Tom said: >And Rick, the fact is nobody at the Journal thinks you're sucking up to the Time Warner man. It's just that the same framework of logic could be used to indict you that you're using to indict Gary. I can give you a list of potential DC articles I'd like to see Splash do that they haven't done. The fact that you aren't in reality kissing TW butt is an argument that that kind of accusatory framework is unfair."

I'm quite aware that by becoming a reporter of comics news, while still plying my trade in the freelance pool, makes me a legitimate target for conflict-of-interest charges. As I said above "It goes with the territory". I will happily engage in a discussion, public or private, about this and look forward to any suggestions or leads for SPLASH stories you might have. Its a little frustrating when it gets brought up a straw man to deflect attention from some other issue (the CY-GOR/porn axis tends to spin out of control, I think). Personally, I'm surprised there hasn't been more reasoned critisism of my work on the SPLASH. Pat and Jack Venooker seem to be the only regular critics I've been blessed with;-)

Tom said: > Rick, how do you feel that the exclusives have specifically hurt you, separate from market realities and separate from past Diamond/Capital de facto policy?<

1)For starts, as you reported in TCJ, Diamond's year long lack of response to a major problem with a non-exclusive supplier (me) was ridiculous. Those guys called me 'paranoid' too, until they finally got off their asses and found out I was correct. I have been soliciting books to the Direct Market and Diamond since 1989 and had always found the Diamond people helpfull and quick to resolve any sort of problem. Until they attained monopoly status.
2)I don't like the idea that certain brokerage suppliers get to arrange their own discount structures while Diamond dictates mine.
3)The brokerage deals are not available to me (or anyone except maybe WIZARD meaning that the pecking order of Diamond suppliers essentially freezes in place).
4)I believe Diamond shares store by store sales information with brokerage suppliers. I can't get that. (I don't think this has made the news yet)
5)There is no amount of overpriced and innefective back of the catalog advertising space I could buy that competes with the huge wads of color the Exclusives get in the front every month (is this part of their deals? No one has reported, yet).
6)Diamond has put the kibosh on relisting and backlisting, which were always the small publishers' lifelines. I guess larger Indy's like Fantagraphics gets to backlist, and of course the Exclusives run vast catalogs of backlist stuff, but getting Diamond to do that for me is a once in a blue moon perk.
7)Diamond's corraling of the Exclusives has effectively made it extremely difficult if not impossible for new large scale distributors to emerge that could serve me better.
8)I'm told that at Diamond warehouses, non-exclusives take a back seat to getting the exclusives out to stores (although I'm not sure if that wasn't also the case in pre-exclusive days)
9) I'm fishing a little bit here, but I sense that the brokerage arrangements somehow keep the Exclusives publishing huge bloated lines of books that don't even break even. (This might be a good avenue for you to explore in your articles, although difficult since terms of these deals are state secrets). The dynamic that has my Spidey Sense tingling would be that certain important aspects of the brokerage agreements are based upon market share. This would force the Exclusive publishers to pump everything and anything that moves into the system and explain why so many titles that would have been cancelled in the old days remain on life support.


------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash


[This message has been edited by Rick Veitch (edited 01-30-2000).]

Rick:
"Can anyone out there add to this discussion? Are the figures we need to chew on this (sorry) posted on the net anywhere?"

I don't like to trust statistics... especially when they compare a year(1998) to a month (Jan 2000). Rick, go to the TCJ web-site and messageboard. In the Announcements section there is a thread started by Kim Thompson called "The Dry-Spell is finally over." Basically, every comic Fantagraphics publishes decided to ship in Jan of 2000... this is a hiccup, and not a permanent thing. Expect things to slow down next month and for God's sake, SPIT OUT THAT CROW!

bye,

Me [img]http://207.69.158.95/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Tadzio,

Becoming somewhat proficient in Samscript, I proffer the following interpretation of his last post:

"I trust only the opinions of those without opinions."

Give or take a couple of millenia, there will be a religion devoted to his aphorisms.

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 01-30-2000).]

And no doubt you will be the God of it, right Charles? You can't even decode your bull shit, much less mine!

