Quote from: TristramEvans;463453If the speculator bubble hadn't actually affected the products being sold, I might buy that. But the problem wasn't really the speculators themselves, it was the fact that the comic companies made the deliberate decision to cater to the collectors in a way that deliberately ostracized the (very substantial) readership at that point.

But if you look at the actual trend lines for comic book sales, you'll see a steady decline from 1980-1989, a huge spike around the speculator boom, and then, when the boom ends, things go right back to the trend line they were on before.

The speculator boom was, at worst, a wasted opportunity because companies didn't take advantage of the capital it was generating to create long-term growth by breaking back into mainstream markets. But in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.

QuoteI think your history is a bit off. The direct distribution market started in the early 80s, and this was the birth of the "comicbook store". Yes, it has been claimed that this ostracized new readers who would previously buy their comics from the local supermarket or convenience store (though comicbooks weren't not removed from these outlets until the late 90s, with the increase of gratuitous sex & violence that marked "the Image generation". (Funny how appropriate that name was in retrospect). There's no indication as far as sales that comicbooks were negatively affected by the direct market...in fact this change precipitated the biggest boom in comic sales since the 60s.

That's... umm... not true. Sorry. Direct distribution did not increase comic book sales. It did, however, make titles with lower sales economically viable (since titles sold through direct distribution could not be returned). This both returned the industry to profitability for the first time in years, and also allowed independent publishers to flourish.

I'm surprised that you're confused about this. It's pretty trivial to research the reality.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;464095But if you look at the actual trend lines for comic book sales, you'll see a steady decline from 1980-1989, a huge spike around the speculator boom, and then, when the boom ends, things go right back to the trend line they were on before.

I guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s, and the inflation of the collector's market in the 90s corresponded with an increasing drop in readership. Many titles during the 90s that were "bestsellers" were only so because of speculators. The majority of comic sales during the time went to gimmick issues and covers. If you think the industry has recovered to the point it was before the 90s then all I have to say is look at sales for X-men, consistently the strongest comic title in North America. It is currently doing figures that would have got the book canceled during the 80s. Comics did not "go right back to the trend line" after the 90s. The comics industry is struggling, and Marvel is basically kept afloat at the moment because the companies who now own it see comicbooks basically as cheap advertising for films & merchandise. When superhero films go out of style again (probably about the same time as we recover from the current economic downswing if history so far has taught us anything), I think the comic industry is in for trouble.

QuoteThe speculator boom was, at worst, a wasted opportunity because companies didn't take advantage of the capital it was generating to create long-term growth by breaking back into mainstream markets. But in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.

That's not even remotely true.

QuoteThat's... umm... not true. Sorry. Direct distribution did not increase comic book sales.

Except that it very much did.

Quote from: wikipediaBy 1985, the number of direct distributors in North America peaked with approximately twenty companies, many of them multi-warehouse operations, purchasing product for resale to retailers directly from either DC Comics, Marvel Comics, or both. There were also an unknown number, probably in the dozens, of sub-distributors who bought DCs and Marvels from these larger companies (and often the products of other, smaller publishers direct from those publishers), and re-sold to retailers. Most though not all of these sub-distributors were in cities in which the direct distributors themselves did not (at least as yet) have warehouses, including Philadelphia, Boston, Columbus (Ohio), Madison (Wisconsin), Lansing (Michigan), Indianapolis, and Berkeley (California). Many of them were eventually absorbed by the companies which had been their principal suppliers.

From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, nearly every major urban area in the United States had at least one (and sometimes two or three) local direct distribution warehouses that functioned not only as distribution points for pre-ordered weekly shipments, but also as what could be described as "supermarkets for retailers", where store owners could shop for reorders and examine and purchase product that they might not have ordered in advance.

Guess how many distributors are still in business today? One.

Quote from: wikipediaThe development of the direct market is commonly credited with restoring the North American comic book publishing industry to profitability after contraction of the market in the mid 1990s. The emergence of this lower-risk distribution system is also credited with providing an opportunity for new comics publishers to enter the business, despite the two bigger publishers Marvel and DC Comics still having the largest share. The establishment and growth of independent publishers, beginning in the late 1970s and continuing to the present, was made economically possible by the existence of a system that targets its retail audience, rather than relying on the scattershot approach embodied in the returnable newsstand system.

QuoteIt did, however, make titles with lower sales economically viable (since titles sold through direct distribution could not be returned). This both returned the industry to profitability for the first time in years, and also allowed independent publishers to flourish.

It did that to, but as you can see it had a directly attributable positive effect on the comics market since it was introduced in the 70s, and according to this articler is what saved comics from completely going under after the Fall (don't completely agree with that, but it's wikipedia).

As I said before, the direct market was a product of the 70s, and had little to nothing to do with the speculator boom.

