The DC Numbers/Estimates Mega Thread

[tylenoljones]

The economy is improving so people have money to spend. I think that might be a factor. Not the only factor, but a strong one.

Additionally, Image has just been putting out some stellar content. I could just as well make a claim that "The Walking Dead" has re-energized the industry by bringing fans of the show into comic shops in large numbers.

I wouldn't do that, because I think there are many more factors involved.

As an example, would someone conversely blame Marvel's numbers declining in 2010 on DC's poor performance that year? Would they say DC was dragging down the whole industry?

[tylenoljones]

I don't. The assertions were made-


They look to be definite in their assertions.

I don't know how specifically saying "It's long been my position" implies that i'm doing anything other than just stating my own opinion.

[glennsim]

That is my feeling on the matter. I don't doubt that they cast a wide net, but of those television, magazine and radio ads, what programs were they advertising during (I'm asking seriously, I don't have cable television)?

What films did they advertise in? Comic book related films, or films enjoyed by the same demographic? More than likely. I doubt they took out advertisements in Cosmopolitan or on the Lifetime network. I completely stand by that statement; broadening the scope of their advertising absolutely does not equal going after new audiences. It's appealing to the same groups that are most likely to be interested in the product, but haven't jumped on board for whatever reason.

Even if, in theory, they only advertised them during comic book movies or TV shows, that would still be going after people who like the genre but have never actually picked up a comic book, which would be going after new readers. In fact, that would be smarter than trying to pull people who not only have never read, but also have no predetermined interest in the genre involved.

[tylenoljones]

Even if, in theory, they only advertised them during comic book movies or TV shows, that would still be going after people who like the genre but have never actually picked up a comic book, which would be going after new readers. In fact, that would be smarter than trying to pull people who not only have never read, but also have no predetermined interest in the genre involved.

That's true. It also doesn't conflict with anything I said regarding demographics.

[tylenoljones]

"Halo 4 has earned $220 million globally during its first 24 hours on sale. Microsoft expects the game to reach $300 million in global sales by Nov 13th."

Take into account just $60 copies. That's 5 million copies as of yesterday
Take into account just $100 copies. That's 3 million copies as of yesterday

So Id say that its gonna be somewhere between 3 mil and 5 mil as of yesterday. (Your 4 mil might be a good best guess)

I can only imagine what the new Call of Duty will sell. Not to mention that most of these games have season passes available at launch for all the unreleased DLC, which run another 30 or so dollars.

[glennsim]

That's true. It also doesn't conflict with anything I said regarding demographics.

When you say "broadening the scope of their advertising absolutely does not equal going after new audiences" then it depends on how you define "new audience."

If you define "new audience" as "people who have not shown any interest in the genre or medium", then one would question why you would think that would ever be DC's goal or where you got the idea that people thought that was DC's goal.

If you define "new audience" as "people who have shown an interest in the genre but not the medium", then it makes sense to say that they theoretically did by running advertising in places where people with a predisposition for sci-fi/fantasy content were gathered.

[tylenoljones]

When you say "broadening the scope of their advertising absolutely does not equal going after new audiences" then it depends on how you define "new audience."

If you define "new audience" as "people who have not shown any interest in the genre or medium", then one would question why you would think that would ever be DC's goal or where you got the idea that people thought that was DC's goal.

If you define "new audience" as "people who have shown an interest in the genre but not the medium", then it makes sense to say that they theoretically did by running advertising in places where people with a predisposition for sci-fi/fantasy content were gathered.

I should've been more clear in my use of terms. New readers would mean, to me, new readers of any age group, ethnicity, or gender.

New audiences or demographics would mean something beyond 18-55 year old white males, which I think covers the bulk of the current comic-reading audience.

As to why Dc would want to go after these potential readers, I would think it obvious; to draw in an untapped audience. Even if we ignore the potential female or pre-teen audience; there's still black males, asian males, middle eastern ethnicities.

How many advertisements for the new52 were aired on BET?

[Paul Newell]

That is my feeling on the matter. I don't doubt that they cast a wide net, but of those television, magazine and radio ads, what programs were they advertising during (I'm asking seriously, I don't have cable television)?

What films did they advertise in? Comic book related films, or films enjoyed by the same demographic?

That I couldn't tell you as I don't live in the US. here are others here that could probably help.

I completely stand by that statement; broadening the scope of their advertising absolutely does not equal going after new audiences. It's appealing to the same groups that are most likely to be interested in the product, but haven't jumped on board for whatever reason.

Oh look an absolute claim.

I rarely try to pass off my posts as anything but my opinion. I am stubborn in my views, but I rarely make absolute claims or use the word fact, and I'm not in the habit of posting figures and sales to back up anything I say, because I like to think most of it is common sense.

