|
|
Post by defiant1 on Aug 8, 2012 21:00:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by G on Aug 9, 2012 1:07:23 GMT -5
What's interesting to that is what the criteria is to be considered making money. Even levels to break even or have "beer money" seem very low in todays terms but obviously so hard to achieve. You mean to tell me you're actually doing half way decent if you sell 5,000 copies? And if you're busting 10,000 you're basically making some real money? The sad part is, all these numbers would be considered cancellation numbers back in our day. Heck, the best one on the list "Walking Dead" would only be considered as treading water at over 50,000 copies sold and looking for ways to improve or be nearing a number for cancellation. I don't remember what the exact number was, but I seem to recall a long time ago that anything under 40,000 was disappointing and below 30,000 was nearing cancellation numbers. Today those numbers would be a runaway success. It's funny, I keep hearing and seeing that comics are enjoying a slight resurgence in numbers but I guess I don't see it. I see Valiant running on hype at the moment, some of it looks warranted and some of it doesn't. I give them props for at least attempting to give an old-school feel to their comics in certain aspects. But I think they're modern way of thinking like the rest of the sheep herders will doom them eventually. In fact, I don't feel the same level of enthusiasm for Valiant today as I did even a month ago. Hmmm... Other than Valiant having a semi-successful launch, I don't know who else is making numbers look better. In any event. Its said to think a bonafide failure years ago would be a runaway train of success today. |
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Aug 9, 2012 13:54:57 GMT -5
What's interesting to that is what the criteria is to be considered making money. Even levels to break even or have "beer money" seem very low in todays terms but obviously so hard to achieve. You mean to tell me you're actually doing half way decent if you sell 5,000 copies? And if you're busting 10,000 you're basically making some real money? The sad part is, all these numbers would be considered cancellation numbers back in our day. Heck, the best one on the list "Walking Dead" would only be considered as treading water at over 50,000 copies sold and looking for ways to improve or be nearing a number for cancellation. I don't remember what the exact number was, but I seem to recall a long time ago that anything under 40,000 was disappointing and below 30,000 was nearing cancellation numbers. Today those numbers would be a runaway success. It's funny, I keep hearing and seeing that comics are enjoying a slight resurgence in numbers but I guess I don't see it. I see Valiant running on hype at the moment, some of it looks warranted and some of it doesn't. I give them props for at least attempting to give an old-school feel to their comics in certain aspects. But I think they're modern way of thinking like the rest of the sheep herders will doom them eventually. In fact, I don't feel the same level of enthusiasm for Valiant today as I did even a month ago. Hmmm... Other than Valiant having a semi-successful launch, I don't know who else is making numbers look better. In any event. Its said to think a bonafide failure years ago would be a runaway train of success today. Beer money with that much work is the same as losing money to me. Breaking even is losing money. The article is based on a creator's perspective, but it doesn't factor advertising which can cost as much as the book itself. The companies like Marvel, DC, Dark Horse and even VEI have overhead. They have a staff of employees to facilitate the production of comics. That staff has costs associated with them. They have real estate expenses for the office space, lighting, building maintenance. Once you start adding in the overhead, the big companies DO have to sell quite a bit more than 10,000 to break even. Kirkman made the right move for him. Will it last? Time will tell. df1 |
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Oct 21, 2012 21:58:32 GMT -5
Devil's Due is back, but they aren't trying to be a publisher.
|
|
|
|
Post by G on Oct 23, 2012 3:54:15 GMT -5
Devil's Due is back, but they aren't trying to be a publisher. I watched both parts of this and it's hard to have a feeling about where they stand. I feel divided both pro and con for them. I haven't read there how to self publish comics. Seems like a noble cause. I would be interested in that. I also feel like and I'm not sure of the details but I also feel like they became a victim of the Diamond distribution system. Not being big enough to meet their demands to be profitable. And I hear them boldly and perhaps correctly predicting the future of publishing and admitting to learning things over the years. The one thing I don't really hear is them taking any blame for their own demise and almost act like they are a victim in a foul market and it's all just unfair. I don't hear them accepting any.responsibility for their role. And I guess that is where I fall just a bit short of saying way to go with their current efforts. This video makes them look like a rag tag effort on a last ditch pitch to be relevant. I wish them well and I find some great truths in what they said. They just seem like they are not going to amount to much even with this revamped focus. |
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Oct 23, 2012 5:00:13 GMT -5
Devil's Due is back, but they aren't trying to be a publisher. I watched both parts of this and it's hard to have a feeling about where they stand. I feel divided both pro and con for them. I haven't read there how to self publish comics. Seems like a noble cause. I would be interested in that. I also feel like and I'm not sure of the details but I also feel like they became a victim of the Diamond distribution system. Not being big enough to meet their demands to be profitable. And I hear them boldly and perhaps correctly predicting the future of publishing and admitting to learning things over the years. The one thing I don't really hear is them taking any blame for their own demise and almost act like they are a victim in a foul market and it's all just unfair. I don't hear them accepting any.responsibility for their role. And I guess that is where I fall just a bit short of saying way to go with their current efforts. This video makes them look like a rag tag effort on a last ditch pitch to be relevant. I wish them well and I find some great truths in what they said. They just seem like they are not going to amount to much even with this revamped focus. Business owners that fail once and then rebuild have a higher success ratio because they learn from their first mistakes. I don't think they'll make it because the lesson they learned is that there is no money in publishing. I think they see themselves as broker of talent now. Unlikely that'll pan out. Too much competition in that arena. df1 |
|
