Editorial and the Public Opinion Court of Spiderman comics?

[Coop]

You could easily make this argument pre-OMD. It was selling just fine, so changing things to appease people who rather it be like books that sell worse isn’t a smart strategy…

Agreed again. They also experiment with every other status quo shock, like having sex offender Doc Ock pleasuring himself in the shower to Peter's memories.

Yet there is one taboo that is clearly wrong.

I'd say the Marvel marketing team knowing how to play the speculator market with variants is a bigger contributor to the success than the editorial or creative direction

[DT Winslow]

DC made those reversions because the changes led to lower sales. They followed the money. The New 52 was big out of the gate but had no legs. And they may have reverted a lot of things but they’ve never really recovered. The histories of these characters don’t make any sense anymore. Creatively, I don’t like where DC is right now. Especially with Williamson in creative control. Hell, I barely like where Marvel is right now.

If Spider-Man took a large enough hit in its sales, you’d see changes. We can say all sorts of crap about variants and collectors and all that but Marvel is making the money on the book. As long as it makes enough to justify itself, this train will keep on chugging along. And since this train seems to be going real fast, I’m guessing it’s more than justifying itself. Cash is king. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Michael Bay made 5 Transformers movies. They are all bad. But they continued until the sales suffered. When sales dropped, so did Bay.

[Mister Mets]

You could easily make this argument pre-OMD. It was selling just fine, so changing things to appease people who rather it be like books that sell worse isn’t a smart strategy…

Sales were dipping right before the book was connected to event issues largely meant to set up OMD (The four issues of "The Other" followed by three issues of "Road to Civil War" followed by seven issues of Civil War tie-ins followed by the five issue 'Back in Black' which was a last minute addition that had the highest sales) and there were other problems including the disparity between Amazing Spider-Man and the satellite books.

But the decision was about long-term health rather than short or even mid-term sales.

[DT Winslow]

Sales were dipping right before the book was connected to event issues largely meant to set up OMD (The four issues of "The Other" followed by three issues of "Road to Civil War" followed by seven issues of Civil War tie-ins followed by the five issue 'Back in Black' which was a last minute addition that had the highest sales) and there were other problems including the disparity between Amazing Spider-Man and the satellite books.

But the decision was about long-term health rather than short or even mid-term sales.

Get out of here with your crazy ass facts!!

[Tuck]

Get out of here with your crazy ass facts!!

You should use a hyphen. "Crazy-ass facts" and "crazy ass facts" are two very different things.

[DT Winslow]

You should use a hyphen. "Crazy-ass facts" and "crazy ass facts" are two very different things.

Thank you, I really needed that laugh!

[Garlador]

Sales were dipping right before the book was connected to event issues largely meant to set up OMD (The four issues of "The Other" followed by three issues of "Road to Civil War" followed by seven issues of Civil War tie-ins followed by the five issue 'Back in Black' which was a last minute addition that had the highest sales) and there were other problems including the disparity between Amazing Spider-Man and the satellite books.

But the decision was about long-term health rather than short or even mid-term sales.

I looked this up… I’m not seeing this. I pulled up sales rankings of Spider-Man from 1999-2001 and the title was a consistent top 5 seller. Then Raimi’s Spider-Man movie came out and the sales jumped even higher and were stable through 2005.

And then sales did not in fact explode post-OMD either. They gained a few new readers, lost several readers. Based on all the sales records I’ve seen, it was just… a zero sum exchange (slight net negative) and the book is significantly less healthy now than it was pre-OMD (and certainly less than the marriage era of the 90s).

It wasn’t sales. Even Slott said it wasn’t. It was because editorial hated the marriage. Quesada admitted he hated it from the start and planned on getting rid of it, then spent years trying to come up with the right story to erase it.

[Lee]

The book seems to be selling, so changing things to appease people who would rather it be like books that sell worse isn't a smart strategy.
It comes out on time. There aren't public spats between creators. Firing people could lead to worse outcomes on most metrics.

Exactly.

More to the point, "Some people are mad about your comics online" isn't grounds for firing people.

[Garlador]

Exactly.

More to the point, "Some people are mad about your comics online" isn't grounds for firing people.

Dozens of publications from Yahoo News to Vogue Magazine to NBC were running articles staring “current Spider-Man comic derided as sexist and racist”…

Why are some insisting this was some quiet part of the internet and not something that made headlines? Do you want me to post the list of dozens of professional news sites that talked about how controversial this comic has been lately?

Even Disney doesn’t want THAT kind of heat.

[DT Winslow]

Dozens of publications from Yahoo News to Vogue Magazine to NBC were running articles staring “current Spider-Man comic derided as sexist and racist”…

Why are some insisting this was some quiet part of the internet and not something that made headlines? Do you want me to post the list of dozens of professional news sites that talked about how controversial this comic has been lately?

Even Disney doesn’t want THAT kind of heat.

Unless it pops up in their Facebook feed, most people won’t ever know. Not really. 24 hour news cycle means this is already over. It’s not like they found cocaine at the Marvel offices or anything.

[Mister Mets]

I looked this up… I’m not seeing this. I pulled up sales rankings of Spider-Man from 1999-2001 and the title was a consistent top 5 seller. Then Raimi’s Spider-Man movie came out and the sales jumped even higher and were stable through 2005.

And then sales did not in fact explode post-OMD either. They gained a few new readers, lost several readers. Based on all the sales records I’ve seen, it was just… a zero sum exchange (slight net negative) and the book is significantly less healthy now than it was pre-OMD (and certainly less than the marriage era of the 90s).

It wasn’t sales. Even Slott said it wasn’t. It was because editorial hated the marriage. Quesada admitted he hated it from the start and planned on getting rid of it, then spent years trying to come up with the right story to erase it.

