Does Today's Marvel Youthful heroes really need tragedy to make them good ?

[DragonsChi]

Every time you hear someone say "Digital Sales" or "Graphic Novel Sales" while ignoring weekly in store sales is a clear indicative signal of that individual is only repeating what they are told and they have no real knowledge on the market or the business aspects of it.

Anyone with even the smallest idea of business sense would tell you if the market is telling you something is working you put out more of it. If Graphic Novel Sales were so great for certain characters there would be a whole line of Graphic Novel only books and yet there are none. If Ms. Marvel, for instance, did so amazing digitally there be a digital book built around her for that audience. (Ms. Marvel is just example. Not calling her out here, Insert whoever else you want there.)

So unless the business heads at Marvel are incredibly dimwitted in terms of business and like leaving money on the table, this rumor of digital and graphic novel sales is entirely false. The very idea that a company would waste literally millions of dollars on floppies for certain characters who allegedly do better in trade format, just so they can turn around and actually sell them in trade format is asinine.

Edit: I mean think about it.... if a book was doing so amazing Digitally why would that same book get cancelled and attempt at a relaunch a whole year later? If that character did so well in Trade but keeps getting cancelled in floppies why would they continue to produce floppies for those books if the market isn't there? At the very least they would be reducing the number of Floppies they are producing but that aren't even doing that.

Sorry but this last part isn't even business talk , it's common sense.

[Raye]

Just because they get sales in one market doesn't mean they have to focus on it entirely, why put everything into graphic novels or digital only (rather than just digital first, which they do) and cut off other revenue streams from other markets? That would be stupid. They wouldn't just cut off revenue streams like that, it's just common sense to sell the books in as many markets as they can.

But they do show signs of focusing on those markets when it makes sense, like the Squirrel Girl graphic novel they put out a while back, the new Digital Originals line with Jessica Jones, Cloak and Dagger etc. Which are a strange hybrid model with double sized digital issues which DO skip floppies entirely, it IS just digital and trade, like you say we would see them doing. Your hypothetical example of a book skipping floppies actually does exist. Several of them actually, the line has like 5 books in it. And Jessica Jones is coming back this week for it's second arc, Cloak and Dagger also got a second arc, so the first one must have done well enough, with no floppy sales whatsoever, to justify them being continued. And yes, some books such as Squirrel Girl and Moon Girl clearly have been carried by sales in alternate markets based on how many issues they sell via the direct market. Marvel even came right out and said that it was the reason they brought back Iceman and Unstoppable Wasp after they had initially been cancelled, trade sales saved them. DC did the same thing with Midnighter and a couple others. But that doesn't mean they have to remove floppies from the equation entirely for them, may as well sell those extra few thousand paper copies if they can. Just because it doesn't happen that every single meh selling (according to the Diamond charts) book can make up flagging sales digitally or in trades doesn't mean it never happens.

[Anthony W]

Amadeus Cho doesn't. His parents are dead. And for most of his time as the Totally Awesome Hulk, so was Bruce Banner.

I find it strange that a character who hung around with Hercules so much ended up being a Hulk. You would think he would end up with some greek god power ups.

[DragonsChi]

Just because they get sales in one market doesn't mean they have to focus on it entirely, why put everything into graphic novels or digital only (rather than just digital first, which they do) and cut off other revenue streams from other markets? That would be stupid. They wouldn't just cut off revenue streams like that, it's just common sense to sell the books in as many markets as they can.

You don't get it and you are proving my point I mention about certain posters. So I'm going to make it simpler.... Below aren't exact numbers just examples to make this as simple as possible:

If Squirrel Girl sells a total of $12,000 floppies a each month on average and marvel produces $40,000-$60,000 on average of Squirrel Girl Floppies a month, they can see that there is a loss of $28,000-$48,000 each month. If this same title was making more money digitally a company , with any business intelligence, wouldn't continue to produce units of $40,000-$60,000. Instead they would move to $15,000-$20,000 since those numbers are more likely to receive a return on their investment. They would then market for more digital sales since that is where their market is for that character. However, Marvel is not doing that they are still pumping out the same number of books while feeding a lie that their sales are up. When in truth all they did was increase the price tag on titles to create that LIE.