Common sense? Common sense doesn't ignore evidence....Which is what your opinion on the matter does. And someone else's opinion on the internet, isn't a substitute.

[Paul Newell]

Additionally, Image has just been putting out some stellar content. I could just as well make a claim that "The Walking Dead" has re-energized the industry by bringing fans of the show into comic shops in large numbers.

I wouldn't do that, because I think there are many more factors involved.

As an example, would someone conversely blame Marvel's numbers declining in 2010 on DC's poor performance that year? Would they say DC was dragging down the whole industry?

No, because there is no evidence that that happened. And you could make the claim about the Walking Dead, because there is some evidence that that is happening. Much as there is evidence that the DC Relaunch did the same.

[vampiric_cannibal]

The economy is improving but it'll take years for those effects to actually reflect consumers.

Additionally, Image has just been putting out some stellar content. I could just as well make a claim that "The Walking Dead" has re-energized the industry by bringing fans of the show into comic shops in large numbers.

I wouldn't do that, because I think there are many more factors involved.

As an example, would someone conversely blame Marvel's numbers declining in 2010 on DC's poor performance that year? Would they say DC was dragging down the whole industry?

You raise an interesting point as your example. A lot of comics fans buyy mostly from one company, and a couple of Image, the other Big 2, maybe a proper indie title. If one of the Big 2 sucks and their fans stop entering the stores, everyone loses.

The economy is improving but it'll take years for those effects to actually reflect consumers.

The economy is improving so people have money to spend. I think that might be a factor. Not the only factor, but a strong one.

Not globally, and doubtful in America. I'm going full pessimist. Double dip recession in US, followed by worldwide depression.

At least I live in New Zealand. Everyone still likes cake, and cake needs milk.

[glennsim]

I should've been more clear in my use of terms. New readers would mean, to me, new readers of any age group.

New audiences or demographics would mean something beyond 18-55 year old white males, which I think covers the bulk of the current comic-reading audience.

Well, there you go. I don't think DC or anyone else made claims to be going after "new audiences" as you define them. Heck, I'm not even sure "new audiences" is an accurate term. "New readers" is the term I've always heard.

The majority of current readers might be 18-55 year old white males, but not all 18-55 year old white males read comics. So there's no reason not to go after more 18-55 year old white males to increase readership. In fact, that's probably the best idea.

Some efforts were made to appeal to minorities and women, but more in the way of the books being published than the structure of the advertising.

[Paul Newell]

I should've been more clear in my use of terms. New readers would mean, to me, new readers of any age group, ethnicity, or gender.

New audiences or demographics would mean something beyond 18-55 year old white males, which I think covers the bulk of the current comic-reading audience.

Because 18-55 year old white males are the only ones that go and see genre movies.

[tylenoljones]

]
Common sense? Common sense doesn't ignore evidence....Which is what your opinion on the matter does.

Fine. What am I ignoring, exactly?

You're of the opinion that a sales bump that lasted a few months revitalized the entire comics industry, fine. But you posted a few links that seem to indicate sales increases during a 2 month period.

Sales had a similar increase back in 2006-7, and the industry took a downturn after that. There's nothing to indicate that couldn't happen again; nor is there anything to indicate lapsed readers won't lapse again, that the industry as a whole is any better off than it was in previous decades, etc. You also seem content with not giving other companies credit for their own products, despite the fact that Marvel has enjoyed higher sales than DC. And I'm sure their popular films based on their properties had nothing to do with that, right? All of it's just DC and their amazing marketing.

So please provide evidence that DC (specifically their new52 campaign) re-energized the entire comics industry.

[tylenoljones]

You raise an interesting point as your example. A lot of comics fans buyy mostly from one company, and a couple of Image, the other Big 2, maybe a proper indie title. If one of the Big 2 sucks and their fans stop entering the stores, everyone loses.

Absolutely. But we aren't talking about a downturn in sales. Apparently we're talking about the rise and fall of the entire industry, and how it's tied to one company.

[tylenoljones]

Well, there you go. I don't think DC or anyone else made claims to be going after "new audiences" as you define them. Heck, I'm not even sure "new audiences" is an accurate term. "New readers" is the term I've always heard.

The majority of current readers might be 18-55 year old white males, but not all 18-55 year old white males read comics. So there's no reason not to go after more 18-55 year old white males to increase readership. In fact, that's probably the best idea.

Some efforts were made to appeal to minorities and women, but more in the way of the books being published than the structure of the advertising.

Again, I agree. The quotes Paul pulled weren't from me condemning the initiative as a failure or any other such nonsense. You're pretty level headed in your assesment of what the new52 did and did not do or attempt to do, and taking random quotes from other people I've addressed who take the succesess and failures of these companies to the extreme don't really apply to many of your arguments.

Hell, I don't even remember where some of these quotes are coming from. They do sound like something I'd say, though.