CB Cebulski on the Marvel $.99 sales

[Ptrvc]

Market Penetration.

[responsarbre]

Publishers might be upset at this, but it's partially their fault for letting Comixology practically get a monopoly on digital comics distribution. Now Amazon bought them out and they're using typical Amazon business practices.

[Coin Biter]

Publishers might be upset at this, but it's partially their fault for letting Comixology practically get a monopoly on digital comics distribution. Now Amazon bought them out and they're using typical Amazon business practices.

Some tried not to - Dark Horse still has its own individual digital comics, which I don’t think sync with Comixology (I was frustrated when they finally moved over to Comixology, for that reason, that they didn’t do this). There are others, such as the British publisher Rebellion, who publishes 2000ad, who haven’t moved over.

From the point of view of a reader I have to admit I appreciate having, for the most part, one place to read my digital comics, especially given the Comixology digital reader is very good.

And yeah, I’ve bought plenty of trades with the recent massive discounting. But I do have to admit I sympathise with creators and retailers who are angered by them. The Infinity Siblings is a particularly egregious example.

[Materiel]

I guess I should feel a certain way, but I've never bought a physical trade from a comic shop. Instocktrades utterly destroyed any possibility of that. I use the $.99 sales to try out books I'd never normally give the time of day (Black Bolt's first trade for one). So I'd have to tell the LCS to kick rocks on this one, purely from a customer standpoint.

[Mike_Murdock]

Wait i'm confused, is Amazon soon to release floppies for 99 cents the same day it's coming out? Or are they talking about tradebacks? Cause I'm digital only and I haven't seen any differences in terms of prices.

It's trade only, which means floppies are still four bucks but, if you're waiting for the trade, you can get the equivalent of four to six floppies for a dollar.

I will say this, this isn't going to hurt my willingness to buy physical books that I want to read when released or collect. Instead, it gets me to buy books that I probably would have waited for Unlimited to read. Doesn't mean that's true for others, though.

[lordozone]

Publishers might be upset at this, but it's partially their fault for letting Comixology practically get a monopoly on digital comics distribution. Now Amazon bought them out and they're using typical Amazon business practices.

Totally. Monopoly ALWAYS destroy jobs. And if you add Amazon, a company that one of the main goal is to control all niche markets, you don't have a chance.

[JKtheMac]

Wait i'm confused, is Amazon soon to release floppies for 99 cents the same day it's coming out? Or are they talking about tradebacks? Cause I'm digital only and I haven't seen any differences in terms of prices.

No, I was using the details about the holding floppy price on digital as an example of Marvel’s general policy. In the industry they are generally credited with being the company that made this decision when much of the industry was convinced that digital copies should be cheaper. This also goes against Amazon’s general policy of considering digital as a cheaper option.

There are two paradigms at loggerheads here. Amazon are set on their plan to dominate the consumer space which includes competing aggressively with shops. Marvel have a huge stake in the continued success of the direct market they helped to set up and formed their business model around.

[SpiderTBliss]

some people including me have gone 100% digital so no money taken from the comic shops, sales or no sales.

If you are still buying the product then you are taking money/sales from the comic stores. Now you might not care, I might not care, but as the comic stores are the traditional source of these products, if you start buying them from somewhere else, then they loose money as those products are still sold they just don't get the money from their sales.

[JKtheMac]

If you are still buying the product then you are taking money/sales from the comic stores. Now you might not care, I might not care, but as the comic stores are the traditional source of these products, if you start buying them from somewhere else, then they loose money as those products are still sold they just don't get the money from their sales.

While that is all undoubtedly true some of us have zero loyalty to the direct market. Some of us are old enough to remember how ruthless and unscrupulous that market was and still see reflections of that today. And some of us have far too much paper in our houses already.

[Anduinel]

"We sell [Amazon/Comixology] the comics at the same price [we sell them to you]. Just like you offer discounts, they do the same.”

Does anyone have thoughts on what this means in regards to digital?

