Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION Dr. Gym'll's Cultural Rarities DC Relaunch- is there an ulterior motive?

Thanks Reboot for posting that. I didn't know enough about the business end to guess whether DC was making reasonable gambles on the various parts of this relaunch project or not. And I still don't know about the creative end, but I sure as hell had a STRONG instinct that on the specific aspect of flooding the market with 52 #1s IN ONE MONTH was batshit crazy. And this link supports that feeling with facts, logic and experience.

Looking at the world today though, we see this all the time. And each time you have to wonder, is it as crazy as it seems? Or is there an ulterior motive? In politics you can see what it is, when it's not actual insanity, it's always so someone, somewhere can get more money and/or power.

But what the hell could DC be up to, if they're not just crazy? And crazy is exactly what they seem to want to be seen as, if you go by the lately-oft-repeated definition of "doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome". Well here we are with another DC Explosion. (If there are significant differences from the last time to cause great hope, fine, but I don't happen to know what they are. To me, things are much worse in the industry now.) So, are they expecting a different outcome?

Well, if not, one can only assume they mean to destroy their business, to SOME degree. But let's refine that a little. What part of the business will they hurt the most? It looks to be the retailers.

My guess would be that they want to destroy the comic shop distribution path, or even possibly the entire notion of printed comics. They do seem to want the online sales path to work out, but it looks like they can't price the books low enough online to where it makes sense without horribly reducing the shop's business.

(I personally think anything more than 99 cents for 20 pages is not going to work for a product that's both not often repeated [like you would a song you buy] and is also so easily pirated. The price must be low enough that it's easier to just pay for it, and worth the total amount of time you are entertained by it.)

Now of course nobody wants to look like they're driving retailers out of business. Maybe this big push is a way to look like they're "trying hard" but when it fails, they have an excuse to get out of the print side altogether, moving toward Print-on-demand for the ones who absolutely must have paper. Or any other new forms of distribution.

I had been thinking that the 52 was simply a loss-leader, that they'd take the hit on most of them failing for all the publicity they could drive to the digital versions. But nothing really precludes both goals as being on their agenda. Plus I remembered how the world has been, so my mind looked at the dark side.

It just seems to me that the major stumbling block with any major move to new forms of distribution is the objection of the current distributors not wanting to lose their livelihood.

Well. Whether it's on purpose or not, I don't see the month of September working out well for the retailers.

Not to mention that among the 52 #1s are also that most heinous of fan abuse, variant covers. I can't express how vile I think this practice is so I wouldn't even try.

I've recently come to the notion that DC is attempting to do with their brand characters what Marvel did with the Ultimates universe.

The whole point of re-designing costumes and trimming away historical baggage wasn't to make better comics, it was to give them a more cinematic feel, and make them easier to translate to the big screen.

And, after the Ultimates, expectations massaged by familiarity with a Thor whose hammer is a little bit magic, a little bit uber-science, whose Nick Fury is played by Sam Jackson, whose Tony Stark is a soused louse four swaggers away from a Johnny Depp pirate, whose Hawkeye and Black Widow were in at the ground-floor of the Avengers formation, etc., etc. now we have movies that explore those new interpretations of Thor, Iron Man, Nick Fury and the Avengers.

I wonder if the 'new' DC re-designs are meant to do the same thing for Superman, the Teen Titans, etc., to massage them into a more cinema-friendly interpretation that can finally break the 'DC curse' and lead to more accessible (and successful) movie properties.

It's all an emornous ploy to set up the next big DCU event MULTIVERSITY, which will feature the return of the JSA and Shazam families and others.

No way DC expects half or more of these relaunched books to last over a year.

I, for one, am more willing to attribute complete and total incompetence to DC rather than the sort of uber-competence that would be required in order to develop and carry out a scheme like this.

If you want to look at another possible motive, don't forget the rights issue. DC is in the process of losing the rights to Action Comics #1 and the Superman properties created but Siegel and Shuster. More than one person has pointed out that Superman is ground zero for the biggest changes this relaunch is bringing about (while Batman & GL continue relatively the same). Speculation is if they can create their "own" Superman that's distinct enough from the guy in Action Comics #1, then they'll be able to maintain their hold on copyright.

Supposedly they'll site the "Spawn"/"Medieval Spawn" precedent from the Gaiman/McFarlane case to bolster this idea.

I think Set has a valid point. There are many people that would not be aware of comics at all if it wasn't for movies. One of my closest friends became a DC fan because of the Batman franchise. It would also explain why Batman and Green Lantern are more or less granted immunity from this retooling, they already have movie franchises. I've even heard comics referred to as the research and development zone for the movies.

This is my fault that most are not responding to my main point. I wasn't talking about the entire relaunch, though the subject line certainly makes it seem as if I were. I was talking only about the insanity of launching 52 titles in one month. (Or perhaps almost as insane, publishing 52 titles at all?)

I do absolutely believe the creator's families now owning rights to certain Superman elements and more movie-friendly interpretations of other characters are in fact among the reasons for mythos changes. But none of that explains the value in glutting the market with more titles than retailers can possible take a chance on even if the economy were perfect.

