May Spidey sales ( Yes, it dropping again)

[Mister Mets]

I wonder why there's such a huge discrepancy between the above figures and the ones that CBR has reported? :confused:

20 75.56 $2.99 MAR Amazing Spider Man 558 85,050
21 72.85 $2.99 MAR Amazing Spider Man 559 82,000
23 72.66 $2.99 MAR Amazing Spider Man 560 81,786
You've got two companies who probably have different (and imperfect) methods of calculating the numbers based on the sales index. The sales of the Batman book provide the baseline for these numbers, which complicates matters when Batman has an usual month, like this one. In this case you have two issues of that series coming out in the same month, with unusually high sales due to the RIP storyline. Both those factors make the baseline more difficult to calculate.

[ShaggyB]

Somewhat, i was shocked that the book would jump that high after it was declining month to month.:smile: It will jump high once the new venom arc starts but will it last long after?

depends on if they keep J.R jr in the mix. In my opinion his art defines spidey for some people. (mainly cause he did it for so long. through some of the more entertaining arcs in volume 2)

[Mister Mets]

Aaaand Marvel doesn't HAVE the numbers. Diamond does.

Please understand before you try and prove me wrong. :cool:

Marvel doesn't have any control of the book sor their numbers once Diamond has them. The numbers we see are the number Diamond ships to comic stores. Marvel has NOTHING (and I can't stress that enough) to do with the numbers in question.I'm sure Marvel has some numbers, including the amount of comics they publish, the number of subscribers, etc. They probably get Diamond's numbers much sooner than the fans do. They need some internal mechanisms to figure out how successful a book is.

However, I'm not convinced that there are any benefits to fans being privy to this information, or to these numbers being more transparent.

[Mister Mets]

Actuals updatedThe last month isn't actuals.

Those are the icv2 estimates.

As noted on their website (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12754.html), "These are estimates of the sales by Diamond U.S. to comic specialty stores during May 2008."

[ShaggyB]

You've got two companies who probably have different (and imperfect) methods of calculating the numbers based on the sales index. The sales of the Batman book provide the baseline for these numbers, which complicates matters when Batman has an usual month, like this one. In this case you have two issues of that series coming out in the same month, with unusually high sales due to the RIP storyline. Both those factors make the baseline more difficult to calculate.

true but i base all mine on Icv2.com so.... I cant suddenly change sources.

Though i do thing that when Batman preformers better than it usually does that it throws the numbers off. Most just forget that the last time the bat book was in a mini-event was ras al ghul (sp?) and it was during Back in Black for spidey. Spidey sells better in mini-events such as that or the Other (turn around point for the book before civil war) and Event tie-in books (ie Civil War)

[ShaggyB]

The last month isn't actuals.

Those are the icv2 estimates.

As noted on their website (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12754.html), "These are estimates of the sales by Diamond U.S. to comic specialty stores during May 2008."

true. but like i said my list that i like to post is all from Icv2, so i really shouldnt switch between sources that better favor my opinion.

Doesnt really matter in the long run. As youve pointed out before, Marvel has a killer subscription deal. I still say they are making more money and will continue on with BND (even though JQ has said they will drop the banner soon) stories.

No cause for alarm in my opinion, August will have a nice bump.

also edited original post to reflect what you have pointed out

[philly]

depends on if they keep J.R jr in the mix. In my opinion his art defines spidey for some people. (mainly cause he did it for so long. through some of the more entertaining arcs in volume 2)


J.R Jr is great artist, (one of the greats) but while his art is great, it can't hold the numbers high for that long a time with out a good story and with the rotating writers coming in and out, that will be a problem.

[Jim Thompson]

However, I'm not convinced that there are any benefits to fans being privy to this information, or to these numbers being more transparent.Organizational transparency is always a good thing.

[ShaggyB]

J.R Jr is great artist, (one of the greats) but while his art is great, it can't hold the numbers high for that long a time with out a good story and with the rotating writers coming in and out, that will be a problem.

I figure the road to #600 will have it bouncing around a lot. New Ways to Die is a 6 part that begins in issue #568 and ends in #573. 26 issues left till the #600 lands.

side note you guys dont suppose they will stretch Mephisto story till issue 666 do you? (even #616 would be appropriate)

[Jim Thompson]

I figure the road to #600 will have it bouncing around a lot. New Ways to Die is a 6 part that begins in issue #568 and ends in #573. 26 issues left till the #600 lands.

side note you guys dont suppose they will stretch Mephisto story till issue 666 do you? (even #616 would be appropriate)Ugh. Say it ain't so. :mad:

[Mister Mets]

true. but like i said my list that i like to post is all from Icv2, so i really shouldnt switch between sources that better favor my opinion.

Doesnt really matter in the long run. As youve pointed out before, Marvel has a killer subscription deal. I still say they are making more money and will continue on with BND (even though JQ has said they will drop the banner soon) stories.

No cause for alarm in my opinion, August will have a nice bump.

For whatever reason the cbr and icv2 estimates are usually much closer. In April, the cbr estimate had Amazing Spider-Man 557 selling 77,037 copies (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16481) while the icv2 estimate had the issue selling 77,057 copies (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12592.html), a difference of 20 copies (the difference in estimates for most books comes to less than thirty copies). This month is different, probably due to the unusual nature of the Batman books this month .

Along those lines i always have a chuckle when Icv2 even has reported on the downward slope in general on comic sales.

Here are the titles and such of the last three months of numbers

Seems they have been acknowledging a slide in all books for three months of figures thats all Dated May 20th (which is the last time they added Actual Numbers of books sold (That would Be Aprils numbers btw) )

How can someone champion the slip of one book with numbers from an organization that recognizes the downward slope of all comics for the times in question?The ultimate argument is about whether the Spider-Man books would be doing better if Peter and Mary Jane were still married. It is disingenuous for the other side to ignore a downward trend in all comics, and it makes their argument less convincing.

Though if I'm not mistaken the downward trend this month is relative to last year, not relative to April.

... I thought it did............ :confused:Your ultimate argument is that Spider-Man wouldn't be selling better if Peter Parker and Mary Jane were still married. Making the case that Spider-Man's very popular worldwide doesn't help.

[Mister Mets]

Organizational transparency is always a good thing. How would it be a good thing for Marvel? Amongst other things it would give rival companies information about Marvel that Marvel won't have about them.


J.R Jr is great artist, (one of the greats) but while his art is great, it can't hold the numbers high for that long a time with out a good story and with the rotating writers coming in and out, that will be a problem.But you'll still have six straight issues by him, and one writer, in a fairly commercial storyline (new symbiote, Spider-Man VS his greatest enemies and the Thunderbolts, return of Mary Jane, etc.)

[philly]

I figure the road to #600 will have it bouncing around a lot. New Ways to Die is a 6 part that begins in issue #568 and ends in #573. 26 issues left till the #600 lands.

side note you guys dont suppose they will stretch Mephisto story till issue 666 do you? (even #616 would be appropriate)

If the old villans gives the book the sales bump it desperately needs, they will start filling the book with every old school villain Spidey has ever had.

[ShaggyB]

For whatever reason the cbr and icv2 estimates are usually much closer. In April, the cbr estimate had Amazing Spider-Man 557 selling 77,037 copies (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=16481) while the icv2 estimate had the issue selling 77,057 copies (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12592.html), a difference of 20 copies (the difference in estimates for most books comes to less than thirty copies). This month is different, probably due to the unusual nature of the Batman books this month .


Defiantly, I looked at that myself. But i made a bet with philly based on Icv2 site's numbers.. So i honored my bet. Im confused on what the real numbers are but I believe they will fall between the two sites. Its just thats not pertinent to what philly and i set up.


The ultimate argument is about whether the Spider-Man books would be doing better if Peter and Mary Jane were still married. It is disingenuous for the other side to ignore a downward trend in all comics.

Though if I'm not mistaken the downward trend this month is relative to last year, not relative to April, and it makes their argument less convincing.


Agreed. We may not be, by definition, in a recession.... but the effects of rising cost to live have defiantly been shown in the LCS orders market.

[carabas]

Icv2's Numbers updated

Here lets look at the numbers Apr02-Present

May08: ASM #560 BND = 76,966...#23 for the month
May08: ASM #559 BND = 74,206...#21 for the month
May08: ASM #558 BND = 74,012...#20 for the month
Apr08: ASM #557 BND = 77,057...#16 for the month
Apr08: ASM #556 BND = 78,458...#14 for the month
Apr08: ASM #555 BND = 86,902...#08 for the month
Mar08: ASM #554 BND = 81,072...#14 for the month
Mar08: ASM #553 BND = 82,648...#08 for the month
Mar08: ASM #552 BND = 89,835...#04 for the month
Feb08: ASM #551 BND = 88,084...#13 for the month
...

-edited- Due to something Mets points out

There's a slight mix-up with the order of the latest three issues.
It's supposed to go

May08: ASM #560 BND = 74,012...#23 for the month
May08: ASM #559 BND = 74,206...#21 for the month
May08: ASM #558 BND = 76,966...#20 for the month
Apr08: ASM #557 BND = 77,057...#16 for the month
Apr08: ASM #556 BND = 78,458...#14 for the month
Apr08: ASM #555 BND = 86,902...#08 for the month
Mar08: ASM #554 BND = 81,072...#14 for the month
Mar08: ASM #553 BND = 82,648...#08 for the month
Mar08: ASM #552 BND = 89,835...#04 for the month
Feb08: ASM #551 BND = 88,084...#13 for the month

[ShaggyB]

If the old villans gives the book the sales bump it desperately needs, they will start filling the book with every old school villain Spidey has ever had.

come on good story with "The Shocker". Im so not even kidding, i love the character. Him, Hobgoblin and The Rose back in Web of spider-man..... Ah those were the days.

