Keeping track of X-books sales

[LordUltimus]

Thought it deserved a thread. Here's a video to start discussion:

[Outburstz]

Personally I don't care about sales of a comic because that is not a good metric of quality. I only read what I like and keep it moving.

[Uncanny X-Man]

Great idea for a topic LordUltimus and very interesting analysis you shared there. I must say it doesn't really surprise me in the slightest that the overall trend is negative and that new launches are bringing in diminishing returns: that's been the way for a very long time now and it's how Marvel has trained retailers and readers alike to behave - focus on the event books and the variant covers, the ongoing books don't really matter because they're going to get cancelled/relaunched in 1-2 years time, at which point you can collect that shiny #1 again, which will inevitably sell less than the last shiny #1, rinse and repeat again until the numbers start to become abysmal. It's an oversimplification I'll admit, and there are certainly some exception to this, but generally speaking this is the bed Marvel has been making for the past 20 years.

Another factor to add to the analysis, which I believe goes hand to hand with the above, is that you followed up 2 miniseries (House of X/Powers of X) with 6 ongoing books, most of them double-shipping initially, followed shortly by another handful of new ongoing books. Of course you're not going to follow that same trend-line: regardless of what Marvel is saying, these books are aimed at the same audience, who has a limited budget to spend every month and who might decide to walk away from the line as a whole rather than stick with 1 or 2 titles due to the interconnectivity and inevitable crossovers.

[Captain Nash]

Disregarding first issues of a series/era, a benchmark number of a book like 500/600, and the odd book here or there, have ANY of the X-Books really sold all that well since the Morrison era? I think HOX/POX/DOX is doing better overall than the last few creative "eras" but it still pales compared to what it was nearly 20 years ago.

Then again, I think that's true for the industry as a whole and marvel in particular. Comics are not a thing of the past by any means, but their heyday was overall the 80s and 90s. (Batman excepting I'd say)

[Ferro]

we have multiple satelite titles breaking 20 issues, it's by far the most sucessfull "marvel" relaunch, if this is a failure, what makes the rest of marvel?

[Uncanny X-Man]

Disregarding first issues of a series/era, a benchmark number of a book like 500/600, and the odd book here or there, have ANY of the X-Books really sold all that well since the Morrison era? I think HOX/POX/DOX is doing better overall than the last few creative "eras" but it still pales compared to what it was nearly 20 years ago.

Then again, I think that's true for the industry as a whole and marvel in particular. Comics are not a thing of the past by any means, but their heyday was overall the 80s and 90s. (Batman excepting I'd say)

That's true, every comparison between now and 20 years ago is bound to look bad because sales have mostly been contracting for the market as a whole. Or have they? It would be interesting to measure X-Men sales as a percentage of the overall market rather than outright comparing sales numbers between 2 books 20 years apart.

[Devaishwarya]

Personally I don't care about sales of a comic because that is not a good metric of quality. I only read what I like and keep it moving.

Same here...100%

[Ferro]

it doesnt account trades, digital OR the Dawn of X trades that comply several difrent titles,

[CGAR]

Honestly I think its because X-MEN isnt in some of the titles.

I think that there was a lot of expectation that titles would be Hickman esque but as we've learned the only writer who has come close to that is Al Ewing. And he wasn't even part of Dawn of X.

I'm also surprised that some of these titles are NOT in the 60,000 range.

If they want to keep the sales up they have to bring in A list writers and artist. And I doubt Marvel will give the x-office the budget for that.

Really curious to see what the sells are now.

[Rang10]

we have multiple satelite titles breaking 20 issues, it's by far the most sucessfull "marvel" relaunch, if this is a failure, what makes the rest of marvel?

Bendis, Gold/blue did tht without a giant crossover.


One important thing he said on comments that Digital sales are like 6% of overall sales, so it is not relevant to analyze

Honestly I think its because X-MEN isnt in some of the titles.

I think that there was a lot of expectation that titles would be Hickman esque but as we've learned the only writer who has come close to that is Al Ewing. And he wasn't even part of Dawn of X.

I'm also surprised that some of these titles are NOT in the 60,000 range.

If they want to keep the sales up they have to bring in A list writers and artist. And I doubt Marvel will give the x-office the budget for that.

Really curious to see what the sells are now.

Seems like the budget went all over for paying Hickman to be Head of X.

Agree. I think people want to pick up the HOX/POX threds and develop it on a high concept and we simply didn't got that.

[Killerbee911]

I'm also surprised that some of these titles are NOT in the 60,000 range.
.

