Things to keep in mind when concocting behind-the-scenes conspiracy theories...

[bob.schoonover]

So, if there's an approx. difference between company to store sales and store to customer sales, what would be the takeaway?

It's case by case. If there's a chase variant, it might mean stores bought extra to get the (high markup) variant and will dollar-bin some extras. It could happen with event books that fans don't care about (but retailers thought they would) or a #2 where retailers overestimated interest from issue #1 (or 3 from 2).

The amount of difference matters, too - if ASM 26 sells 100,000 to retailers and 96,000 to fans and Spider-boy sells 101,000 to retailers and 95,000 to fans, that's 2000 extra copies floating across a few hundred stores, and they may sell later if word of mouth picks up (all numbers entirely made up, to be clear). No real takeaway, the book is fine. On the other hand if Spider-boy is 101,000/80,000 (or worse), then the market will correct (or over correct) on orders of issues 2, 3, 4, etc.

[Dan Slott]

So, if there's an approx. difference between company to store sales and store to customer sales, what would be the takeaway?

I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with Rich over this. Especially when the word "maybe" shows up in his post a lot when talking about different potential scenarios.

There have been times when Rich has gotten things wrong, like when he lumped in an issue of ASM that my team worked on when talking about books that had their numbers greatly inflated by being Loot Crated. That issue had not been Loot Crated. And Rich was nice enough to amend his posts and his article when this was pointed out. And there have been times when I've gotten things wrong, like when I referenced an incorrect source when talking about sales of Liefeld's X-FORCE #1, and when I was shown the correct information, I admitted my mistake and made a correction.

SPIDER-BOY #1 did exceptionally well with Point of Sale purchases to customers in shops. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have been November's #1 book over at ICV2 (which has its data collected by Point of Sale purchases to customers). It also did phenomenally well with retailer variants-- which are variants that retailers commissioned for their own stores. Many of those go on sale on those stores' digital storefronts. So if someone who lives outside of an easy commute to that shop, and they specifically want that cover as the issue of SPIDER-BOY #1 that they're buying, those sales might be measured a different way than the copies that are hand sold at the register.

In the meantime, I'm going to wait until ICV2 posts their Point of Sale numbers for 2023 and see if those are different. For example, the way Bleeding Cool collected its data for November 2023's titles had SPIDER-BOY #1 in their number 2 spot. Meanwhile, ICV2's numbers (also using Point of Sale data) had the book Bleeding Cool placed in its number 1 spot at five spots lower in ICV2's number 6 spot. This isn't an exact science. What I do know for certain is the sales/rankings I've seen from Marvel's data. And I'll stand by everything I've said about that.

[Rich Johnston]

I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with Rich over this. Especially when the word "maybe" shows up in his post a lot when talking about different potential scenarios.

There have been times when Rich has gotten things wrong, like when he lumped in an issue of ASM that my team worked on when talking about books that had their numbers greatly inflated by being Loot Crated. That issue had not been Loot Crated. And Rich was nice enough to amend his posts and his article when this was pointed out. And there have been times when I've gotten things wrong, like when I referenced an incorrect source when talking about sales of Liefeld's X-FORCE #1, and when I was shown the correct information, I admitted my mistake and made a correction.

SPIDER-BOY #1 did exceptionally well with Point of Sale purchases to customers in shops. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have been November's #1 book over at ICV2 (which has its data collected by Point of Sale purchases to customers). It also did phenomenally well with retailer variants-- which are variants that retailers commissioned for their own stores. Many of those go on sale on those stores' digital storefronts. So if someone who lives outside of an easy commute to that shop, and they specifically want that cover as the issue of SPIDER-BOY #1 that they're buying, those sales might be measured a different way than the copies that are hand sold at the register.

In the meantime, I'm going to wait until ICV2 posts their Point of Sale numbers for 2023 and see if those are different. For example, the way Bleeding Cool collected its data for November 2023's titles had SPIDER-BOY #1 in their number 2 spot. Meanwhile, ICV2's numbers (also using Point of Sale data) had the book Bleeding Cool placed in its number 1 spot at five spots lower in ICV2's number 6 spot. This isn't an exact science. What I do know for certain is the sales/rankings I've seen from Marvel's data. And I'll stand by everything I've said about that.

