collapse

* Random Image

ArchieDD230
ArchieDD230
Posted by: SAGG
Posted in album: SAGG

* Search


* Recent Topics

* Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • BettyReggie: 112 Days until Wednesday 10th 2018 ,  Riverdale Season #3 on The CW at 8pm.
    Today at 05:28:15 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: And another one: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:42:07 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: Riverdale spoof: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:35:22 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: My review of "Roughing It!" from B&V Friends #262: [link]
    June 14, 2018, 08:12:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: @irishmoxie -- It's definitely complete. All six of the 1958-59 Sy Reit/Bob White original issues, plus the feature-length "Good Guys of the Galaxy" by Tom DeFalco & Fernando Ruiz from ARCHIE #655, and three 5-page digest shorts that guest-starred Cosmo -- and the complete first issue of the Ian Flynn/Tracy Yarley COSMO (2017) thrown in for good measure. It follows the same layout/format as the previous JUGHEAD'S TIME POLICE, even though that didn't carry the "Archie Comics Presents..." trade dress. Not a bad buy for $11.
    June 14, 2018, 01:08:59 AM
  • irishmoxie: Anyone get the Cosmo book that came out today? Any good?
    June 13, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
  • Cosmo: Ah man....and I was worried I was the last enthusiast for ERB's stuff. I'm currently rereading my Dell Tarzan books. Really good fun! It took a while to complete that run.
    June 12, 2018, 06:51:53 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: ...Marvel's earlier JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS in there, so the DE Tarzan comics need to go in a different box, and SHEENA (also a recent DE title) and DC's RIMA THE JUNGLE GIRL will help fill up that box.
    June 11, 2018, 07:40:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Recently. DE's unauthorized LORD OF THE JUNGLE Tarzan adaptations (and its authorized THE GREATEST ADVENTURE) won't fit into my existing box of previous Tarzan comics from Gold Key, DC, and Dark Horse, so I have to start a new box. Logically these get filed with DE's unauthorized WARLORD OF MARS comics (including DEJAH THORIS) and their authorized JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS. But I also want to squeeze Marve;
    June 11, 2018, 07:38:48 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Interesting. I tend not to group titles by publisher at all, if the characters were not created as work-for-hire (meaning the publisher is legally considered the 'author' of the character). Do they belong to that publisher's "universe" (assuming it has one)? There are some publishers like Dynamite Entertainment where the vast majority of the titles they publish are licensed, and thus were "inherited" from other publishers. Therefore it makes more sense to me to group them together in boxes with similar characters. Flash Gordon, The Phantom, and Mandrake comics (regardless of who the actual publisher was) go together in the same box because they're all classic adventure heroes licensed from Hearst Entertainment (formerly King Features Syndicate). Pulp fiction heroes like The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Spider (regardless of the fact that the latter did not originate with the same publisher as the first two) also get grouped together. Space considerations allowing, Tarzan (and other Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptations) might share the same box with Sheena and Rima, but NOT with Ka-Zar, because he's a Marvel Universe character.
    June 11, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
  • rusty: I do keep all Star Trek series together in their own section and all Star Wars books together.  I also keep all 2000AD titles together and manga books get their own section.  For titles that have switched publishers, I usually keep them all with the publisher that I identify them with the most.  Tarzan has been published by a variety of publishers, but I keep them with Dell/Gold Key.  Conan is starting to get a bit close with all the success Dark Horse has had, but I still identify Conan more with Marvel.
    June 11, 2018, 06:27:26 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Believe it or not, I even have a box labeled "Pseudo-manga" that contains comics published by American companies and created by American creators like Astro Boy & Racer X (Now Comics), Battle of the Planets (Gold Key & Top Cow/Image), Captain Harlock (Malibu), Godzilla (Dark Horse) and Ultraman. I just want to keep those separate from the boxes of real translated manga in floppy comic format.
    June 11, 2018, 03:34:17 PM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Well. the problem is when you get titles with licensed characters that aren't owned by the publisher. So if you collect Star Trek comics, you'd have different series published by Gold Key, Marvel, DC, and IDW (and I probably missed one in there). It doesn't make sense to me to put them in different boxes by publisher, but to each his own. Disney comics would be another example. There are even some instances where if I like a certain artist enough, I will put all his work regardless of publisher or characters into one box, like Paul Gulacy, Steve Rude, or Mike Allred (and file them chronologically from older to newer, rather than alphabetically). Those are examples where my interest in the creator far exceeds my relative interest in whatever characters are involved.
    June 11, 2018, 03:14:29 PM
  • rusty: That makes sense.  There are many ways that people can file books.  What I do is file by company or category and then alphabetically within each section.  My first category is Richie Rich then Archie, then other Harvey titles, then Disney, then other humor/kids books, then by company (unless it is a company where I don't have very many books from them.  Star Trek and Star Wars each get their own section as well.  I will probably revamp a bit when I do my next major sort/merge.  The biggest section by far for me is DC.
    June 11, 2018, 09:28:59 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: I don't even file my comics alphabetically. I file them according to how closely they're related to other titles, but it's all dependent on the number of issues I have of any given title, and what will fit into a single box. Fpr ACP comics I just put all the short-run series (whether an actual miniseries or just a not particularly successful title) into one box. Even though some of those short run series star Jughead, and I could as easily file those together with the main JUGHEAD title in another box. For longer running ACP titles, "girl" titles are sorted into different boxes than "boy" titles. Eventually when I have enough issues of BETTY (and BETTY AND ME and BETTY'S DIARY) they'll get their own box, and VERONICA will get her own box.
    June 10, 2018, 09:49:06 AM
  • rusty: I file Jughead under J and Reggie under R in all of their incarnations, though I do file the original Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen books under S since that keeps them with the Superman books and also because they kept that title throughout their entire run.  If anyone wants to look up Jughead or Reggie in Overstreet, though, they will have to look under A for the early issues.
    June 10, 2018, 07:56:27 AM
  • BettyReggie: I can't wait to get that Reggie book. It's coming out the day after my 39th Birthday.
    June 10, 2018, 06:42:06 AM
  • DeCarlo Rules: Yeah, I never understood why publishers felt the need to point that out on the covers of a comic book, like maybe someone didn't really know who REGGIE was, and might buy it just because they noticed the words "Archie's Rival" above the big letters that spelled REGGIE? Same with "Archie's Pal" or "Superman's Pal" or "Superman's Girl Friend" -- like some potential buyer wouldn't know who Jughead, Jimmy Olsen, or Lois Lane was, but would know who Archie or Superman was? Just assume you're selling the product to idiots, I guess. Is anyone really filing REGGIE under "A" for Archie's Pal in their collections??
    June 10, 2018, 05:42:02 AM
  • rusty: In it's first incarnation, Reggie was titled ARCHIE'S RIVAL, REGGIE.  It wasn't until after the title was resurrected nearly a decade later that it became REGGIE and then REGGIE AND ME.
    June 09, 2018, 10:23:13 PM
  • Tuxedo Mark: I've never understood why those old titles had "and Me" in them, anyway. Why not just name the titles after the starring characters?
    June 09, 2018, 08:17:45 PM