[ShaggyB]

There's a slight mix-up with the order of the latest three issues.
It's supposed to go

May08: ASM #560 BND = 74,012...#23 for the month
May08: ASM #559 BND = 74,206...#21 for the month
May08: ASM #558 BND = 76,966...#20 for the month


thanks.... corrected now

[Jim Thompson]

How would it be a good thing for Marvel? Amongst other things it would give rival companies information about Marvel that Marvel won't have about them.I'm not talking about giving up trade secrets -- but, as a general rule, a corporation or orgnization really needs to have a reason not to release information about itself. Why not release accurate production and sales numbers?

[ShaggyB]

I'm not talking about giving up trade secrets -- but, as a general rule, a corporation or orgnization really needs to have a reason not to release information about itself. Why not release accurate production and sales numbers?

because that is insider information. What reason do they need to release it? Does DC? Image? TopCow? DarkHorse? IDW? Devils Due? Udon? Aspen? Does Anyone?

So again What reason do any of those comapnies have to give out the actuals? Its that double edged sword again... The dont hold back info without a reason nor do companies give out info without a reason.

[Jim Thompson]

because that is insider information. What reason do they need to release it? Does DC? Image? TopCow? DarkHorse? IDW? Devils Due? Udon? Aspen? Does Anyone?

So again What reason do any of those comapnies have to give out the actuals?No, the question is why don't they give out those numbers? Is it some state secret? Will they be effecting their sales by giving those numbers out? What are they hiding? How much product they put out, and how much of it sells? Why hide that at all?

And it's not really meeting the definition of insider information. Obviously, people are able to come by those numbers without being part of the company.

[black_spidey728]

Ok Philly. looks like you got lucky. CBR's Estimates are a bit high.

Your threads title now fits. ASM did drop a bit

May Total = 225,184
Apr Total = 242,417

total drop of 17,233 units via Icv2's numbers.

As we agree'd to last night, i humbly admit you got it right. Likewise, as part of our agreement, I'll still request that you wait to title a thread in this way until after you have the actuals.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Mister Mets]

No, the question is why don't they give out those numbers? Is it some state secret? Will they be effecting their sales by giving those numbers out? What are they hiding? How much product they put out, and how much of it sells? Why hide that at all?

And it's not really meeting the definition of insider information. Obviously, people are able to come by those numbers without being part of the company.
The problems with releasing the actual numbers (which include stuff that outsiders aren't as aware of, including subscription sales, overseas sales and domestic sales outside the domestic market.)

#1: It may convince readers not to pick up a book, if they know for sure the numbers are so low that the book is risking cancellation.

#2: It results in a hell of a lot of public second-guessing.

#3: Rival companies could use the information to improve their own product, without reciprocity.

#4: Writers, artists, editors would have to spend their valuable time defending the numbers. The current "the estimates are inaccurate" excuse wouldn't be available to save them time.

[black_spidey728]

If the old villans gives the book the sales bump it desperately needs, they will start filling the book with every old school villain Spidey has ever had.


If they do that, won't it kind of defeat the purpose of "leaving the old and embracing the new"?

[Jim Thompson]

The problems with releasing the actual numbers (which include stuff that outsiders aren't as aware of, including subscription sales, overseas sales and domestic sales outside the domestic market.)

#1: It may convince readers not to pick up a book, if they know for sure the numbers are so low that the book is risking cancellation.Of course it's equally possible it'll galvanize some of those fans to start a campaign to save a book that's in trouble, a la Amazing Spider-Girl.

#2: It results in a hell of a lot of public second-guessing.As opposed to what we have going on now?

#3: Rival companies could use the information to improve their own product, without reciprocity.How? Again, they're not revealing future story ideas or such. How do production and sales numbers give another corporation an advantage?

#4: Writers, artists, editors would have to spend their valuable time defending the numbers. The current "the estimates are inaccurate" excuse wouldn't be available to save them time.They spend time defending their sales numbers now. And anyway, so what? It's better to engage in a lie of ommission and not have to deal with the results of your efforts than it is for people to know the truth about your companies relative success (or failure)?

[black_spidey728]

The problems with releasing the actual numbers (which include stuff that outsiders aren't as aware of, including subscription sales, overseas sales and domestic sales outside the domestic market.)

#1: It may convince readers not to pick up a book, if they know for sure the numbers are so low that the book is risking cancellation.

#2: It results in a hell of a lot of public second-guessing.

#3: Rival companies could use the information to improve their own product, without reciprocity.

#4: Writers, artists, editors would have to spend their valuable time defending the numbers. The current "the estimates are inaccurate" excuse wouldn't be available to save them time.

But aren't consumers entitled to information that directly relates to a product they are buying?

[philly]

If they do that, won't it kind of defeat the purpose of "leaving the old and embracing the new"?

We are talking about the same people who brought us all OMD:biggrin: Where Peter made a deal with the devil of all people. Plus we are already getting a female Kraven and anti venom, so they already went back on what they wanted.

[black_spidey728]

I'm not talking about giving up trade secrets -- but, as a general rule, a corporation or orgnization really needs to have a reason not to release information about itself. Why not release accurate production and sales numbers?


True, when a company is hell-bent on not giving up info, you can't help but think somethings up.

[dcarner]

Isn't Marvel traded publicly? If so I thought they were required to release that kind of information.

[ShaggyB]

No, the question is why don't they give out those numbers? Is it some state secret? Will they be effecting their sales by giving those numbers out? What are they hiding? How much product they put out, and how much of it sells? Why hide that at all?

And it's not really meeting the definition of insider information. Obviously, people are able to come by those numbers without being part of the company.

but they release profit margins to justify the stock prices. They dont have to release line by line details to the public.

The question is when they release the numbers to share holders on profit from the comic devision (or loss).... why do they have to itemize it for the internet viewing public?

Profit is profit. The only time theyd have to itemize it would be if they were under investigation for faking the profit margins. Until such a time, they would really only need to report profits from the devisions to public share holders and Nasdaq/NY Stock exchange for stock purposes.

When Microsofts stock goes up or down its not because they sent out a line by line what xbox 360 product did but that a devision in the company made more or less than predicted.

[ShaggyB]

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

what can i say. i honor my bets even though Icv2 is estimates too. We agreed on that site not cbr. I think the numbers are a bit low on icv2 when compared to cbr because usually cbr is low by 20 to 50 copies. But thats not part of the agreement so... Man of my word

[Jim Thompson]

but they release profit margins to justify the stock prices. They dont have to release line by line details to the public.

The question is when they release the numbers to share holders on profit from the comic devision (or loss).... why do they have to itemize it for the internet viewing public?

Profit is profit. The only time theyd have to itemize it would be if they were under investigation for faking the profit margins. Until such a time, they would really only need to report profits from the devisions to public share holders and Nasdaq/NY Stock exchange for stock purposes.

When Microsofts stock goes up or down its not because they sent out a line by line what xbox 360 product did but that a devision in the company made more or less than predicted.I said nothing about releasing what their profits are: I'm solely talking about how much they produce and a sell. Production costs probably are something they ought to keep to themselves (though it would be easily discoverable, too).

[black_spidey728]

We are talking about the same people who brought us all OMD:biggrin: Where Peter made a deal with the devil of all people. Plus we are already getting a female Kraven and anti venom, so they already went back on what they wanted.

Yeah, I know...I was just being a bit facetous...pointing out how Marvel's plan to get rid of Spidey's connection to the past isn't working out.

[Mister Mets]

Of course it's equally possible it'll galvanize some of those fans to start a camaign to save a book that's in trouble, a la Amazing Spider-Girl. Or it could create the impression that a book is in real trouble, causing bad buzz for the book.

As opposed to what we have going on now? Right now, we have less substantiated second guessing. And it's wasting our time rather than that of the writers, artists, editors, etc.

How? Again, they're not revealing future story ideas or such. How do production and sales numbers give another corporation an advantage?It'll give them an approximation of what's working for Marvel, and what's not. If for example, Marvel reveals that Marvel Adventures Spider-Man is selling 70,000 copies VIA subscription, DC could use the information to their advantage, either by ramping up their subscription efforts, or by creating new books to compete with that one.


They spend time defending their sales numbers now. And anyway, so what? It's better to engage in a lie of ommission and not have to deal with the results of your efforts than it is for people to know the truth about your companies relative success (or failure)? I think the writers and artists should spend most of their effort either promoting or producing their stuff, not getting into debates about sales figures on their professional or free time. At the moment, "the sales figures are inaccurate" is a valid way to sidestep arguments that have little to do with the quality of the art or the writing.

But aren't consumers entitled to information that directly relates to a product they are buying?Not in this case.

Consumers have the option of not buying the books if they're unsatisfied that Marvel's not releasing information on sales figures.

But beyond that, why should consumers (and people who have no interest in buying the product) have access to the total sales figures?

[Mister Mets]

We are talking about the same people who brought us all OMD:biggrin: Where Peter made a deal with the devil of all people. Plus we are already getting a female Kraven and anti venom, so they already went back on what they wanted.How did they go back on what they wanted?

[IronPalm]

I quit buying it not because I hate BND, but because I got tired of buying it once a week.

[black_spidey728]

Isn't Marvel traded publicly? If so I thought they were required to release that kind of information.


I forgot about that...good catch.

[philly]

How did they go back on what they wanted?

Was Brand New Day a starting point for new villains, new ideals, and a fresh start for Spidey? Anti Venom, The female Kraven and the constant out of web gag joke is not what you call being Brand New:tongue:

[Jim Thompson]

Or it could create the impression that a book is in real trouble, causing bad buzz for the book.It wouldn't be an impression -- it would actually spell out whether a book was in trouble. No second-guessing or assumptions would need to be made. And what's wrong with the buyers knowing that? Again, what's the reason not to release that information?