That's a big one. Retailer-exclusive covers concentrate thousands of sales onto a small amount of stores and are less likely to be picked up by the ComicHub reports. While 144 out of 2000 stores is an okay sample it is less likely to reflect if 10 of those 2000 stores ordered retailer-exclusive covers, and sold them en masse, even though it might have added tens of thousands of ordered copies to Marvel's internal total

[Mister Mets]

I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with Rich over this. Especially when the word "maybe" shows up in his post a lot when talking about different potential scenarios.

There have been times when Rich has gotten things wrong, like when he lumped in an issue of ASM that my team worked on when talking about books that had their numbers greatly inflated by being Loot Crated. That issue had not been Loot Crated. And Rich was nice enough to amend his posts and his article when this was pointed out. And there have been times when I've gotten things wrong, like when I referenced an incorrect source when talking about sales of Liefeld's X-FORCE #1, and when I was shown the correct information, I admitted my mistake and made a correction.

SPIDER-BOY #1 did exceptionally well with Point of Sale purchases to customers in shops. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have been November's #1 book over at ICV2 (which has its data collected by Point of Sale purchases to customers). It also did phenomenally well with retailer variants-- which are variants that retailers commissioned for their own stores. Many of those go on sale on those stores' digital storefronts. So if someone who lives outside of an easy commute to that shop, and they specifically want that cover as the issue of SPIDER-BOY #1 that they're buying, those sales might be measured a different way than the copies that are hand sold at the register.

In the meantime, I'm going to wait until ICV2 posts their Point of Sale numbers for 2023 and see if those are different. For example, the way Bleeding Cool collected its data for November 2023's titles had SPIDER-BOY #1 in their number 2 spot. Meanwhile, ICV2's numbers (also using Point of Sale data) had the book Bleeding Cool placed in its number 1 spot at five spots lower in ICV2's number 6 spot. This isn't an exact science. What I do know for certain is the sales/rankings I've seen from Marvel's data. And I'll stand by everything I've said about that.

He is basically arguing that Spider-Boy might make more money for Marvel than the Comicshub estimates show.

[Dan Slott]

Comic companies are still companies.
And companies are about making money.
With that in mind, take a look at this chart for the Top 50 issues of 2023.

Screen Shot 2024-03-26 at 7.03.19 PM.jpg

Marvel has 30 books on that chart.
Over 20 of those Marvel issues are either edited directly by Nick Lowe, or edited by the talented people he oversees in his office.

No other editor at ANY company has an office that performed that well.
Not even the Bat office.
No other editor at ANY company even comes close.

Do you think Marvel, as a money making company, is pleased or displeased with that track record?

So, as far as online conspiracy theories go, how credible do you think a fan would be to push their own self-generated rumor that Marvel would want to fire and/or remove him from those books?

Edit: *sigh* One more time, for those in the back. The rankings on these charts are based on ICV2's data-- with is POS-- Point of Sale. That means these were sales made directly to customers at the register. So these numbers are NOT the result of a retailer hitting numbers in order to get rare variants.

[Mercwmouth12]

Comic companies are still companies.
And companies are about making money.
With that in mind, take a look at this chart for the Top 50 issues of 2023.

Screen Shot 2024-03-26 at 7.03.19 PM.jpg

Marvel has 30 books on that chart.
Over 20 of those Marvel issues are either edited directly by Nick Lowe, or edited by the talented people he oversees in his office.

No other editor at ANY company has an office that performed that well.
Not even the Bat office.
No other editor at ANY company even comes close.

Do you think Marvel, as a money making company, is pleased or displeased with that track record?

So, as far as online conspiracy theories go, how credible do you think a fan would be to push their own self-generated rumor that Marvel would want to fire and/or remove him from those books?