Author Topic: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?  (Read 3476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« on: August 18, 2016, 01:00:50 PM »
Everyone has a secondary character that they like. From Bingo Wilkin to Jinx, but here's my question:
Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated out of their own comic because of bad timing?
In the first run of Madhouse (#01 to 65) the comic was a very 'Mad Magazine' style of comic, with their very own 'Alfred E. Newman' character 'Clyde Diddit'. But starting in issue #66 it was all about a rock band called 'The Madhouse Ma-ads' with their very own groupie Fran. However. . . there was a very famous cartoon right about that time (1969 to 1970) call 'Scooby Doo, Where are you?'. Now we all know Archie comics. If something is a trend, they follow. So beginning in issue #73 the 'Madhouse Ma-ads' became the 'Madhouse Glads' & it was downhill from there. Starting in issue #82 (Feb 1972) suddenly this rock band was traveling around solving mysteries. Hum? Where have I seen that before? And then by issue #94 it was all over. Here's another problem. In 1969 a made-up band called 'The Archies' had a Billboard #1 song called 'Sugar, sugar'. Which has probably never gone off the oldies stations. So in theory you have Archie comics with a rock band called 'The Archies' and a rock band called 'The Madhouse Glads'. Let's also not forget that 'That Wilkin Boy' also had a rock band. For the brief time they were around I really liked the Madhouse Mads/Glads, but as you can see - they were doomed by timing. I've always thought that these characters could make a comeback in either of the Archie styles, old/new, as a traveling 60's tribute band. It's certainly been mention in this forum before. Secondary characters are very under used by Archie Comics.