Right now, we have less substantiated second guessing. And it's wasting our time rather than that of the writers, artists, editors, etc.So the argument you're making is that is is better for the corporation to waste their consumer's time than it is for them to waste theirs?

It'll give them an approximation of what's working for Marvel, and what's not. If for example, Marvel reveals that Marvel Adventures Spider-Man is selling 70,000 copies VIA subscription, DC could use the information to their advantage, either by ramping up their subscription efforts, or by creating new books to compete with that one.DC wouldn't do this anyway? You're not describing an advantage -- you're describing common business practices.

I think the writers and artists should spend most of their effort either promoting or producing their stuff, not getting into debates about sales figures on their professional or free time. At the moment, "the sales figures are inaccurate" is a valid way to sidestep arguments that have little to do with the quality of the art or the writing. This would only come into play if the writer/artist's book was not selling well. And then why shouldn't they have to talk about what's happening with the book, and why it isn't doing well?

Not in this case.

Consumers have the option of not buying the books if they're unsatisfied that Marvel's not releasing information on sales figures.

But beyond that, why should consumers (and people who have no interest in buying the product) have access to the total sales figures?Why not? What's gained from not releasing them?

[black_spidey728]

Or it could create the impression that a book is in real trouble, causing bad buzz for the book.


Not in this case.

Consumers have the option of not buying the books if they're unsatisfied that Marvel's not releasing information on sales figures.

But beyond that, why should consumers (and people who have no interest in buying the product) have access to the total sales figures?

I think that's what many anti-bnd people are going for, the impression that the book is in trouble due to consumers not buying it.

I don't agree that consumers aren't entitled to the nmbers. Consumer are buying books, therefore they are entitled to the sales figures...regardless of what they do with the info.

[black_spidey728]

How did they go back on what they wanted?


By saying that they wanted to "divorce" Spidey from his past. Now that they are in trouble, out comes the past.

[Jim Thompson]

By saying that they wanted to "divorce" Spidey from his past. Now that they are in trouble, out comes the past.When have Marvel execs ever said they were looking to "divorce" the character from his past? It seems, for all its' weaknesses, one thing OMD tried to do was keep most of Peter's past intact, so they could continue to draw from it.

[Matt Linton]

Was Brand New Day a starting point for new villains, new ideals, and a fresh start for Spidey? Anti Venom, The female Kraven and the constant out of web gag joke is not what you call being Brand New:tongue:

They said from day one that they were taking the old villains off the table "for awhile" and introducing new villains.

Overdrive
Mr. Negative
Menace
Freak
Diety
Screwball
Paperdoll
the Bookie.

That's 8 new villains introduced in 5 months.

[black_spidey728]

When have Marvel execs ever said they were looking to "divorce" the character from his past? It seems, for all its' weaknesses, one thing OMD tried to do was keep most of Peter's past intact, so they could continue to draw from it.

See philly's post above. But that was the whole point of BND. New everything...now that it appears to be flat-lining; Marvel is falling back on the stuff that "suppossedly" no longer worked.

[Jim Thompson]

Sphilly's post above. But that was the whole point of BND. New everything...now that it appears to be flat-lining; Marvel is falling back on the stuff that "suppossedly" no longer worked.Philly works for Marvel? Congratulations dude! :biggrin:

[black_spidey728]

They said from day one that they were taking the old villains off the table "for awhile" and introducing new villains.

Overdrive
Mr. Negative
Menace
Freak
Diety
Screwball
Paperdoll
the Bookie.

That's 8 new villains introduced in 5 months.

That's spin and you know it cuz if these new villains were hitting it off the way Marvel planned, the old villains wouldn't even be a blip in the rear-view mirror.

[Mister Mets]

Was Brand New Day a starting point for new villains, new ideals, and a fresh start for Spidey? Anti Venom, The female Kraven and the constant out of web gag joke is not what you call being Brand New:tongue:Marvel explicitly said that the first six months of BND would be used to introduce new villains. The first six months are now over.

Afterwards they were always planning to do stories with the classic villains. However, some of the Brand New Day villains will reappear in coming months (Menace in New Ways to Die, Overshift in the next issue) and there'll still be introductions to new villains, with ties to older ones.

[Jim Thompson]

That's BS and you know it cuz if these new villains were hitting it off the way Marvel planned, the old villains wouldn't even be a blip in the rear-view mirror.I really have a hard time believing Marvel never intended to return to the use of their classic Spider-Man villains. I'm more inclined to believe what Matt is saying, that they were going to use some new villains for a little while before bringing the classic bad guys back into the story.

[Mister Mets]

See philly's post above. But that was the whole point of BND. New everything...now that it appears to be flat-lining; Marvel is falling back on the stuff that "suppossedly" no longer worked.Marvel did make it clear that when BND was over, the classic villains would be returning in a big way. They were always planning stuff like "New Ways to Die."


I think that's what many anti-bnd people are going for, the impression that the book is in trouble due to consumers not buying it.

I don't agree that consumers aren't entitled to the nmbers. Consumer are buying books, therefore they are entitled to the sales figures...regardless of what they do with the info.I don't think the sales figures will have a significant effect on consumers. Pro BND people won't suddenly decide that sales are low, so for the good of the franchise, they'll join the anti-BND boycott. Anti-BND people won't suddenly decide that sales are good, so they'll stop criticizing Quesada.

What are the benefits to releasing the numbers?

[philly]

Philly works for Marvel? Congratulations dude! :biggrin:

That's news to me, hopefully i can get a pay check soon:tongue:

[Jim Thompson]

That's news to me, hopefully i can get a pay check soon:tongue:Unknown to you, you have a Brand New Job (BNJ)!

[black_spidey728]

I really have a hard time believing Marvel never intended to return to the use of their classic Spider-Man villains. I'm more inclined to believe what Matt is saying, that they were going to use some new villains for a little while before bringing the classic bad guys back into the story.


That's no more unbelievable than Marvel blowing the crap out of the continity and telling us to jst deal with it.:biggrin: :biggrin:

[Mister Mets]

I really have a hard time believing Marvel never intended to return to the use of their classic Spider-Man villains. I'm more inclined to believe what Matt is saying, that they were going to use some new villains for a little while before bringing the classic bad guys back into the story.
They explicitly said as much in various interviews, as they believed that the older villains had lost their significance in the months before OMD, so it was a good idea to a wait a while before bringing them back in a big way. The new villains phase was only supposed to last six months, so it's fairly impressive that Marvel's waiting until the eighth month to focus on the classic villains.

Dan Slott explicitly explained this in his November 2007 interview with Crawl Space, and similar comments are available in the various BND promotional interviews.

[Jim Thompson]

That's no more unbelievable than Marvel blowing the crap out of the continity and telling us to jst deal with it.:biggrin: :biggrin:Yeah, well, much as I dislike what's happening with the character these days, I don't think Marvel has out-and-out tried to piss off its fan base. I think they made a decision to move in a direction they knew would upset some in the hopes of gaining more fans than they would lose. I'm not sure they are going to realise their goal, but I do believe them when they say they were trying to do something for the good of the character.

I just think their idea is actually bad for the character.

[CyberHubbs]

See philly's post above. But that was the whole point of BND. New everything...now that it appears to be flat-lining; Marvel is falling back on the stuff that "suppossedly" no longer worked.

Most of these storylines were mapped out and done beforehand for the thrice-monthly deal. So I don't think New Ways to Die is something they're resorting to when sales have dropped. It was always on the schedule.

[Jim Thompson]

They explicitly said as much in various interviews, as they believed that the older villains had lost their significance in the months before OMD, so it was a good idea to a wait a while before bringing them back in a big way. The new villains phase was only supposed to last six months, so it's fairly impressive that Marvel's waiting until the eighth month to focus on the classic villains.I dunno how impressive it is, but it is certainly an understandable way of moving forward.

Not sure if it'll work or not, though.

[black_spidey728]

Marvel did make it clear that when BND was over, the classic villains would be returning in a big way. They were always planning stuff like "New Ways to Die."


I don't think the sales figures will have a significant effect on consumers. Pro BND people won't suddenly decide that sales are low, so for the good of the franchise, they'll join the anti-BND boycott. Anti-BND people won't suddenly decide that sales are good, so they'll stop criticizing Quesada.

What are the benefits to releasing the numbers?

A big way is debatable cuz if the stories are anything like what has proceeded...it's just gonna rate a "meh"

Sales figures do affect consumer confidence, whether you think so or not.

[CyberHubbs]

A big way is debatable cuz if the stories are anything like what has proceeded...it's just gonna rate a "meh"

Sales figures do affect consumer confidence, whether you think so or not.

To what degree, though?

TV, for example. Plenty of shows got canceled, but that didn't stop fans from collecting the box sets despite it 'not being good enough for television'. So even if sales drop, the people buying Spidey and enjoying it are still going to do so. It's called being a fan.

[Mister Mets]

That's spin and you know it cuz if these new villains were hitting it off the way Marvel planned, the old villains wouldn't even be a blip in the rear-view mirror.

You are wrong. From IGN's January 2008 interview with Dan Slott.... (http://comics.ign.com/articles/844/844895p3.html)

IGN Comics: It seems as though there is a definite push for new enemies for Spidey. Inevitably fans are going to want to see the classic villains appear as well – are there plans in motion for Spidey's traditional Rogues Gallery?

Slott: One of the things we wanted to put a stop to was the constant "jobbing" of Spidey's classic villains. Too many times, in other books around the Marvel U., we've seen a lot of the best Spidey-Rogues used as glass-jawed-punching-bags in order to prop up a hero and make them look cool. Because of that a lot of their cred has gone "Pfffftt!"

So we're sticking in a pot for awhile and letting them marinate. When we bring 'em back-- and we are bringing 'em back-- their going to explode into Spidey's world in a BIG WAY as full blown, major threats!