But they do show signs of focusing on those markets when it makes sense, like the Squirrel Girl graphic novel they put out a while back, the new Digital Originals line with Jessica Jones, Cloak and Dagger etc. Which are a strange hybrid model with double sized digital issues which DO skip floppies entirely, it IS just digital and trade, like you say we would see them doing. Your hypothetical example of a book skipping floppies actually does exist.

False premise. These are not younger characters whose titles did poorly, one. This isn't a line of books and more mini series put out for the Netflix shows, two. These are all books who have notoriety as characters but Marvel has never laid the claim (as of yet) that they performed better digitally. If you are going to converse do not move the goal post.

For the Squirrel Girl point you are correct. However, there are at least 6 other low selling titles that Marvel claimed performed so well in Novel format and has yet receive a graphic novel original.

Several of them actually, the line has like 5 books in it. And Jessica Jones is coming back this week for it's second arc, Cloak and Dagger also got a second arc, so the first one must have done well enough, with no floppy sales whatsoever, to justify them being continued. And yes, some books such as Squirrel Girl and Moon Girl clearly have been carried by sales in alternate markets based on how many issues they sell via the direct market. Marvel even came right out and said that it was the reason they brought back Iceman and Unstoppable Wasp after they had initially been cancelled, trade sales saved them. DC did the same thing with Midnighter and a couple others. But that doesn't mean they have to remove floppies from the equation entirely for them, may as well sell those extra few thousand paper copies if they can. Just because it doesn't happen that every single meh selling (according to the Diamond charts) book can make up flagging sales digitally or in trades doesn't mean it never happens.

See above for the numbers explanation....

If these books did so well in trade format they would produce less floppies tell shops "Hey we are creating less floppies order more trades for costumers" and then sit back and count their money as it comes pouring in. There wouldn't be stores with $100,000 worth of products sitting in storage of multiple stores. That whole logic of Marvel not doing it that way does not make any sense. In truth Marvel is just trying to save face on items the market told them consumers do not want or want a better version of it. If that doesn't make sense then please go back and read my sales breakdown.

[9th.]

I find it strange that a character who hung around with Hercules so much ended up being a Hulk. You would think he would end up with some greek god power ups.

He can still get one and be a hybrid of some sort.

[Digifiend]

I find it strange that a character who hung around with Hercules so much ended up being a Hulk. You would think he would end up with some greek god power ups.

It's not that strange. He met Bruce Banner in his debut appearance in Amazing Fantasy vol 2 #15.

And he actually HAS had a Greek power up, a Golden Mace. His codename at that time was Prince of Power. https://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Heroic...of_Power_Vol_1

Brawn is actually his fourth codename, Mastermind Excello being his original one (and the name of that story in Amazing Fantasy).

[ed2962]

Floppies are dying a slow death and have been for a long time. But the big two don't want to pull the plug because of the non-returnable nature of monthlies. It doesn't matter if fans actually buy those 10k units "Widget Girl" or whatever...if the stores order them, Marvel/DC has made their money. Of course there's all their variant incentives and what not to get the orders up as well.

[ed2962]

You don't get it and you are proving my point I mention about certain posters. So I'm going to make it simpler.... Below aren't exact numbers just examples to make this as simple as possible:

If Squirrel Girl sells a total of $12,000 floppies a each month on average and marvel produces $40,000-$60,000 on average of Squirrel Girl Floppies a month, they can see that there is a loss of $28,000-$48,000 each month. If this same title was making more money digitally a company , with any business intelligence, wouldn't continue to produce units of $40,000-$60,000. Instead they would move to $15,000-$20,000 since those numbers are more likely to receive a return on their investment. They would then market for more digital sales since that is where their market is for that character. However, Marvel is not doing that they are still pumping out the same number of books while feeding a lie that their sales are up. When in truth all they did was increase the price tag on titles to create that LIE.