Captain Jetpack

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2016, 05:34:48 PM »
A Little more character development might have helped.
There was a rather cardboard quality to the Mads/Glads.
Pie is my favorite Vitamin.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2016, 05:41:49 PM »
1. As far as I'm concerned Fran the Fan was the star of the show. The guys always underestimated her, and she always showed them up.

2. 27 issues is not a dismal failure by ACP standards. That's actually a fairly decent run. Better than Kevin Keller got.

3. How did you manage to mention every band ACP had except Josie and the Pussycats?

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2016, 08:04:02 PM »
When I wrote the post I had mentioned the re-boot of 'Sabrina' & 'Jose & the Pussycats' and then deleted that part of the post. I was just reading the Jose stories in 'Betty & Veronica Friends' digest #249 (While I try & get #250). As for Kevin Keller, he got a raw deal. I suspect with the reboot of 'Archie' coming Kevin got the boot before his time. I actually subscribed to Kevin Keller & thought it was a good comic.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2016, 12:17:10 AM »
As for Kevin Keller, he got a raw deal. I suspect with the reboot of 'Archie' coming Kevin got the boot before his time. I actually subscribed to Kevin Keller & thought it was a good comic.

Nothing to do with New Archie. KEVIN KELLER got cancelled a whole year before New Archie was launched. Kevin got a lot of media attention at first, and then sales just trickled off. Not unlike what seems to be happening with the New Riverdale titles, actually. B&V #1 sold 70,000 or so, which is pretty good in today's comics market, but don't forget, that's with 25 cover variants. I get the impression that in hiring Adam Hughes (who's certainly the most expensive of any creators ACP has hired to date) they were expecting to blow the doors off the sales of ARCHIE #1, but it didn't happen. ARCHIE seems to have settled down to about 15,000 copies with the most recent issues. Still better than before the reboot, but after you subtract the addition costs to the creators, not exactly generating a great profit.

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2016, 12:46:55 PM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well. And as you mentioned these artists & writers are not cheap. You are quite correct about Kevin Keller. After year one (2007) sales dropped 40% in year 2 (2008). What's really brutal is the drop in sales of the digests. I believe they only sell less than 25% of total printed. I grew up in the era of 10 cent & 12 cent comics. Sure, it's 2016, but $6.99 for a ever shrinking digest of reprints? A while ago I bought the dvd-rom sets of bronze age Archie & Betty/Veronica (1970-79) comics. Grand total for both sets from Amazon Canada? -the princely sum of 10 bucks. Ten dollars for 240 digital comics? Works for me.

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2016, 12:30:43 AM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.

And as you mentioned these artists & writers are not cheap. You are quite correct about Kevin Keller. After year one (2007) sales dropped 40% in year 2 (2008). What's really brutal is the drop in sales of the digests. I believe they only sell less than 25% of total printed. I grew up in the era of 10 cent & 12 cent comics. Sure, it's 2016, but $6.99 for a ever shrinking digest of reprints?

In the old days of returnable-for-credit comics distribution, 50% sell-through was considered the break-even point. Any title that performed below that level was in danger of cancellation. A comic with a 60-80% sell-through percentage was considered a solid hit, and higher sales practically unheard of. ACP depends on direct sales through its website to take up the slack these days, with older returned stock deeply discounted or offered in assorted bargain bundles.

A while ago I bought the dvd-rom sets of bronze age Archie & Betty/Veronica (1970-79) comics. Grand total for both sets from Amazon Canada? -the princely sum of 10 bucks. Ten dollars for 240 digital comics? Works for me.