QuoteI'm surprised that you're confused about this. It's pretty trivial to research the reality.

Indeed. One would have though wikipedia would have been your first stop.

Then again, I don't feel as much need to research having lived through the periods during a time I was actively a part of the industry. I mean, most of the things I've said on this thread so far are likely originally from the mouth of Jim Shooter.

Quote from: TristramEvans;464153I guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s,

Uh... No. That's totally not true. I'm really unclear on how you could even possibly begin to believe that that was true. It indicates a complete ignorance of the history of the comic book industry.

In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.

QuoteThe majority of comic sales during the time went to gimmick issues and covers. If you think the industry has recovered to the point it was before the 90s

What part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?

Quote

QuoteDirect distribution did not increase comic book sales.

Except that it very much did.

Did you somehow fail to notice that absolutely nothing that you quoted claims that direct distribution increased comic book sales? The reason they don't say that is because, of course, it didn't.

One could argue that the speculator booms of the mid-'80s (the mini-boom around B&W independents) and early-'90s (the big one) were only made possible by direct distribution. But that's the only sense in which direct distribution increased comic books sales. And in both cases, the steady decline and downward trajectory of the industry a a whole reasserted itself as soon as the speculator boom passed.

Rule of Thumb: When your own sources don't back you up, you've got a problem.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;464189Uh... No. That's totally not true. I'm really unclear on how you could even possibly begin to believe that that was true. It indicates a complete ignorance of the history of the comic book industry.In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.

No, it wasn't. That was the Golden Age. That's why it was called the Golden Age. I have no idea what you think it has to do with the Speculator Boom or the Direct Market.

QuoteWhat part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?

I have no idea what you're quoting there.

QuoteDid you somehow fail to notice that absolutely nothing that you quoted claims that direct distribution increased comic book sales? The reason they don't say that is because, of course, it didn't.

Comic sales increased after the Direct Market system went into place. Whether you want to attribute one event to the other or not, it's still the order of events.

QuoteOne could argue that the speculator booms of the mid-'80s (the mini-boom around B&W independents)

Um, no. Now you're just making things up. There was no "speculator boom" in the mid-80s. Independent titles became more popular, but it had absolutely zero to do with "speculating". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what that term means. The speculator/collector market grew in the 80s, but it had no mainstream acceptance, acknowledgment, or even awareness. It was when "investing in comics" achieved mainstream awareness in '92 that a boom happened, with an influx of money from outside of the hobby.

 

Quoteand early-'90s (the big one)

(sigh) the ONLY one, unless we are talking about tulips now.

Quotewere only made possible by direct distribution. But that's the only sense in which direct distribution increased comic books sales.

So you don't believe that comicbook shops increased comicbook sales? Or bookstore chains carrying graphic novels? That's only the two most blatantly obvious ways that the Direct Market affected comicbook sales.  

In '81 Marvel tested the viability of the Direct Market with Dazzler #1, which sold $400,000 copies. By 1987 the direct market alone accounted for 70% of Marvel's gross sales.

QuoteAnd in both cases, the steady decline and downward trajectory of the industry a a whole reasserted itself as soon as the speculator boom passed.

Except that I'll now reiterate the one giant flaw in your conclusion: comicbook sales were not on a "downward trajectory" before the speculator boom. That's the main part that you're just sort of pulling out of thin air.

There was a dip in sales during the 70s, but from '79 to '89, comics showed steady and increasing profits. The preemption to the speculator boom was Ron Perelman's acquisition of Marvel, which is also when editorial control over titles was thrown out the window, bad relations with creators led to the mass exodus of the industry's "top talents" to Image, and DC and Marvel comics in general ceased to be publishing businesses and instead became IP-mines for trading card companies, toymakers, and (much later) Hollywood.

In 1979 a typical comic sold 100,000 copies. Today, 20,000 is common.

QuoteRule of Thumb: When your own sources don't back you up, you've got a problem.

Luckily, that's not my problem.

Quote from: TristramEvans;464223

Quote

QuoteI guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s,

In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.

No, it wasn't. That was the Golden Age. That's why it was called the Golden Age. I have no idea what you think it has to do with the Speculator Boom or the Direct Market.

I'm sorry... Did you forget what you wrote? You claimed that comic book readership was at an all-time high in the '80s. I was pointing out you dead-wrong about that, just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here.

Quote

QuoteWhat part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?

I have no idea what you're quoting there.

I'm quoting the post you replied to, dumbass. You were dead-wrong in claiming that I said that comic book industry had "recovered" (I said the exact opposite of that), just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here. (Starting to see the pattern?)

QuoteThere was no "speculator boom" in the mid-80s. Independent titles became more popular, but it had absolutely zero to do with "speculating".

