Comments on: http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/ The News Blog of Comics Culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:33:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v= hourly 1 By: Torsten Adair http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23074 Torsten Adair Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:27:14 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23074 The New York Times questions various retailers and then tabulates their bestseller list. What do the retailers report? How many copies did they order, how many sold, how many returned, how many bagged and boarded? oh, and this is the end of the first quarter of the book. Is there a plot point which twists the story, like in the 52, vol. 1 TP? how do the sales compare to 52 sales? The New York Times questions various retailers and then tabulates their bestseller list.
What do the retailers report? How many copies did they order, how many sold, how many returned, how many bagged and boarded?
oh, and this is the end of the first quarter of the book. Is there a plot point which twists the story, like in the 52, vol. 1 TP? how do the sales compare to 52 sales?

]]> By: Paul O'Brien http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23073 Paul O'Brien Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:09:37 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23073 It's worth noting that McCann must presumably mean books that were originally solicited on a returnable basis, as opposed to books that become returnable because they don't match the solicitation when they ship. For this theory to account for COUNTDOWN's sales jump, Diamond's deduction would have to be over 20% (and that's on the assumption that zero copies were returned). We're clearly not seeing any other books leap around the charts like that simply because of a last-minute artist change. In fact, this is a phenomenon which seems to be confined to COUNTDOWN and 52. Now, if this is the correct explanation, it's absolutely ridiculous that Diamond is messing about with the figures to that extent without making that clear anywhere on a chart that they describe as "actual sales." It's also somewhat remarkable, if this is the explanation, that nobody from DC has thought fit to make the point themselves. Nonetheless, these charts are still the best data we have available as to the North American direct market, and they're still useful so long as you accept their inherent limitations. It may well be true that the real figures would show many series in a better light, and I'm sure that meaningful data about trade paperbacks, newsstands and UK sales would make a huge difference to some titles. But this is the information that the industry chooses to release, and it's not so badly flawed as to disqualify it from use. If the industry is aggrieved by the fact that the public make use of the data that they choose to put in the public domain, the remedy is in their hands: publish a better chart. Or don't publish one at all. It’s worth noting that McCann must presumably mean books that were originally solicited on a returnable basis, as opposed to books that become returnable because they don’t match the solicitation when they ship. For this theory to account for COUNTDOWN’s sales jump, Diamond’s deduction would have to be over 20% (and that’s on the assumption that zero copies were returned). We’re clearly not seeing any other books leap around the charts like that simply because of a last-minute artist change. In fact, this is a phenomenon which seems to be confined to COUNTDOWN and 52.

Now, if this is the correct explanation, it’s absolutely ridiculous that Diamond is messing about with the figures to that extent without making that clear anywhere on a chart that they describe as “actual sales.” It’s also somewhat remarkable, if this is the explanation, that nobody from DC has thought fit to make the point themselves.

Nonetheless, these charts are still the best data we have available as to the North American direct market, and they’re still useful so long as you accept their inherent limitations. It may well be true that the real figures would show many series in a better light, and I’m sure that meaningful data about trade paperbacks, newsstands and UK sales would make a huge difference to some titles. But this is the information that the industry chooses to release, and it’s not so badly flawed as to disqualify it from use.

If the industry is aggrieved by the fact that the public make use of the data that they choose to put in the public domain, the remedy is in their hands: publish a better chart. Or don’t publish one at all.

]]> By: Rick Rottman http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23072 Rick Rottman Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:46:11 +0000 http://www.comicsbeat.com/2007/09/19/countdowns-secret/#comment-23072 One more reason why these numbers are totally useless. If someone wants to pour over stats, they need to start following baseball. It's got lots and lots of stats. One more reason why these numbers are totally useless. If someone wants to pour over stats, they need to start following baseball. It’s got lots and lots of stats.

]]>