gevdarg

Name: Gevian Dargan

Bio:


Reviews
gevdarg's Recent Comments
December 15, 2012 2:19 am Print is not some archaic, complicated process. Image just doesn't want to incur the risk that comes with having the faith in your product to overprint to match the demand of a "known over-performer." They don't want to overprint, so they wanted to shame and guilt the retailers into over-ordering. Period. But you are right, selling print and digital at the same time doesn't make sense, so they need to dump digital until consumer preferences change. Because when digital is doing an estimated 10% of print sales at what will be 75% less revenue in the future (that magical 99 cents price point), everything about their business is going to get a whole lot more complicated.
December 15, 2012 2:14 am Maybe for the laymen there are a lot of factors to guess at, but for the rest of us, we know that Image wants retailers to have more "belief" in their product than they do because Image will get every dime of revenue for what they sell into the market. The same can't be said for retailers. Retailers shoulder all the risk. That's how the direct maket works, which is why publishers abandoned the newsstand market for it. If Image wants to get all the missed sales opportunities that they imagine exist for "known over-performers" like Saga, then they need to "believe" their own hype and do larger initial print runs. Other than that, they should accept the fact that retailers are going to order what they think they can sell until it is proven otherwise...and they are supremely wise to do so when they ultimately bear the risk.
December 15, 2012 2:09 am Believe me, when consumer preferences change to digital, publishers will yearn for the days of the floppies. Because you ain't making a whole lot of $$$ at 35 cents a sale. That's 75% less revenue than you would have gotten for a floppy while working with distribution costs of 65%, that's 5% more than print distribution costs, despite much, much lower overhead. Digital is a pipe dream.
December 15, 2012 2:05 am How is it that you think the retailer is the one who determines the cover price? Last time I checked it was the publisher who determines the cover price. I find it funny that throughout this entire discussion about Image deciding not to do second printings that it is retailers who are being made out to be the devil. Whatever you may think of the business side of comics, it is retailers who determine the nature and the economics of the industry, it is the publishers. Shovel some of this venom over their way.
December 15, 2012 2:01 am According to Image, they lose out if reprints no longer happen. As a matter of fact, they must lose out more, given the tone of Ms. Guzman's press release. I still find her innovative "Field of Dreams" marketing tactic of "If you order it, they will come" to be worthy of the most condescending, self-serving tripe of the year award.
December 15, 2012 1:59 am BTW, the retailer has not chosen to pass o the responsibilty of inventory mgmt to anyone. It's the reverse. The publishers and distributors have chosen to pass on the responsibility of inventory mgmt to the retailer because the direct market is nonreturnable, which is most favorable to the publisher. I think that's the point everyone, except the retailers, have been missing. And it's a point that the people of Image seem to be blissfully and woefully ignorant of.
December 15, 2012 1:55 am Gee, they're doing a second printing on the TPB. I wonder if bookstores got this verbal lashing? I highly doubt it. Image needs to put its money where it's mouth is and up their intital print runs. Show the same faith in their books that they demand of retailers.