Rick wasn't swallowing his crow....And if you haven't Mr. Administrator dont!


Sam

[This message has been edited by Samuel Catalino (edited 01-30-2000).]

RICK WRITES:
"Eric's original quote said: "For the calendar year 1997, with Marvel added back into the mix of publishers above, the "biggies" represented 77.95 percent of Diamond's comics market." I did a quick search on the net to see if any statistics were available and did find the numbers for 1997 posted on the icomics site. While the 77% unit sales market share for the exclusives is quoted, there is also a figure for "dollar" market share. I'm not sure how this factors in since Eric doesn't use it in his figures, but the icomics site puts the Exclusives' dollar share of the 1997 market at only 57%."

Hmm... I'm at home and don't have the mags with me (all the figures were from Diamond Dialogue), but I thought I grabbed figures for dollar share across the board, not unit. I don't think read too much into it, in and of itself, though.

RICK WRITES:
>> But the numbers ask more questions than they answer: the 2000 figures Eric quotes are for a single month in January rather than the full year totals for 1999 (and thus could be skewed by Indy hickups in the market).

Yes, I told you that I couldn't find yeard-end 1999 numbers. I posted as much as I could find I could find from a box of old distributor magazines in my office.

RICK WRITES:
>>More importantly (in my mind anyway) is that they don't jive with Eric's follow up figure:"That comics have dropped 15-20 percent over the last five years in terms of how much they represent for Diamond's overall product." My immediate suspicion would be that the 15-20% drop is an understatement and that comics volume sales have fallen much more dramatically.

It may be an understatement. It was a very rough estimate.

RICK:
>>"I say this because it appears to me that if all the above statements are correct, then Indy VOLUME sales would be skyrocketing, and I don't think anyone is saying that (or are they?)

I'm not sure how you infer this. Market share doesn't mean any thing, really, in terms of volume.

>>Is there an Indy cartoonist anywhere who is better off than he or she was in 1997?

Fair question. I'd guess several Fanta cartoonists are about where they were in 1997, but I can't speak for others.

>>What I need here is more info and better analysis before I take that big gulp of crow, but so far, Eric's reasoned arguments and reliance on statistics are beginning to sink in with me. Can anyone out there add to this discussion?

I can't. I honestly believe, though, that the numbers I cited are indicative of the overall market the last few years. I ain't trying ta jive you with skewed figures, honest.

>>Eric, can you explain how Fantagraphics rising market share fits in with dollar share and volume since the dawn of exclusivity?

Market share's a fool's game. It doesn't mean anything. Ask Marvel, who went bankrupt chasing it. Our dollar and unit market share through Diamond has probably increased over the last seven years, but it doesn't mean a thing in terms of money or volume.

>> ... so I'm going to direct you to do a search of the various threads with 'malaise' in the title here.

Fair enough. As for Gary not responding to your challenge, I just hope you won't criticize me for turning my cheek from corporate hegemony if I get too busy at work this week and can't contribute much more to this discussion...

>> I do thank you for being levelheaded and courteous (even if you do lapse into Groth-speak once in a a while;-) about all this though. Gary tends to create an unfortunate public image of Fantagraphics as peopled with homicidal fiends.

What was that about Groth-speak, m'boy? People who think that have never seen the professional massage therapist Gary keeps on hand for all his staffers, paid for with money saved by wheedling promotional perks out of Diamond. Bwah!

Cheers,

Eric

Oh, and Tom, I wish you and your new/ex girlfriend luck, too.

Eric,
Sorry if my post left you with the impression I thought you were "trying to jive me with skewed numbers". Not so! Just applying honest scepticism to statistics, which I'm sure you agree is the only way to draw worthwhile conclusions from such things. Of course I don't want to actually swallow that disgusting crow, either! But in looking closely at the smidgen of data we have before us, and asking for more and better numbers, I'm thinking of you too. IF I swallowed that bird and the statistics turned out to be bogus or misinterpreted, then it would be "finger in the throat time" and you'd be faced with a hot meal;-)

Eric quotes me "I say this because it appears to me that if all the above statements are correct, then Indy VOLUME sales would be skyrocketing, and I don't think anyone is saying that (or are they?)" and then replies: " I'm not sure how you infer this. Market share doesn't mean any thing, really, in terms of volume."

