Why does Marvel keep starting their numbers over

[iron chimp]

It's somewhat shady, but not for that reason.

Incentive variant covers are shady because they boost sales without actually selling more copies to readers: the way it works is that retailers order more from the regular issue than they could ever hope to sell so they can also order some of the extra-special deluxe 1/5000 (or whatever) cover they can sell for megabucks on Ebay and still make a profit on the unsellable regular issues.

Thats the mechanics of it but at the end of the chain is someone dropping up to $2k on a manufactured rare (or wanting to but cant afford to). Having seen upwards of a 1000 educational psychologists reports, as a layman, it seems to exploit and exacerbate potentially harmful ocd / mental health tendancies in a certain section of people.

[Iron Maiden]

Ironman is one of the hardest characters to keep straight. It starts with Tales of Suspnse 39 (which turned into captian america), Iron Man and Submariner (I always though that to be the strangest combination), and fans out from there to Iron Man, Uncanny tales, Iron Man Vol 2, and volume 3, and Warren Ellis's Iron Man of 2005, and Marvel Now Iron Man... into Supererior Iron Man, and Oron Man Armour wars, and Bad Blood, and Enter the Mandarin, etc... There are 35 entries just under Iron Man, and 3 under the Invicncible Iron Man..

I know you're old enough to remember so you probably know why this happened already. For others, just know that then publisher Martin Goodman had to strike up a deal with Independent News/National Periodicals when Marvel/Atlas's distributor went out of business unexpectedly. They only gave Marvel a certain number of slots each month. That's why some titles were paired up and moved around. Goodman also was quick on the trigger to cancel stuff even without knowing for sure what the sales figures were. Eventually Goodman found a new distributor once Marvel's titles became a hit and the limits were no longer a factor.

[CaptCleghorn]

That Iron Man and Submariner one-shot was the result of the sudden decision to split up the anthologies into solos. The stories in that issue were drawn for Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish, but Cap and Hulk, the characters who inherited those titles, didn't have another half length story drawn. So they paired the spares and launched the new Iron Man and Namor solos a month later. Strange Tales apparently didn't have the same problem, and Journey into Mystery was already full length Thor stories anyway and should've been renamed a bit sooner than it was.

It wasn't the first time something like that happened. Six years earlier, the stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 and #2 were drawn for Amazing Fantasy #16-19. It must've been a late decision (probably triggered by exceptional Fantastic Four sales) to cancel AF and give Spidey his own book.

The thought of the Iron Man story in IM&SM 1 being an 11 pager which was scheduled for Tales of Suspense 100 seems weird as Tales to Astonish 100 had the Hulk/Subby teamup. I was always under the impression the Marvel deal with distribution or whatnot limited their ability to start new books.

The March 1968 issues were : Suspense 99, Astonish 101, and Strange Tales 166 (3 books)
The April issues had: Cap 100, Hulk 102, IM & Subby 1, and Strange Tales 167 (4 books)
The May issues had: Cap 101, Hulk 103, Iron Man 1, Subby 1, and Strange Tales 168 (5 books)
The June issues had: Cap 102, Hulk 104, Iron Man 2, Subby 2, Dr Strange 169, and SHIELD 1 (6 books)

The "We just had the 11 pg stories for IM and Subby" seems off to me, but I'm not arguing as the businessdetails for 50 years ago may not be clear anywhere.

[Magneto]

It's certainly some greed there, but how is it unethical?

Every business in a capitalist society can be labeled "greedy." For any company that wants to thrive, profit is the name of the game.

And it's not "unethical" to restart a new volume of a comic title. It's not even in the ballpark of unethical.

Of course most business are greedy. What makes it unethical is the fact that they know they're ''scamming'' consumers with new relaunch because of the variant covers, etc.

Doing it 1, 2, 3 or 4 times is alright. But when it's becoming a gimmick to make more money instead of making better stories or using new original ideas, it is unethical. Especially when you look at the numbers. They're boosted for the first 1-2 issues and then they go back to where they were before the relaunch. Its all a gimmick to make more money, it as nothing to do with having a better product or giving more to the consumer. It's all about that first issue money grab. Short term solution instead of long term.