Here's a conspiracy question.. how often would an editor jump ship to another distributor or what would lead to something like that happening?

[Dan Slott]

That's a good question! It certainly does happen. When Marvel was looking for an editor who could manage the unwieldy task of putting out AMAZING SPIDER-MAN three times a month, the went out of their way to steal Steve Wacker from DC, because he'd been successful at putting out DC's weekly 52 title.

Ellie Pyle was at Marvel first, before going to DC's Vertigo line, and then eventually going back to Marvel.
I've seem Marvel editors move over to Image, Boom, and IDW.

A lot of the times it usually has to do with intangibles. Things fans couldn't possibly know about. Personal reasons. Like a spouse getting a job across the country-- but close by a different comic book company. Or an editor just having an itch to try something new. Or being offered a raise in title, responsibilities, and/or money. Or something as primal as "I've always been a DC (or Marvel) guy at heart."

[SturdyMike89]

Comic companies are still companies.
And companies are about making money.
With that in mind, take a look at this chart for the Top 50 issues of 2023.

Screen Shot 2024-03-26 at 7.03.19 PM.jpg

Marvel has 30 books on that chart.
Over 20 of those Marvel issues are either edited directly by Nick Lowe, or edited by the talented people he oversees in his office.

No other editor at ANY company has an office that performed that well.
Not even the Bat office.
No other editor at ANY company even comes close.

Do you think Marvel, as a money making company, is pleased or displeased with that track record?

So, as far as online conspiracy theories go, how credible do you think a fan would be to push their own self-generated rumor that Marvel would want to fire and/or remove him from those books?

Edit: *sigh* One more time, for those in the back. The rankings on these charts are based on ICV2's data-- with is POS-- Point of Sale. That means these were sales made directly to customers at the register. So these numbers are NOT the result of a retailer hitting numbers in order to get rare variants.

Nick Lowe is responsible for a lot of what people (me included) like about the modern Spider-Man line. Yes, he oversees the very successful Amazing, but he also oversees Miles Morales (a run that has been well received by many including me), a lot of Spider-Man mini-series that people seem to like (J.M. DeMatteis, Tom DeFalco, and Peter David among others have done well received minis that I have seen people on this very site praise), and well the two well received comics that Dan Slott has out now that themselves spun out of a book that itself was received and sold very well. My point is that it is very easy to say that he is ruining the Spider-Man line, but as Mr. Slott pointed out he is one of the most successful editors the line has had financially, and I would argue critically since Danny Fingeroth who had the job from the late 80s to early 90s.

[Dan Slott]

Saw someone coming up with their own crazy behind-the-scenes conspiracy stuff from 2018 to 2022, and trying to discount things I've said online, by pointing out that "Dan Slott wouldn't have known about that thing in the Spider-Office because he wasn't working there at the time."

Yes. That's exactly how that works. Because I wasn't working there at the time. Because I was working on Iron Man and Fantastic Four over in Instanbul. In a parallel universe. And not at (checks notes) Marvel Comics. And I had no ties whatsoever to (checks notes) the specific office I worked at or with the people/creators/editors I worked with for over a decade.

To think that I wouldn't know the day to day minutia of mini-series, specials, and spin-off books is one thing.
To think that I-- and many others at Marvel-- wouldn't know the larger strokes about what was going on in regards to numerous flagship titles is a special kind of crazy.

Watching people online believe-- with absolute certainty-- that they understand the ins-and-outs of what's going on behind-the-scenes, or even basic things like the power structure and hierarchy at Marvel and who is making calls on what characters/lines/properties/etc and (more importantly) WHY is something to behold.

People on the internet are loopy.

[Mercwmouth12]

Saw someone coming up with their own crazy behind-the-scenes conspiracy stuff from 2018 to 2022, and trying to discount things I've said online, by pointing out that "Dan Slott wouldn't have known about that thing in the Spider-Office because he wasn't working there at the time."

