Would you prefer that DC Comics printed on cheaper newsprint paper stock?

[MajorHoy]

This poll is based on a discussion from another thread:

. . . Look, if you don't want floppies printed on newprint, that's fine. But a lot of people do, . . .

Have we had a poll specifically asking what type of paper people want their comics printed on?
I believe your previous poll focused more on whether people wanted to pay less for their comic books, but the bit about what type of paper that would involve was not clearly indicated in the poll itself. (And I've seen plenty of cases where people voted on polls before even bothering to read the initial post, so don't automatically assume they read all the information to make an informed selection.)

So, we'll ask the question in this thread:

Would you prefer that DC printed comic books on newsprint stock, like they use to use decades ago, or do you prefer DC's current choice of paper stock?

NOTE: If DC did go with the cheaper newsprint paper, there is a likelihood that cover prices from comic books could go down or at least stay where they are without increasing, but I wouldn't put a specific price on what DC could/would charge if they made such a change. (After all, we've seen instances before where companies have reduced the number of pages of story in a standard comic book without reducing the price of the comic book itself.)

[BohemiaDrinker]

I personally don't care either way, but having worked in print for over 23 years, I'd love to see actual data pointing to newsprint being cheaper. Cause whenever I try to account for the size of DC operation, steps and whatnot, as well as the expenses division, I don't6 see how newsprint paper would make more than a negligible difference.

[Elmo]

It would barely make a difference so no

[WillieMorgan]

It's not something that I've ever really considered. If it hadn't been brought up on here the idea wouldn't have even occurred to me.

As it's been asked though, I really don't mind paying a little extra for better quality paper. So that's a vote for the second option.

[Jon Clark]

Unless they got the price to a disposable point for the individual issues, I don't see the point to newspaper quality. It's like asking people if they want to go back to black & white TVs or Model T cars.

[MajorHoy]

Unless they got the price to a disposable point for the individual issues, I don't see the point to newspaper quality. It's like asking people if they want to go back to black & white TVs or Model T cars.

In a previous thread asking about going back to newsprint, it had been suggested that DC would be able to drop the cover price for a newsprint version all the way down to $1.99. However, there wasn't really any proof that DC would do that, so I prefer to leave any possible price difference unspecified to see if people would really prefer that DC switch to newspaper stock regardless of any specific possible price difference.

[Jon Clark]

In a previous thread asking about going back to newsprint, it had been suggested that DC would be able to drop the cover price for a newsprint version all the way down to $1.99. However, there wasn't really any proof that DC would do that, so I prefer to leave any possible price difference unspecified to see if people would really prefer that DC switch to newspaper stock regardless of any specific possible price difference.

I get that. My point was that at $3-$4 a pop I want something a little more durable than the stuff I read in the 1970's.

[My Two Cents]

I don't buy single issues now
but if I did, I would have to say no
before D C switched to better paper I had to
bag and board my comics to keep them from yellowing and even
with that my comics from the eighties still looked yellow and deeply faded
after pulling them from the closet and there bags and boards after 25 years.
I have comics I purchased decades ago with better paper that I never bagged
just lying on a shelf that after dusting off looks like it was just purchased new in
a comic shop.
Personally I now just buy printed trades in hard and soft cover and even with them
I need the paper to be glossy or at least high quality. I have a few with news print
on my shelf that are showing there age and than many books with good paper that
look terrific.
Bottom line........... if the book is for reading on the train until you get to your
last stop and plan of tossing it in the garbage ........ than yeah, sure get the cheap paper.
But if you want to keep the book and than look back at it ten years from now, than hope
D C don't switch to cheap news print because the book you pull out will not look anything
like the one you placed there ten or more years before...........
and don't even think about reading it

[JackDaw]

I don't buy single issues now
but if I did, I would have to say no
before D C switched to better paper I had to
bag and board my comics to keep them from yellowing and even
with that my comics from the eighties still looked yellow and deeply faded
after pulling them from the closet and there bags and boards after 25 years.
I have comics I purchased decades ago with better paper that I never bagged
just lying on a shelf that after dusting off looks like it was just purchased new in
a comic shop.
Personally I now just buy printed trades in hard and soft cover and even with them
I need the paper to be glossy or at least high quality. I have a few with news print
on my shelf that are showing there age and than many books with good paper that
look terrific.
Bottom line........... if the book is for reading on the train until you get to your
last stop and plan of tossing it in the garbage ........ than yeah, sure get the cheap paper.
But if you want to keep the book and than look back at it ten years from now, than hope
D C don't switch to cheap news print because the book you pull out will not look anything
like the one you placed there ten or more years before...........
and don't even think about reading it

That’s a well argued case, I think.

