As I said, I don't have the link I originally used for that paper, I almost never save links (especially for college work). Even if I did, if I shared it, all it would do is ask you to log into the university website to view it, which I doubt anyone can do (it'd be a hell of a coincidence if we attended the same school). So I got the next best thing I could find. And I have been very upfront about that. It's not the best source but it closely matches the research I can't share.
And sales *do not* equate recognition. That is a false equivalency. That's first semester business basics man. People can know who Superman is without spending money on his merchandise. Sales =/= recognition. They just don't, no matter how much you might think they do. And this isn't popularity either; people can know who Superman is and not be a fan.
If all you have is "Batman sells more so he must have higher recognition" then I'll leave you to your flawed logic, because that's just not how it works. Again, I leave the example of Overwatch and Sherlock Holmes. One is a billion dollar video game IP and one is a literary classic. The video game makes more money. Much more. By your reasoning, it must be more well known around the world than Sherlock Holmes, right? But does that seem likely to you? I would hope not.
I'm not just talking out of my ass here man. This is crap I've spent many years studying and working with, and the information I'm relaying isn't my own work or opinion but the research of professionals who have certainly put more time into the topic than either of us.
Also, you've been saying Batman must be more well known, but now you say trying to label either as more well known is disingenuous. Which is it?