Why 52 in one month? If they really don't believe that half will survive a year, they don't seem to care that such a failure will hurt people financially.

Key word is RELaunch, as right now DC certainly publishes far more than 52 titles a month, and even if you drop it to just the DCU, I think it's still like 55. The problem is retailers not knowing which horses to bet on (other than the obvious Bat and GL Families), but really they don't bite on a lot of the titles DC puts out NOW, so from DC's perspective its a good move to get some more of the market share.

Just counted the titles in May (Before the Flashpoint Glut) and the Non-Vertigo titles were at 57 (drop the kids stuff and game tie-in and they're probably around 50). Bring in Vertigo and you're up to 68.

I'm pretty sure Marvel has even more than that.

Well if all those titles are monthly then I stand corrected. If they really are putting out that much already, well... never mind.

Though as you say, the real problem is knowing which horses to bet on, so even if they're not increasing the quantity, they're flooding the market with novelty, and as at least one retailer points out, he can't take that kind of risk with so many titles all at once.

Has anyone heard what kind of advertising, and just as important, HOW MUCH, DC is planning?

But you know, given the factors Brian Hibb explained in the link, would it have been so terrible to CUT BACK their line to 35 or 40 and really make them SHINE? Then add one or two more a month if it turns out that the new quality and additional digital distribution really was bringing in new readers?

Throwing so much at the wall at once to see what sticks doesn't intuitively seem to me the most efficient or least harmful method.

Is there a way we could compare the profit from comic book movies and the profit from actual comic books?

The 52 number is likely an editorial edict intended to reinforce the association of the number with DC and the fact that the DC Universe is now composed of 52 parallel worlds, something that Grant Morrison is about to start exploring.

In terms of DC throwing 52 totally new books at readers, it's really not exactly that many. The Superman books are starting new stories and probably new continuity, but the people who buy the various Superbooks today will probably continue to do so, at least initially. Same with the Batman and Green Lantern suites. And with Flash. And Wonder Woman. And Legion. All-Star Western will likely keep Jonah Hex's current readers.

Some of the books, like Teen Titans or Birds of Prey, are getting significant makeovers that might not be as appealing to current readers (I, for example, am never as enthusiastic about buying BoP if Gail Simone isn't writing it), but they'll probably get a first-month (or two) look in from both current readers and new ones.

Some of the new books have a ready-made fan base. For example, JLI will likely draw fans of the old Giffen-era team that has been buying Generation Lost.

Finally, there are the books that will draw because of the creators. Aquaman will pick up some readers just because Geoff Johns is writing it. The only reason I'm considering buying Justice League Dark (which is a terrible title for a comic) is because Peter Milligan is writing it. And for all we know, there may still be Scott Lobdell fans out there just dying to read new stuff from him.

That accounts for about half of the 52, by my estimate. The biggest risks DC is taking are on the other books, books that are brand new stories, don't have an ongoing fan base, that aren't being written or illustrated by fan-favorite creators. Those are the books that DC's likely to have a problem with. Will they sell better or worse than the books currently at the lower end of the sales charts? Can't say that until after September.

For myself, I'll probably be picking up around 30 of the 52. Some of those are "we'll see" pickups, but others are no brainers for me.

Though I'm too lazy to try to find numbers, even a moderately successful comic book movie is going to be way more profitable than the comics themselves.

In the last few years, the printed comics have been regarded as little more than a loss-leader for other merchandise and media. The Batman: Arkham Asylum game probably earned more for Warner than all the Batman books combined for that whole year. Meanwhile, Marvel is basically turning into a movie studio that happens to publish comics.

Think about it this way:

Suppose you have a massively successful hit comic by a superstar creator like Geoff Johns. The kind that sells 100,000. Suppose you charge $4 a pop for that. Then you're dealing with $400,000 made off sales, from which you have to subtract all of the production and distribution costs. There's also advertising, but unless the zit creams are paying a hell of a lot for ad space, I can't imagine that's going to get you anywhere near the tens of millions you'll make off even a moderately successful film.

My partner recently retired after 30 years in the retail business. He was fond of saying, "It's a whore's business." Meaning that the people (companies) you depend on for your income are always screwing you. That's a very old business dynamic, and seems to be the crux of Mr. Hibbs's complaints. He simply wants to see DC absorb more of the risk for this enterprise. I'm sure he would feel that way regardless of whether DC was launching 52 new number one issues this fall. It frankly won't happen. That doesn't make this a secret enterprise to get rid of retail shops. It is business as usual. Any publisher, or producer of goods, would love to eliminate the middle man and sell directly to the consumer if they could. It would mean more money for them. Most haven't found a way to do it, and DC hasn't suddenly found the secret formula.

It is interesting that Mr. Hibbs has kind words for Diamond. Some would argue that Diamond created a monopoly on distribution by forcing smaller distributors out of the business. Others will argue that Diamond just found a way to do things more effectively and at a lower cost than the smaller companies. This is something that Mr. Hibbs has obviously benefitted from and he values that relationship.

