Bringing Back a Married Spider-Man - The Official Appeal - The Discord is Live!

[TinkerSpider]

Marvel saw dollar signs after one issue of Mary Jane and Black Cat: Beyond and put additional minis in the works.

Marvel saw dollar signs after four issues of Secret Wars: Renew Your Vows and put a new series in the works.

Marvel saw dollar sign after the debut of Spider-Boy and put a new title in the works.

Marvel saw dollar signs after the debut of Spider-Gwen in Spider-Verse and put a new title in the works.

But in all cases - Spider-Boy being the fastest IIRC - it took time to steer the creaky big ship.

The sales charts are bad data, but even so it’s stunning that USM is outselling ASM more than 2 to 1 in the first weekend of release AND it’s a fourth issue. The drop off is usually from issue 1 to issue 2, and then more drop off from 2 to 3. With the caveat we don’t have exact numbers which isn’t great, and Marvel cares more about sell-in (books shipped to the LCS) than sell-through (books sold to a buyer).

But still. As Garlador said, USM is showing that ASM was a floor, not a ceiling.

[Mister Mets]

MARVEL likely expected USM to sell really well early on given the entire thing is marketed to be a thing to specifically draw in those fans whom had been so vocal.

But it's only been 4-5 issues in currently, and they aren't going to make decisions based on that. It selling extremely well was the expectation, at least early on.

If we reach this same time next year and it's #1 and still going strong, then it will get more notice. 4 Issues at #1 is nothing in the grand scheme.

30 Issues at #1 however, is.

It doesn't have to be 30 issues at #1, but Marvel does want to see if the book can sustain its success before making long-term decisions for Amazing Spider-Man.

One thing they have access to that we don't is Hickman's long-term plans. That can give a sense of whether they'll think what works in this book can be replicated in Amazing Spider-Man.

The book is probably more successful than Marvel expected, but so far all Marvel knows is that reception to the first story is positive.

I don't see what Marvel has to gain by dragging their feet when they could make quicker adjustments to earn more money. Or are we fine with losing out in the short run for the chance of a long term gain that may never come? Feels bizarre to advocate for patience in times like this when things are going so well. It's not like they've shown patience being rewarded before.

The gain may never come.

It's possible that people who want the spider-marriage back won't get what they want, regardless of how successful this book is.

There are no guarantees when it comes to decisions made by other people.

I do advocate patience, because the alternative (a lack of self-control) could lead to fans alienating the people they want to persuade at Marvel, or giving unreasonable expectations to others leading the movement to die out as members burn out.

Quicker adjustments don't always make more money. Sometimes it kills a golden goose, like when Ta-Nehisi Coates' Black Panther was a hit and immediately got spinoffs that were soon cancelled.

[Garlador]

It doesn't have to be 30 issues at #1, but Marvel does want to see if the book can sustain its success before making long-term decisions for Amazing Spider-Man.

One thing they have access to that we don't is Hickman's long-term plans. That can give a sense of whether they'll think what works in this book can be replicated in Amazing Spider-Man.

The book is probably more successful than Marvel expected, but so far all Marvel knows is that reception to the first story is positive.

Agreed. There is a balance here. I think it’s ridiculous to “send a message” over 30 issues - nearly 3 YEARS - for that message to sink in. But I also don’t think they should have a knee-jerk response either.

However, I would argue that restoring the marriage has been a vocal message for nearly 16 years now. I recall the interview concerning OMD and it was stated editorial believed that the stories they had planned were good enough to prove it was the right decision, and the complaints would eventually die out (I’ll try and find that interview source).

As of this week, editorials are still being written about how unpopular One More Day is and how displeased fans are with the decision (literally from CBR itself). 16 years later and that’s still being said with confidence by multiple comic sites and across the comic fanbase. It’s being challenged at comic panels, through unending email campaigns, and GROWING support for a married Spider-Man in other games, movies, and comics.

So we have to ask how long it’s reasonable for the Powers That Be to deny that and how long it takes for readers to prove they’ve left money on the table for them to change course. 6 months? A year? 3 years?

And it’s important for our campaign, because I now have full confidence we can hit their goalposts and prove that we can make them more money by restoring the marriage in the 616. It’s basically a self-propelled hype and marketing machine for them they don’t even need to pay for, but is passionate to tell the world to buy the comic again once the greenlight is given.