Sorry, wrong again. TMNT launched a mini-speculator boom around B&W comics that glut-busted about a year and a half later. I'm not really clear on how you could be ignorant of that. After all, you "lived through it". And it's not like it's some sort of state secret. 3 seconds of Googling turns up all kinds of sources.

QuoteThere was a dip in sales during the 70s, but from '79 to '89, comics showed steady and increasing profits.

Profits are not the same thing as sales. Profitability in '89 was way up because more sales were being made through the direct market; but overall sales were still on the same downward trend they had been on since at least 1970.

QuoteIn '81 Marvel tested the viability of the Direct Market with Dazzler #1, which sold $400,000 copies. By 1987 the direct market alone accounted for 70% of Marvel's gross sales.

No one is disputing that the comic book industry increasingly relied on the direct market in the '80s. In fact, I was the first person to point that out in this thread.

At this point we know that you're not reading my posts; you're not reading the sources you're citing; and you can't even remember what you've said yourself. You can't seem to distinguish between "sales" and "profit"; the word "trend" appears to confuse you; and now you're posting irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with what you claimed.

Lemme know if you're planning to improve your posting habits here. Because I've only got so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;464303I'm sorry... Did you forget what you wrote? You claimed that comic book readership was at an all-time high in the '80s. I was pointing out you dead-wrong about that, just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here.

This is a semantic argument at best. We were discussing the state of the industry before and after the speculator boom, and readership before the speculator boom was higher than during or after. As I acknowledged, you are correct that these numbers don't compare to the Golden Age. Since the Golden Age occurred years before Direct Distribution however, and has no bearing or relevance to the discussion. The sales of the Golden Age reflected a period in history that will never come again, nor has any discernible effect or relation to the state of the industry preceding , during, or following the Speculator Boom.

QuoteI'm quoting the post you replied to, dumbass.

So, you're quoting your own post and asking me to defend your PoV? Did you lose track of your place in the conversation?

Well, here's a quote of yours as well:

QuoteBut in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.

Which doesn't reflect reality. Comic sales were at a certain point in the late 80s/early 90s just before the speculator boom. The Boom hit in '92, starting with the Death of Superman, which became a media event and created mainstream awareness of the collector's market, and the founding of Image. This was precipitated by the release of X-men #1 (8.1 million copies sold) in '91, with one of the early multiple-covers gimmicks. '93 and '94, the height of the Boom, was the time that sales were highest in comicbook history (yes, even including the Golden Age).

Looking at the industry just before the boom, however, we find that sales on comics had been on an upward trend since the early. In '89 Spider-man #1 is released and becomes (at the time) the best selling single issue of a comic of all time (2.5 million copies).

After the bust, Marvel files for Bankruptcy and won't again report a profit until 2001; Image dissolves; 80% of comicbook shops across North America have gone out of business, only one distributor chain of thousands survives; and readership between '97 to '00 fell off at a rate of 7 to 10% a month. X-men sales in 1998-2000 are barely passing 100,000 copies.

The Silver Age peaked in '68, and had steady sales from '69 to '71 before sales dropped in the 70s. By '86 sales had reached the same levels as that in '69-71, and by '88 comic sales were higher than they were during '68. And this is just taking into account combined Marvel and DC, without even taking into account the independent market nor the growing number of smaller publishing houses.

Your claim that "Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before" is demonstrably false and deliberately misleading. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why the speculator boom busted and the myriad ways this affected the industry.

QuoteYou were dead-wrong in claiming that I said that comic book industry had "recovered" (I said the exact opposite of that), just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here. (Starting to see the pattern?)

Ok, so instead of interpretating your statements to mean that you think that sales eventually returned to the point they were before the boom, what you were actually saying is that you are in complete denial that there even was a sharp drop in sales after the bust.

QuoteSorry, wrong again. TMNT launched a mini-speculator boom around B&W comics that glut-busted about a year and a half later.I'm not really clear on how you could be ignorant of that. After all, you "lived through it". And it's not like it's some sort of state secret. 3 seconds of Googling turns up all kinds of sources.

Well, then, please do so. You're the first person on earth I've ever encountered who claims there was a mini-speculator boom in the mid 80s. There was the "indie boom", but obviously you don't mean that since it had nothing whatsover to do with speculators.

QuoteProfits are not the same thing as sales. Profitability in '89 was way up because more sales were being made through the direct market; but overall sales were still on the same downward trend they had been on since at least 1970.

Profits are not the same thing as sales. I repeat that because I never said anything of the sort, nor implied a comparison.

However, there is such a fundamental, common-sense, connection between profits and sales that ignoring is pretty much on the same level as not recognizing the connection between the advent of the direct sales market and the steady increase in sales as it became the major source of a larger and larger percentage of increasing sales throughout the 80s.