False premise. These are not younger characters whose titles did poorly, one. This isn't a line of books and more mini series put out for the Netflix shows, two. These are all books who have notoriety as characters but Marvel has never laid the claim (as of yet) that they performed better digitally. If you are going to converse do not move the goal post.

For the Squirrel Girl point you are correct. However, there are at least 6 other low selling titles that Marvel claimed performed so well in Novel format and has yet receive a graphic novel original.


See above for the numbers explanation....

If these books did so well in trade format they would produce less floppies tell shops "Hey we are creating less floppies order more trades for costumers" and then sit back and count their money as it comes pouring in. There wouldn't be stores with $100,000 worth of products sitting in storage of multiple stores. That whole logic of Marvel not doing it that way does not make any sense. In truth Marvel is just trying to save face on items the market told them consumers do not want or want a better version of it. If that doesn't make sense then please go back and read my sales breakdown.

They're aren't going to say that because even though sales are low, Marvel is still making sure money from non-returnable single issues. That $100k worth of products sitting in storage doesn't hurt Marvel in the least. They don't care. A good deal of this is on the retailers for continuing to fall for Marvel/DC's repeated gimmicks.

[pageturner]

They don't need to have a family member die in action ala spiderman, but if they are in the biz they are going to see darkness. Heroes "die" for a while supporting casts sometimes do to.

[Raye]

You don't get it and you are proving my point I mention about certain posters. So I'm going to make it simpler.... Below aren't exact numbers just examples to make this as simple as possible:

If Squirrel Girl sells a total of $12,000 floppies a each month on average and marvel produces $40,000-$60,000 on average of Squirrel Girl Floppies a month, they can see that there is a loss of $28,000-$48,000 each month. If this same title was making more money digitally a company , with any business intelligence, wouldn't continue to produce units of $40,000-$60,000. Instead they would move to $15,000-$20,000 since those numbers are more likely to receive a return on their investment. They would then market for more digital sales since that is where their market is for that character. However, Marvel is not doing that they are still pumping out the same number of books while feeding a lie that their sales are up. When in truth all they did was increase the price tag on titles to create that LIE.


False premise. These are not younger characters whose titles did poorly, one. This isn't a line of books and more mini series put out for the Netflix shows, two. These are all books who have notoriety as characters but Marvel has never laid the claim (as of yet) that they performed better digitally. If you are going to converse do not move the goal post.

For the Squirrel Girl point you are correct. However, there are at least 6 other low selling titles that Marvel claimed performed so well in Novel format and has yet receive a graphic novel original.


See above for the numbers explanation....

If these books did so well in trade format they would produce less floppies tell shops "Hey we are creating less floppies order more trades for costumers" and then sit back and count their money as it comes pouring in. There wouldn't be stores with $100,000 worth of products sitting in storage of multiple stores. That whole logic of Marvel not doing it that way does not make any sense. In truth Marvel is just trying to save face on items the market told them consumers do not want or want a better version of it. If that doesn't make sense then please go back and read my sales breakdown.

I'm not the one moving the goalposts. Hell, you're changing the rules of the game. You never said anything about the books having to be focused on younger characters, not a word about that. You just said that if Marvel believed in digital and TPBs/GN' as a way to sell their books, they would have a line that focused on that, and THEY DO. You also never said anything about them having to be ongoings. But these ARE ongoing, I've read them, hell, I'm subbed to them. I subbed during the first arc, and when the second arc started, i didn't have to sub again, my subscription carried over, because it is an ongoing series. They are continuing stories, just like any other book Marvel sells, they have threads that continue from one arc to the next, they are just grouping issues together under the name of the arc. They also did a standalone GN for Squirrel Girl, which does tie into the continuity of the main series, and she is is one of the younger characters. As for why other books haven't gotten one? *shrugs* maybe the Squirrel Girl one was testing the waters, maybe it was something North himself pitched and not some new initiative, I don't think it matters much, but it does demonstrate Marvel had faith in at least that one book being able to sell a standalone GN, there may be others in the future.


