Marvel dominated by short term gain mentality?

[Frank]

After the shout out in the last podcast, I was thinking about the now pulled thread of the Marvel conference call for investors.

More than once in the presentation the speaker said that the actors in the movies were familar with the stories because they had 'read the book as a kid'. It seemed very clear that he believed that one of the reasons that he thought the movies were successful was that they already had a fan base from the books... (It logically follows that the movie fan base can only help the books also).

So it seems short sighted to increase the price of the books, knowing that it will decrease sales volume for the sake of some short term profits. I would think that Marvel would like sales of the books to feed the movies. It seems extremely logical to me that in the long term that Marvel would be interested in increasing its fanbase.

I don't know what the young readers price point is, (I started reading comics at 7) but I suspect it is lower than $4. I would also be worried about the local comic book stores prosperity since he stated that the non-returnable portion of the books sales was 70% (which would be the Diamond distribution to them). Selling books on a non-returnable basis has to be more profitable for Marvel.

I also read the forums and listen to podcasts... There are a number of people out there that are complaining about the $4 price point. I personally have purchase none of them. When I took economics classes the theory was that when you made purchases you voted with your dollars. Well I am not voting for a price increase with my dollars...

[HipHopHead]

As a Marvel Investor (very small investment), I see Marvel's successful future in mediums other than comic books. Marvel sees the handwriting on the wall and needs to break into movies, televsion and internet (the long shot). DC already has Warner Brothers (even their crap movies see a profit...I think ) to instantly convert a comic to a movie

I don't think Marvel's "Movie" heads see the value of the monthly comic reader. There is more value in a mediocre Wolverine Movie, than 100,000 sell through of a $3.99 comicbook. True our numbers are dwindling, but this due to cost, not interest. How can we spread the gospel of comics with $3.99 cover price. Take a look at the Direct to DVD sales, once again far more profitable than monthly comic books.

I will pay $3.50 to $3.99 for small publisher or independent comic I think I will enjoy reading. These companies can justify the increase, Marvel & DC cannot. Without the comicbook, WE supported, the movies that generate millions of dollars would not be available.

[JohnMayo]

What I found particularly ironic was that the actors knew about the properties because they read the comics as kids but that kids today only seem to know about the characters because of the films. It seems that they are basically admitting that comics aren't selling to kids (either because of cost or lack of easy availability outside of comic shops). There seems to be a bit of the tail wagging the dog going on these days compared to how it used to be.

[spid]

I actually think Marvel has taken a long term strategy. They have changed their toy line to allow them sell to a more kid friendly audience. Their animation offerings have been a mix of appealing to the mature audience and the kid audience. They are doing really well with on the gaming side. Marvel on the digital comics side has provide a method where younger readers could consume a lot more stories than they could ever get if the comics were 2.99.

[Skyhawke]

What I found particularly ironic was that the actors knew about the properties because they read the comics as kids but that kids today only seem to know about the characters because of the films. It seems that they are basically admitting that comics aren't selling to kids (either because of cost or lack of easy availability outside of comic shops). There seems to be a bit of the tail wagging the dog going on these days compared to how it used to be.

That thought occurred to me as well John.

I seem to recall that some stock holder meeting in the past it was admitted that the actual comic book side to Marvel's business is the least profitable. They make more money just by licensing the IP for toys, movies and other merchandise. It would seem the comic books for Marvel are almost getting to be nothing more than story board ideas for movies and cartoon movies and television series.

I have speculated that Marvel keeps pushing for higher prices on their books because they need to prove to shareholders that part of the business can turn a profit as well.

[HipHopHead]

I seem to recall that some stock holder meeting in the past it was admitted that the actual comic book side to Marvel's business is the least profitable. They make more money just by licensing the IP for toys, movies and other merchandise. It would seem the comic books for Marvel are almost getting to be nothing more than story board ideas for movies and cartoon movies and television series.

I have speculated that Marvel keeps pushing for higher prices on their books because they need to prove to shareholders that part of the business can turn a profit as well.

This is the problem. It is not that publishing comics is not "profitable" but not as "profitable" as other aspects of the company. On one side we can argue with the comicbook, there would be no movies, televsion shows or other properties. On the other side, is the question has the comicbook become a "weed" in the flower bed.

Most of us have an imagination. Where we can take a two-dimensional piece of art and make it move. Children today need someone to move the art for them. Ever try to get a child to read the Sunday Comics?

Let's take a look at DC's upcoming Blackest Night. I am willing to bet the Green Lantern DVD will be far more profitable than the entire Blackest Night run (including tie-ins)

[Frank]

Or is there a place for the books... It seems to me that if the books are still profitable and people can argue that they contribute to the fanbase which supports the entire business, it seems crazy not to support them.

Comic books are a way to tell stories.... that can be replaced by video or on-line content (subscription based or digital comics to a kindle reading device... or some other way)... I don't think trying to transfer comics to a 2 inch IPOD screen will be that successful...

But comics are also a collectable, that portion of the business is dependent upon a physical book... I would think that is harder to migrate to another form. I don't know but somehow I just don't think that a digital version of Action #1 would be as collectable as the original book.

[BobBretall]

But comics are also a collectible, that portion of the business is dependent upon a physical book... I would think that is harder to migrate to another form. I don't know but somehow I just don't think that a digital version of Action #1 would be as collectible as the original book.

A good point, and really does the differentiation (in some ways) between people who buy monthly books and those willing to "wait for the trade".

Readers (nothing wrong with them) just want a story to read. Usually for the cheapest price possible. So, getting a trade or (ultimately) an on-line version could very well be a good option for them.

Collectors (who can double as readers) want to collect a set of physical items in addition to being able to read/enjoy the story & art. I freely admit I am a collector/reader, and I have ZERO desire to get my comics on-line. Even today, I rarely browse web-comics, and ones I do enjoy (like PVP) I would much rather have a physical comic of. If physical comics went away and they were just on-line? I would shift to mostly buying back issues and filling in gaps in my collection. There are maybe a handful of comics I would continue to follow and most of them would be non-super-hero, and non-Marvel/DC.