[TinkerSpider]

It doesn't have to be 30 issues at #1, but Marvel does want to see if the book can sustain its success before making long-term decisions for Amazing Spider-Man.

According to this, Marvel made a terrible mistake by commissioning Spider-Boy and Spider-Gwen when they did.

But it's doubtful they would agree with that assessment.

One thing they have access to that we don't is Hickman's long-term plans. That can give a sense of whether they'll think what works in this book can be replicated in Amazing Spider-Man.

The book is probably more successful than Marvel expected, but so far all Marvel knows is that reception to the first story is positive.

Right. Which is why they need to react to the popularity of the first issues. They know what is happening now is being very enthusiastically received and with more than double the sales of ASM in the first weekend.

More than double.

Let that sink in.

I'm the first to say the ComicsHub charts aren't reliable data, but if we're supposed to believe they are accurate for ASM, then the same thing goes for USM.

What will happen in the future is irrelevant.

That's like saying Avengers: End Game should have waited to be put into production until Marvel Studios saw the reaction to Ant Man & Wasp Quantumania.

Quicker adjustments don't always make more money. Sometimes it kills a golden goose, like when Ta-Nehisi Coates' Black Panther was a hit and immediately got spinoffs that were soon cancelled.

That's called business. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't. But you don't get ANY payoff without taking the risk in the first place. Companies that don't take risks and don't respond when the market is clearly giving them feedback are usually out of business in a few years.

And it's not much of a risk. USM is more than doubling the sales of their top selling product (at least in the charts, which aren't reliable data, yadda yadda). Not taking a risk because of some amorphous dread of what might happen is very, very, VERY bad business. No one wants to leave money on the table. And USM is demonstrating just how much money has been sitting on the table for years.

[Xix25]

The gain may never come.

It's possible that people who want the spider-marriage back won't get what they want, regardless of how successful this book is.

There are no guarantees when it comes to decisions made by other people.

I do advocate patience, because the alternative (a lack of self-control) could lead to fans alienating the people they want to persuade at Marvel, or giving unreasonable expectations to others leading the movement to die out as members burn out.

Quicker adjustments don't always make more money. Sometimes it kills a golden goose, like when Ta-Nehisi Coates' Black Panther was a hit and immediately got spinoffs that were soon cancelled.

I mean we've seen quick adjustments already, so this line for ASM seems strange to me. I just don't see the point in not calling for quicker change since Marvel has shown that they are willing to do so just for more money and we have proof that this would lead to that. I feel like this is just advocating for Marvel to continue putting out poor work and reduce the value of ASM for no real reason to be frank.

[Darthfury78]

[Mister Mets]

Agreed. There is a balance here. I think it’s ridiculous to “send a message” over 30 issues - nearly 3 YEARS - for that message to sink in. But I also don’t think they should have a knee-jerk response either.

However, I would argue that restoring the marriage has been a vocal message for nearly 16 years now. I recall the interview concerning OMD and it was stated editorial believed that the stories they had planned were good enough to prove it was the right decision, and the complaints would eventually die out (I’ll try and find that interview source).

As of this week, editorials are still being written about how unpopular One More Day is and how displeased fans are with the decision (literally from CBR itself). 16 years later and that’s still being said with confidence by multiple comic sites and across the comic fanbase. It’s being challenged at comic panels, through unending email campaigns, and GROWING support for a married Spider-Man in other games, movies, and comics.

So we have to ask how long it’s reasonable for the Powers That Be to deny that and how long it takes for readers to prove they’ve left money on the table for them to change course. 6 months? A year? 3 years?

And it’s important for our campaign, because I now have full confidence we can hit their goalposts and prove that we can make them more money by restoring the marriage in the 616. It’s basically a self-propelled hype and marketing machine for them they don’t even need to pay for, but is passionate to tell the world to buy the comic again once the greenlight is given.

One thing to keep in mind with the campaign is that your goal is to persuade people who aren't necessarily on your side, to show them that your preferences will make more money in the long term. That requires a level of discipline, which many in the group have met.

But a lack of discipline can lead to problems. If fans expect immediate results, their interest in the series and the movement may burn out. If someone makes bad arguments, it can discredit the movement among decisionmakers since it makes the fans telling the company what to do seem ignorant.