(Because of our crazy three-times-a-month schedule, we're all working really far ahead. And as I type this, I'm already working on the third chapter of a huge storyline for later next year that involves a number of Spider-Man's greatest, fan-favorite foes!).

They've been marinating for seven and a half months. And Dan Slott was writing "New Ways to Die" before the first issue of BND hit the stands.

Keep in mind that when BND was first planned, Aunt May had beaten the Chameleon in Sensational Spider-Man.

[Jim Thompson]

Sales figures do affect consumer confidence, whether you think so or not.I don't think Mets is saying he doesn't think this is true; I think he's saying that since sales figures can effect comsumer confidence, it might not be such a good idea to release them.

I disagree with such a notion (better to go ugly early), but I think that's what he's driving at.

[Mister Mets]

A big way is debatable cuz if the stories are anything like what has proceeded...it's just gonna rate a "meh"

Sales figures do affect consumer confidence, whether you think so or not.If sales figures affect consumer confidence, why the hell would Marvel want to release them?

[black_spidey728]

That's news to me, hopefully i can get a pay check soon:tongue:

Since you work there...hook a brother up. Last time I was in NYC and visited Marvel...there was this HOT receptionist there.

[Jim Thompson]

If sales figures affect consumer confidence, why the hell would Marvel want to release them?Because they could definitivily show the public their book is successful. The only reason not to release those numbers is because you can't use them to show your product is successful.

[philly]

Since you work there...hook a brother up. Last time I was in NYC and visited Marvel...there was this HOT receptionist there.

If there is a hot receptionist there, she's mine:biggrin:

[black_spidey728]

Most of these storylines were mapped out and done beforehand for the thrice-monthly deal. So I don't think New Ways to Die is something they're resorting to when sales have dropped. It was always on the schedule.

Granted, while they probably had stories mapped out, when it became evident that their direction wasn't working, the stories got changed.

[Jim Thompson]

Granted, while they probably had stories mapped out, when it became evident that their direction wasn't working, the stories got changed.Now how can you possibly know that?

[CyberHubbs]

Granted, while they probably had stories mapped out, when it became evident that their direction wasn't working, the stories got changed.

Prove it...

[black_spidey728]

If sales figures affect consumer confidence, why the hell would Marvel want to release them?

They may not want to but as a publically held, consumer-driven company...they don't have a choice.

[black_spidey728]

Prove it...


Seeing as how I don't write for Marvel, I can't but seeing as the sales figures since the beginning of BND haven't blown the doors of and Steve Wacker is requesting feedback on how to fix it...put 2 and 2 together.

[Jim Thompson]

Seeing as how I don't write for Marvel, I can't but seeing as the sales figures since the beginning of BND haven't blown the doors of and Steve Wacker is requesting feedback on how to fix it...put 2 and 2 together.And come up with five.

Your logic is on pretty shaky ground there.

[CyberHubbs]

Seeing as how I don't write for Marvel, I can't but seeing as the sales figures since the beginning of BND haven't blown the doors of and Steve Wacker is requesting feedback on how to fix it...put 2 and 2 together.

Which means you can't prove it. But we have plenty of interviews with Slott stating that the next two years were already planned ahead, and the work was even started on the issues two years ago.

[ShaggyB]

I said nothing about releasing what their profits are: I'm solely talking about how much they produce and a sell. Production costs probably are something they ought to keep to themselves (though it would be easily discoverable, too).

But other than your curiosity, what reason do they need to show what they produce and sell? If they can show profit to investors would that not cover the area and satisfy those whom ar financially attached to said products?

Frankly, if they can show that the comics devision is profitable to the shareholders, how are they required to go into more detail?

[black_spidey728]

Which means you can't prove it. But we have plenty of interviews with Slott stating that the next two years were already planned ahead, and the work was even started on the issues two years ago.

No more than you can prove what you are saying. You think that Marvel hasn't changed anything, I think they did.

[black_spidey728]

And come up with five.

Your logic is on pretty shaky ground there.


You don't know me very well but I'm kind of a cult hero for living on shaky ground!!!

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[black_spidey728]

But other than your curiosity, what reason do they need to show what they produce and sell? If they can show profit to investors would that not cover the area and satisfy those whom ar financially attached to said products?

Frankly, if they can show that the comics devision is profitable to the shareholders, how are they required to go into more detail?

Because some stockholders look at every aspect of the financials, not just what is given to them.

[CyberHubbs]

No more than you can prove what you are saying. You think that Marvel hasn't changed anything, I think they did.

At that point, you would have to prove that Slott is lying in his interviews.

[ShaggyB]

Because some stockholders look at every aspect of the financials, not just what is given to them.

true but that doesnt make them entitled to the information. Just to the bottom lines. Thats the differance between share holder and board member.

[black_spidey728]

true but that doesnt make them entitled to the information. Just to the bottom lines. Thats the differance between share holder and board member.

So it's your estimation that stockholders are not entitled to the sales figures of a company that they own stock in.

[ShaggyB]

true but that doesnt make them entitled to the information. Just to the bottom lines. Thats the differance between share holder and board member.

I'll add to that. (this assumes marvel is run by a board of trusties) Board members are employees of the company. They are in charge of directing it in the direction of profit. They are usually but not always financially attached to the company in some stock way. They can sell off and bail out, but they have to justify the sale to the us government otherwise its known as insider trading. (When someone from internal dumps a large number of stock while the company is on a high right before a stock price plunge. Also highly illegal and government agencies monitor for such practices.)

Board Members are entitled to line item expenses to better streamline profit. IE if ASG isnt selling well they can determine the cost to produce out weighs the gains to not produce. IE these people directly determine the out come of business decisions and as such are entitled to full disclosure.

Stock Holders on the other hand are not. Stock holders are entitled to know Profits and losses. They are allowed to know what devisions of companies are showing these. Likewise they can sometimes be entitled to make decisions. This occurs when stock holders make up a significant chunk of the company.

Likewise in cases such as this a company making profits would not likely have investors whom were upset.

Keep in mind that this is the absolute worst case scenerio in that a company with a Board of Trusties is usually a company that is 100% owned by share holders.

Marvel may not be. It could own itself and in that case it has atleast 51% of its stock kept to the owner of Marvel Enterprises.... In that case no matter how much the fans want it the one with the most % makes the decisions.

As can be shown there is not many cases where Stock holders are entitled to the inner workings of a company. Even in extreme cases the individual stock holder is entitled to nothing but a share in the profits or losses of a company. Just keep in mind that no company sets out to lose money.... Invest with care.

[ShaggyB]

I'll add to that. (this assumes marvel is run by a board of trusties) Board members are employees of the company. They are in charge of directing it in the direction of profit. They are usually but not always financially attached to the company in some stock way. They can sell off and bail out, but they have to justify the sale to the us government otherwise its known as insider trading. (When someone from internal dumps a large number of stock while the company is on a high right before a stock price plunge. Also highly illegal and government agencies monitor for such practices.)

Board Members are entitled to line item expenses to better streamline profit. IE if ASG isnt selling well they can determine the cost to produce out weighs the gains to not produce. IE these people directly determine the out come of business decisions and as such are entitled to full disclosure.

Stock Holders on the other hand are not. Stock holders are entitled to know Profits and losses. They are allowed to know what devisions of companies are showing these. Likewise they can sometimes be entitled to make decisions. This occurs when stock holders make up a significant chunk of the company.

Likewise in cases such as this a company making profits would not likely have investors whom were upset.

Keep in mind that this is the absolute worst case scenerio in that a company with a Board of Trusties is usually a company that is 100% owned by share holders.

Marvel may not be. It could own itself and in that case it has atleast 51% of its stock kept to the owner of Marvel Enterprises.... In that case no matter how much the fans want it the one with the most % makes the decisions.

As can be shown there is not many cases where Stock holders are entitled to the inner workings of a company. Even in extreme cases the individual stock holder is entitled to nothing but a share in the profits or losses of a company. Just keep in mind that no company sets out to lose money.... Invest with care.

also i'll add a bit more. If Stock Holders were entitled to the inner workings of every company they invested in things like Insider Trading would not exist because the head guy in the company would know the exact same info as the guys on the streets buying his stock.

It doesnt happen, it never will... Owning stock never entitles a person to full disclosure of company secrets/information.

I own Stock in Microsoft but im not entitled to know the real reason for the the RROD glitch in the xbox360 even though it lost the company 9Billion dollars for a Quarter. I just get to be angry about it. But when they make money, if i sell i get to keep the profit (minus taxes). Thats how it works. No more, no less.

[Mister Mets]

Because they could definitivily show the public their book is successful. The only reason not to release those numbers is because you can't use them to show your product is successful. It's pretty much guaranteed that at some point in the future, Marvel's going to do a book that isn't an unambiguous success.

And they're probably going to want to deal with that without having outsiders second-guess every decision related to that book. Especially considering how long it could take for Marvel to publish a new story after its first inception.

[black_spidey728]

also i'll add a bit more. If Stock Holders were entitled to the inner workings of every company they invested in things like Insider Trading would not exist because the head guy in the company would know the exact same info as the guys on the streets buying his stock.

It doesnt happen, it never will... Owning stock never entitles a person to full disclosure of company secrets/information.

I own Stock in Microsoft but im not entitled to know the real reason for the the RROD glitch in the xbox360 even though it lost the company 9Billion dollars for a Quarter. I just get to be angry about it. But when they make money, if i sell i get to keep the profit (minus taxes). Thats how it works. No more, no less.

I'm not saying that stockholders should be privvy to inner workings but something as nominal as sales figures, I don't see that as an issue.

To your Microsoft example, no you wouldn't be privvy to the technical issues that led to a production delay but I would think having access to the sales figures wouldn't be an issue.

[The Shadow]

... forum is acting up.... :mad:

[The Shadow]

But aren't consumers entitled to information that directly relates to a product they are buying?

Please.