I purchased those DVD "Bronze Age Collection" discs (ARCHIE, BETTY AND VERONICA, and JUGHEAD) as well, at a cost of between $4 and $8 each, American (plus shipping). In most ways that format represents the idea form of a digital comic to me. I was able to copy those PDF files to a folder and move them on to my 10" tablet, where they can be read with a generic PDF reader (or Amazon's Kindle app). Too bad they never sold well enough for the company to make the Silver Age Collections, sets of complete issues from the 1960s. Also, I'd have preferred to have complete 1970s runs of SABRINA and JOSIE, if beggars could be choosers.

A minor quibble (considering the cost) is that each image file is a 2-page spread of both left- and right-hand pages scanned from the actual printed comics with no digital enhancement or cleanup. Bit of a pain there, as reading them on a tablet at full page size requires pinching-and-zooming, then moving the image from the left to the right at full size to read, rather than just a single swipe to continue from one image file to the next. If you were willing to purchase the full-featured Reader app from Adobe, you could edit the image files to break them down from a single image into individual left- and right-hand page images, but at the ridiculous price Adobe is asking for a year's subscription to that full-featured version, I'll live with it, I guess. A more expensive tablet with a larger screen would be another solution (so as to read the PDF images in the landscape mode without having to pinch and zoom), but at the sacrifice of portability.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 01:11:43 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

steveinthecity

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2016, 10:24:12 AM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.
While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2016, 10:54:08 AM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.
While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.

I'm not sure what "vagaries" you're alluding to Steve. People who aren't comic book readers as such, but are only interested in making money by reselling (after grading, etc) variant covers for profit? But that would include all retailers, too. Then too, these things are mercurial in nature, and can skyrocket in price and plunge just as quickly in a very short window of time.

I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of trying to get a handle on how many retail sales, out of any given reported sales number of copies (to retailers), might be distinct individuals. I guess the number we're trying to estimate (out of say, the 70,000 copies total sold of B&V#1 to retailers) is how many individuals purchased a copy of B&V#1 (out of the 70,000 -- or less? -- being offered by retailers for sale), not how many of the 70,000 copies were sold by retailers at a profit. How many retail consumers were involved in a sales transaction for that comic book, regardless of whether each of them purchased 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies, etc.

steveinthecity

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2016, 08:43:11 PM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.
While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.

I'm not sure what "vagaries" you're alluding to Steve. People who aren't comic book readers as such, but are only interested in making money by reselling (after grading, etc) variant covers for profit? But that would include all retailers, too. Then too, these things are mercurial in nature, and can skyrocket in price and plunge just as quickly in a very short window of time.

I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of trying to get a handle on how many retail sales, out of any given reported sales number of copies (to retailers), might be distinct individuals. I guess the number we're trying to estimate (out of say, the 70,000 copies total sold of B&V#1 to retailers) is how many individuals purchased a copy of B&V#1 (out of the 70,000 -- or less? -- being offered by retailers for sale), not how many of the 70,000 copies were sold by retailers at a profit. How many retail consumers were involved in a sales transaction for that comic book, regardless of whether each of them purchased 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies, etc.
I'm pretty much addressing the question of "who buys multiple covers". I'm certain the Adam Hughes B&V was "invested" in even more than Archie #1 due to Hughes (as an example of vagaries) and we'll see those copies show up on the CGC census over the next 3-4 months as well as e-Bay.  To the other topic, I've pretty much abandoned hope of determining exact print runs of some more recent comics as stuff shows up at Cons that isn't accounted for by Diamond numbers(from creators). I'm interested, though.  Still.   :P
Comics!

DeCarlo Rules

Re: Did the Madhouse Glads/Ma-ads get cheated?
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2016, 02:24:10 AM »
See, that's an interesting point. B&V sell 70,000 copies with 25 different covers. So the question is- how many different people are buying this comic? Not that (less than) 3,000 people are buying all 25, but issue #1 of a comic usually sells well.