It is going to take a while to prove that something works better in the long-term.

According to this, Marvel made a terrible mistake by commissioning Spider-Boy and Spider-Gwen when they did.

But it's doubtful they would agree with that assessment.



Right. Which is why they need to react to the popularity of the first issues. They know what is happening now is being very enthusiastically received and with more than double the sales of ASM in the first weekend.

More than double.

Let that sink in.

I'm the first to say the ComicsHub charts aren't reliable data, but if we're supposed to believe they are accurate for ASM, then the same thing goes for USM.

What will happen in the future is irrelevant.

That's like saying Avengers: End Game should have waited to be put into production until Marvel Studios saw the reaction to Ant Man & Wasp Quantumania.



That's called business. Sometimes risks pay off, sometimes they don't. But you don't get ANY payoff without taking the risk in the first place. Companies that don't take risks and don't respond when the market is clearly giving them feedback are usually out of business in a few years.

And it's not much of a risk. USM is more than doubling the sales of their top selling product (at least in the charts, which aren't reliable data, yadda yadda). Not taking a risk because of some amorphous dread of what might happen is very, very, VERY bad business. No one wants to leave money on the table. And USM is demonstrating just how much money has been sitting on the table for years.

Spider-Boy and Spider-Gwen were not long-term decisions.

These were spinoff titles. If they flop, the effect on Amazing Spider-Man is minimal.

It's a different topic to talk about a new direction for Amazing Spider-Man, especially if you're making changes to the status quo. Writers and editors will have more flexibility with changes that do not limit the next guy (IE- If the next writer decides that she's going to focus mainly on A-list villains and not going to have any guest stars, her successor could go in a different direction.

If you think the Comicshub data is inaccurate, it doesn't stand to focus on a specific detail.

Obviously some risks take off and some don't. This is why it pays to be careful and for decisonmakers to have more discipline than a drunken gambler.

[Mister Mets]

I mean we've seen quick adjustments already, so this line for ASM seems strange to me. I just don't see the point in not calling for quicker change since Marvel has shown that they are willing to do so just for more money and we have proof that this would lead to that. I feel like this is just advocating for Marvel to continue putting out poor work and reduce the value of ASM for no real reason to be frank.

Quick adjustments are rare if we're talking about a new direction and creative team for a flagship book. Look at how much time passed between Tom Brevoort being announced as the new X-Men editor and the releases of the creative teams for the new titles (and those are still a few months away.)

It's entirely possible Wells is wrapping up his last story. He said he wanted to book for about 2 1/2 years/ 60 issues and the current stories have a tying up loose ends vibe. In this case, Marvel probably has a new creative team ready and they're working on their next comics.

But we might have it wrong. Maybe Wells isn't planning on going and wants to stick around until at least Issue 1,000.

Marvel has solicited a Spider-Goblin story by Ed McGuiness that ends in July. There's probably a few issues of art already completed for a follow-up story by John Romita Jr (due to the twice-monthly schedule of Amazing Spider-Man, even prolific artists like him would have to get a head start on a longer story.)

That story would take us to October.

If Marvel decides they need a new direction and creative team, there are several ways to handle it.

The most excessive would be to cancel everything that hasn't been published, and get a new creative team ASAP. In that situation, they're going to have come up with new material fast, and some of it will likely be filler because they're not going to come up with a long-term plan in one weekend.

Not quite at that level would be telling Wells he's fired and that someone else will finish all his scripts. They could do it, but it'll likely upset other writers and artists.

The most civilized way to do it would be for Marvel to tell Wells that they've decided to go in a different direction, that someone else will be taking over soon, and that he'll be able to finish the stories he's currently started with a few issues or an annual to tie up loose ends. Sometimes writers walk away under these circumstances, but Wells doesn't seem like that sort. An advantage here is that it also gives time for the next creative team to get ready. But assuming it'll take six issues to wrap things up (in a scenario where Wells wasn't planning on doing that) we're not going to have the first issue of the new creative team until November. If Marvel made the decision today, it would probably take six months to implement.

[TinkerSpider]

One thing to keep in mind with the campaign is that your goal is to persuade people who aren't necessarily on your side, to show them that your preferences will make more money in the long term. That requires a level of discipline, which many in the group have met.

