGERS or NEW AVENGERS (two of Marvel's best selling titles, in the Top 5-10 every month), go over all the plot holes, the tacky dialogue, the years of continuity that the story yanks out root and stem, and how as a narrative it is childish and sloppy at best, and then look into the camera and tell everyone it was worth $3.99 USD without waxing philosophical about the workmanship of the staples or the artwork. Then I want him to do the same for THOR #616, a comic that via the over use of double page layouts, within 22 pages, about 11 pages of story are covered, at best. I mean, for $3.99, I could download 3-4 songs, and they would provide anywhere from 6 minutes to 12 minutes of immediate entertainment if I listened to them all immediately. I defy anyone literate and over the age of 13 to read that issue of THOR and take longer than six minutes to do so. That's the battle comics are waging, and that is the battle that, hands down, they are losing. Is Marvel willing to do what it takes to win? Or just stem the effects of losses?

Comics have to provide what is called a "satisfying chunk" of entertainment. A reader has to feel that they are getting their money's worth and if they feel they are not, whether justified or not, they will leave, and NEVER return. Modest anecdotal figures claim that the comic book audience has shrunk about 10% over the last few years, and it's likely higher. I've also heard that comics may be going through a situation similar to anime and manga; attendance at conventions increases every year, while sales at best hold steady or decline.

Most businesses are loath to admit any fault or misstep to the public, and that's fine. But I don't get any indication that any self evaluation goes on behind closed doors, that everyone in position of power is someone else's yes-man, and that's not positive.

 

[Themanofbat]

In an artist announcement for the Incredible Hulk #623 (scheduled for a February release), it's also noted that the price will drop from $3.99 to $2.99...

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/dale-eaglesham-joins-incredible-hulk-101112.html

Marvel's February solits are out next week, so that will be interesting to see which titles (if any) are going to follow suit.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Hopefully Thor. I didn't mind the price tag before, but it doesn't really feel like it's worth $3.99 anymore.

 

[Dread]

David Gabriel, the guy who sets the prices at Marvel, had a chat about it over at The Beat, where word that INCREDIBLE HULK would drop to $2.99 again first came up last week:

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2010/11/0...arifies-pricing-changes-lowers-price-on-hulk/

His new company line is that Marvel will be scaling things back, but it may not be noticeable until spring 2011, and it will be "subtle". Unfortunately, this back and forth makes it hard to trust Marvel at their word. And then Marvel editors will whine about how no one believes them. This is why.

Bluntly, I think Marvel had no intention to lower their prices until DC announced a clear, simple strategy to do so line wide at the NYCC. I think Marvel scrambled, and Gabriel said SOMETHING to take some buzz from DC, and then everyone had to go back and fiddle with numbers to figure out specifics. Of course, in doing so, what was announced and what will happen is different. Marvel won't admit that, of course. They'll pretend they planned it that stupidly all along, just as they said when CIVIL WAR read like there were clearly last minute rewrites and editorial gaffes. Marvel is a company that seems to always have as a line, "Do you believe me, or your lying eyes?"

By virtue of several lower selling books being canceled (such as ATLAS and YOUNG ALLIES) or merged (HAWKEYE & MOCKINGBIRD and BLACK WIDOW into WIDOWMAKER), that alone will trim some comics from their line. The biggest price drops wouldn't be INCREDIBLE HULK or even THOR, but the three main AVENGERS books. Those are the top 10 sellers, and going back in price a degree would free up retailer and fan budgets to maybe try out those B and C list titles again. Try selling AVENGERS at $3.75 and see if Marvel doesn't go bankrupt overnight. Just try, man.

Usually when people ask why can't Marvel cut back on paper quality, they say that doing so would not reduce prices much, a nickel at most. But that is where greed comes in; they would rather charge $3.99 for a comic than $3.95. Those four cents, eh, everyone can swing that, it doesn't add up even though our ****ing industry relies on fans buying 10+ titles a month and thus is WOULD add up. Only in professional sports can you see a major company think so little of their paying customers and still remain very profitable.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I still miss newsprint for the simple fact that glossy paper makes me have to move my comic around at all kinds of angles so the glare of my desk lamp doesn't make the pages illegible.

 

[kguillou]

Eh i dont miss newsprint one bit. Almost all my old comics from the 90's are damn near ripped to shreds because of the poor paper quality (ok thats more my own fault for not taking care of my comics but thats not the point lol). I have an old issue of Ultimate Spiderman from like 2002 thats been thrown around and abused and theres barely any tears at all on it today.

 

[Dread]

Comics that are easily destroyed, ironically, increase the value for comics because there are less of them. Marvel would aid the collector market with cheaper paper. Instead of spitting out 15,000 variant covers no one wants that are worth nothing in the long term, because you can stomp on 'em in the mud and they won't even crinkle.

The reality is that comics are pricing themselves out of business. The model is not sustainable. What Marvel and DC do, or don't do, in reaction to it will show us where their priorities lie.

 

[JewishHobbit]

I'd take newsprint if it dropped prices linewide a quarter or more. Just take care of the things.

 

[runawayboulder]

Are any comics printed on recycled paper? This is the day and age of "going green".

 

[iloveclones]

If they reduced by a quarter, they could print on baby seal skin for all I care.

Of course, Comic Book Day would get a tad interesting trying to get through the protest lines....

 

[Ulysses Klaw]

This is indeed interesting news....

 

[Dark Hulkness]

Im glad theyre coming to their senses ive been reading comic books for years got about 10 a week and when they raised the price of everything i had to just stop altogether i love the books but i dont want to skimp out on a bill just to get them each month