RIP Floppies? - 'Marvel Phasing Out Retail Comic Distribution to Focus on Digital'

bralinator

Marvel is endeavoring to focus almost exclusively on digital distribution to maximize revenue. In the past few months the company has pulled their comics from bookstores all over the world. You would be hard-pressed to find anything but the odd graphic novel in your favorite bookstore, such as Barnes and Noble.

Marvel is finding that they are selling more comics online, than they are in the retail environment. Comixology is their main partner in the digital sphere and they have dedicated reading apps on every major platform. They have sold over 125,000,000 comics since 2009, most of them from Marvel.

Read the full post here.

Not sure I'm convinced this is happening, but that is basically what was reported. Would a move like this mean that we will have to ask our favorite artists to sign our iPad in the future? Any idea on what this would do to your favorite comic book store? I prefer to collect comics, not collect bytes.

RickM

I think that writer went to the Bleeding Cool school of journalism. It starts off with a newsy bit (Marvel is getting more into digital, and phasing out of Barnes and Noble) and then just kind of offers opinions and observations from there. There's no attempt to interview anyone, dig for information, confirm anything, etc.

fredzilla

This reads more like this guy's opinion about the state of floppies vs. digital books and it's future. The only cited source seemed to be the claim that Marbel has pulled its books from several retailers. Which I believe is true and verified. It makes sense to me. The people buying floppies don't go to book stores (B&N), but specialty comic book stores.

There is no word from any Marvel Exec or anyone with ties to the organization in the article. No official statement or anything. I think news like this would make the big news outlets.

While their numbers have probably jumped in digital sales, I think their base is in the comic book stores every Wednesday. I don't think they are that daft. Then again, Marvel is charging $200 for 512 pages of content.

David_D

There is no news here, and that article was some spurious nonsense. Alarmist without a shred of real reporting behind it. Click bait.

Peter

There is no "reporting" going on here. Someone change the thread title - this thread should be about laughing at the article, not using it as a jumping point for a non-discussion. Horrible all around.

Elsiebub

Hahaha.

I might believe this:

A) If Marvel weren't still in the practice of GIVING away digital codes with regular issues.

B) If Marvel hadn't just upped the ante, with the All-New Marvel Now! non-#1 "#1" issues, by also including free copies of entire TPBs with their regularly priced issues.

I have no doubt that digital revenue is a real thing for Marvel. But if something is really, really, really the mainstream distribution method of the future, you wouldn't still be having to desperately give away as many free copies as possible to try and hook people.

RickM said:

I think that writer went to the Bleeding Cool school of journalism.

Quoted for truth.

This is all because of the B&N pullout? Not like that's the first time Marvel has pulled out of newsstand markets in which they had to put up with returnability. Losing the B&N market in 2013 was a drop in the bucket compared to the huge newsstand market Marvel walked/ran away from in the late '90s. It's been said before, but when other magazines have higher coverprices, it just isn't feasible to stack $3-4 comics next to $5-10 magazines. Not when shelf space is at a premium.

David_D

The thing that always surprises me when these subjects come up is the idea that Marvel, or any content creator, would approach this as an EITHER/OR. At the moment, they are making money on print and digital (reportedly, in that order of magnitude). Would they like to further undercut the middleman by having more direct digital customers than print? Of course. But as long as there are still readers who want the paper, they will also continue to serve those readers. Anyone notice there is still music content coming out every week on disc and even VINYL??

The Multiple Platform Police don't make content creators choose and commit to a single platform. And successful companies are not in the habit of leaving money on the table. Keep buying the paper comics and they will still be there for you. Sure, the battered, picked over copies on the rack at a Barnes & Noble aren't there for you, but you probably weren't buying them there anyway. (If enough of you were, they would still be there.)

Torchsong

I can see the day when such a thing will be actual news - digital completely overtaking print outside of boutique or PoD printing - but this is not that day.

Mr_Cosmic

It's never a good sign when the comments following the article contain more facts than the article itself.

John Jackson Miller(Comichron) has an insightful response:

As Heidi MacDonald points out over at ComicsBeat, there are a number of flaws in the article's basic understanding of the comics industry. The print comics industry earned more than $700 million in 2012 -- you can see how it breaks down by category here -- http://blog.comichron.com/2013... -- and sales in comics shops are the largest portion of that -- and were up again in 2013.