The MARKET has said the preference makes more money.

But a lack of discipline can lead to problems. If fans expect immediate results, their interest in the series and the movement may burn out. If someone makes bad arguments, it can discredit the movement among decisionmakers since it makes the fans telling the company what to do seem ignorant.

No one who is a serious businessperson is going to say, "Better not make that best selling product any more, Bob, Twixxer user @Rando273474508475 is being mean again."

That's putting your own selfish feelings over the business's prosperity and profits. It's a failure of fidiciary responsibility to investors and owners. It will get you fired, and if your actions harm the prosperity of the company enough, it can get you sued.

Spider-Boy and Spider-Gwen were not long-term decisions.

These were spinoff titles. If they flop, the effect on Amazing Spider-Man is minimal.

It's a different topic to talk about a new direction for Amazing Spider-Man, especially if you're making changes to the status quo. Writers and editors will have more flexibility with changes that do not limit the next guy (IE- If the next writer decides that she's going to focus mainly on A-list villains and not going to have any guest stars, her successor could go in a different direction.

You just torpedoed your own argument at the end.

Nothing is set in stone. Spencer tried by saying Peter and MJ were unbreakable.

The next guy changed it.

Status quos change. all. the. time.

Meanwhile, there is money sitting on the table just BEGGING to be taken, and each day Marvel doesn't act it is another day they will never see those dollars.

If you think the Comicshub data is inaccurate, it doesn't stand to focus on a specific detail.

That wasn't my point. My point is that we are told it is accurate for ASM. Therefore, it stands to follow that it must be accurate for USM.

You can't cherry pick for which the titles the data is accurate and for which titles the data isn't.

Obviously some risks take off and some don't. This is why it pays to be careful and for decisonmakers to have more discipline than a drunken gambler.

The book has been a consistent giant slayer for four months now. The reviews are nearly 100% glowing with praise. This is the furthest thing possible from a drunken gamble. It's an invitation to print money instead.

[Mister Mets]

The MARKET has said the preference makes more money.



No one who is a serious businessperson is going to say, "Better not make that best selling product any more, Bob, Twixxer user @Rando273474508475 is being mean again."

That's putting your own selfish feelings over the business's prosperity and profits. It's a failure of fidiciary responsibility to investors and owners. It will get you fired, and if your actions harm the prosperity of the company enough, it can get you sued.



You just torpedoed your own argument at the end.

Nothing is set in stone. Spencer tried by saying Peter and MJ were unbreakable.

The next guy changed it.

Status quos change. all. the. time.

Meanwhile, there is money sitting on the table just BEGGING to be taken, and each day Marvel doesn't act it is another day they will never see those dollars.



That wasn't my point. My point is that we are told it is accurate for ASM. Therefore, it stands to follow that it must be accurate for USM.

You can't cherry pick for which the titles the data is accurate and for which titles the data isn't.



The book has been a consistent giant slayer for four months now. The reviews are nearly 100% glowing with praise. This is the furthest thing possible from a drunken gamble. It's an invitation to print money instead.

The market hasn't shown that this preference works in the long term.

If you want a married Spider-Man, that has to be a status quo that will work for over 500 issues, because Marvel is still planning to keep Amazing Spider-Man going indefinitely.

While status quos change all the time, it does not obliterate my argument if I note that a status quo that limits the next creative team is different from one that does not.

Saying that status quos change is a bad argument for the marriage because presumably you want that element of the status quo to be set in stone. You don't want another One More Day bringing back a single Peter Parker a hundred issues later.

I wasn't suggesting that Marvel will make decisions to spite @Rando273474508475. However if @Rando273474508475 is obnoxious and wrong, Marvel is not going to pay attention to what else they have to say.

With sales data, you seem to be responding to a strawman of the other side. That may be a way to get people who are already on your side to cheer you on, but it's not a way to persuade anyone who was on the fence. If you're trying to persuade people, it's better to show that you understand where they're coming from and can articulate their argument. Once you go with a strawman, they may conclude you're not worth engaging with.

[TinkerSpider]

The market hasn't shown that this preference works in the long term.

It worked for twenty years. It worked when Amazing Spider-Man was the best-selling comic in the late 80s/early 90s. Now USM is the best-selling comic.

