Comix Economix

Here's a question for everyone...maybe Douglas knows, or can point me to the answer...are the lowest-selling Marvel/DC titles profitable, or are they unprofitable risks that they hope will take off, or are they loss-leaders that the Big Two feel they have to publish to provide heft to the publishing line? (Like, it takes x number of titles to maintain a coherent DC or Marvel Universe narrative, and maintaining that narrative is worth a little net loss...?)

Is the profit-loss situation of each title considered discretely, or is there a core of books that is considered to be making the companywide labor-infrastructure-production nut, freeing other titles to be less profitable than others without having to face the cancellation axe?

From what I heard, at least Marvel is more concerned about the profitability for individual titles than DC, since comic books are their primary business (though this has changed a bit recently with Marvel Studios). DC's a little more lax about letting titles go for a while or doing more 'prestige' books or alternate lines like Vertigo, since it's all write-off losses and IP fodder for Warner Bros. (I mean who'd have thought a Constantine movie would be made, and be very profitable?)

I don't know exactly how the economics of comics publishing work, but I suspect there are certain titles whose monthly publication cost is considered a way of amortizing the cost of trade collections that are profitable in the longer term. I know a lot of licensed titles are short-term money-losers, in particular, but every so often you get something like "Gears of War" that sells massive numbers of copies; I believe a lot of Vertigo titles are profitable in trade collections but not as monthlies. There's also kind of an ongoing jockeying for market share, for which even unprofitable titles will nudge the meter a bit in the appropriate direction.

I think there are also some titles that stick around just because they do something nothing else does--this has been explained as the reason why Jonah Hex, for instance, is still running.

Making the companywide nut = Watchmen.

Interesting stuff, thanks you guys. I'd love to know more about how these things work...like if the Marvel/DC publishing arms see ongoing returns on their balance sheets from their film production companies, or if they got one-time payments, or if they get $0, a pat on the back and "thanks for developing these properties, we'll take it from here."

Jonah Hex is probably a good example - ages-old DC property, I don't think the sales are good at all (correct me if I'm wrong), but now it's a film in the works starring Josh Brolin due for release in August '10 - enough reason there to keep the series alive, not to mention the general critical acclaim the series gets.

Hmm, from Marc-Oliver Frisch's sales report at The Beat:

136 - JONAH HEX
01/2006: Jonah Hex #3 — 24,671
01/2007: Jonah Hex #15 — 17,987
——————————–
01/2008: Jonah Hex #27 — 13,881 (- 1.5%)
02/2008: Jonah Hex #28 — 13,614 (- 1.9%)
03/2008: Jonah Hex #29 — 13,439 (- 1.3%)
04/2008: Jonah Hex #30 — 13,253 (- 1.4%)
05/2008: Jonah Hex #31 — 13,140 (- 0.9%)
06/2008: Jonah Hex #32 — 12,969 (- 1.3%)
07/2008: Jonah Hex #33 — 14,281 (+10.1%)
08/2008: Jonah Hex #34 — 12,969 (- 9.2%)
09/2008: Jonah Hex #35 — 13,231 (+ 2.0%)
10/2008: Jonah Hex #36 — 12,629 (- 4.6%)
11/2008: Jonah Hex #37 — 12,537 (- 0.7%)
12/2008: Jonah Hex #38 — 12,132 (- 3.2%)
01/2009: Jonah Hex #39 — 11,705 (- 3.5%)
—————-
6 months: -18.0%
1 year : -15.7%
2 years : -34.9%

According to DC Comics editor Dan DiDio, the company keeps Jonah Hex around despite its lackluster sales because it’s off the beaten path for the publisher.

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2009/03/06/dc-comics-month-to-month-sales-january-2009

Hadn't heard about the Brolin film version.

Making the companywide nut = Watchmen.

Been thinking about this through dinner and would post it on the "Truth Bombs" thread, but nobody would get it without the context.

I read someplace that Jonah Hex is sells pretty well in Europe. It may have been an interview with Jimmy Palmiotti or article about Jordi Bernet doing artwork on the series.

One of the things that blows my mind coming back into comics a few years ago was the sheer volume of comics that Marvel and DC are publishing, especially considering how low the total print runs are these days. They easily do twice the amount of titles than they did say at a similar point 20 years ago.

what this DOESN'T explain is why things like Peter Bagge's 'Yeah' or ambush bug or a gazillion Steve Gerber books get canceled... but maybe those guys don't really have more than eight to ten issues in them?

p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s

plus, Ambush Bug has never had an ongoing, FWIW, just minis.
The most ridiculous thing I can think of is the excuse given for Nextwave's cancellation, that they couldn't justify two highly paid creators on one lowish-selling title. Neither Ellis nor Immomen wanted to go without the other...

I don't follow - what was ridiculous about that justification (two highly paid creators, low sales) or the excuse (Ellis didn't want to keep doing the series without Immonen or vice versa)?

Do Marvel and DC really harsh on cost-effectiveness on a title-by-title basis? Why not just charge an extra dollar per issue for premium writer/artists?
I see the massive amount of total shit, zero-selling stuff that comes out (like the spate of Teen Titans spinoffs or Reign in Hell or that shitballs Lapham-written Spidey book), and I have a hard time swallowing a claim that Marvel and DC can't eat it for a while for a series with obvious trade value.