The true number of unique readers or retail purchasers will never be known. The sales figures that are a matter of record only indicate the (nonreturnable) sales to comics retailers. You can probably safely assume that most of the unique readers are represented by single-copy sales of the main cover, and that most of the variant cover sales (by retailers to comic book collectors) represent additional copies of the same issue sold to one reader or collector who purchased one or more variant cover copies of the same issue number containing the same story. Collecting variant covers has nothing to do with reading comic books, it's more like collecting stamps. Some of the unique readers will simply purchase a single copy of the cover that appeals most to them, but if you stop and think about it, there's no reason for a publisher to incur the additional expenses of the variant cover artwork and printing costs, unless it results in selling additional copies that wouldn't have been purchased otherwise, if there had been only a single cover produced. Really, the crucial thing here is the publisher selling copies to the retailer. Some retailers will try to assemble a complete set of all cover variants and sell those (usually online) as a set.
While I agree with this, I'd remind everyone to consider the vagaries of the speculator market particularly where #1's and hot artists are concerned.  Maybe a "drop in the bucket", but CGC and CBCS aren't hurting for business.

I'm not sure what "vagaries" you're alluding to Steve. People who aren't comic book readers as such, but are only interested in making money by reselling (after grading, etc) variant covers for profit? But that would include all retailers, too. Then too, these things are mercurial in nature, and can skyrocket in price and plunge just as quickly in a very short window of time.

I'm not sure what that might mean in terms of trying to get a handle on how many retail sales, out of any given reported sales number of copies (to retailers), might be distinct individuals. I guess the number we're trying to estimate (out of say, the 70,000 copies total sold of B&V#1 to retailers) is how many individuals purchased a copy of B&V#1 (out of the 70,000 -- or less? -- being offered by retailers for sale), not how many of the 70,000 copies were sold by retailers at a profit. How many retail consumers were involved in a sales transaction for that comic book, regardless of whether each of them purchased 1 copy, 10 copies, 100 copies, etc.
I'm pretty much addressing the question of "who buys multiple covers". I'm certain the Adam Hughes B&V was "invested" in even more than Archie #1 due to Hughes (as an example of vagaries) and we'll see those copies show up on the CGC census over the next 3-4 months as well as e-Bay.  To the other topic, I've pretty much abandoned hope of determining exact print runs of some more recent comics as stuff shows up at Cons that isn't accounted for by Diamond numbers(from creators). I'm interested, though.  Still.   :P

Well, in a sense that's nothing new. There have always been, and will probably always be, speculators. It's true enough that when publishers recognized that this was a significant enough factor in a potentially otherwise somewhat borderline-sales comic book title, they realized they could exploit that speculator factor to sell enough additional copies a a comic book title to push sales into the profitability range. You'll note that the publishers whose percentage of the total comics market share falls in the 2% and below range tend to be the same publishers that exploit the variant cover gimmick with the greatest regularity across the board, although in the last couple of years even Marvel and DC's sales have diminished to the point that they've begun to increase their relative percentage of variant covers as well.

The biggest group of speculators are the comic book retailers themselves. The economics of profitability for the independent comic shop owner have changed radically in the last decade, due to the ever-increasing shift in readership towards trade paperbacks and digital comics (driven largely by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and ComiXology), so much so that there's an increasing "profitability gap" separating the single-store owner from the larger comics retailers who operate 2 or more large stores. The single-store owners have been working on thinner and thinner margins of profit. I would point specifically to the exponential increase in the number of RE (Retailer Exclusive) variant covers as the most indicative visible example of this. Five or ten years ago, only the largest of comic book retailers were doing these, but now it's the smallest of stores as well. If, hypothetically speaking, variant covers were to disappear overnight, the number of single-store comic shop owners would be decimated by 90%. Without internet and convention sales of variant covers, those retailers would have to close their doors and go out of business. They are surviving mainly on sales of those variant covers, and selling cheap comics bought up in bulk purchases, and deeply-discounted trade paperbacks from publishers' liquidation of backstock.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 03:13:15 AM by DeCarlo Rules »

 


The Archie character names and likenesses are covered by the registered trademarks/copyrights of Archie Comic Publications, Inc. and are used with permission by this site. The Official Archie Comics website can be visited at www.archiecomics.com.
Live Support