|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 6, 2014 11:42:14 GMT -5
One thing that often gets ignored in a discussion about the Speculators' Boom is that it wasn't just about content, but also means of distribution. During the bubble, Marvel would purchase Capitol Distribution with the intent of them being the sole provider of Marvel material. The idea was that Marvel would then begin to open kiosks and stores in malls with Marvel only content. This isn't work, and it crippled the alternative distribution network, leaving Diamond as the only player left. It also crippled Marvel, which had already begun to bleed talent, and we'd see the result of that in the bankruptcy days. I thought it was Heroes World Marvel bought, not Capital. And in reaction DC and others struck a deal with Diamond leaving Capital out in the cold. I could be wrong there though. -M No, you're right. It was Heroes World, not Capital. Had the two confused.
In any event, it's an important piece of this puzzle as it essentially shut everyone else out.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on Nov 6, 2014 11:52:43 GMT -5
One thing that often gets ignored in a discussion about the Speculators' Boom is that it wasn't just about content, but also means of distribution. During the bubble, Marvel would purchase Capitol Distribution with the intent of them being the sole provider of Marvel material. The idea was that Marvel would then begin to open kiosks and stores in malls with Marvel only content. This isn't work, and it crippled the alternative distribution network, leaving Diamond as the only player left. It also crippled Marvel, which had already begun to bleed talent, and we'd see the result of that in the bankruptcy days. I thought about including this (that all went down in 1997, I believe) but I had a little trouble connecting the dots in showing how this further led to decreased sales and/or fans leaving comics. Is this what caused comics to leave the indirect market (i.e. newsstands, grocery store racks, etc)? It was 1994 when Marvel acquired Heroes World. That initiative would fail by '97, but as mrp said, the damage to the distribution network had already been done.
The loss of the indirect market was an ongoing thing. It had more to do with comics becoming non-returnable after a business model shift in the '80s. There was a lucrative secondary market in cutting off the logo for return to the publishers, then selling the damaged comic anyway. The UPC code put an end to that, and comics would eventually become non-returnable. Magazines, however, were returnable (and still are, I believe). Stores didn't want to waste shelf space on something they couldn't get rid of. I believe that discounts and the spinner racks were an attempt at a compromise. I know I didn't see a comic on a store shelf post-'94-'95, so I would imagine that the distribution collapse did have something to do with it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 11:55:33 GMT -5
So then help me understand how the Heroes World acquisition and the collapse of the distribution network, leading to Diamond becoming a monopoly, adversely affected comic sales. I'm not doubting it; I just don't see the connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 12:10:01 GMT -5
Sales are measured on a retailer level, not a consumer level in a non-returnable direct market.
Retailers have a set budget. This had to pay for product and the shipping of the product.
Distributors work discounts on a tier system, the more you buy the greater the discount. However, when you use multiple distributors, you have to reach minimums in more than one place-which theoretically should increase sales-but now you are paying shipping in 2 places, and to meet minimums you might be ordering more of other products )toys, t-shirts, trades, etc.) all tying up more money and having higher shipping costs.
As shipping prices and investment in other products eats up money, budgets get thin. To cut back, you reduce orders, but fall below minimums for discounts. If the books cost more, you have to order less to stay in budget. This occurs not at one distributor, but at 2 now for each source of product.
As sales in store dip, your budget lowers. If you have to tie up large portions of your budget in new hot #1s, you have to lower orders elsewhere. When the hot #1 don't sell, your capital is tied up and cash flow is less, so you have to cut order, which causes discounts to get lower, meaning you have to order less to stay in budget...It's harder to meet minimum quotas to meet discount thresholds at 1 distributor, let alone 2. There is also the whole playing favorites aspect-bigger accounts get first dibs on reorders if there are copies available, smaller stores who order less or more conservatively and miss out, often don't get the extras, so they miss revenue and the chance to break the downward spiral.
It's a domino/snowball effect that just grows bigger and harder to break the cycle the longer it goes. and becomes wash, rinse, repeat. The less you order, the more expensive it becomes and less profitable, so you have less resources available to order more. Multiple distributors is more money paid out in shipping and more time dealing with multiple sales reps and accounts that is time away from customers in store, and a lot of shops were (are?)1 person operations.
Don't forget this is when comic trading cards were exploding too, and so a lot of money was going into stock for that as well, so less money available for actual comics too. Plus the first trades were starting up big time Masterworks were launched, etc. so more higher priced items to stock tying up more capital and lessening capital available for monthly books.
There's a lot of moving pieces that aren't just about the monthly books, but that impact the sales of monthly books.