Also, you are jut pulling numbers out of your ass, you don't know what the store level sell through is on Squirrel Girl nation wide. And as mentioned above, Marvel doesn't give a damn how much sell through the issues get in shops, they made their money when they sold the issues to the shops. They are not losing a damn thing if the shops fail to sell those issues for whatever reason, because the direct market operates by selling the books at wholesale costs to the stores, and they are non-returnable. If the shops are over ordering that's their problem, not Marvel's. There is absolutely nothing stopping the shops from ordering more trades of these books than floppies if they wanted to. If those books sell better in trades, it is up to the shops, not Marvel, to make adjustments on the orders, all Marvel (and every other publisher) is doing is fulfilling the orders the shops make, it's not their fault if the shop owners make poor decisions. The only one here who is demonstrating that they don't understand how things work is you.

also, you do realize that Diamond releases both unit and dollar share numbers, right? and Marvel is on top in BOTH? I won't deny that Marvel has raised their cover prices (though, so has everyone else) and make more per issue sold, but there is no lie about how many issues of theirs sold, we have those numbers as well.

[skyvolt2000]

They're aren't going to say that because even though sales are low, Marvel is still making sure money from non-returnable single issues. That $100k worth of products sitting in storage doesn't hurt Marvel in the least. They don't care. A good deal of this is on the retailers for continuing to fall for Marvel/DC's repeated gimmicks.

CORRECT

In truth Marvel is just trying to save face on items the market told them consumers do not want or want a better version of it. If that doesn't make sense then please go back and read my sales breakdown.

Not all comic book fans do NOT visit here or Bleeding Cool or Newsrama or hate filled Marvel bashing youtube sites.

Comic book store owners who ALLOW themselves to be bullied by Diamond and silly gimmicks only have themselves to blame.
While entitlement fans want to act like it's CERTAIN books that are sitting in stores. Because they want those books to stop being made because they don't like them.

It still falls to the OWNER. Common sense says you stop ordering. If Moon Girl #1-3 does not sell-#5-40 has no business on your shelves.
If you are fine with Batman trades collecting dust-there should be no complaints when Nighthawk or Nova (Rich version) does it.
If you only recommend whoever is popular to customers-don't cry about unsold Michael Cray, Doom Patrol, Shade, America or Wasp books.

There wouldn't be stores with $100,000 worth of products sitting in storage of multiple stores.

Whose fault is that? That is right the OWNER. Change starts at the comic book store OWNER not Marvel.
Marvel does not care. Because fans and store owners are not WILLING to change.

Maybe stop worrying about low sellers. They are NOT the ones sitting in storage in large numbers. Understand why that Peter Parker book is there-because folks found CHEAPER ways to get that book.

[Raye]

Maybe stop worrying about low sellers. They are NOT the ones sitting in storage in large numbers. Understand why that Peter Parker book is there-because folks found CHEAPER ways to get that book.

That is true. And it reminds me, that store owner who was whining about not being able to jack up the prices of back issues any more. Like, that is a very consumer unfriendly practice, and one that does not benefit the publishers either. Just the shop owners. With publishers now releasing books to digital and trade, it is now possible to catch up on nearly any series you want for at most cover price of the single issues, (unless you spring for the hardcover) but usually significantly less than that. This is wonderful for readers, it makes it significantly easier to get caught up on a book you missed out on, and easier for new readers in general. It may be part of why new readers tend to gravitate towards those formats. I know I got started with trades (Sandman mostly) in the late 90s when trades were starting to become more common, and no longer reserved just for stories of particular note. I just can not fathom actually wanting to return to the days where you had to pay through the nose to get caught up on a book. I caught up on Excalibur that way, (it took a while for it to be collected) and even though it wasn't marked up all that much, compared to some books, looking back I kinda cringe at how much I spent doing that, especially after I was able to get most of the series digitally in one of the big sales for a fraction of the price not long ago. Trades and later digital were one of the best things to happen to the industry from a reader perspective.