Yes. That's exactly how that works. Because I wasn't working there at the time. Because I was working on Iron Man and Fantastic Four over in Instanbul. In a parallel universe. And not at (checks notes) Marvel Comics. And I had no ties whatsoever to (checks notes) the specific office I worked at or with the people/creators/editors I worked with for over a decade.

To think that I wouldn't know the day to day minutia of mini-series, specials, and spin-off books is one thing.
To think that I-- and many others at Marvel-- wouldn't know the larger strokes about what was going on in regards to numerous flagship titles is a special kind of crazy.

Watching people online believe-- with absolute certainty-- that they understand the ins-and-outs of what's going on behind-the-scenes, or even basic things like the power structure and hierarchy at Marvel and who is making calls on what characters/lines/properties/etc and (more importantly) WHY is something to behold.

People on the internet are loopy.

So is the annual comic retreat like a comic con for marvel writers?

[Dan Slott]

So is the annual comic retreat like a comic con for marvel writers?

Pre-pandemic, it was closer to three or four times a year. And that's not including different units (like the Avengers, X, or Spider Offices) having the occasional mini-summit.
During the pandemic, things switched to Zoom. And we're just getting around to doing more in-person summits.

Over the course of three days, there are times where everyone gets caught up on what every group, book, and main character are doing-- a recap of where things have been, what's currently going on, and where things are going. There's also time for different departments to talk about what they're doing. We're told about the status of the industry and how various titles are doing/performing. And, along the way, there will be planning and brainstorming for upcoming stories and events. Sometimes some of the groups will break off and have mini-summits. Sometimes there'll be talk about what new books Marvel wants to develop.

It's not always the same though. Sometimes there may be more of a focus on one thing than another. For example, sometimes the planning of an upcoming line wide event will take up the majority of the summit.

The retreats can be fun, but they can also be brutal. What one line of books wants to do-- or what one main title wants to do-- may step on the toes of someone's plans for an entire year of their book. And suddenly, that person will need to toss out everything they were planning and come up with a completely different storyline. I've seen that happen to LOTS of creators (myself included). That can be a huge blow to take. The flipside can also happen-- where something you were stuck on in your book-- suddenly works because another creator let's you borrow a character that you didn't think you'd be able to get.

I've had retreats that've gone great, and retreats that have crushed me. But, end of the day, they've always been places where I've felt privileged to be there, because I really do like the process of how everything comes together. And it's great to see the other comic book creators and hear what they've got planned. It's not like a comic con though. It's work. It's always about the work.

[SturdyMike89]

Pre-pandemic, it was closer to three or four times a year. And that's not including different units (like the Avengers, X, or Spider Offices) having the occasional mini-summit.
During the pandemic, things switched to Zoom. And we're just getting around to doing more in-person summits.

Over the course of three days, there are times where everyone gets caught up on what every group, book, and main character are doing-- a recap of where things have been, what's currently going on, and where things are going. There's also time for different departments to talk about what they're doing. We're told about the status of the industry and how various titles are doing/performing. And, along the way, there will be planning and brainstorming for upcoming stories and events. Sometimes some of the groups will break off and have mini-summits. Sometimes there'll be talk about what new books Marvel wants to develop.

It's not always the same though. Sometimes there may be more of a focus on one thing than another. For example, sometimes the planning of an upcoming line wide event will take up the majority of the summit.

The retreats can be fun, but they can also be brutal. What one line of books wants to do-- or what one main title wants to do-- may step on the toes of someone's plans for an entire year of their book. And suddenly, that person will need to toss out everything they were planning and come up with a completely different storyline. I've seen that happen to LOTS of creators (myself included). That can be a huge blow to take. The flipside can also happen-- where something you were stuck on in your book-- suddenly works because another creator let's you borrow a character that you didn't think you'd be able to get.

I've had retreats that've gone great, and retreats that have crushed me. But, end of the day, they've always been places where I've felt privileged to be there, because I really do like the process of how everything comes together. And it's great to see the other comic book creators and hear what they've got planned. It's not like a comic con though. It's work. It's always about the work.