What Marvel has withdrawn from is the returnable comics market -- the magazine shelves, NOT the book shelves, at Barnes & Noble -- and as my link illustrates, that's a very small sliver of the market for print comics.

As to the number of comics shops, Carr D'Angelo is correct -- the figure is up. The "record numbers closing" is a headline that would have been true in 1994, the actual year when record numbers closed. I was there, editing the industry's trade magazine, at the time -- and historical information from then to now can be found on my Comichron site.

The print comics industry is in relatively better shape than it's been in a long time; two major channels, graphic novels and digital, have added hundreds of millions of dollars annually in business that didn't exist at the turn of the century -- all without substantially harming sales of the regular comic books. I invite readers to study the data and see for themselves.

EarthGBilly

The comic book industry is simply going through what every business goes through - they have examined their areas of profit and are slowly restructuring based on the idea of maximizing that profit.

It is streamlining. The "death" of the monthly issue in physical form may eventually happen, but it isn't something that will happen tomorrow. As long as the companies can continue to make a reasonable profit in physical production, they will continue physical production.

Will they push digital? Darn tootin' they will, and heavily, because there is more profit to be had there.

The most confusing line of that post to me is, "Marvel is finding that they are selling more comics online, than they are in the retail environment." Assuming that "retail environment" is *only* brick and mortar, I'm still left wondering if I'm supposed to assume that "more comics online" is supposed to mean "digital comics," or if this is a terrible phrasing that implies that but, in fact, includes physical issue purchases from online sources like DCBS, TFAW, etc.

At any rate, bad blogger! Bad! Go over to that corner and think about what you've done.

bralinator

I think it's been clearly demonstrated that the blogger in reference doth suck mightily.

Zabbah

If this article is true then Marvel is doing the smart thing. I think there's a lot of truth behind this.

Planeis

bralinator said:

Marvel is endeavoring to focus almost exclusively on digital distribution to maximize revenue. In the past few months the company has pulled their comics from bookstores all over the world. You would be hard-pressed to find anything but the odd graphic novel in your favorite bookstore, such as Barnes and Noble.

Marvel is finding that they are selling more comics online, than they are in the retail environment. Comixology is their main partner in the digital sphere and they have dedicated reading apps on every major platform. They have sold over 125,000,000 comics since 2009, most of them from Marvel.

Read the full post here.

Not sure I'm convinced this is happening, but that is basically what was reported. Would a move like this mean that we will have to ask our favorite artists to sign our iPad in the future? Any idea on what this would do to your favorite comic book store? I prefer to collect comics, not collect bytes.

This is wildly short on details, or any actual statements from Marvel or anyone in the industry. It seems unlikely to me. Other industries where there are digital sales (books, music, magazines, games, software) still have the physical copies, so I don't know why comics would be different.

"....how bookstores handle books, magazines, newspapers and comics. If they don’t sell before they become irrelevant they get cash back from the supplier from the inventory that is unsold. Comic shops on the other hand, are normally stuck with whatever inventory they purchase."

This, I believe is a problem. The physical distribution of comics does need to change if its going to be around in the future. But I don't buy that physical copies will be going away.

Planeis

RickM said:

I think that writer went to the Bleeding Cool school of journalism. It starts off with a newsy bit (Marvel is getting more into digital, and phasing out of Barnes and Noble) and then just kind of offers opinions and observations from there. There's no attempt to interview anyone, dig for information, confirm anything, etc.

I agree, but its not just Bleeding Cool. I read a lot of online news and even major media and this seems to be how its done more and more and more. Why take the time to pick up a phone? Much easier just to hit "publish" and move onto the next story.

Matt

Zabbah said:

If this article is true then Marvel is doing the smart thing. I think there's a lot of truth behind this.

The smart thing, just too soon...by several years. Its more profitable to go digital, but at what costs? If the titles I collected went exclusively to digital, I'd stop collecting. I'm betting I'm not the only one who'd not make the jump.

So Marvel's sudden move could be a wash; more profit with less sales.