[Mike_Murdock]

The only way that could possibly make sense for digital is if Amazon and Comixology have to buy a finite number of digital copies and then sell them as if they're a direct market distributor. I don't think that's the case, though. The most likely model is that Marvel makes money from each digital comic sold, but Amazon doesn't have to pay them upfront for those non-physical comics. If Cebulski is completely dishonest, then Marvel just makes a percentage of Amazon's sales (not a fixed fee). Frankly, that last one is the only one that makes sense. Even if these books are a loss leader designed to help Amazon in some other way, the loss here would be too great. Let's suppose a book sells for $24 and Marvel sells it to the retailer for half that (I suspect the retailer's cost is a bit higher, but let's go with this). That means Amazon would have to pay $12 either in advance or once it's been sold. That also would mean that Amazon loses $11 on each sale. I could see them selling it at $12, but $1.

[Anduinel]

The only way that could possibly make sense for digital is if Amazon and Comixology have to buy a finite number of digital copies and then sell them as if they're a direct market distributor. I don't think that's the case, though. The most likely model is that Marvel makes money from each digital comic sold, but Amazon doesn't have to pay them upfront for those non-physical comics. If Cebulski is completely dishonest, then Marvel just makes a percentage of Amazon's sales (not a fixed fee). Frankly, that last one is the only one that makes sense. Even if these books are a loss leader designed to help Amazon in some other way, the loss here would be too great. Let's suppose a book sells for $24 and Marvel sells it to the retailer for half that (I suspect the retailer's cost is a bit higher, but let's go with this). That means Amazon would have to pay $12 either in advance or once it's been sold. That also would mean that Amazon loses $11 on each sale. I could see them selling it at $12, but $1.

Yeah, that's precisely what has me scratching my head. Because some of these trade collections are $30+ books. Just some what I've picked up over the last few weeks:
X-Men: Grand Design - $30 retail
X-Men Blue: Reunion - $35 retail
New Mutants: Back To School - $35 retail
X-Men: Mutant Genesis - $35 retail
New Mutants: Curse of the Valkaries - $40 retail
Legionquest HC - $75 retail

Even at cost, that's one hell of a loss leader.

[JKtheMac]

The most likely model is that Marvel makes money from each digital comic sold, but Amazon doesn't have to pay them upfront for those non-physical comics.

Yes that is certainly the model. Why would we think otherwise?

If Cebulski is completely dishonest, then Marvel just makes a percentage of Amazon's sales (not a fixed fee).

What? That's obviously true but it doesn't make CB dishonest. What would make you think this? Your logic totally escapes me.

Even at cost, that's one hell of a loss leader.

A loss leader targeted at a very specific US digital buyer in order to encourage comic book reading in digital form. The amount is not really that important to them, and they don't value digital as the same as the book form generally, so only stores would compare them as like products.

[MindofShadow]

Wait... do people actually buy trades at comic shops?

They are always way overpriced compared to Amazon in physical form. You can routinely find 35+ dollar trades at the LCS/BAM/BN for 25ish if not less on Amazon brand new. I was literally just at a comic shop scoping trades for funsies and they had BP Priest vol 2 for 35-39 ish and right now on amazon its 24 brand new.

I don't see how discounting trades no one was going to buy at the LCS anyway really hurts them? If it was same day floppies i'd understand but anyone that is going to bargain hunt trades in the first place isn't going to the LCS to buy them.

Am I missing something?

[Mike_Murdock]

Yeah, that's precisely what has me scratching my head. Because some of these trade collections are $30+ books. Just some what I've picked up over the last few weeks:
X-Men: Grand Design - $30 retail

Technically off topic, but you should absolutely get this book in physical media. The whole book, including the paper stock, was a conscious decision designed to mirror the era it came from. While it's actually quality paper, it's designed to feel like the cheap paper of the 60s. It makes the whole thing an experience. Also, the same guy did everything - write, pencil, color, letter, and choose the paper.

Yes that is certainly the model. Why would we think otherwise?


What? That's obviously true but it doesn't make CB dishonest. What would make you think this? Your logic totally escapes me.

His exact quote was "We sell [Amazon/Comixology] the comics at the same price [we sell them to you]" (assuming the brackets provided in the article don't change the meaning). He said they sell them the books for the same price they sell them to the retailers. They sell them, upfront, for a fixed price. If they don't sell anything to Amazon upfront and Amazon doesn't have to pay a fixed price for each book sold regardless of the price sold, then it's not the same as it is for retailers. This would mean Cebulski is either mistaken or dishonest. If Amazon only has to give a percentage of their sales total, Cebulski's statement is flat out untrue.