If you want a married Spider-Man, that has to be a status quo that will work for over 500 issues, because Marvel is still planning to keep Amazing Spider-Man going indefinitely.

While status quos change all the time, it does not obliterate my argument if I note that a status quo that limits the next creative team is different from one that does not.

This is your opinion.

It is not a fact. It has nowhere been established as a fact. Empirical evidence does not support your assertion that a status quo must be viable for an arbitrarily picked number out of the blue at all. The history of comic books does not support your assertion. May I point to Superman as evidence?

We've had this discussion before.

And I will again point out Spencer tried to establish the status quo that Peter and MJ are unbreakable and she's vital to Peter's story/success, chosen by Strange as his champion against Mephisto.

That status quo did not last.

Saying that status quos change is a bad argument for the marriage because presumably you want that element of the status quo to be set in stone. You don't want another One More Day bringing back a single Peter Parker a hundred issues later.

Why? If the market rejects it, what's to stop them from pulling another "What Did Peter Do"/Dead Language to change the status quo? If the status quo is so abhorrent, wouldn't readers cheer?

(I will point out the market did not reject Spencer's status quo, that wasn't the impetus behind the change. And readers did cheer when Spencer abruptly changed the status quo in his first issue. And the market wasn't the reason for the OMD status quo change either, but that's another discussion.)

I wasn't suggesting that Marvel will make decisions to spite @Rando273474508475. However if @Rando273474508475 is obnoxious and wrong, Marvel is not going to pay attention to what else you have to say.

Which is why the argument that Marvel pays attention to rude randos to the extent that Marvel will cut off its nose to spite its face is inherently weak.

Marvel, if it wants to stay business, should pay attention to the market and numbers.

With sales data, you seem to be responding to a strawman of the other side. That may be a way to get people who are already on your side to cheer you on, but it's not a way to persuade anyone who was on the fence. If you're trying to persuade people, it's better to show that you understand where they're coming from and can articulate their argument. Once you go with a strawman, they may conclude you're not worth engaging with.

I am thoroughly confused. The sales are not a strawman. The sales are at the heart of the argument and always have been. I am, in fact, meeting people on the ground rules they established: the sales charts are accurate. I still assert they are not scientific and should not be used to represent anything than what they say they represent, but I am also pointing out that if people want us to believe the charts accurately reflect the market for ASM, then they reflect the market for USM.

I will also point out that second, third, etc printings are another empirical piece of evidence that demand for USM is strong.

[Garlador]

One thing to keep in mind with the campaign is that your goal is to persuade people who aren't necessarily on your side, to show them that your preferences will make more money in the long term. That requires a level of discipline, which many in the group have met.

But a lack of discipline can lead to problems. If fans expect immediate results, their interest in the series and the movement may burn out. If someone makes bad arguments, it can discredit the movement among decisionmakers since it makes the fans telling the company what to do seem ignorant.

It is going to take a while to prove that something works better in the long-term.

“Creating good problems” is something I tell my coworkers. I aim to create more business than we have the means to handle. Once we have the problem of too much business, I look into hiring people to manage the accounts.

To a degree, that’s what I’m encountering in this campaign. The more who join or become attached to it, the higher the chances of someone (even just 1 out of 400) going off the wall and saying something that hurts our platform. So I delegate and monitor everything to ensure Slott’s request that our outreach remain predominately respectful, if honest, is honored. But I acknowledge I can’t control the behavior of a thousand people at once, so diligence is the key.

And I’ve seen a few doom and gloom posters asking why things haven’t turned around yet. I remind them we have barely gotten started, and it’s only ramping up. These things take time. I don’t know what Marvel has planned after Wells’s run, but I know discussions must be happening, which is why it’s ideal to voice our feedback now so it’s taken into consideration for what comes next.

[Konnik92]

The market hasn't shown that this preference works in the long term.

Twenty years of marrage ... if that's not long term, then what is?

[wleakr]

He's been single longer than he's been married. Now that's a long term status quo!

[Tuck]

He's been single longer than he's been married. Now that's a long term status quo!

If you mean unmarried, sure (although it was close to an even split by the time of OMD, and likely more actual married issues of Peter-led Spider books).

But single Peter is the aberration.