Should CSBG try to save low-selling comics? Would it matter?

[Justin D.]

After reading Augie's column this week, The Beat's rundown of DC's month-to-month sales, and seeing Funky's thread about people's reactions to reviews on Comics Should Be Good, I was curious if the bloggers should try saving low-selling comics they like by pimping them, maybe even on a regular basis.

Wow, that was a long sentence.

I know this is sort of what some of the articles do anyway, but I wonder what king of effect an outright rallying call to the people to buy monthly issues of certain books would do. Or maybe buy trades in droves from places like Amazon so DC can see the number of trades sold warrants keeping a monthly going.

As it is now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cancellation of about four or five different DC books in the next two to three months.

[MatthewDiCarlo]

The online community is really just a fraction of the people who buy comics. We forget that sometimes (especially when trying to figure out why, let's say, Wolverine: Origins is selling so well).

Spider-Girl and Manhunter are absolutely exceptions(and Manhunter survived through trade sales, mainly, anyway, and I bet Spider-Girl lived on Digest sales too, though there was at least a little boost with monthly sales for both).

It doesn't mean nothing can be done. If CSBG can get an extra two-hundred sales for a title(which I think is reasonable and possible) well, that's two-hundred more than it had before, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure that's all that much.

[sschroeder]

The best thing for lower selling titles would probably be more new people reading comics. If you just push a lower selling comic on people who already read comics, they are probably going to eventually drop another comic in order to read it, so that doesn't really do much overall in the long run. It might save a title, but hurt another. CSBG probably reaches mostly people who already read comics.

Ironically, the way to get more people into comics may not be by pushing lower selling titles. When you think about it, what is more likely to appeal to a new comics reader? A popular title or a less popular title? A popular title, naturally. That's why you see companies always pushing their top titles even though these seem to need the least push. They aren't pushing them on comics readers exclusively. They are hoping to get new readers.

Some of those new readers will randomly buy the lesser selling titles as part of their comics diet. Of course, they'll need to hear about those, so talking about lesser selling titles to old and new readers is far from pointless.

[dancj]

I don't think there's any obligation to push low selling books, but it's probably in your own best interests if you want those books to survive.

Beyond that I'd like to think if a book is being raved about that it's mainly because the book is really good - not because it's selling badly.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm not passionate enough about any franchise to be a part of a "Save our _________" movement.

When you think about it, what is more likely to appeal to a new comics reader? A popular title or a less popular title? A popular title, naturally. That's why you see companies always pushing their top titles even though these seem to need the least push. They aren't pushing them on comics readers exclusively. They are hoping to get new readers.

I find that counter-intuitive, much as I find the idea that "comics = Marvel & DC superhero books" counter-intuitive. I think a "new comics reader" might find something to connect with outside the superhero stuff more readily than s/he might with the superhero stuff. I mean, obviously, the superhero publishers want more people reading their superhero books so they can make more superhero dollars, but if the discussion is focusing on what bloggers/readers/whomever can do to get people to read comics... I don't know. Superhero comics tend to be the last thing I recommend if someone asks.

But, after all, I am a confirmed elitist snob, so.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

As it is now, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cancellation of about four or five different DC books in the next two to three months.

Good.

That's what you get for having a super huge event story (that sounds real shit to anyone who isn't a fanboy) and then spin a whole bunch of halfbaked ideas out of it, that require at least some knowledge of the crossover to read.

(As long as Blue Beetle isn't one I'm fine).

Spider-Girl and Manhunter are absolutely exceptions(and Manhunter survived through trade sales, mainly, anyway, and I bet Spider-Girl lived on Digest sales too, though there was at least a little boost with monthly sales for both).

I wish I hadn't brought the trades if it let Manhunter survive.
I thought the first one showed potential if the writer found his feet and took it in an intresting direction.
The second trade was just sloppy and plain shit house.
There were cliffhangers in there where two villains (who I didn't recognise) were talking and then a third showed up (who I also didn't recognise) in a splash page, and that was it.
A terribly boring court case story - that had no resolution - and a hardcore fanboy pandering story with former Manhunters (and an unexplained OMAC) convinced me that not only do I hate myself for owning, but that the writer (who's book Torso, I'd quite enjoyed) should never be allowed near a superhero again.