M

TheOriginalGMan

bralinator said:

Read the full post here.

If you want a chuckle, you should scroll down and read the comments, some of which the author responds to. He totally gets torn a new one.

Chuck_Melville

Matt said:

Zabbah said:

If this article is true then Marvel is doing the smart thing. I think there's a lot of truth behind this.

The smart thing, just too soon...by several years. Its more profitable to go digital, but at what costs? If the titles I collected went exclusively to digital, I'd stop collecting. I'm betting I'm not the only one who'd not make the jump.

So Marvel's sudden move could be a wash; more profit with less sales.

M

It wouldn't be the first time that Marvel would have made a colossal misstep -- remember their attempt in the 90's to eliminate the middle man by handling their own distribution and how well that went over.

And I agree -- I'd also drop Marvel (or any other comic company for that matter) if they went exclusively digital.

fredzilla

Zabbah said:

If this article is true then Marvel is doing the smart thing. I think there's a lot of truth behind this.

:-??

SolitaireRose

One of the shop dealers here in the Twin Cities contacted his Marvel rep, who said, "That jerk has made it so I am spending all day telling people it's wrong. Time that could be spent making sure shops get their reorders."

Someone explain to me why derpheads like this one put up stories they could check in 30 seconds. If you are wrong (and this guy is) it means NO ONE TRUSTS YOU ANY MORE! He's pretty much known in the industry he covers now as a moron, and he won't get anyone to return his calls. If he even makes any.

RedRight88

SolitaireRose said:

One of the shop dealers here in the Twin Cities contacted his Marvel rep, who said, "That jerk has made it so I am spending all day telling people it's wrong. Time that could be spent making sure shops get their reorders."

Someone explain to me why derpheads like this one put up stories they could check in 30 seconds. If you are wrong (and this guy is) it means NO ONE TRUSTS YOU ANY MORE! He's pretty much known in the industry he covers now as a moron, and he won't get anyone to return his calls. If he even makes any.

Are you looking for something more elaborate than People are Idiots?

Seriously, look at how many people rely on things like The Daily Show for news.

hauberk

SolitaireRose said:

One of the shop dealers here in the Twin Cities contacted his Marvel rep, who said, "That jerk has made it so I am spending all day telling people it's wrong. Time that could be spent making sure shops get their reorders."

Someone explain to me why derpheads like this one put up stories they could check in 30 seconds. If you are wrong (and this guy is) it means NO ONE TRUSTS YOU ANY MORE! He's pretty much known in the industry he covers now as a moron, and he won't get anyone to return his calls. If he even makes any.

I would suggest that in addition to the aforementioned people are idiots that a large amount of responsibility lies on all of the people that choose to conflate blogging with journalism. One might be able to blog with journalistic integrity, but at the end of the day, if it's in a blog, it's an op-ed at best and without a whole lot of self-awareness, is going to be written with a specific bias.

I don't support websites like Bleeding Cool (won't follow any links that lead to it) for the same reason - if it's based on speculation and rumor, it doesn't deserve any respect or support, regardless of how often it's accurate but I also don't read the descriptions in Previews.

RickM

RedRight88 said:

Seriously, look at how many people rely on things like The Daily Show for news.

According to a recent study, viewers who tune in to a certain media source are actually less informed than people who don't watch any news at all. And that outlet was not The Daily Show. It's odd that you singled them out, as though they are the biggest offender of something.

Mr_Cosmic

RickM said:

RedRight88 said:

Seriously, look at how many people rely on things like The Daily Show for news.

According to a recent study, viewers who tune in to a certain media source are actually less informed than people who don't watch any news at all. And that outlet was not The Daily Show. It's odd that you singled them out, as though they are the biggest offender of something.

I've read more than one article about the number of people who watch The Daily Show as their main news source. It's a pretty ignorant thing to do. So is only watching FOX News(which I assume you're referring to) or (shudder) MSNBC.