I said that the decision was about long-term health rather than short-term or midterm sales.

This website has some good sales archives.

https://comichron.com/blog/

September 2005 was JMS' lowest selling issue of Amazing Spider-Man.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...5/2005-09.html

Amazing Spider-Man #524 had an estimated 71,057 copies. It was in 25th place.

In contrast, it was selling in 9th place in July 2003 at an estimated 94,782 copies. In 8th place was another issue of Amazing Spider-Man with an estimated 95,074 copies.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...3/2003-07.html

With sales arguments, the subtext (and often the text) is that if it wasn't for a particular decision the book would be better. If we're looking at the marriage era of the 90s that's more about the speculator boom than any good faith argument that we'd get those sales again on Amazing Spider-Man if only they'd follow your advice.

[Garlador]

I said that the decision was about long-term health rather than short-term or midterm sales.

This website has some good sales archives.

https://comichron.com/blog/

September 2005 was JMS' lowest selling issue of Amazing Spider-Man.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...5/2005-09.html

Amazing Spider-Man #524 had an estimated 71,057 copies. It was in 25th place.

In contrast, it was selling in 9th place in July 2003 at an estimated 94,782 copies. In 8th place was another issue of Amazing Spider-Man with an estimated 95,074 copies.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...3/2003-07.html

With sales arguments, the subtext (and often the text) is that if it wasn't for a particular decision the book would be better. If we're looking at the marriage era of the 90s that's more about the speculator boom than any good faith argument that we'd get those sales again on Amazing Spider-Man if only they'd follow your advice.

You just proved my point. Until 2005, it was doing well (and I see Spectacular Spidey at #3 in that second link). The problem clearly wasn’t the MARRIAGE. It was selling just fine with the marriage in years prior, using your link as a reference. The book itself just wasn’t at a creative high point either (it was less than a year out from Sins Past…)

Those “bad” numbers also make me realize how many books wish they could sell at those numbers today.

[DT Winslow]

You just proved my point. Until 2005, it was doing well (and I see Spectacular Spidey at #3 in that second link). The problem clearly wasn’t the MARRIAGE. It was selling just fine with the marriage in years prior, using your link as a reference.

Those “bad” numbers also make me realize how many books wish they could sell at those numbers today.

It was selling well enough, sure, but the book lost about 25,000 readers over the course of a year. It gains them back during the latter part of The Other and rides very high with event boosts. The important thing to consider is that during the year it lost units, there were no significant market changes. In fact, it’s one of the better periods of the 2000’s until Civil War.

The entire market suffered two separate crashes in 2010 from which it hasn’t recovered. One at 10% and the other at 20%. The whole industry lost about 30% in 2010. In 2005, there were no market changes. It was abnormally healthy. I stopped following the dips about 2017 because it became a very weird market. It’s very easy to look at the numbers in a vacuum but you can’t do that. There’s an entire market that fluctuates.

[Garlador]

It was selling well enough, sure, but the book lost about 25,000 readers over the course of a year. It gains them back during the latter part of The Other and rides very high with event boosts. The important thing to consider is that during the year it lost units, there were no significant market changes. In fact, it’s one of the better periods of the 2000’s until Civil War.

The entire market suffered two separate crashes in 2010 from which it hasn’t recovered. One at 10% and the other at 20%. The whole industry lost about 30% in 2010. In 2005, there were no market changes. It was abnormally healthy. I stopped following the dips about 2017 because it became a very weird market. It’s very easy to look at the numbers in a vacuum but you can’t do that. There’s an entire market that fluctuates.

Exactly.

That’s why you can’t blame one thing. It’s a variety of things.

She-Hulk gets a bad run and sales dip. Is it because people don’t like the current story? Is it because the art changed? Is it due to a new writer? An unfavorable retcon? A national recession? General apathy or waning interest? Not sexy enough? A tonal shift? A crossover or event book threw the book pacing out of whack? Etc.

If something was successful for over 20 years, I’d be very skeptical of anyone saying “it’s that darn marriage hurting sales!” when there are likely countless other factors at play.

Heck, I love Scarlet Spider, but didn’t like his last book. Marvel concluded “well, guess readers don’t want Scarlet Spider!”

[DT Winslow]

Exactly.

That’s why you can’t blame one thing. It’s a variety of things.

She-Hulk gets a bad run and sales dip. Is it because people don’t like the current story? Is it because the art changed? Is it due to a new writer? An unfavorable retcon? A national recession? General apathy or waning interest? Not sexy enough? A tonal shift? A crossover or event book threw the book pacing out of whack? Etc.

If something was successful for over 20 years, I’d be very skeptical of anyone saying “it’s that darn marriage hurting sales!” when there are likely countless other factors at play.

Heck, I love Scarlet Spider, but didn’t like his last book. Marvel concluded “well, guess readers don’t want Scarlet Spider!”

I try and look at it historically. I’m sure Marvel does too, really. How has the character fared over the years? How does the market generally respond to this writer? How has the market responded to the artist? Case in point, Scarlet Witch. She’s not a character that has held a book well. Steve Orlando has never set the charts on fire. Pichelli is stellar but doesn’t move the needle and has a rough deadline history. It’s not doing well.

Marvel made a decision and has put forth a bunch of half-assed excuses. There’s two reasons. One, some folks behind the scenes don’t like the marriage. Two, they think it will be better 100 years from now if he’s not married. Laid out better, they think the character will survive better in the Simpsons model.

Ideally, as readers, we should take it all as it is, not as we want it to be. I understand the emotion overwhelms that. Don’t get me started on Legion of Superheroes, for example. Spider-Man isn’t where some people want it to be. The healthy decision would be to drop the book and try it again with another writer. Especially if it is damaging someone’s mental health.