QuoteNo one is disputing that the comic book industry increasingly relied on the direct market in the '80s. In fact, I was the first person to point that out in this thread.

And claimed that it "ghettoized" the industry, cutting off new readers. Whereas I can find no evidence whatsoever to support that, in fact most evidence suggests that sales increased up until the point where the direct market ceased to exist and Diamond became the sole distributor.

QuoteAt this point we know that you're not reading my posts; you're not reading the sources you're citing; and you can't even remember what you've said yourself. You can't seem to distinguish between "sales" and "profit"; the word "trend" appears to confuse you; and now you're posting irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with what you claimed. n

Based on every comment preceding this, I find that hyperbolic claim somewhat ironic.

I mean, you obviously can't support your position, so you've just descended into a clumsy ad-hominem rant.

QuoteLemme know if you're planning to improve your posting habits here. Because I've only got so much tolerance for willful ignorance.

Hypocrisy noted. But this is starting to suck up way too much of my time, so, yeah, feel free to believe things happened however you want them to have happened.

Quote from: TristramEvans;464342So, you're quoting your own post and asking me to defend your PoV?

No. That's not what said. Your illiteracy explains pretty much the entirety of your posting in this thread, though.

QuoteOk, so instead of interpretating your statements to mean that you think that sales eventually returned to the point they were before the boom,

Oh look. More illiteracy. How surprising.

Quote'93 and '94, the height of the Boom, was the time that sales were highest in comicbook history (yes, even including the Golden Age).

Uh... No. You're apparently mistaking the single issue sales record of X-Men #1 to mean that overall sales in the industry were higher. That's not true, either.

QuoteIn '89 Spider-man #1 is released and becomes (at the time) the best selling single issue of a comic of all time (2.5 million copies).

Man, you just can't be bothered to fact check any of the bullshit you're posting, can you?  Spider-Man #1 was published in 1990, not 1989. It's widely cited as the beginning of the speculator boom (featuring, as it did, multiple covers and pre-bagged editions). And 2.5 million copies did not, in fact, make it the best selling single issue of all time. Like I said before: Walt Disney had a comic in the 1950s selling an average of 3 million+ copies every single month.

Quote, only one distributor chain of thousands survives;

There were not "thousands" of comic book direct market comic book distributors in the '80s (or at any other time). That's complete nonsense.

QuoteImage dissolves;

No. It didn't.

QuoteThe Silver Age peaked in '68, and had steady sales from '69 to '71 before sales dropped in the 70s. By '86 sales had reached the same levels as that in '69-71,

I dunno where you're getting your "facts", but nobody in the comic book industry agrees with them.

QuoteProfits are not the same thing as sales. I repeat that because I never said anything of the sort, nor implied a comparison.

Oh dear. You've forgotten what you said again.

Man, I feel bad. I just realized you must be suffering from Alzheimer's. That would explain your inability to keep track of what you've said. It would also explain your dementia.

Get the treatment you need. Talk to your family. I'm sure they'll make the necessary arrangements to get you into a good program of assisted living.

(I get that your willful ignorance is past cure at this point. And since everybody else reading this shouldn't have too much difficulty confirming that you're loco, I don't really care. Ciao.)

Wow. So, you're getting your crazy on. Have fun with that.

Meanwhile, just for the record, you've failed utterly to support any position you've made and your arguments basically amount to "Nuh-uhhh", so,well, I've got better ways to waste my time.

I'm sorry to interrupt... but I need more bad RPG art to mock.

Any early Tunnel & Trolls? Home brewed vanity published heartbreakers? I need more visual stimuli!

Quote from: Opaopajr;464379I'm sorry to interrupt... but I need more bad RPG art to mock.

Any early Tunnel & Trolls? Home brewed vanity published heartbreakers? I need more visual stimuli!

OK...well I love Dragon Warriors, but this is maybe my least favourite Dragon Warriors monsters, the Rakshah. I may be cheating since it isn't so much badly drawn as a dumb idea, IMHO, drawn perfectly well.



If you were wondering it rolls at its enemies and kicks them, when it doesn't shapechange or use magic.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;464390OK...well I love Dragon Warriors, but this is maybe my least favourite Dragon Warriors monsters, the Rakshah. I may be cheating since it isn't so much badly drawn as a dumb idea, IMHO, drawn perfectly well.



If you were wondering it rolls at its enemies and kicks them, when it doesn't shapechange or use magic.

It might look dumb, but it is from a real grimoire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon)

And another one from SenZar.
Maybe not bad exactly (well, I like it) but I had to post it, just because. Lesbianstripperninja!

Quote from: HalfOrc HalfBiscuit;464391It might look dumb, but it is from a real grimoire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon)

Thanks! OK that makes me feel slightly better about them...

I remember Buer from Castlevania! Oh god, there goes my cred...