Of course, the consumer is the person making the decision to buy or not, but in marketing, in which I have a PhD, it is regarded as unethical (consumerism). Remember, unethical doesnt mean illegal. From a consumerism perspective, the marketplace itself is responsible for ensuring social justice through fair economic practices.

[Prof. Warren]

Of course most business are greedy. What makes it unethical is the fact that they know they're ''scamming'' consumers with new relaunch because of the variant covers, etc.

Doing it 1, 2, 3, 4 times is alright. But when it's becoming a gimmick to make more money instead of making better stories or using new original ideas, it is unethical. Especially when you look at the numbers. They're boosted for the first 1-2 issues and then they go back to where they were before the relaunch. Its all a gimmick to make more money, it as nothing to do with having a better product or giving more to the consumer. It's all about that first issue money grab. Short term solution instead of long term.

Of course, the consumer is the person making the decision to buy or not, but in marketing, in which I have a PhD, it is regarded as unethical (consumerism). Remember, unethical doesnt mean illegal.

It's neither unethical nor illegal.

Also not an example of consumerism.

There's no fraud involved in new #1's or multiple covers. Variants are an aspect that collectors enjoy and choose to spend money on. If they didn't, publishers wouldn't continue with that practice.

And putting a #1 on a cover is simply marking the issue as an easy entry point, which they are designed to be. So, no fraud, no deception, and no one is being charged more than a fair price.

As for the "better product" argument, it can be said that publishers already do that. Or at least strive to. The most recent volume of Iron Man, for example, had a lot of variant covers to launch it but was also an excellent issue.

"But shouldn't it sell more then, like millions of copies?" Well, no. Comics are a niche hobby. Always have been, and in an increasingly fractured media culture - one that is increasingly leaning towards the digital world - is now only more so.

The Byrne/Claremont X-Men run could come out as a new series today and still sell about on par as anything that's out now. It's just how it is.

[Magneto]

It's neither unethical nor illegal.

Also not an example of consumerism.

There's no fraud involved in new #1's or multiple covers. Variants are an aspect that collectors enjoy and choose to spend money on. If they didn't, publishers wouldn't continue with that practice.

And putting a #1 on a cover is simply marking the issue as an easy entry point, which they are designed to be. So, no fraud, no deception, and no one is being charged more than a fair price.

As for the "better product" argument, it can be said that publishers already do that. Or at least strive to. The most recent volume of Iron Man, for example, had a lot of variant covers to launch it but was also an excellent issue.

"But shouldn't it sell more then, like millions of copies?" Well, no. Comics are a niche hobby. Always have been, and in an increasingly fractured media culture - one that is increasingly leaning towards the digital world - is now only more so.

The Byrne/Claremont X-Men run could come out as a new series today and still sell about on par as anything that's out now. It's just how it is.

Consumerism is a perspective where the marketplace itself is responsible for ensuring social justice through fair economic practices.

You obviously don't know what consumerism is. Like I said, unethical doesnt mean illegal, so I don't get why you're talking about that. Fraud doesn't have to happen for a practice to be unethical, so again, why are you talking about that. The rest of your post has nothing to do with my arguments.

The fact is they're using gimmicky practices to boost their numbers by exploiting the ''stereotypical collector consumer'' who buy every number 1 issue. I'm not even gonna talk about all the variant covers that comes with it. Easy cash grab for a business when you need some. They know its working, so they do it increasingly. I can understand a relaunch every couple of years, but having one or two every year? Common. That's unethical by a consumerism definition standpoint.

[leokearon]

That Iron Man and Submariner one-shot was the result of the sudden decision to split up the anthologies into solos. The stories in that issue were drawn for Tales of Suspense and Tales to Astonish, but Cap and Hulk, the characters who inherited those titles, didn't have another half length story drawn. So they paired the spares and launched the new Iron Man and Namor solos a month later. Strange Tales apparently didn't have the same problem, and Journey into Mystery was already full length Thor stories anyway and should've been renamed a bit sooner than it was.

It wasn't the first time something like that happened. Six years earlier, the stories in Amazing Spider-Man #1 and #2 were drawn for Amazing Fantasy #16-19. It must've been a late decision (probably triggered by exceptional Fantastic Four sales) to cancel AF and give Spidey his own book.

Actually it was the cancellation of Incredible Hulk that gave spidey his comic.

[mrbrklyn]

Actually it was the cancellation of Incredible Hulk that gave spidey his comic.