RickM

Fox actually bills itself as a journalistic enterprise. The Daily Show is on a comedy network, hosted by a comedian, and offers a laugh track. People watch Stewart to hear his commentary ON the news; they don't watch him to learn breaking news, because the show doesn't offer any, nor is it equipped to do so.

hauberk

RickM said:

Fox actually bills itself as a journalistic enterprise. The Daily Show is on a comedy network, hosted by a comedian, and offers a laugh track. People watch Stewart to hear his commentary ON the news; they don't watch him to learn breaking news, because the show doesn't offer any, nor is it equipped to do so.

Billing itself as, and actually being, are two entirely separate things. While the channel has News in it's name, that does not journalism make. Anymore than my ordaining myself to be a thought leader will actually result in people thinking the way I want them too (scary thought there).

I would anticipate it following suit with MTV and VH1 at almost any point and simply becoming FN or FNN. I'll not disagree that the Daily Show is less about news and more about current events satire, but satire has, in the past, been shown to be a fairly effective tool for political change. More importantly, if it actually spurs someone to look something up or choose to not take talking heads as legitimate sources of truth, regardless of the color of their tie, it's done something good, which is likely far more than one can say of anyone at either MSNBC (which at least does not attempt to attach the word "news" to their name) or FoxNews.

Torchsong

"Citizen Journalism" - as it's called - is a boon and a bane at the same time.

Boon - remember all the Arab Spring footage from overseas that CNN and other major media outlets weren't covering or were filtering out? Yeah...I saw more than I cared to see and heard more than I cared to hear from sites where people with smartphones and blogs reported it in real time. Meanwhile, CNN talked about how to find Egypt on a map.

Bane - No accountability or adherence to ethics. As mentioned, blogging isn't hard-hitting journalism, anymore than the Daily Show, Fox News, CBS Sunday Morning, MSNBC, Brietbart, Drudge, etc. are. They're glorified Op-Eds masking themselves as fact-reporting. Murrow and Cronkite are rolling over in their graves.

As some comedian put it (think it was David Cross) - how sad is it that I need to go to the BBC website to find an honest look at what's going on in America?

hauberk

Torchsong said:

"Citizen Journalism" - as it's called - is a boon and a bane at the same time.

Boon - remember all the Arab Spring footage from overseas that CNN and other major media outlets weren't covering or were filtering out? Yeah...I saw more than I cared to see and heard more than I cared to hear from sites where people with smartphones and blogs reported it in real time. Meanwhile, CNN talked about how to find Egypt on a map.

Bane - No accountability or adherence to ethics. As mentioned, blogging isn't hard-hitting journalism, anymore than the Daily Show, Fox News, CBS Sunday Morning, MSNBC, Brietbart, Drudge, etc. are. They're glorified Op-Eds masking themselves as fact-reporting. Murrow and Cronkite are rolling over in their graves.

As some comedian put it (think it was David Cross) - how sad is it that I need to go to the BBC website to find an honest look at what's going on in America?

I personally think that the bane far outweighs the boon. It's far too easy to turn anything and everything into an out of context sound/video byte.

Torchsong

I think Bob Schieffer of CBS' Face the Nation might well be the last of the true die-hard journalists. I've seen him lay into both sides of the political fence in pursuit of any actual facts that might be found. And sadly he's not getting any younger.

I get a lot of my news these days from an app called Newsy, which aggregates all the new items from a variety of sources and tries to filter out the crap and opinions. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

playdohsrepublic

The writer of this article is a troll, looking to stir the pot. I was just on another site when another one of his articles came up for debate:

goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors

For the record I don't think you should click the link as this guy doesn't deserve the page views. I would also be disappointed to ever see the Michael Kozlowski by-line ever come up again in an article purporting to be news (or opinion).

hauberk

playdohsrepublic said:

The writer of this article is a troll, looking to stir the pot. I was just on another site when another one of his articles came up for debate:

goodereader.com/blog/commentary/self-publishers-should-not-be-called-authors

For the record I don't think you should click the link as this guy doesn't deserve the page views. I would also be disappointed to ever see the Michael Kozlowski by-line ever come up again in an article purporting to be news (or opinion).

It's a small thing, but how about, in addition to that, refusing to use terms like article for Op-Ed pieces like this?

electric_mayhem

how about refusing to visit, refer or even mention websites that use these types of articles for web hits?

looking at you, Dick Johnson.