One moment I am always reminded of when I think of writer's retreats and changing plans comes from the Distinguished Competition. Plans were in place to have Superman finally marry Lois Lane. Plans that had been built up to in the comics for some time. At the retreat where those plans were being finalized, the assembled talent was told that they couldn't do that because ABC was working on a romantic version of the story called Lois & Clark and they wanted the marriage on the show and the comics to be done simultaneously. Their plans now being undone, the writers had to come up with a whole new outline. At every one of those retreats, one of the creators always would joke when things were tough "I know! Let's just kill him!" Every other time everyone would either groan or laugh. This time however...

[Dan Slott]

There was someone who used to post here on CBR and one of the frequent things they'd do is talk about how Stan Lee felt about things.
They would make post after post where they would talk about Stan Lee's views on subjects-- and those views would always magically align with the poster's own personal views.

And I would pop up here on the CBR boards and go, "That's nonsense. Stan never said that. Show me the quote. Show me where Stan Lee said that." And there were also times where I'd pull up examples where Stan had said the exact opposite of what that poster was putting forth.

Nowadays, I get to see that exact same poster run around the internet and make up-- out of whole cloth-- MY opinions on a subject. I get to see him post complete and utter BS about my views and things he thinks he's REMEMBERED me posting-- when I have said NO such things anywhere. Much like he had an imaginary-Stan-Lee who'd agree with him on whatever his views were, he now has an evil/lying-imaginary-version-of-me that he uses to "prove" his points.

There are not enough hours in the day to fact check the internet. And it's really not worth it. Just want to thank CBR for having this space so I can, from time to time, vent about this complete and utter nonsense.

A good rule of thumb: If someone talks about me online ALL the time-- and they can & have posted screencaps and links to things I've actually said-- whenever they're "paraphrasing" me or saying things they "think I've said", they're 100% full of it.

ziobrando.jpg

[Dan Slott]

Saw someone coming up with their own crazy behind-the-scenes conspiracy stuff from 2018 to 2022, and trying to discount things I've said online, by pointing out that "Dan Slott wouldn't have known about that thing in the Spider-Office because he wasn't working there at the time."

Yes. That's exactly how that works. Because I wasn't working there at the time. Because I was working on Iron Man and Fantastic Four over in Instanbul. In a parallel universe. And not at (checks notes) Marvel Comics. And I had no ties whatsoever to (checks notes) the specific office I worked at or with the people/creators/editors I worked with for over a decade.

A wonderful new wrinkle:
If I don't know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING behind the scenes, then clearly I'm lying about ALL of it.

Like...

If a storyline is going on in a flagship book for years, and I've asked the people in charge "Are you guys really doing that in the books? For real?", and I'm able to get confirmation about things from editorial and then-- over a wide swath of time-- get that information confirmed by other creators and by everyone at multiple company creative summits...

...that should be completely discounted because I was unaware of OTHER developments-- big shifts that were decisions made in private over a very small period of time-- where those decisions were things that caught most of editorial by surprise.

So if I say I know (and/or knew) big things at Marvel by being there behind the scenes, I'm somehow lying about ALL of it because I'm not omniscient and didn't/don't know EVERYTHING, including things that most people on editorial didn't know were happening.

In an argument, this bad faith line of thinking is called "the all or nothing fallacy", and it's a pretty dishonest way to try to make a point.

[Rob London]

One moment I am always reminded of when I think of writer's retreats and changing plans comes from the Distinguished Competition. Plans were in place to have Superman finally marry Lois Lane. Plans that had been built up to in the comics for some time. At the retreat where those plans were being finalized, the assembled talent was told that they couldn't do that because ABC was working on a romantic version of the story called Lois & Clark and they wanted the marriage on the show and the comics to be done simultaneously. Their plans now being undone, the writers had to come up with a whole new outline. At every one of those retreats, one of the creators always would joke when things were tough "I know! Let's just kill him!" Every other time everyone would either groan or laugh. This time however...

IIRC, the X-Men story Fatal Attractions came about at a Marvel retreat when Peter David made a joke about how Magneto should just pull Wolverine's bones out of his body.