My reasoning is that if indy Unit Share has risen 13% and the total comics market has only dropped 15-20% then Indy's must be seeing higher volumes to reflect that kind of growth since the numbers seem to reflect rather meager changes in superhero sales. The reality is that top of the heap titles like X-man and Spawn have dropped to the 100,000 range and lower which is down a lot more than 15-20% from just a couple years ago. If the total superhero comics market shrinkage is much larger than 15-20% then Indy's could grow in market share while still dropping in volume.

Eric said: " I grabbed figures for dollar share across the board, not unit."

Then we have a discrepency because you quote 1997 numbers at 77%. The icomics site says that 77% is *market share* and lists 57% as *dollar share*. If your other figures for 1998 (77.63) and January 2000 (64.58) do indeed represent dollar share, then that would reinforce MY original argument that the Exclusives situation has been bad for indy's i.e. that Exclusives dollar share has risen 7% at Indy expense. (Rick surrepticiously slides plate actoss table).

Eric says: "Market share's a fool's game. It doesn't mean anything."

Great. Since we are all terribly busy and don't have time for fool's games, lets have some real figures then. Anybody got dollar share and volume numbers?

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash

Hey Rick -

Real quickly here, as I've had a busy day. The following figures were reported in 1/98 issue of Diamond Dialogue:

1997 YEAR-END TOP COMICS AND MAGAZINES PUBLISHER DOLLAR MARKET SHARES:

Marvel - 26.38
DC - 23.98
Image - 14.04
Dark Horse - 5.70
Wizard - 3.30
Acclaim - 1.58
---------------
Total: 74.98

If you add crap publishers like Awesome and Topps, the total rises to 78.31 percent. So, I'm not sure where that website you quoted is getting their figures.
FYI, the 74.98 figure translates to 81.97 in the UNIT MARKET SHARE pie charts. The difference is purely a reflection of the fact that the mainstream floods the market with comics that have a lower cover-price than indy titles, on average.

- E.

More contradictory figures! So if I understand this, your original figure for 1997,("For the calendar year 1997, with Marvel added back into the mix of publishers above, the "biggies" represented 77.95 percent of Diamond's comics market") is no longer operative.

Your new figure for that year is:
"1997 YEAR-END TOP COMICS AND MAGAZINES PUBLISHER DOLLAR MARKET SHARES: Marvel - 26.38
DC - 23.98 Image - 14.04 Dark Horse - 5.70
Wizard - 3.30 Acclaim - 1.58 Total: 74.98"

The icomics site http://www.icomics.com/011998_1997_market_report.htm reports a different set of figures. I misinterpreted those when I claimed 57% dollar share of the comics market. The 57% number is dollar share of the total market. Sorry! (plate slides back towards Rick's side of table) icomics puts the dollar shares of the comics market at DC: 25.78 Marvel 24.81 Image 14.58 Dark Horse 6.50 Wizard 3.21 and Acclaim 1.53 which totals out at 76.41% which is closer to your original figure. (although are we just talking the current comics exclusives, not adding Wizard and Acclaim?)

The icomics site also points out that "IMPORTANT NOTE: DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse and Acclaim only have sales through Diamond
whereas other publishers such as Caliber and Antarctic have sales outside of Diamond as well. For independent companies such as Caliber, comics sold through Diamond account for approximately 60-80% of their sales." I'm not sure of the actual date of when Diamond bought Capital, but perhaps the 1977 numbers are affected by this?

At the least, I think we still need better numbers and analysis if we are going to nail this. Wasn't there someone who worked at Antarctic who maintained a Direct Sales Market tracking web site? It doesn't come up when I do a search. Anyone remember it?

------------------
Rick Veitch
Invites You To Read THE DAILY RARE BIT FIENDS
updated every day along with news of the world's most popular artform!
THE COMICON.COM DAILY SPLASHis always refreshing!
www.comicon.com/splash


[This message has been edited by Rick Veitch (edited 02-01-2000).]

That would be Matt High, now with Coldcut dist. who no longer does this service, but maybe he can still access these figs.