Oh and a general note I wanted to add because I forgot earlier. The reason the Digital Originals and other digital first efforts recently sometimes skip printing in floppies is usually because they are using non-standard formats that don't fit well with the 20 pages a month model of the direct market right now. The Digital Originals do 40 pages a month with hiatus' between arcs, other digital first books have tried a weekly model with 5ish pages a week, and a price to match, some others have done animated panels. A GN can be structured in such a way that it would be very awkward to break it up into smaller chunks just for the sake of having a floppy on the shelf. These things don't work so great in the direct market model, from a logistics/printing standpoint, so they just skipped it. This is relatively new territory and they are experimenting and trying new things to find the formats digital readers most prefer, and sometimes that means trying out new formats that don't work in the direct market. (and, btw, Marvel actually did specifically cite the Netflix characters and Cloak and Dagger being strong sellers digitally, and that was the reason they chose to launch the line with them) But a lot of the books with young characters that are being discussed here are written in the 20 pages a month model, a format they started with before the Digital Originals were a thing, so there is no reason for them to skip being published in floppies just because they may perform better in another market. The format works perfectly well as a floppy, so not doing so would just be the publishers throwing away money for no good reason. As long as they sell enough of the floppies to recoup printing costs, I mean, why NOT sell them in the direct market? A small profit is better than none, especially if it's just one market that is underperforming. You never know where a new fan will get their start. There is a trend of new readers preferring digital or trades, but that doesn't mean it's a universal thing. I get my niece Moon Girl as a floppy subscription, and if they just chose to focus on trades or digital, they would have lost her as a new fan. She is now using her allowance to buy Ms Marvel and Squirrel Girl trades.

[DragonsChi]

I'm not the one moving the goalposts. Hell, you're changing the rules of the game. You never said anything about the books having to be focused on younger characters, not a word about that.

This whole thread is about Younger characters. It's implied in every post. Not only that but my first post in this thread, which connects to all the others, has that in it. Please do keep up.

You just said that if Marvel believed in digital and TPBs/GN' as a way to sell their books, they would have a line that focused on that, and THEY DO. You also never said anything about them having to be ongoings. But these ARE ongoing, I've read them, hell, I'm subbed to them. I subbed during the first arc, and when the second arc started, i didn't have to sub again, my subscription carried over, because it is an ongoing series. They are continuing stories, just like any other book Marvel sells, they have threads that continue from one arc to the next, they are just grouping issues together under the name of the arc. They also did a standalone GN for Squirrel Girl, which does tie into the continuity of the main series, and she is is one of the younger characters. As for why other books haven't gotten one? *shrugs* maybe the Squirrel Girl one was testing the waters, maybe it was something North himself pitched and not some new initiative, I don't think it matters much, but it does demonstrate Marvel had faith in at least that one book being able to sell a standalone GN, there may be others in the future.

One title does not cover the others. A line of titles does not equate to one book. Not even sure why I have to explain that.

Also, you are jut pulling numbers out of your ass, you don't know what the store level sell through is on Squirrel Girl nation wide. And as mentioned above, Marvel doesn't give a damn how much sell through the issues get in shops, they made their money when they sold the issues to the shops. They are not losing a damn thing if the shops fail to sell those issues for whatever reason, because the direct market operates by selling the books at wholesale costs to the stores, and they are non-returnable. If the shops are over ordering that's their problem, not Marvel's. There is absolutely nothing stopping the shops from ordering more trades of these books than floppies if they wanted to. If those books sell better in trades, it is up to the shops, not Marvel, to make adjustments on the orders, all Marvel (and every other publisher) is doing is fulfilling the orders the shops make, it's not their fault if the shop owners make poor decisions. The only one here who is demonstrating that they don't understand how things work is you.