What book is regularly in the 60,000 range today? Only Spiderman, Batman, X-men, Justice League(maybe Avengers) is a guarantee for that range of sales, this era of comics is different. The books at last check were doing what they should be doing (and trending a little higher in fact). The only disappointment is X-men has proven it is capable of keeping two books near each other in the top 10. But it is just in a name thing and for some reason, they are keeping Uncanny X-men in their back pocket. The brand power of Uncanny would probably drive Marauders or X-force to higher sales but everything else looks fine for now.

There is an interesting discussion about digital comics in the covid world to be had about as well.

[CGAR]

If they launch at 80,000 to 100,000.

Why would it be unrealistic to think that they'd bottom out at least 60,000? Especially since it was a Hickman relaunch.

[Killerbee911]

If they launch at 80,000 to 100,000.

Why would it be unrealistic to think that they'd bottom out at least 60,000? Especially since it was a Hickman relaunch.

Because the market has shown that they don't do that and the median book is about 40,000 to 30,000 in this market and the Top books are about 80,000 to 60,000 range. The X-men traditionally have about two books in the top ten range Uncanny and adjectiveless. Not having two X-men books close to the top ten is the anomaly. If the average book in this era is about 40k to 30k why would you expect most X-books to be 60k?

When have the other X-men books been consistent top 10 to 15 books? For most X-books, the general expectation for them is about the Market average based on history and that isn't 60k today. The only carryover names are X-force, X factor, New Mutants, and Excalibur. And Remender run is the only time I remember X-force post 90s Liefeld era where that concept was consistently considered a 10 ten book and that wasn't for long. None of those other concepts mention before have been top ten books for extended periods. The only way you should be expecting multiple books in 60k if literally all of them were called X-men. I think we have had some periods where Uncanny, Adjectiveless, and third book like a Legacy/Unlimited/Amazing X-men were all in the top 15.

You can't pick a number and ignore that is not realistic for the Market. Jan 1995 the lowest book in the top ten was 170,000, In Jan 2005 it was 80,000, Jan 2021 in 56,000. Hickman's name isn't magic it is not going to make books perform above market norms. Where the Hickman X-men launch succeeded that it put an X-men book in the top ten, something the books were doing before, and generally most books are trending(maybe temporarily) above levels before the relaunch. Where the relaunch failed is there isn't another book in the top ten were in the past Uncanny, Blue, or whatever it is called in the era would be in the top ten/fifteen range as well. So one of the books between Maraduers/X-force or Exacliber is a serious failure.

But other than we were getting about expect numbers with most books trending a little higher which is good because most books are like 12 to 24 issues away from cancelation compared to the past. Remember before the relaunch for example some age of X-man books launch at cancelation level. For Marvel milking, another year of Excaliber or New Mutants books is a win. Launching Hellion or Sword and they won't be canceled in the first run is a win. Even the worse book Fallen Angels was nowhere close to being canceled would have definitely made 12 issues. I think the realistic expectation for the line is

-2 books in the top ten
-2 more books in the 25 to 40
-everything else above cancelation for as long as possible

Marvel didn't come into this expecting books to get 90s era numbers

[Ferro]

Bendis, Gold/blue did tht without a giant crossover.


One important thing he said on comments that Digital sales are like 6% of overall sales, so it is not relevant to analyze



Seems like the budget went all over for paying Hickman to be Head of X.

Agree. I think people want to pick up the HOX/POX threds and develop it on a high concept and we simply didn't got that.

no they did not that is a blatant lie

gold blue AND weapon X were the ONLY titles after ressurexion to cross the 20 issue mark, genx/astonishing/xforce/x-men red/ iceman /Cable Allllllllll failed the 20 issue mark, Generation X in that era was canceled barely hitting 12 issues, jean grey issue 11 too, cable on 5 issues

IN bendis era watxm AND x-men vol 4 and that was for a bit considered "sorta" flagship (battle of the atom lasted for TWO MONTHS SAME AS XOS btw) and spurriers legacy wich was carried by god knows what(it was amazing so it deserved it)
Amazing x-men, all new x factor, all 3 x forces, wolverines, astonishing by liu also ended around that time, can i go on?

your statement is factually wrong these two eras aren't comparable to this one in general title sucess.

AND battle of the atom, black vortex, both x-forces crossing over, the mojo crossover in 2017, ETC there was massive crossovers back then as well, especialy since in the bendis era the 4 "flagships" (allnew, uncanny, Watxm and woodx-men) all stared the same A list characters, amazing x-men went on to do the same, to a point wolverine was a "main character" in 5 teams at the same time!

you're prespective is clouded by bias beacause what you said is blantantly wrong.

[Vishop]

Honestly I think its because X-MEN isnt in some of the titles.

I think that there was a lot of expectation that titles would be Hickman esque but as we've learned the only writer who has come close to that is Al Ewing. And he wasn't even part of Dawn of X.

Not just Hickman but popular titles such as UXM sells a lot more in general. "X-Men" is a brand