DC Implosion II? or DC Yoops!

WetRats

Prospects look bad for DC's latest initiative. [Warning for the sensitive: This link is to a Bleeding Cool article!]

WetRats

Yes, I know the article is from the oft-sensational Bleeding Cool, but I couldn't resist starting a thread with this title.

bamfbamf

it's the new 52 and the new new 52 faults?
bring back the old universe!!!

WetRats

Comics Beat's much less-sensational article.

mwhitt80

Looks like we will never see the ending of twoPrez series.

electric_mayhem

Click bait article at its worst.. The title is the epitome the fear-mongering, "CLICK-HERE-NOW-FOR-FAKE-STORY-AND-NO-FACTS," "news-site"

I should have known better...

"reduced page rates" the article doesn't even have evidence to support that.. He makes it up.. Have a credible source before you just say whatever.. Arrgh..


I despise the way that site acts.. There should be a ban on attributing or linking or even visiting that site..

Leave your common sense and decency at the door, folks. Richard "dick" Johnston does.. Terrible writing and terrible editorial direction.

mwhitt80

And I thought I had a strong opinion on Rich.

Wetrats did warn us about the link E_M, so clicking it is on you.

Torchsong

Here's the thing, folks...

In the early days of comics, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel.

In the 1980s, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel.

With the New52, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel, they just didn't call theirs the New52.

Right now, DC putting out some shit books.

So is Marvel.

The difference is that now we have "comics journalism" giddily rubbing their hands together to have you believe all of this is something new that has never happened before.

Buy and read the books you like. Support them by CONTINUING to buy them. Don't let press releases and flashy articles on sites* tell you what you ought to be buying. Buy what you want!

*With the exception of the good, God-fearing, clean-living folk at www.comicspectrum.com. "Jesus doesn't care for comic-related journalism, but if he did, he'd read the Spectrum every day!" :)

hauberk

mwhitt80 said:

And I thought I had a strong opinion on Rich.

Wetrats did warn us about the link E_M, so clicking it is on you.

Yeah, but that came a post down the line. I need to learn to look at the link display in the bottom of the screen before I click. I have a fundamental issue about giving Dick any web traffic.

I will say that the new material has actually left me with less DC titles than I was reading of the New 52, which, in turn, was less than I was reading pre-Flashpoint. Still, that's more than I'm reading from Marvel.

bralinator

I'm not a fan of DC these days, haven't been since the Nu52, and even before that. I'm only ordering two books from DC in September, but I'm also only ordering around 5 books from Marvel and that's less than half the amount of titles I used to be in for every month. All the new #1 issues have merely presented me with an appropriate "jumping off" point. I will check out any well-reviewed titles in trades 6-7 months later. In the meantime I have plenty of reading to catch up on. I can keep up with news and spoilers here.

I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel also sees a bit of a drop-off after Secret Wars concludes, although I readily admit it won't be nearly the levels that DC is seeing.

CaptShazam

even if the article was 100% correct, the only surpising thing for me would be the reduced page rate item.
I pretty much expected the big 2 to shake things up at least every two years and sooner if numbers are lower than expected. There just is not enough cushion in the sales numbers to wait things out.

Matt

Torchsong said:

Here's the thing, folks...

In the early days of comics, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel.

In the 1980s, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel.

With the New52, DC put out some shit books.

So did Marvel, they just didn't call theirs the New52.

Right now, DC putting out some shit books.

So is Marvel.

Seems like both Marvel & DC should invest in actual ink for their presses.

M

nweathington

CaptShazam said:

even if the article was 100% correct, the only surpising thing for me would be the reduced page rate item.

This would not surprise me in the least. Page rates across the industry are lower now than they've been since the mid-’80s. DC’s average page rate is still over $150 (I think Marvel is right around $150), but there's a reason guys like Adam Hughes do more commission work than DC work.

electric_mayhem

mwhitt80 said:

And I thought I had a strong opinion on Rich.

Wetrats did warn us about the link E_M, so clicking it is on you.

Absolutely.

Just wish I hadn't fallen for it..

fredzilla

electric_mayhem said:

mwhitt80 said:

And I thought I had a strong opinion on Rich.

Wetrats did warn us about the link E_M, so clicking it is on you.

Absolutely.

Just wish I hadn't fallen for it..

WetRats

@electric_mayhem, do you consider Comics Beat to be clickbait, too?

I provided a link to their story as well, and most of BC's story was referencing (lifting) the CB article.

electric_mayhem

I read the CB article, and while I don't have the vitriol for that "newsite," I do find its lack of substantial evidence for what it suggests really a reminder of what "journalism" has become.. A PR aggregate website..

RepoMan

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

bralinator

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That's actually just more of the same:

Source: Bleeding Cool

According to a report from Bleeding Cool, DC Comics....

mwhitt80

Now the forums are just trolling you.

RepoMan

Or you could - you know - actually READ it and see how it takes the spotlight onto Marvel. Sheesh.

electric_mayhem

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That article is disproven by the fact that past performances do not prove future projections.. This is pure speculation as said by the second to last sentence in the article.

There should be "SPECULATION WARNINGS" like all "SPOILER WARNINGS" we see..


If myself, a high school educated construction worker on his coffee break can see this, why do editors and other higher educated people do not?