DC's relaunch is about trying to take more of the market share from Marvel, and positioning their product for greater tie in revenues from merchandising. It's also part of the same old game of putting something out there to get some short term sales increases at a critical moment in the game. Hopefully, a more streamlined long term product and creative rejuvenation will spring from it. That remains to be seen.

My local comic book shop owner is actually excited about this from a short term sales perspective. He says that September is typically a slow month, and he is anticipating some increased sales through the fall. Then on to the next gimmick.. err.. promotional event.

Smart retailers need to be doing things like building their customer base through discounts, local advertising, paying attention to their margins, maximizing pre-orders, and diversifying their inventories. They should be doing these things already. No retail store is going to survive on the income from monthly new comics alone.

Another couple of points:

I don't think the comparison to the DC Explosion holds up. The Explosion was about adding to the price tag of existing titles while adding more pages and back-up stories. The move backfired because a significant number fans didn't want to pay the higher price. Personally, I loved the back up stories and didn't mind the 50 cent price tag. DC is currently taking a different approach by trying to "hold the line at $2.99." Flooding the market has typically been something that Marvel has done more effectively than DC. That's not to say that the relaunch won't implode. If it does, it will be for different reasons.

Regarding variant covers - If this was truly a move to get rid of retail stores we wouldn't be seeing variant covers. Retailers benefit more from this practice than publishers. Sure, the publishers may sell a few extra copies to fans who want both covers. Ultimately, though, retailers can profit more from variant covers. They can increase the sale price beyond the cover price by marketing the variants as collectors items.

EDE: I'm not sure if your point relates to my post or is just a tangent you happened to think of at the moment.

Jerry: My point was based on flooding the market, but someone already pointed out that they're putting out roughly the same or less comics than usual. So I'm no longer wondering if there's an ulterior motive, because the numbers aren't as crazy as I had thought.

My point about variant covers was a side-thought, and it was that they abuse the fans, not the retailers. I find the practice utterly exploitative and reprehensible. Whether it's comics or TV Guides. I couldn't believe it when I saw THEM doing it after it finally died down in comics, and now it's back in comics again.

I recognize and appreciate that you have backed off some of your original thoughts, Shining Son. They aren't too different from thoughts that I've read elsewhere online. I wanted to weigh in with the rebuttal when I originally read them but didn't have time for a lengthy post. I'm a bit late to the party, but still wanted to address some of the issues raised and share some thoughts regarding Hibbs' writings.

I don't buy variant covers myself. Most people that I talk to who do, don't seem to feel ripped off, though. They seem to have a genuine interest in having the works of the different artists.

Re: Variant covers

Many times the exploited don't feel exploited. I for one very much did, pretty much right after Byrne's Man of Steel. I seem to recall that eventually they put out 5 covers of something and the only difference was the color of the metallic ink in the title. I was annoyed just seeing it on display. I've no problem with changing colors for subsequent print runs if something sells out, but this was all first run variants.

And I don't mind mentally stable adults with plenty of money (though how many of those are left?) who really enjoy variants, but let's face it, there's plenty of comic fans that aren't adults, and some who (adult or not) are compulsive, and others who are misguided speculaters, and variants exploit their weaknesses. I've seen people who carefully spend their money because they can only barely cover comics, food and rent, and yet it seems they can't help themselves.

Does that extra cover really bring them as much joy as another whole comic? Even they don't see how, when I ask. And though they're giving up other things than just another comic that they can read, I can't bring myself to point that out, because they are adults, and they're not under my care. One has to choose one's battles and I save my interventions for when a friend tries to drink and drive, or something on that level.

Sorry for rambling, seen too many sad things. I just think this one is avoidable. But so are far worse ones I guess.

My problem is more than just exploitation, as a Planeteer -- which is shorter than saying "conservationist" and probably more accurate since I'm not overly educated on the matter -- I greatly resent 5 variant covers even if each has different art, because there's paper in between those covers that is not serving any good purpose. Sell the alternate cover art separately as pinups or posters or something. Oh, but that doesn't artificially inflate circulation counts, which btw, I would think means that advertisers aren't exactly getting what they paid for. With variant covers there's far less readers than sales.

Yeah I suppose comic advertising isn't exactly big business anymore, so maybe that issue is pretty small.

Okay, enough anger and sadness for tonight.

One thing for sure cannot be denied: EVERONE is talking about DC Comics. THE ENTIRE LINE of DC Comics, not just Supes, Bats, Diana or Green Lantern.

When has that ever happened before?!?!

They certainly have gotten a few extra sales from me... at least for one month. More, if these book are good... and I will be buying them all at my friendly neighborhood Comic Book Shop. Bet I'm not the only one...

Mine went down. Drastically.

I went from 25 books a month plus some mini's and specials and one shots... to 12 a month on my new pull.

and 3 of those are one month tryouts.

I did some figuring and realized that if things go the way they currently have it set up, DC will LOSE over $500 a year from me alone. And I'm not the only one. I hope these mythical "New Readers" will make up the numbers.

Really everyone, or just comic fan everyone? Other than similar news blips such as when Supes or Cap America died, I'm not seeing the talking in the media (or the streets). Though they really want the major coverage in September I suppose.

Fans certainly are talking. I don't have a real sense yet whether it's mostly good or bad.