|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 22:59:04 GMT -5
I posted this in the News, Notes, Announcememnts, thread, but it is big enough news it merits its own thread so people might see it... Variety is confirming some of the rumors as the DC Implosion seems to be real. In addition several of the toy news sites are reporting that it has been confirmed that all of the staff at DC Direct has been laid off. DC will no longer produce their own collectibles line but will license more out to other manufacturers. From the Variety article Reports are that DC will reduce their print output by 40% almost immediately. It has been previously reported the new CEO has stated that currently 33% of their (AT&T/Warner) revenue is generated outside the US, and that his goal is to increase that to closer to 70%. That was his goal informing the strategy of the restructuring that was implemented today. It seems print products for the US direct market do not fit the global initiative, and digital products and products aimed to the book trade are more in line with those new goals so the publishing presence in the direct market is being reduced. It's theorized that the big IP books that are selling well in context (Batman books, Justice League, Superman) will be retained but other titles trimmed with output of digital and OGN content increasing as the market allows. There will not be more Batbooks per se for example, but the Batbooks being published will make up a larger percentage of the print output as other stuff is cancelled. I guess secondary characters will be relegated to OGN and digital products unless they catch fire and become big sellers. The aftershocks will include reductions in editorial staff, a smaller pool of freelancers getting offered work with only proven-sellers being retained in the short term. A lot of people lost their jobs in a very uncertain economy today, and that sucks no matter what you think of the changes or the directions WB/AT&T is taking with DC. Change for businesses, however necessary, can hurt and often has a human price. This one looks like its going to affect a lot of people. so hopefully they can land on their feet somewhere else. -M This is going to have a snowball effect on other aspects of the industry as well. Brick and mortar comics shops are already struggling, and this will impact them immensely. And as an ironic note, that Fandome event DC was hyping might be a bit awkward as a lot of the pre-recorded segments featured people who were laid off today and a lot of the comic projects they were set to announce probably have uncertain futures now. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 23:05:35 GMT -5
Wow....just wow.
Oh well, there are still back issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 23:42:19 GMT -5
Additionally, Jim Lee is supposedly out as publisher and CCO, but will remain with the company in a more consultant position, most theorize in a role to help the transition so the digital/book people within AT&T/WB have some insight into how the direct market works and what appeals to customers there.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 11, 2020 4:24:42 GMT -5
Wow, that's a pretty big move.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 11, 2020 14:47:44 GMT -5
This might be a controversial take, but: DC isn't a comics company anymore, like it or not. They are a media company with a bunch of IP. This might be good.
Now DC can license the production of comics to an outside company, one that's interested primarily in creating good comics that will sell consistently. A comic licensee won't be focused on a "new concept that will interest the studios." Just on growing the comic market.
Think of Disney, from Western to Gold Key to Gladstone: consistently good--often excellent--comics leveraging familiar characters. Disney didn't create their own comics (except for a period after Gladstone built the US audience). Companies fully invested in comic publishing took acre of comics.
Same with reprints, toys, t-Shirts--a lot of which is licensed already. Just maintain standards and don't dilute the brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 11, 2020 16:22:18 GMT -5
Marvel and DC both have been publishing just boodles of comics for the past decade or so. I always had a hard time believing that some of those titles made any money and I guess they did not. I'd figure even if they do cut their new list 40%, they will still have 35-40 titles going, right? I'd think maybe with a shorter publishing list, the quality should theoretically improve.
I really would not be surprised if Marvel does not do a similar thing, big companies are going to be shaking trees hard all over the place the next year or so. It is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 22:32:18 GMT -5
The thing to remember, this is not a DC thing, this is an AT&T/WB thing. DC was simply one of many division getting reorganized and downsized. Hundreds, if not thousands of folks lost their jobs yesterday, not just at DC but at every division of Warner/AT&T. The root causes are big picture, not comic related and have more to do with billions in lost revenue from people not going to movies due to a pandemic, production halted on a large number of TV shows ans movies that will delay or reduce revenue streams from them, and the stumble out of the gate of HBO Max than the downturn of comic sales in the direct market. The new CEO is cleaning house everywhere under the AT&T umbrella, and what is happening at DC is a reflection of that big picture restructuring. DC is a part of the restructuring, but this is not about DC.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Aug 11, 2020 23:20:29 GMT -5
Change is hard. This sucks, but like the saying goes: "Those with the gold make the rules".