Call Microsoft and tell them you want actual sales data on Windows sales because you're a consumer and you think you're entitled to that information.

Call McDonalds and tell them you want actual sales figures on Big Macs because you're a consumer ad you're entitled to that information.

[ShaggyB]

I'm not saying that stockholders should be privvy to inner workings but something as nominal as sales figures, I don't see that as an issue.

To your Microsoft example, no you wouldn't be privvy to the technical issues that led to a production delay but I would think having access to the sales figures wouldn't be an issue.

I dont need the specifics. I need the bottom line. In the case of Marvel i need to know overall are they making profits? Are they projecting to make more profits? What areas are they seeing the profits in? (Movies, Merchandising, Comics) I dont need to have the specific number of sales for Amazing Spider-man to know that overall in a downward market marvel owns 51- 56% of the market share for the month in comics. Thats good enough for investing. The question you as the invester have to ask is overall is that downward shift going to hurt over all profit and stock value

You as the consumer are entitled to nothing past the product and use of said product that you bought.

As a 360 owner, i am entitled to plug it in and play games with it. Thats it. That doesnt give me the rights to know profit margins on the 360 or even if the game studio portion is making money. It gives me fair use and ownership to the 360 i hold in my hands upon paying the money.

As a stock holder i am entitled to know that Micorosft lost 9 Billion on extending the warranty repairs to correct the Red Ring of Death issue in the Xbox 360. That does not entitle me to know why the issue occurs or how it is fixed, just that it will cost X number of dollars to do and that the company will not show profit during the quarter that they announced the loss in. That is enough for me to either jump off the MS stock holder bus or to stick it out during the stock share drop until greener pastures come.

Just because we all want firm numbers and buy comics, merchandise, movies and stock doesnt mean we are entitled to them.

[The Shadow]

So it's your estimation that stockholders are not entitled to the sales figures of a company that they own stock in.

So if you bought one share of stock in Coke you would be entitled to an all access pass to the sales data?

What's to stop Pepsi from buying one stock and getting all that information? Man you should read up on stocks, shareholders and so on. It's quite interesting.

[black_spidey728]

Please.

Call Microsoft and tell them you want actual sales data on Windows sales because you're a consumer and you think you're entitled to that information.

Call McDonalds and tell them you want actual sales figures on Big Macs because you're a consumer ad you're entitled to that information.

It was my impression that Microsoft released the numbers anyway.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2007/mar07/03-26VistaDebut.mspx

[ShaggyB]

It was my impression that Microsoft released the numbers anyway.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2007/mar07/03-26VistaDebut.mspx

Thats called touting sales. Marvel does that with press releases about Second prints and #1 in sales for the month.

Also from your link there


The more than 20 million copies shipped represent Windows Vista licenses sold to PC manufacturers, copies of upgrades and the full packaged product sold to retailers and upgrades ordered through the Windows Vista Express Upgrade program from January 30 to February 28.


Thats not an exact figure sold. Its an exact figure shipped to retailers. (and those who got the xp to vista upgrade disc program... My dad did that one.)

Where is the release that shows how much Vista actually sold at the stores during that time?

[black_spidey728]

So if you bought one share of stock in Coke you would be entitled to an all access pass to the sales data?

What's to stop Pepsi from buying one stock and getting all that information? Man you should read up on stocks, shareholders and so on. It's quite interesting.


Yes as a stockholder, you would.

Your getting off topic, if a Pepsi employee was buying stock simply as a stockholder, that's one thing. If the stock is being bought to do something illegal, that's a whole other story.

[black_spidey728]

Thats called touting sales. Marvel does that with press releases about Second prints and #1 in sales for the month.

Also from your link there



Thats not an exact figure sold. Its an exact figure shipped to retailers. (and those who got the xp to vista upgrade disc program... My dad did that one.)

Where is the release that shows how much Vista actually sold at the stores during that time?

Sorry, how's this.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/04-24-06windowsxpnsalesfs.mspx

[Jim Thompson]

And they're probably going to want to deal with that without having outsiders second-guess every decision related to that book. Especially considering how long it could take for Marvel to publish a new story after its first inception.LMAO! Well, if that's their reasoning, they haven't been very successful at keeping those second-guessers out of their hair.

I really don't think there is a legitimate reason for them not to give out those numbers. Probably do more good than harm, actually.

[ShaggyB]

Sorry, how's this.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/04-24-06windowsxpnsalesfs.mspx

thats not sales of Vista. Thats Windows XP without the Media Player built into the distro. That was required by European Law. The press release you have found is likely due to the disclosure agreements signed by MS to sell XP in Europe. Either-way its still above and beyond the call of duty on there part to the stock holders.

See the address "/legal/european/"... that will tell you why the press release exists.

Again just because i own a piece of MS doesnt mean they owe me full disclosure on every last number. Call a stock broker and ask.

[Jim Thompson]

But other than your curiosity, what reason do they need to show what they produce and sell? If they can show profit to investors would that not cover the area and satisfy those whom ar financially attached to said products?

Frankly, if they can show that the comics devision is profitable to the shareholders, how are they required to go into more detail?They're not required (as far as I know) to do what I'm suggesting -- but the benefits of it are they can demonstrate they are being as open as possible with their customers, who, as evidenced by this thread and many like it across a multitude of boards, pay attention to stuff like this.

[The Shadow]

They're not required (as far as I know) to do what I'm suggesting -- but the benefits of it are they can demonstrate they are being as open as possible with their customers, who, as evidenced by this thread and many like it across a multitude of boards, pay attention to stuff like this.

Can you name one other company that releases its actual and 100% accurate sales figures to customers for the benefit of the customers and being open with them? Cummon Jim... :rolleyes:

And I don't really think Marvel (or DC) cares that fans on a forum discuss sales. I doubt they lose sleep over it.

[Jim Thompson]

Can you name one other company that releases its actual and 100% accurate sales figures to customers for the benefit of the customers and being open with them? Cummon Jim... :rolleyes:

And I don't really think Marvel (or DC) cares that fans on a forum discuss sales. I doubt they lose sleep over it.Coke. It's on their website.

[black_spidey728]

Can you name one other company that releases its actual and 100% accurate sales figures to customers for the benefit of the customers and being open with them? Cummon Jim... :rolleyes:

And I don't really think Marvel (or DC) cares that fans on a forum discuss sales. I doubt they lose sleep over it.

Well I think they care when the figures make a certain book, that they are touting, look good. They probably don't care when the sales figures are shitty.

[ShaggyB]

Coke. It's on their website.

link please, i want to know how Diet Coke and Mellow Yellow sold in April. (specifically)

[ShaggyB]

Well I think they care when the figures make a certain book, that they are touting, look good. They probably don't care when the sales figures are shitty.

that would make sense if any comic company had ever shown the monthly exact sales of there comics. Otherwise your just putting BND in because you want it to fit the hole. it does fit, but so does superman, spawn, and every other comic in the current market.

[black_spidey728]

that would make sense if any comic company had ever shown the monthly exact sales of there comics. Otherwise your just putting BND in because you want it to fit the hole. it does fit, but so does superman, spawn, and every other comic in the current market.

Well most guys I know do what it takes to make stuff fit in a hole.

:eek:

[The Shadow]

Coke. It's on their website.

You'll have to provide a link.

I have been looking in their corporate section but haven't found anything that says "And for the month of May Coke sold X number of 2L bottles, X number of cans, X number of cases..." etc.

[ShaggyB]

Well most guys I know do what it takes to make stuff fit in a hole.

:eek:

crud,slightly funny, but yet still not to the point. Missing the forest for the individual tree. just because you can make it fit doesnt mean others cant also fit.

[The Shadow]

Well I think they care when the figures make a certain book, that they are touting, look good. They probably don't care when the sales figures are shitty.
Sure, and they send out a press release touting a sellout

[black_spidey728]

crud,slightly funny, but yet still not to the point. Missing the forest for the individual tree. just because you can make it fit doesnt mean others cant also fit.


But that's how life works, people take established facts and adjust them to prove points. Companies do it all the time.

Case in point, Macs are kicking PC's ass, but I bet Microsoft can utilize sales figures to say it aint so bad.

[Maestro]

This economy lesson is really old.

[Jim Thompson]

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/investors/annual_review_2007.html

[Dr. Chaos]

Calling Dan Slott a liar? What? Are we doing conspiracy theories now about fairly straightforward interviews?

This whole jib about old villians and MJ being some sort of desperate sales ploy is silly.

We all knew Months and MONTHS in advance that these things were coming, contrary to insane belief, Amazing isn't written just days before it ships into stores.

[The Shadow]

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/investors/annual_review_2007.html

... so? :confused:

Where in all that does it say "Coke sold X number of 2L bottles; X number of 2L Diet Coke..." and so on

I looked in Complete 2007 Annual Review, Financial Data, Company Highlights and Year In Review and found nothing but what others have said a stockholder would want. Financial data and balance sheets. Nothing on specific numbers of a product sold.

Can you be more specific with your link?

[Jim Thompson]

... so? :confused:

Where in all that does it say "Coke sold X number of 2L bottles; X number of 2L Diet Coke..." and so on

I looked in Complete 2007 Annual Review, Financial Data, Company Highlights and Year In Review and found nothing but what others have said a stockholder would want. Financial data and balance sheets. Nothing on specific numbers of a product sold.

Can you be more specific with your link?You're looking for the wrong unit of measure. They measure by the case sold.

[The Shadow]

You're looking for the wrong unit of measure. They measure by the case sold.

OK... I still didn't see that though.

[Jim Thompson]

OK... I still didn't see that though.Do a search for "Annual sales, 2007, case numbers, and it should get you what you're looking for. Did for me, anyway.

[ShaggyB]

But that's how life works, people take established facts and adjust them to prove points. Companies do it all the time.