-M
PS also smaller accounts are often COD on those orders so they have to be able to pay up front for what they buy, not after they sold some in a billing cycle, bigger accounts may have that luxury, so orders are limited by cash on hand not on revenue generated from the product being bought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 6, 2014 14:20:12 GMT -5
A great theory, but a Diamond survey conducted in 1991 (just after X-Force #1 broke all sales records and the Speculator Bubble was in full swing), provided the following data: *the largest group of comic book readers were 19-25 years old (33% of sales) *13-18 year olds made up 25% *26-35 year olds were 22% *preteens and 35+ were grouped together as 11%. I suppose a 25 year old would have more cash than he did when he was 12, but not the kind of disposable income a 35 year old would have. Umm... those percentages only add up to 91%.  Is there a typo or missing data? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 14:23:07 GMT -5
A great theory, but a Diamond survey conducted in 1991 (just after X-Force #1 broke all sales records and the Speculator Bubble was in full swing), provided the following data: *the largest group of comic book readers were 19-25 years old (33% of sales) *13-18 year olds made up 25% *26-35 year olds were 22% *preteens and 35+ were grouped together as 11%. I suppose a 25 year old would have more cash than he did when he was 12, but not the kind of disposable income a 35 year old would have. Umm... those percentages only add up to 91%. Is there a typo or missing data? Ask Diamond, circa 1991 |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 6, 2014 14:26:27 GMT -5
A great theory, but a Diamond survey conducted in 1991 (just after X-Force #1 broke all sales records and the Speculator Bubble was in full swing), provided the following data: *the largest group of comic book readers were 19-25 years old (33% of sales) *13-18 year olds made up 25% *26-35 year olds were 22% *preteens and 35+ were grouped together as 11%. I suppose a 25 year old would have more cash than he did when he was 12, but not the kind of disposable income a 35 year old would have. Umm... those percentages only add up to 91%. Is there a typo or missing data? It's a little known fact that a small, silent percentage of comic readers are those who are post-living (ie. deceased, undead, never had a life to begin with, etc) for whom age is no longer relevant. In this case, they add up to about 9%. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Nov 6, 2014 15:08:10 GMT -5
Umm... those percentages only add up to 91%. Is there a typo or missing data? It's a little known fact that a small, silent percentage of comic readers are those who are post-living (ie. deceased, undead, never had a life to begin with, etc) for whom age is no longer relevant. In this case, they add up to about 9%. Unaccounted, Office Use, Spoiled after printing. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 6, 2014 15:39:43 GMT -5
4% of comic readers are unsure of their own age. 2% answered bronze or silver aged. 3% answered curmudgeon
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 16:36:24 GMT -5
It's also possible some did not report their age and Diamond chose to count those people anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 6, 2014 17:01:19 GMT -5
In any case, regarding the sales data -- if we assume an even split between preteens and 35+, it would seem that around 60% of the sales went to over 18, whereas about 30% went to kids. That to me would seem to indicate that the speculation was driven primarily by adults with disposable income -- or at least, most disposable income than your average teen/preteen. I would bet that a generation earlier, those numbers would be even more skewed younger. I wonder what the breakdown would be for something like the Giant Sized X-Men #1?
This makes total sense to me, and comports with my own experiences. I was 13 years old when the speculation boom started, and had been into comics for a couple of years. My friends who were into comics were aware of the "investment" angle that seemed to be making more and more inroads into comics, but for the most part none of us really had the means to participate in that side of the hobby. We all bought copies of X-Force #1, Spider-Man #1, etc. in the hopes that we were sitting on polybagged lottery tickets, but we probably would have bought them anyway. I think maybe one or two of the kids in my circles had a copy of one of the rarer Spidey variants, but it's not like we were all going out and buying multiple copies. Knowing the demand and that other people with deeper pockets (those pesky adults!) were buying up copies left and right, most of us were happy just to get a single copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2014 17:12:13 GMT -5
All depends on the level of parent's income at what age too-I went to school with a kid who was absolutely spoiled. His daddy was an attorney and local state rep. He was 2 years behind me, and a huge fan of the FF and John Byrne. So my junior year, he was a freshman-he would have been about 14, when Man of Steel was announced, he thought it would be a goldmine and pre-ordered a case of each cover (newsstand and direct)of #1 from the local shop. He's also the only kid I know who owned a copy of FF #5 with the first Doc Doom appearance at that age at the time too. I lost touch with him when I graduated, but I heard form people we knew in common at the local shop he did the same with Spidey #1, X-force #1 and X-Men #1...sadly I don't think it paid for his college education or his daddy's reelection campaign costs...
If you are from the right social class with wealthy parents who fund whatever you want to do, age of purchaser is not so much a factor. Few of his wealth peers at the school were into comics, most were getting Trans Ams from their daddies at 16 instead or ski trips on school vacations and such, me I was lucky if I got lunch money once a week but hey, they had it and flaunted it, and the age of the comic purchases was irrelevant in cases like that.
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 19:57:27 GMT -5
I had a lucrative dog walking business at age 12 and, thus, spent far more on comics then than I do now. $20 free and clear each week, with no bills to worry about and no worries about putting food on the table nor gas in the car. And I had an allowance on top of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Nov 6, 2014 21:25:34 GMT -5
Greg Bulls
I think he had a brother that worked with him too, I'm not sure.
For years I had a subscription to CBG (the Comic Buyers Guide). As Valiant launched I ignored them. I was disgusted with Shooter and it looked to me at the time as a cheap ripoff of Marvel. The Gold Key characters were before my time.
These guys were running full page ads every week and hawking the virtues and investment potential of Valiant.
Believe me' these guys helped sell a lot of Valiant comics, again, driving the speculator boom.
Another factor that led to the bust, and Marvel was the worst offender, was a fancy cover with pure dreck inside. Honestly, Marvel was at its worst as a line wide average, from about '91-'96 or so. Some of us actually read comics and said no more crap.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 6, 2014 21:31:58 GMT -5
X-Men #300 was the issue that stopped me buying comics. Absurdly high cover price for an ugly foil cover and lackluster content inside along with unimpressive art.
|
|
Is there a typo or missing data?