If you actually read my post I said the numbers used are an example not an exact estimate. I made the numbers smaller so you wouldn't be confused. I see now that I probably should have used even smaller digits.

What you also are not consider is the SCOPE of it all. Just because stores buy the books from Marvel does not mean they clean Marvel out. Books are not made to order. SO that means that Marvel has left over inventory each month as well. Which is a net loss on their part. This shouldn't have to be explained.

also, you do realize that Diamond releases both unit and dollar share numbers, right? and Marvel is on top in BOTH? I won't deny that Marvel has raised their cover prices (though, so has everyone else) and make more per issue sold, but there is no lie about how many issues of theirs sold, we have those numbers as well.

This is like saying the last person to die on a sinking ship won at life. That person is still going to die doesn't matter who get's to the afterlife first.



Back to the topic.... younger titles from 2016-2017 by in large (not all) had lower sales compared to the other books. If you follow the numbers it seems as if a good chuck of Marvels market jumped ship before the "Legacy" marketing campaign began and just by the numbers it seems that they may not have came back. Now it's not because the titles star younger characters it's the cruddy storylines that these characters tend to follow. My first post laid out a lot of what is wrong with them. Everything in that post were things a lot of people have said over and over again.

Now mind you Older characters have some cruddy stories aswell but they are no where near as constant as the younger heroes as a whole. They need to do better to create actual characters with interesting storylines instead of mouth pieces that can do no wrong.

[Killerbee911]

Every time you hear someone say "Digital Sales" or "Graphic Novel Sales" while ignoring weekly in store sales is a clear indicative signal of that individual is only repeating what they are told and they have no real knowledge on the market or the business aspects of it.

Anyone with even the smallest idea of business sense would tell you if the market is telling you something is working you put out more of it. If Graphic Novel Sales were so great for certain characters there would be a whole line of Graphic Novel only books and yet there are none. If Ms. Marvel, for instance, did so amazing digitally there be a digital book built around her for that audience. (Ms. Marvel is just example. Not calling her out here, Insert whoever else you want there.)

So unless the business heads at Marvel are incredibly dimwitted in terms of business and like leaving money on the table, this rumor of digital and graphic novel sales is entirely false. The very idea that a company would waste literally millions of dollars on floppies for certain characters who allegedly do better in trade format, just so they can turn around and actually sell them in trade format is asinine.
.

Did you not see Blockbuster go out of business? Did you not see Sears go out business? Businesses well ignore the obvious until it bite them in the butt.



How do you think Manga has taken over so much of Market it is not by selling floppies. Marvel and DC are absolutely being dimwitted in terms of business but being market leader and controlling industry means they can stick with model they are built around for years.They are clear obvious things

1. Modern Fans would probably prefer an al carte way to get new comics every other entertainment medium is slowly moving in that direction Music, Movies are mostly there already

2. Trades are better at getting new readers and non traditional readers into comics. Manga teaches that lesson.

Marvel and DC have no reason to change because they are currently running market and that allows them to do what they want and they have no reason to break tradition. They have been a mostly single comic sale business forever and because they have sole access to big brands in the market it is harder to challenge them to change. It is not necessary good business that happening.

[Raye]

This whole thread is about Younger characters. It's implied in every post. Not only that but my first post in this thread, which connects to all the others, has that in it. Please do keep up.

That isn't moving the goal posts, that is being off topic. There is a big difference. Am I off topic? Sure, but I am not the one who started that, I just can't let stupid conspiracy talk stand unchallenged.