Case in point, Macs are kicking PC's ass, but I bet Microsoft can utilize sales figures to say it aint so bad.

correct, that is the definition of "spinning things".

What you did was take a select set of the over all data and claim a fact based on that. Once your fact is held to the rest of the data it becomes irrelevant and essentially deluded.

One cant say Marvel should give the exact sales numbers of any one book without saying it should give them all. Likewise wont cant make that request of Marvel without making it to all comic publishers.

Also one cant say that a book is doing poorly based on the company not wanting to give exact numbers when they dont give them for books that have high estimate sales.

If you tried the argument, while it fits for Spidey, with say Secret Invasion..... They wont give those exacts out either, does that too become a failure. Your base statement claims that it would. Every book that no exact sales data is released is subject to your line of thought. Ignoring the ones that make your statement look wrong is just narrowing to a single tree in a forest. You then try to define the forest based on the tree.

Sure a Redwood may indicate a redwood forest, or it could very well be one of a handful in said forest.... get where im going with it.

[ShaggyB]

Do a search for "Annual sales, 2007, case numbers, and it should get you what you're looking for. Did for me, anyway.

how bout you post the exact sales by case of Mellow Yellow in the month of April and the exact case sales of Diet Coke, then give the link and you will have satisfied the argument.. Although till you find Marvels exact numbers or some document of law that states they have to disclose them you really are just finding examples of companies that go above and beyond the call of duty.

[BlackToe]

Calling Dan Slott a liar? What? Are we doing conspiracy theories now about fairly straightforward interviews?

This whole jib about old villians and MJ being some sort of desperate sales ploy is silly.

We all knew Months and MONTHS in advance that these things were coming, contrary to insane belief, Amazing isn't written just days before it ships into stores.

You would'nt believe how many people think that.

Like right now at this instance, they're writing stories that extend into next year and pencilling the ones for mid 08

[The Shadow]

Do a search for "Annual sales, 2007, case numbers, and it should get you what you're looking for. Did for me, anyway.

Yeah... I'm starting to get the "yer yankin' my chain" feeling here.

I did that and several variations of it and didn't find anything. Everything was all about the numbers and bottom line.

Please post a specific link as I'm not finding what you found.

[The Shadow]

how bout you post the exact sales by case of Mellow Yellow in the month of April and the exact case sales of Diet Coke, then give the link and you will have satisfied the argument.. Although till you find Marvels exact numbers or some document of law that states they have to disclose them you really are just finding examples of companies that go above and beyond the call of duty.

Hell, I'd take monthly sales from January to the present!

And not "We sold 2.1 million cases" because I doubt they sold EXACTLY that... and that is the crux of this argument... releasing EXACT sales figures.

[ShaggyB]

Hell, I'd take monthly sales from January to the present!

And not "We sold 2.1 million cases" because I doubt they sold EXACTLY that... and that is the crux of this argument... releasing EXACT sales figures.

See, for it to be a argument winner for me i want the actual Cases sold for a specific Drink. Thats why i keep asking for Mellow Yellow's numbers.

If actual numbers for ASM are what stock holders are entitled to know specifically then, I wont be satisfied without specific drink by drink sales numbers. (seems like the argument here is that by purchasing Marvel comics that one is entitled to know how each individual title sells, exact numbers. Since we know thats not true we've gone with Stock holders, based on the fact that stock holders are entitled to some financial information.) (so unless he can provide a link to those numbers then he has no specific numbers for his example and thus he has nothing better than what we have now in regards to ASM)

[black_spidey728]

correct, that is the definition of "spinning things".

What you did was take a select set of the over all data and claim a fact based on that. Once your fact is held to the rest of the data it becomes irrelevant and essentially deluded.

One cant say Marvel should give the exact sales numbers of any one book without saying it should give them all. Likewise wont cant make that request of Marvel without making it to all comic publishers.

Also one cant say that a book is doing poorly based on the company not wanting to give exact numbers when they dont give them for books that have high estimate sales.

If you tried the argument, while it fits for Spidey, with say Secret Invasion..... They wont give those exacts out either, does that too become a failure. Your base statement claims that it would. Every book that no exact sales data is released is subject to your line of thought. Ignoring the ones that make your statement look wrong is just narrowing to a single tree in a forest. You then try to define the forest based on the tree.

Sure a Redwood may indicate a redwood forest, or it could very well be one of a handful in said forest.... get where im going with it.

As I've said before, this is a BND/ASM related thread and in my opinion, other books performance or lack therof are not relevant. And yeah, if I was trying to do this argument with HULK, I'd be doing whatever was necessary to support my argument. However, I wouldn't use BND's number to make an argument.

[ShaggyB]

As I've said before, this is a BND/ASM related thread and in my opinion, other books performance or lack therof are not relevant. And yeah, if I was trying to do this argument with HULK, I'd be doing whatever was necessary to support my argument. However, I wouldn't use BND's number to make an argument.

and as soon as someone noted that every other book doesnt have exact numbers released and sells better and worse than ASM, your argument is done.

Youve narrowed down to just where you are arguing but youve used an argument that relies on the opposition to not look at the big picture. Sorry but you cant say that because Marvel wont give you ASM's real numbers that it must be under preforming. Because for that to be true it has to work for every other book they wont give you exact numbers for. Then it has to work for every company that wont give you exact numbers.

The argument just doesnt work. SI isnt under preforming nor is Thor, but you cant get those exacts out of Marvel either. Likewise Spider-girl sells poorly but they wont give you the exacts either.

[black_spidey728]

and as soon as someone noted that every other book doesnt have exact numbers released and sells better and worse than ASM, your argument is done.

Youve narrowed down to just where you are arguing but youve used an argument that relies on the opposition to not look at the big picture. Sorry but you cant say that because Marvel wont give you ASM's real numbers that it must be under preforming. Because for that to be true it has to work for every other book they wont give you exact numbers for. Then it has to work for every company that wont give you exact numbers.

The argument just doesnt work. SI isnt under preforming nor is Thor, but you cant get those exacts out of Marvel either. Likewise Spider-girl sells poorly but they wont give you the exacts either.

And you're completely within your rights to think my argument doesn't work. To me Marvel is doing everything in it's power to make BND look like a success. They didn't believe that the book would dip below 80K/month but it did and it's not out of the stretch of the imagination to think they don't want us to know how far below.

[Alan2099]

To me Marvel is doing everything in it's power to make BND look like a success.
Don't they do that with most of their books?

[ShaggyB]

And your completely within your rights to think my argument doesn't work. To me Marvel is doing everything in it's power to make BND look like a success. They didn't believe that the book would dip below 80K/month but it did and it's not out of the stretch of the imagination to think they don't want us to know how far below.

But when Civil War was going and Spidey was selling over 100k they didnt release the numbers either. They dont do it. Its not covering if they never have. If they had before BND and then stopped because of poor sales or whatever other reason then you might be on to something.... but the simple fact that Marvel has never given out exact numbers on Spider-man or any other book regardless of how well or poorly fans think its selling destroys the main point of your argument.

Its not like we cant see the number estimates before OMD and realize that they weren't exact then.... The argument states that even then they were with holding because of poor sales. Does that statement make any sense??? Do you think it is?

[The Shadow]

if I was trying to do this argument with HULK, I'd be doing whatever was necessary to support my argument. However, I wouldn't use BND's number to make an argument.
It's always good to have something else (such as another title) to help back up your claims.

[RazorBats79]

You're completely off-base with your accusations of "fair weather fans."

Some of us simply want to see what's best for the character, and refuse to blindly support whatever garbage they shovel at us. "True fans" like that are doing more damage to the character than they'll ever know.

Your absolutely right.
Its obvious that Marvel cares more about quantity, and not quality! Farting out 3 books a month is just stupid and it shows in the stories! Freak? WTF?
Along with some terrible artists.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Another month ....another day of Brand New Day losing sales.

Now the series has dove to 74,000 copies by #560. So who wants to think 60,000 is ahead by June or July ? Sales thus far have fallen below the JMS (post Sins Past) level.

[ShaggyB]

Another month ....another day of Brand New Day losing sales.

Now the series has dove to 74,000 copies by #560. So who wants to think 60,000 is ahead by June or July ? Sales thus far have fallen below the JMS (post Sins Past) level.

depends on whos estimated numbers you want to believe. Icv2 says 74k, CBR says 81k. Usually CBr is 30 to 50 units less than Icv2. Not thousand just the 50 units low. Something has both way apart from each other. So it really depends on whos numbers you want to go with. hence the argument over marvel releasing the actual numbers.

[Matt Linton]

Your absolutely right.
Its obvious that Marvel cares more about quantity, and not quality! Farting out 3 books a month is just stupid and it shows in the stories! Freak? WTF?
Along with some terrible artists.

Which artists have been "terrible"? McNiven, Larocca, Jimenez, and Bachalo are all high-profile artists, and Kitson, Martin, and McKone are generally well thought of. Of that list, the only artist I was disappointed in was Jimenez.

[The Shadow]

Farting out 3 books a month is just stupid

....................... weren't they doing that anyway? :confused: :confused:

[The Shadow]

Another month ....another day of Brand New Day losing sales.

Read the whole thread my friend :wink:

[black_spidey728]

But when Civil War was going and Spidey was selling over 100k they didnt release the numbers either. They dont do it. Its not covering if they never have. If they had before BND and then stopped because of poor sales or whatever other reason then you might be on to something.... but the simple fact that Marvel has never given out exact numbers on Spider-man or any other book regardless of how well or poorly fans think its selling destroys the main point of your argument.

Its not like we cant see the number estimates before OMD and realize that they weren't exact then.... The argument states that even then they were with holding because of poor sales. Does that statement make any sense??? Do you think it is?

For the love of...