IF printing on cheap paper really did make the comics much cheaper, it might open up new markets..people wanting a quick read as you suggest or more kids using their own pocket money to read more comics each week. Maybe less appealing to most of “us” (the die hard long term fans).

And reality may be that most looking for substantially cheaper comics are more likely to prefer digital rather than newsprint. There..once you’ve stumped up for a reasonable tablet..there are plenty of opportunities to get access to cheap comic reads if not owning physical comic does not phase you. (And why would it, if you’re a read and chuck customer?)

[numberthirty]

I get that. My point was that at $3-$4 a pop I want something a little more durable than the stuff I read in the 1970's.

Exactly.

If we are going back to seventies quality paper, I had better be paying fifty cents an issue.

[numberthirty]

Let alone that the entire "Newsprint Vs. Current Stock" framing entirely ignores that current digital options are a vastly superior quality option that will likely only be about double the price of the "Newsprint" option.

[Trey Strain]

If they're not going to charge less money for the floppies, then of course not. DUH!

That would just be a backdoor price increase, when comics are already too expensive.

The price is the whole problem that my thread addressed. People are paying a lot of money for PAPER, not for comics. Only the printer benefits from that.

And if you love spending your money on paper, you could still spend it on the collections.

[Lee Stone]

I voted for newsprint becsuse I prefer the warmer colors and the tactile feel of the grainier texture. Oh, and the smell.
I suppose if I had never read comics on newsprint, I'd probably prefer them as they are currently.

[Jim Kelly]

I imagine with economies of scale, newsprint isn't cheaper now. If everyone was doing it and there was enough demand, then the cost of the newsprint would go down and it would be cheaper.

However, like Lee Stone, my main reason for liking the newsprint is aesthetic. The worst is the glossy, super-white paper stock. That's not good for looking at an image because it reflects too much light. You want a paper that is less reflective, so yours eyes can properly see what is actually printed onto the paper.

I remember, when I was a little kid, our school library had these paperbacks called Easy Eye that were supposed to be better for reading because of the paper and the printing. If I recall correctly, the paper had a slight greenish tint to it.

Whether the paper would age is a question. I suppose true newsprint would; however there are other paper stocks that look the same as newsprint that might not age as much because of the materials used.

Yeah, it's true that my newer comics hardly age at all. But then they aren't collectible. My older comics, that are no longer as white as they used to be (not that they were ever true white), are much more collectible. Part of the reason that comics became so precious was because they were perishable.

[MajorHoy]

. . . IF printing on cheap paper really did make the comics much cheaper, it might open up new markets..people wanting a quick read as you suggest or more kids using their own pocket money to read more comics each week.

One problem with this argument is: where are people going to go to buy these cheaper, newsprint comic books? Many of the local stores that use to carry comic books on shelves or spinner racks in the old days either are no longer in business (replaced by national chain drug stores, chain convenience stores, and what-not) or don't want to be bothered with carrying the comic books and prefer to instead devote that space to products that are more popular and bring a better return to the store's profits.

If they're not going to charge less money for the floppies, then of course not. DUH!

That would just be a backdoor price increase, when comics are already too expensive.

The price is the whole problem that my thread addressed. People are paying a lot of money for PAPER, not for comics. Only the printer benefits from that.

And if you love spending your money on paper, you could still spend it on the collections.

But, the thread you created set a price drop for newsprint comics that you can't guarantee would happen, making that a possibly unrealistic proposition as well. You ignored that DC currently offers both $2.99 and $3.99 cover-price comic books here in the U.S. and just chose the $3.99 price for your comparison. And you compared DC's practices to a much smaller publisher that doesn't yet have a long track record in publishing those paper comic books, so who knows if that is a worthwhile benchmark?
The whole point of this thread is whether people prefer newsprint stock to the paper stock DC currently uses, since you had said

. . . Look, if you don't want floppies printed on newprint, that's fine. But a lot of people do, . . .