Jim Lee is sticking around, but I do wonder if part of that is just due to him being a popular figurehead/name "recognition". Also, probably wouldn't want him as a free agent going to the other top dog Marvel. Lee back at Marvel would be a big shakeup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 23:33:25 GMT -5
Change is hard. This sucks, but like the saying goes: "Those with the gold make the rules". Jim Lee is sticking around, but I do wonder if part of that is just due to him being a popular figurehead/name "recognition". Also, probably wouldn't want him as a free agent going to the other top dog Marvel. Lee back at Marvel would be a big shakeup. I am beginning to wonder if there is some kind of clause in Lee's contract from the sale of Wildstorm to DC that guarantees him a position at the company or that has an untenable buyout as part of the contract (properties reverting to Lee is he is terminated, a big monetary payout AT&T doesn't want to make right now, etc.) for him to have had such a Teflon survival factor while every other executive around him has been terminated on several occasions. -M |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 12, 2020 3:36:14 GMT -5
The thing that would be really bad is for the editorial people that made the move from NYC to California only to a year later lose their job.
Jim Lee is also a creator. Lee doesn't do artwork on many comics, but the ones he does do sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 12, 2020 14:46:55 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lunar and UCS being very happy with this either, they set up two new companies just to distribute DC comics which probably required some investments and two months later get to hear "Sorry, we shrinking down production a lot."
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 13, 2020 10:02:25 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lunar and UCS being very happy with this either, they set up two new companies just to distribute DC comics which probably required some investments and two months later get to hear "Sorry, we shrinking down production a lot." I don't know if it necessarily means they'll be selling a significantly lower number of units just because they are producing fewer titles. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 13, 2020 10:53:10 GMT -5
I can't imagine Lunar and UCS being very happy with this either, they set up two new companies just to distribute DC comics which probably required some investments and two months later get to hear "Sorry, we shrinking down production a lot." I don't know if it necessarily means they'll be selling a significantly lower number of units just because they are producing fewer titles.
Sorry, can't follow you here: why wouldn't they be selling less if DC is producing less?
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 13, 2020 12:00:31 GMT -5
I don't know if it necessarily means they'll be selling a significantly lower number of units just because they are producing fewer titles.
Sorry, can't follow you here: why wouldn't they be selling less if DC is producing less?
By cutting out low selling titles, their sell through average will increase (thus, more profitable). Since the large segment of their sales comes from titles that probably won't be going away, the loss in sales will be less significant and probably relatively short term. Make no mistake, neither DC nor Marvel earned the bulk of their revenue from comic book publishing and haven't since the early-mid 1970s. Licensing has always generated far more revenue than comics. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 13, 2020 12:02:06 GMT -5
I don't know if it necessarily means they'll be selling a significantly lower number of units just because they are producing fewer titles.
Sorry, can't follow you here: why wouldn't they be selling less if DC is producing less?
Consider the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the "80/20 Rule". Batman, Superman, and the JL books are likely around 20% of their total series output while accounting for 80% of their sales, with the other 80% of their total series output accounting for 20% of their sales. They have said the series in the first group are going to be retained, but they will also cut their total output by 40%. Sake of argument, since I like round numbers, let's say they are printing 100 series per month, so reducing total output by 40% means going down to 60 series per month, with 20 of them being the aforementioned "Big Three" that were accounting for 80 issues sold out of every 100 and should continue to sell 80 issues per month going forward, regardless of total company output. That means there are 40 other series left (from a group of 80) that previously were selling 20 out of every 100 issues moved. Cutting the output in half ostensibly means a corresponding equal drop in issues sold, putting this new slimmed down group at 10 issues sold per month. A reduction from 10% in the number of issues sold (90, down from 100) will certainly impact their bottom line, but the comment from thwhtguardian was that it would not be a "significantly lower number", and the numbers here bear that out. Additionally, there will be some ancillary cost savings benefits from not having to manage so many titles, including those that sell fractions of issues per 100 issues sold. When I'm managing my warehouses for my company, if I can eliminate SKUs from the shelves because we have two functionally-similar items from multiple manufacturers, I do that, because one invariably moves faster than the other one. Likewise, if I can move items from our stock to a vendor-managed inventory system (which I do for non-technical, consumable items like paper towels, toilet paper, batteries, Gatorade, gloves, safety glasses, and the like), it reduces the amount of non-value add activities I have to engage in, which frees up time to negotiate better contracts, find cheaper sources of supply for more technical items, etc. **Caveat: I produced this off of simply applying the Pareto Principle to DC's theoretical situation, without analyzing their monthly sales data. It might be off by some factor based on the actual data, but it's a fair place to start the discussion. |
|