Look, I'm not claiming to have any inside knowledge or some type of mole inside Marvel. Accurate or inaccurate, these are the numbers that are released, I'm not making them up nor pulling them out of my ass. These are the numbers being presented as accurate and as such I'm making m`y own informed opinion. If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry, I truly am. I just don't see how nobody was talking about inaccuracies when BND was selling over 120K.

So if I'm suppossed to cut BND some slack because of inaccurate numbers, let me know. Is it a sliding scale or is their a hard and fast number it should dip below before I can say something.

[ShaggyB]

For the love of...

Look, I'm not claiming to have any inside knowledge or some type of mole inside Marvel. Accurate or inaccurate, these are the numbers that are released, I'm not making them up nor pulling them out of my ass. These are the numbers being presented as accurate and as such I'm making m`y own informed opinion. If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry, I truly am. I just don't see how nobody was talking about inaccuracies when BND was selling over 120K.

So if I'm suppossed to cut BND some slack because of inaccurate numbers, let me know. Is it a sliding scale or is their a hard and fast number it should dip below before I can say something.

nope, im just saying that you cant say BND is doing bad because marvel wont release the actual sales figures. That argument doesnt work and never will. Thats all. That argument is not based on an informed opinion because it neglects to take into the count that marvel never release actuals on anything. It forgets the fact that no comic company does and likewise in just the specific spider-man realm, it neglects to take into account that when spidey was doing good actuals werent known either.

You just cant claim that because Marvel is not forthcoming with information that they are hiding poor sales. It doesnt work that way and thats not an informed opinion as it neglects obvious things.

[black_spidey728]

It's always good to have something else (such as another title) to help back up your claims.

I was just using HULK as an example, I have no thoughts about it one way or another.

[ShaggyB]

I was just using HULK as an example, I have no thoughts about it one way or another.

He's Red and hes probably Sampson. Hopefully Banner will beat the hell out of him so we can find out.

[black_spidey728]

nope, im just saying that you cant say BND is doing bad because marvel wont release the actual sales figures. That argument doesnt work and never will. Thats all. That argument is not based on an informed opinion because it neglects to take into the count that marvel never release actuals on anything. It forgets the fact that no comic company does and likewise in just the specific spider-man realm, it neglects to take into account that when spidey was doing good actuals werent known either.

You just cant claim that because Marvel is not forthcoming with information that they are hiding poor sales. It doesnt work that way and thats not an informed opinion as it neglects obvious things.

Then I guess we had some miscommunication somewhere because my argument was never that the numbers weren't accurate (i think Mr. Mets was the 1st to say it.) once their seemed to be a consensus among some that the nmbers weren't right, I stopped arguing the point.

I then started floating ideas as to why the actual numbers might not be released by Marvel.

[carabas]

depends on whos estimated numbers you want to believe. Icv2 says 74k, CBR says 81k. Usually CBr is 30 to 50 units less than Icv2. Not thousand just the 50 units low. Something has both way apart from each other. So it really depends on whos numbers you want to go with. hence the argument over marvel releasing the actual numbers.We only have ICV2 sales numbers for earlier years. It makes sense to only compare them with other ICV2 numbers.

Both sources are erronous, but both use their own methodology and thus the ICV2 error appies to all ICV2 numbers equally, and a similar but different error is applied all CBR numbers. So as you don't start to mix and match ICV2 and CBR's numbers to get a more desirable but less accurate result, these numbers, erronous or not, provide a reliable gauge to compare sales between books even if they're not a perfect measure for total sales numbers.

[James 'Logan' Howlett]

Not sure if this was covered, but I don't have the time to look over 25+ pages of posts.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=147304

Before Newsarama went all lame, I was keeping track of the sales for ASM. Edogawa1983 took the older stats (the sales from the three Spider-Man titles) and figured that if the three weekly Spider-Man books sold under 71,000 then it was doing worse.

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?p=4921158#post4921158

^ That link is for all the older sales numbers that I collected, and what Edogawa1983 made his average from.

I'm guessing that July will have the title at or below the older average in sales...which means that all those "New" readers are not buying the book, or that they are not replacing the older readers who dropped the book.

[ShaggyB]

Then I guess we had some miscommunication somewhere because my argument was never that the numbers weren't accurate (i think Mr. Mets was the 1st to say it.) once their seemed to be a consensus among some that the nmbers weren't right, I stopped arguing the point.

I then started floating ideas as to why the actual numbers might not be released by Marvel.

no miss communication then, im saying your theory on why doesnt hold up because it doesnt work when you examine previous issue of Spidey in times when it sold better yet Marvel wouldnt release actual numbers. IE they arent doing it to hide poor sales. They, like all the other comic companies, dont release the actual sales figures. IE its not out of the norm for them not to do it because they never have.

[ShaggyB]

We only have ICV2 sales numbers for earlier years. It makes sense to only compare them with other ICV2 numbers.

Both sources are erronous, but both use their own methodology and thus the ICV2 error appies to all ICV2 numbers equally, and a similar but different error is applied all CBR numbers. So as you don't start to mix and match ICV2 and CBR's numbers to get a more desirable but less accurate result, these numbers, erronous or not, provide a reliable gauge to compare sales between books even if they're not a perfect measure for total sales numbers.

thats pretty much why i went with icv2 for my monthly numbers chart. but it is worth noting that two sites that normally agree are very different this time and the big difference this past month was Batman is in an event.

[Mister Mets]

thats pretty much why i went with icv2 for my monthly numbers chart. but it is worth noting that two sites that normally agree are very different this time and the big difference this past month was Batman is in an event.And two issues came out this month, which makes measuring the baseline difficult. That's probably why cbr and icv2 have such wildly divergent numbers. Due to the numbers being so divergent, they're fairly worthless this month, as one or both are guaranteed to be wildly incorrect.

As I've said before, this is a BND/ASM related thread and in my opinion, other books performance or lack therof are not relevant. And yeah, if I was trying to do this argument with HULK, I'd be doing whatever was necessary to support my argument. However, I wouldn't use BND's number to make an argument.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're trying to demonstrate that Amazing Spider-Man is doing poorly as a result of the current direction of the series. Your ultimate goal is convincing others that Amazing Spider-Man would be selling better if only Joe Quesada hadn't retconned their marriage away. As a result, the sales of other books are relevant, in order to make any such argument more convincing.

[Muscles Coleman]

Really, guys? Still?

[ShaggyB]

And two issues came out this month, which makes measuring the baseline difficult. That's probably why cbr and icv2 have such wildly divergent numbers. Due to the numbers being so divergent, they're fairly worthless this month, as one or both are guaranteed to be wildly incorrect.



Mets youve got it figured out. Im betting CBR used one of the batman issues, while Ivc2 used the other. No clue which used which but that would explain it.

good call.

[Dr. Chaos]

Really, guys? Still?
What did I tell you?

This could go on for another twenty pages easy.

[The Shadow]

Really, guys? Still?

Hey, I'm just waiting for a definitive link from Jim that shows Coke sold an EXACT X number of cases of Mellow Yellow for any month in the 2008 year.

He gave a link, said to search it then went off-line. My search proved fruitless though.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Read the whole thread my friend :wink:

Let me guess....Marvel is still trying portray this as some huge success. Where are these new readers who were gonna knock the books off the shelves to follow that swingin HEPCAT Peter Parker ?

[mikekerr3]

nope, im just saying that you cant say BND is doing bad because marvel wont release the actual sales figures. That argument doesnt work and never will. Thats all. That argument is not based on an informed opinion because it neglects to take into the count that marvel never release actuals on anything. It forgets the fact that no comic company does and likewise in just the specific spider-man realm, it neglects to take into account that when spidey was doing good actuals werent known either.

You just cant claim that because Marvel is not forthcoming with information that they are hiding poor sales. It doesnt work that way and thats not an informed opinion as it neglects obvious things.


The only number we have is what we have to go one the major sales avenue. those show numbers declining, or not due to the oddness this month. You can say what all the available data says and infer meaning from that, It won;t be exact but should not be too far off., barring some huge anomaly on sales.

[The Shadow]

Let me guess....Marvel is still trying portray this as some huge success. Where are these new readers who were gonna knock the books off the shelves to follow that swingin HEPCAT Peter Parker ?

Nah... not even close.

As you know, the index number basis for all this is Batman at 100. Well, two issues of Batman shipped this month and one came in at index # 103 and the other at # 96 (or something like that) because of Batman RIP.

Because Batman's inflated index number is the result of higher sales for that book, many other books that sold well (but weren't an event like Secret Invasion or Final Crisis) came in lower on the index chart.

That doesn't mean a loss in sales when the actual numbers are released though. So ranking #20, ASM might still have sold MORE issues than ranking higher last month... all based on Batman.

[The Shadow]

barring some huge anomaly on sales.
The anomaly in sales this month is Batman RIP and there being two Batman books released.

That's why a lower ranking on the index might not necessarily mean fewer issues sold.

[xarathos]

Hey, I'm just waiting for a definitive link from Jim that shows Coke sold an EXACT X number of cases of Mellow Yellow for any month in the 2008 year.

He gave a link, said to search it then went off-line. My search proved fruitless though.

Do you like that new flavor for Dr. Pepper? I don't.:rolleyes: :biggrin:

[The Shadow]

Do you like that new flavor for Dr. Pepper? I don't.:rolleyes: :biggrin:
I only drink Coke Classic unless there's no other choice.

I'm not much of a Dr Pepper fan.

[ShaggyB]

The only number we have is what we have to go one the major sales avenue. those show numbers declining, or not due to the oddness this month. You can say what all the available data says and infer meaning from that, It won;t be exact but should not be too far off., barring some huge anomaly on sales.

Thats the issue, hes not taking all the available data to infer meaning from it. Again Black and i were arguing about his claim that because Marvel is not forthcoming with exact numbers on ASM, that they are trying to hide poor sales. Adding in all the data from ASM and knowledge of Marvel's Numbers practice, one can see that no matter how well or how poorly ASM sells.... Marvel never releases numbers. The conclusion is that Marvel, like all other comic companies, isnt releasing their internal sales numbers and that because they never have when sales were up.... the reason behind not releasing is not because of poor sales.