Really?
I'm amazed at the comic book knowledge on this forum sometime! I had no idea!

The Hulk is another messed up continuty and numbering!

[Prof. Warren]

Consumerism is a perspective where the marketplace itself is responsible for ensuring social justice through fair economic practices.

You obviously don't know what consumerism is. Like I said, unethical doesnt mean illegal, so I don't get why you're talking about that. Fraud doesn't have to happen for a practice to be unethical, so again, why are you talking about that. The rest of your post has nothing to do with my arguments.

The fact is they're using gimmicky practices to boost their numbers by exploiting the ''stereotypical collector consumer'' who buy every number 1 issue. I'm not even gonna talk about all the variant covers that comes with it. Easy cash grab for a business when you need some. They know its working, so they do it increasingly. I can understand a relaunch every couple of years, but having one or two every year? Common. That's unethical by a consumerism definition standpoint.

Again, not unethical.

And who's being exploited, exactly? People do have free will and, one would think the "stereotypical collector consumer" spends their money on what they choose to, with full knowledge of what they're buying and why.

[mrbrklyn]

there should never be a talking hulk... oh man.

[CaptCleghorn]

Again, not unethical.

And who's being exploited, exactly? People do have free will and, one would think the "stereotypical collector consumer" spends their money on what they choose to, with full knowledge of what they're buying and why.

True this. I know full well that buying multiple variant covers of FF 646 is probably not going to do anything for me except satisfy some bizarre craving I have. I knew that with the Batman Legends of the Dark Knight covers and with the Claremont Lee X-Men 1 covers. But, my name is captcleghorn and I am a comic book junkie.

The problem with retailers being made to buy so many copies of a comic to get a special variant can be thought of as kind of sleazy, but this tactic is a common one in many other fields and products. Buy a lot and get a bargain or a special premium. And "kind of sleazy" is far from rare in business.

[Magneto]

Again, not unethical.

And who's being exploited, exactly? People do have free will and, one would think the "stereotypical collector consumer" spends their money on what they choose to, with full knowledge of what they're buying and why.

Most collectors will always buy issue number 1. A business is exploiting this behavior by relaunching books increasingly every year. If you don't see something wrong with that, there's no point in arguing anymore. Having consumers with free will isn't mutually exclusive to having bad practice. You surely know about compulsive or impulsive buyers, right? I'm not even going to mention the fact that comicbook shop have to buy a minimum of issues/variant covers if they want ''x'' title. Its unethical. Go read about consumerism.

[Prof. Warren]

A collector will always buy number 1 issue. A business is exploiting this behavior by relaunching books increasingly every year. If you don't see something wrong with that, there's no point in arguing anymore. Having consumers with free will isn't mutually exclusive to having bad practice. Go read about consumerism.

I have, thanks.

When you're talking about publishers releasing new #1's, you're talking about a practice that, for whatever reason, bothers you personally. That's not the same as it being unethical.

Comics have always appealed to collectors. If a collector derives enjoyment out of their hobby and they're of sound mind and have the means to spend the money they want to spend on that hobby, there's nothing unethical occurring.

Also, people buy new #1's for a variety of reasons. It's not just diehard collectors doing so. The comic book audience is constantly cycling in new (or lapsed) readers and cycling out old ones. These new #1's are not being bought by the exact same audience year in and year out.

[Magneto]

I have, thanks.

When you're talking about publishers releasing new #1's, you're talking about a practice that, for whatever reason, bothers you personally. That's not the same as it being unethical.

Comics have always appealed to collectors. If a collector derives enjoyment out of their hobby and they're of sound mind and have the means to spend the money they want to spend on that hobby, there's nothing unethical occurring.

Also, people buy new #1's for a variety of reasons. It's not just diehard collectors doing so. The comic book audience is constantly cycling in new (or lapsed) readers and cycling out old ones. These new #1's are not being bought by the exact same audience year in and year out.

Its bothering me because i've studied in marketing and I see the bigger picture. You surely know about compulsive or impulsive buyers, right? That's where the unethical part happen. Relaunching increasingly exploit these kind of behaviors.

[Prof. Warren]

there should never be a talking hulk... oh man.

The Hulk has always talked. Sometimes he's been more well-spoken than others but there's never been an entirely inarticulate Hulk.