One title does not cover the others. A line of titles does not equate to one book. Not even sure why I have to explain that.

this right here, this is moving the goal posts. You made statements earlier in the thread, stating examples of things Marvel would do if they believed digital and trades were viable. You never specified specifically which books had to meet these requirements, just that if Marvel saw digital or trades as viable they would have a line catering to that. You seemed to be speaking generally about digital and trade viability, not specifically in relation to books with new characters. (though, there is planty of evidence that these books do perform better in trades and digital relative to their print numbers than most other books, it is not exactly a secret that new readers, especially girls, tend to opt to read in trades or digital) Turned out they were doing exactly what you said they would be doing, I said so. Now you are coming up with excuses, making new caveats that you never stated initially, thus moving the goal posts.

The Digital Originals line was created after most of these books started being published. That they are not a part of it isn't a sign that they are not viable digitally, just that they missed the boat on getting in on it. If it works out for Marvel, they may roll other books into the line, we will have to wait and see.

If you actually read my post I said the numbers used are an example not an exact estimate. I made the numbers smaller so you wouldn't be confused. I see now that I probably should have used even smaller digits.

I am not the one who misunderstood something here. I can understand your math. It's just that it doesn't matter. You are operating under a completely flawed idea of how the direct market works, and thus the numbers you posted are, get this, COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

What you also are not consider is the SCOPE of it all. Just because stores buy the books from Marvel does not mean they clean Marvel out. Books are not made to order. SO that means that Marvel has left over inventory each month as well. Which is a net loss on their part. This shouldn't have to be explained.

I will explain in detail how things work, since you seem to be having trouble grasping this.

-Marvel/Diamond release the solicits to the stores 3 months in advance.
-The stores read these solicits, and using them as well as their own history and the sales charts Diamond releases make estimates about how many issues they anticipate they will be able to sell.
-They place orders with Diamond reflecting those estimates.
-Diamond tells the publishers how many issues they will need to fulfill orders at the final cutoff date.
-The publishers tell the printers to print enough issues to fulfill the orders, plus maybe a few extra, based on what they think may see some re-orders, but usually not too much (Publishers saying they sold out often doesn't mean anything if they went with a small over print)
-The comics are shipped to Diamond who process them and ships the comics to shops.

The publishers are not just printing books blindly, they ARE printing to order. And typically don't end up with a lot of stock left over, considering the scale of the runs. They know which runs are more likely to see re orders and print maybe an overprint to cover that, but it all depends on the specific book.

This is like saying the last person to die on a sinking ship won at life. That person is still going to die doesn't matter who get's to the afterlife first.

Again with moving the goalposts. You are an ace at this, considering you apparently don't even know what it means.
You made a bizarre conspiracy claim that Marvel was lying about how many issues sold (.... To what end? Bragging rights? An awful lot of trouble for something so inconsequential) by increasing the price of the books in order to increase their dollar share. The fact that Diamond releases unit share numbers as well clearly shows this is not what is happening, which is why I brought it up. If it was, then there would be a severe mismatch in the unit and dollar shares, and there isn't.

Back to the topic.... younger titles from 2016-2017 by in large (not all) had lower sales compared to the other books. If you follow the numbers it seems as if a good chuck of Marvels market jumped ship before the "Legacy" marketing campaign began and just by the numbers it seems that they may not have came back. Now it's not because the titles star younger characters it's the cruddy storylines that these characters tend to follow. My first post laid out a lot of what is wrong with them. Everything in that post were things a lot of people have said over and over again.

Now mind you Older characters have some cruddy stories aswell but they are no where near as constant as the younger heroes as a whole. They need to do better to create actual characters with interesting storylines instead of mouth pieces that can do no wrong.

And now just ignoring everything said about the newer characters selling in markets other than Diamond. They sell poorly in one market of several, that doesn't mean they are doing poorly overall. Marvel isn't going to publish as many issues as they have of Squirrel Girl, Ms Marvel, Moon Girl if they were losing money, they just wouldn't. You don't like the stories, fine, whatever, I doubt you are their target audience anyway. but that doesn't mean they haven't found an audience elsewhere, or that their stories do not resonate with the audiences they are actually aimed at.