Its a claim that doesnt work because of the history of no exact figures being released..... Thats all.

On two part two that you have written about....

barring some huge anomaly on sales.

Two Batmans this month and the RIP event held within them has screwed this months numbers.... How else can one explain how two sites that normally fall with in 50 copies of each other on estimates are so drastically different this month.

On that note, Mets has figured it out. One site used one issue of Batman, The other used the other issue. Since neither are at the 100 index mark like normal. Both sites over and under estimated by 3 to 4 index points depending on whom chose which issue.

[rZi]

Can someone answer me this as i have not been following the sales;

Has BND been a success in terms of sales?

[Mister Mets]

Can someone answer me this as i have not been following the sales;

Has BND been a success in terms of sales?Depends on who you ask.

Some argue that Amazing Spider-Man isn't selling as much as it used to when the series came out monthly, was tied to major events, and had an A-list writer. Therefore, it's a sales failure.

Others including myself argue that the now three times a month Amazing Spider-Man is selling more copies per month than the Spider-Man books used to sell (when there were usually three Spider-Man titles per month) and therefore it's a sales success.

And a few are gloating over the way sales are dropping, and they'll argue that it'll be a sales failure soon enough.

Granted, the numbers we have exclude foreign sales, subscriptions (Marvel has a great $50 for 36 issues offer, which may skew the numbers) and domestic sales outside the direct market. Plus, we don't currently know how well/ poorly the reprints are doing.

Oh, and this month the estimates by two comics websites are off by a few thousand copies. According to this website's numbers, the books have reached their level. According to icv2, they're still dropping.

[Mister Mets]

Mets youve got it figured out. Im betting CBR used one of the batman issues, while Ivc2 used the other. No clue which used which but that would explain it.

good call.I didn't say that's the reason the results are so divergent, as neither Batman issue has an index of 1.0, so it would be foolish of either company to use one of the issues as the baseline. However, I suspect that the two companies used wildly different math to calculate the average sales of the two Batman issues, which would explain the difference in the estimates.

[dcarner]

Can someone answer me this as i have not been following the sales;

Has BND been a success in terms of sales?

Who knows? What we do know is the "thrice-monthly" ASM is outselling the combined three spidey that were out pre OMD/BND. What we don't know is subsciptions, which I think may have skyrocketed due to how little they cost on Marvel's website IMO, international sales, or newstand sales. We also don't really know about TPB, although I think if someone had enough time they could come close. I think they have made more money, but can't be sure since we have no idea how much they pocket for each sale to an LCS or newstand. Whether or not there are more fans, I couldn't begin to guess.

[dcarner]

Sorry, Mets got up two answers faster than I could do one.

[ShaggyB]

Can someone answer me this as i have not been following the sales;

Has BND been a success in terms of sales?

define success.

also do you take into account the Thrice Monthly sales scheme?

How do you compare this to the former 3 Spidey titles a month?


Id say, and this will shock some because i am enjoying BND so i guess im a mark for it..... but id say it hasnt accomplished its goals and therefor isnt a success by the goals Marvel set for it. That however has nothing to do with profit.

Its main goal was to make spidey more accessible to new fans. I dont see the influx of readers. Ive asked my LCS and they havent lost sales on ASM but they havent gained either. "Really havent lost or gained sales on it" I take that to mean hes lost a few and gained a few but its a wash.

In the sales department, its not doing so hot when compared to Event Spidey, but combined ASM sales beat combined 616 spidey titles so... One could argue that Marvel is making more on it than before..... But they likely could have done more going Thrice Monthly before BND.... You just cant argue that one much past that point, no data.

So it really depends on how you want to look at it. Bottom line money, its better than 616 spidey was including events (most of the time, its getting close now)

If you mean in terms of growing the reader base and not missing potential.... Well then No its not.

Depends on what you mean and who you ask.

[ShaggyB]

I didn't say that's the reason the results are so divergent

lol my bad thats what i thought you were meaning. Ok then ill claim that one.

[Mister Mets]

lol my bad thats what i thought you were meaning. Ok then ill claim that one.Go right ahead.

[ShaggyB]

Go right ahead.

Ok CBR has

#7 Index: 103.12 --- Batman #676 selling 115,345
#9 Index: 94.36 --- Batman #677 selling 105,547

And ICV2 has

#7 Index: 103.12 --- Batman #676 selling 105,039
#9 Index: 94.36 --- Batman #677 selling 96,116


ok lets look at the differences....

CBR shows 10,306 more units sold on Batman 676
CBR shows 9,431 more units sold on Batman 677

A quick look at CBR from last month one can see that CBR is usually under estimating what ICv2 shows (normally are around 30 to 50 units under)

Now notably....

CBR #9 Index: 94.36 --- Batman #677 selling 105,547
ICv2 #7 Index: 103.12 --- Batman #676 selling 105,039

Those look about the same except CBR is high by 508 units and the issues are different.

I really have no way to tell you which was used in what but i can say that cbr seems to match with Icv2 when you look at a #9 to #7 compare.

If i were to try for more realistic numbers id add 4k-5k to each Icv2 number and call it the difference between the two.... That would defiantly have ASM leveling off though so.... no clue what each side would think of that....


CBR Amazing Spider Man #558 sold 84,518
CBR Amazing Spider Man #559 sold 81,487
CBR Amazing Spider Man #560 sold 81,274

ICv2 Amazing Spider Man #558 sold 76,966
ICv2 Amazing Spider Man #559 sold 74,206
ICv2 Amazing Spider Man #560 sold 74,012

Lets Average for a second..

AVG Amazing Spider Man #558 sold 80,742
AVG Amazing Spider Man #559 sold 77,846
AVG Amazing Spider Man #560 sold 77,643

Conclusion:
The numbers arent technically good this month for us to argue with.... Seems Icv2 is too low and CBR is too high.

Ok i got nothing more on that line of thought, hope it was a fun read.

[SavespidermanfromQ]

Im just throwing this out there i might just be crazy but what if we went back through the numbers for the last few months to a year and found a book that is really steady in sales out side batman and basicly used it as our base assumed the sales remained the same for this month and just used the index numbers to find the sales of spider man.

[carabas]

Has BND been a success in terms of sales?Depends...

Total sales are up (but less so every months), sales per issue are down. Less people are buying the book, but they're buying it three times per month.

It's a a bit like Countdown... Sales aren't really bad, but Marvel probably expected them to be a lot better after the sheer amount of hype and promotion they threw at it.

[stillanerd]

Okay, with all the arguments back and forth over which estimates from CBR or IVC2 are more accurate, the point is that, despite the three times a month format and increased revenue, sales per issue are trending downwards and, as a result, there are less readers reading Amazing Spider-Man per week. And I don't believe it's that hard to figure out why.

OMD had high sales numbers due to the controversy surrounding that story, and ASM #546--the first issue of "Brand New Day" and the "new" status quo--also sold high numbers because people wanted to see what the Spider-Man comics were going to be like. I'm sure quite a few people when they picked it up and read it said "That's it? You've got rid of Peter Parker's marriage to Mary Jane and all but erased 20 years worth of Spider-Man stories for this?" Either that, or it was "Eh, it's decent, has some good writing and art, but not THAT great" or "They still could have told these exact same stories had they left everything alone."

Also, the fact that Marvel had essentially wiped out--or rather altered--the past 20 years of Spider-Man stories pretty much was seen as cheesy and lazy storytelling all across the board, and Marvel certainly didn't help matters by outright stating that Spider-Man was not going to progress past a certain point. So why should long time readers, or even those new readers Marvel so desperately wants, even bother picking up the title get invested in any Spider-Man story if they are essentially told that there will be no real consequences or developments long term? They won't be.

So, with the exception of the occasional spike in sales from when a new creative team came on board, readership appears to have declined, probably in reaction to One More Day, the fact that readers felt the changes weren't all that warranted to begin with, that while the stories were decent they were still "paint-by-numbers" variety, and that Marvel themselves have essentially communicated to readers not to get emotionally invested in Spider-Man, even while at the same time hyping upcoming story lines. By and large, they gave it a chance, went "meh," and are moving on to something else.

[SilverWebs]

Depends...

Total sales are up (but less so every months), sales per issue are down. Less people are buying the book, but they're buying it three times per month.

It's a a bit like Countdown... Sales aren't really bad, but Marvel probably expected them to be a lot better after the sheer amount of hype and promotion they threw at it.

The greater risk Marvel is taking is the loss of casual readers. It's no longer the drop of one issue but three. If there is an actual loss of long-term readers, the casual ones may just get tired of the stories and move on. Changes in total sales will drop in greater increments. That being said, it could also be the reverse if they attract new readers.

I personally don't think we are anywhere near the level needed to return spider-man back to what some of us enjoyed. JQ seems to have too much invested in this move and Marvel continues to spin the great success of BND. I guess we'll see how "new ways to drop sales" turns out in the coming months.

[ShaggyB]

Okay, with all the arguments back and forth over which estimates from CBR or IVC2 are more accurate, the point is that, despite the three times a month format and increased revenue, sales per issue are trending downwards and, as a result, there are less readers reading Amazing Spider-Man per week. And I don't believe it's that hard to figure out why.


see thats the thing if CBR is right its done falling and is actually on an upswing... atleast in the fact that all three in may fall between issue #1 and #2 of april. Most would say thats a leveling off but you wouldnt know till next months numbers.....

That being said if Icv2 numbers are right then its still falling but at a much slower rate than last month across the three issues. Thats indication of a leveling out also.... yet again you need next months numbers to prove it.

If its an average of the two sites then its level'd off completely as the first