This doesn't affect the ratios involved, and it's aside from the main point, but keep always in mind when bandying numbers about that publishers actually only see about 40% of cover price.

I'm not sure your analysis of how fans get hooked is necessarily accurate.
The Superman TV show was all there was when I was a kid as far as media exposure that I was aware of, and I always considered it a pale inferior version of the character.
And there weren't such things as action figures.
It was old comics--the looming presence in dusty piles of many more superheroes having existed in the past than were present in the late '50s--that made me get interested in pursuing the interest.

Just to wipe the inflation stuff out, a 2001 dollar (no data for 02 yet) is worth about $0.43 of a 1980 dollar.

So the 1980 Batman book, at $.50 and 275000 copies is gross revenue at retail of $137,500. Assume an 80% return rate (one of Mr. Hanley's posts) that gives us net revenue at retail of $27,500. From Mr. Friel's post, 40% of that would go to the publisher or $11,000.

The 2002 Batman book at $2.25 and 51000 gives us gross revenue of $114,750, all 51,000 units are direct market so gross = net, net = 114,750. Deflate this to 1980 dollars and you end up around $49,000. 40% to DC gives DC revenue of about $20,000.

So DC is actually getting nearly twice as much revenue on an issue of Batman (when adjusted for inflation) as they did in 1980.

The variable costs today are about 20% what they were in 1980 (fewer issues produced) but the creative costs are significantly higher. Provided the reduction in variable costs is not fully offset by the increase in creative and overhead, then a given issue of Batman is more profitable for DC today than it was in 1980.

The 275,000 figure is presumably the Paid Ciruclation figure, not the print run. If we accept the 80% return rate (which is just a rough number, admittedly), that would put the print run at over a million copies.

Good analysis. One question, though : How can gross equal net in 2002? Don't you have to take out cuts for Diamond and the individual retailer?
Wouldn't that reduce DC's share? (Even then, it might be more of what they received in 1980, but the gap wouldn't be as extreme as you indicated.)

As for how I got hooked : Clearly, there are other stories, but by the mid-70s there was more of a competing influence from TV than there were in the days of the early Superman show. Comics reinforced TV. Whether or not they still do - and to what extent - is open to debate.

I just wanted to thank the folks who responded to this thread. I'm still not totally sold on the idea of the comic industry being "healthier", but it's kind of reassuring to see the numbers broken down to where it's not as bad as I might have believed.

Nat -

Thanks for the correction. That makes a big change to the numbers.

The 275 number is already net units (or close to it then. Then the net revenue at retail is $137,500 and the revenue to DC is 40% of that is $55,000.

So $55,000 for the 1980 Batman vs. $20,000 (adjusted for inflation) on the 2002 Batman.

If we accept the 80% return rate though, we get close to a print run of 1.4 million units vs something in the mid 50's for the 2002 book. So variable costs would be something like 25 times as high for 1980 for only 5 times the revenue.

Gentleartist -

My gross and net are sales values at retail, gross is sales before returns, net is sales after returns. The final 40% cut is what's left for DC after the retailer and Diamond and is the same (perhaps erroneously) in both cases.

To get a better feel for the gross margin, we'd need to estimate what creative costs were in each era, as well as an estimated unit cost. The analysis also ignores any advertising revenue (the higher circulation would seem to mean higher ad revenue in 1980, but the nature of the advertisers, Nintendo vs. Count Dante, might put more dollars on the table for the 2002 scenario).

Of course the break even average cost per unit for the 1980 scenario is $0.04 (55,000/1375000) and is $0.39 (20000/51000) for the 2002 scenario.

Lot more room to make money in the 2002 world than there is in the 1980 world.

It would be cool to have this data for each of the last 22 years. I've had a theory that the industry moved at some point, from an elastic portion of its demand curve to an inelastic portion but no way to prove it.

Marvel has barely avoided complete collapse.
DC is allegedly hiding losses.
Print runs are at an all-time low.
Prices are at an all-time high.
Job opportunities are at their worst since 1960.
Outlets have dropped to under 2000 ...and one distributor to rule them all.
Plus, fans are typically more interested in discussing the business of comics than the content of comics.


Yup, this industry sure is "healthy...."

If we accept everything that is ever alleged, then we must face the fact that DC and Marvel have merged 20 times over the past 30 years.
Has this ever not been true? Well, technically I suppose so, given that Marvel raised their prices (and increased the size of their comics) during Nixon's price freeze, only to be required to restore their old prices -- but besides that, I can't recall any period of significant price lowering in comics history.
This I sincerely doubt. There are far more titles being produced now than for most of the period since 1960.
Only if the direct market is the only comics market -- which it isn't. There are companies doing a lot of business in bookstores.

Dean:

For someone whose favorite put-down of comics retailers is that they spent high school complaining loudly that they would never need algebra, it's always fun to see someone who shows all his work.

Your examination of what numbers we have is a help for me, as I am usually too lazy to calculate everything (English Major). You are right that there are numerous variables that could make both scenarios' results very different.

As has been intimated the numbers published in Statements of Ownership are (and always have been) suspect. They are required by postal regulations, but probably get little inspection from postal authorities. As far back as the early '70s, fans have been warned to take the numbers there with a huge grain of salt. That said, one can assume that Batman was, indeed, selling a significantly larger number of copies in 1981. And that it was probably less profitable to do so.

I would be interested to have you expand on your notes about the demand curve. Some of us, while not algebraically-challeneged, don't have strong statitics backgrounds.

"
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fumetti:
DC is allegedly hiding losses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we accept everything that is ever alleged, then we must face the fact that DC and Marvel have merged 20 times over the past 30 years.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prices are at an all-time high.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has this ever not been true? Well, technically I suppose so, given that Marvel raised their prices (and increased the size of their comics) during Nixon's price freeze, only to be required to restore their old prices -- but besides that, I can't recall any period of significant price lowering in comics history.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job opportunities are at their worst since 1960.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This I sincerely doubt. There are far more titles being produced now than for most of the period since 1960.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlets have dropped to under 2000 ...and one distributor to rule them all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if the direct market is the only comics market -- which it isn't. There are companies doing a lot of business in bookstores.

--------------------"


Nat: Your nature is becoming very clear to me. You're a compulsive naysayer. No matter WHAT somebody says, you'll disagree regardless of how dumb a statement you have to make!

The "alleged" hiding of DC's losses comes from an interview in Comic Book Artist magazine. Your retarded "merger" nonsense comes straight from your ass.

In 1971 or '72, Marvel raised their prices from 15¢ to 25¢ for ONE MONTH ONLY (issues which also were double-sized that one month only), before permanently raising their prices to 20¢ (not their former price as you erroneously claim). And that was Marvel's plan all along, they weren't "required" (by whom, BTW?) to do anything.

You think every title generates enough money to pay its talent? Where have YOU been? I said "job opportunities" not "work-for-free" opportunities. Funny how everybody ELSE in this industry knows that paying jobs are currently at a premium but YOU!

And you're dumber than dogshit if you think there are more comic outlets today than in the past 30 years! "Outlets" includes comic shops AND comic stands! This is another fact known by everybody ELSE in this industry but you!