WetRats

electric_mayhem said:

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That article is disproven by the fact that past performances do not prove future projections.. This is pure speculation as said by the second to last sentence in the article.

There should be "SPECULATION WARNINGS" like all "SPOILER WARNINGS" we see..


If myself, a high school educated construction worker on his coffee break can see this, why do editors and other higher educated people do not?

Genuine editorship rarely exists in web-based reportage.

Let alone fact-checking.

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

Torchsong

WetRats said:

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

Which is a damn shame, because there *is* some really good stuff coming out right now. Mainly on the books where they seem to be willing to have some fun with the characters. Modok:Assassin, Ms. Marvel, Starfire...

nweathington

WetRats said:

electric_mayhem said:

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That article is disproven by the fact that past performances do not prove future projections.. This is pure speculation as said by the second to last sentence in the article.

There should be "SPECULATION WARNINGS" like all "SPOILER WARNINGS" we see..


If myself, a high school educated construction worker on his coffee break can see this, why do editors and other higher educated people do not?

Genuine editorship rarely exists in web-based reportage.

Let alone fact-checking.

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

I think it would be a lot simpler for sites like Bleeding Cool and Outhousers to have a warning that reads: “WARNING: This article contains only facts and named sources. There is no speculation contained within this article,” in those few cases where the warning would apply.

WetRats

Torchsong said:

WetRats said:

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

Which is a damn shame, because there *is* some really good stuff coming out right now. Mainly on the books where they seem to be willing to have some fun with the characters. Modok:Assassin, Ms. Marvel, Starfire...

I agree.

It seems like the publishers have very little clue as to what made these books great (clever writing and art) and just saw that "whacky books" were selling and sent down a mandate for "more whacky books!"

bralinator

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

electric_mayhem said:

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That article is disproven by the fact that past performances do not prove future projections.. This is pure speculation as said by the second to last sentence in the article.

There should be "SPECULATION WARNINGS" like all "SPOILER WARNINGS" we see..


If myself, a high school educated construction worker on his coffee break can see this, why do editors and other higher educated people do not?

Genuine editorship rarely exists in web-based reportage.

Let alone fact-checking.

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

I think it would be a lot simpler for sites like Bleeding Cool and Outhousers to have a warning that reads: “WARNING: This article contains only facts and named sources. There is no speculation contained within this article,” in those few cases where the warning would apply.

LOL

Or just have a substantiated-facts-only filter. I would totally use that.

electric_mayhem

WetRats said:

electric_mayhem said:

RepoMan said:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/news/132994-the-end-is-near-bleeding-cool-says-dc-comics-is-behind-projected-revenue-by-2-million.html

That article is disproven by the fact that past performances do not prove future projections.. This is pure speculation as said by the second to last sentence in the article.

There should be "SPECULATION WARNINGS" like all "SPOILER WARNINGS" we see..


If myself, a high school educated construction worker on his coffee break can see this, why do editors and other higher educated people do not?

Genuine editorship rarely exists in web-based reportage.

Let alone fact-checking.

That said, I think there's an actual, interesting story buried under the "clickbait". It seems that nobody--readers, vendors, creators or publishers--is happy and nobody seems to have much faith in anybody else's ideas.

Spot on...

SolitaireRose

When I look at the numbers, the thing that blows me away is that while DC's in 2nd place in comics (and dropping, Image will be #2 if trends hold within two years), their book trade has completely collapsed. Their backstock is nearly non-existent, they have slowed the Showcases to about 3 a year, and aside from a few half-hearted attempts at books that gather random stories from the past, the pre-New 52 is out of print.

And their trade sales are TERRIBLE.

The Vertigo line, which used to account for a good third of their backstock sales are nearly gone. Probably because they haven't had a real long-term trade seller since Fables, and it started over a decade ago.

WetRats

SolitaireRose said:

When I look at the numbers, the thing that blows me away is that while DC's in 2nd place in comics (and dropping, Image will be #2 if trends hold within two years), their book trade has completely collapsed. Their backstock is nearly non-existent, they have slowed the Showcases to about 3 a year, and aside from a few half-hearted attempts at books that gather random stories from the past, the pre-New 52 is out of print.

And their trade sales are TERRIBLE.

The Vertigo line, which used to account for a good third of their backstock sales are nearly gone. Probably because they haven't had a real long-term trade seller since Fables, and it started over a decade ago.

Why would anyone take an idea to Vertigo when they could go to Image instead?

nweathington

WetRats said:

SolitaireRose said:

When I look at the numbers, the thing that blows me away is that while DC's in 2nd place in comics (and dropping, Image will be #2 if trends hold within two years), their book trade has completely collapsed. Their backstock is nearly non-existent, they have slowed the Showcases to about 3 a year, and aside from a few half-hearted attempts at books that gather random stories from the past, the pre-New 52 is out of print.

And their trade sales are TERRIBLE.

The Vertigo line, which used to account for a good third of their backstock sales are nearly gone. Probably because they haven't had a real long-term trade seller since Fables, and it started over a decade ago.

Why would anyone take an idea to Vertigo when they could go to Image instead?

The only reason: A decent guaranteed page rate and not being on the hook for the printing costs if the book is a flop.

Okay, I guess that's two reasons.