New Unstoppable Wasp Series.

[Tiamatty]

Except even if it did well in trade, Marvel can’t just keep throwing money out there on something that isn’t even selling 10,000 units pretty quickly into its lifespan. Marvel is still a business after all and the original volume had a massive drop off over time to the point that it was basically hemorrhaging money.

Sure, it did poorly in floppies, and we'll see how long they keep this new volume around in single issues. Maybe they will change it to trades-only at some point. My point is that the book has an actual audience, who loved it for specific reasons, and that changing the book into something else actually risks that audience. Let's say the series was relaunched with, say, Matthew Rosenberg as the writer. And let's say he gives the book more of a superhero focus. Maybe he drops GIRL, builds up a new supporting cast. Well, a lot of the people who read Unstoppable Wasp loved GIRL. They loved those characters. Are they going to keep reading when they're all dropped? Can't say I'd have as much interest, especially if the new supporting cast was predominantly white and straight. What's the book's new tone? Is it going to be as kid-friendly, or is it a more teen tone? Because you lose a big chunk of audience if you exclude kids. And if you're keeping it all-ages, why not keep the writer who's already built an audience in that niche?

This book is being brought back because of the audience it built up. The audience that Whitley and Charretier built up. The audience who loved Nadia, and the GIRL gang, and Janet and Bobbi and Jarvis. Loved the tone, loved the fun science facts, the sense of joy. That audience is why this book is getting a second chance. So, why would you change all the things that made that audience fall in love with the book?

[Tiamatty]

So, they say so, but don’t provide any evidence? Yeah, that’s believable.

Sure, because Marvel loves printing books that lose them money. Come on. Whitley and Smith didn't make **** up. Marvel doesn't release any of their sales info, but people in the know have been saying for months that Unstoppable Wasp has been doing very well in trades.

[KurtW95]

Sure, because Marvel loves printing books that lose them money. Come on. Whitley and Smith didn't make **** up. Marvel doesn't release any of their sales info, but people in the know have been saying for months that Unstoppable Wasp has been doing very well in trades.

At the moment, your first sentence is a true statement.

[Tiamatty]

At the moment, your first sentence is a true statement.

It has never been a true statement. Marvel does not publish books that don't make money. The conspiracy bullshit saying otherwise is ridiculous nonsense.

[Baseman]

Sure, it did poorly in floppies, and we'll see how long they keep this new volume around in single issues. Maybe they will change it to trades-only at some point. My point is that the book has an actual audience, who loved it for specific reasons, and that changing the book into something else actually risks that audience. Let's say the series was relaunched with, say, Matthew Rosenberg as the writer. And let's say he gives the book more of a superhero focus. Maybe he drops GIRL, builds up a new supporting cast. Well, a lot of the people who read Unstoppable Wasp loved GIRL. They loved those characters. Are they going to keep reading when they're all dropped? Can't say I'd have as much interest, especially if the new supporting cast was predominantly white and straight. What's the book's new tone? Is it going to be as kid-friendly, or is it a more teen tone? Because you lose a big chunk of audience if you exclude kids. And if you're keeping it all-ages, why not keep the writer who's already built an audience in that niche?

This book is being brought back because of the audience it built up. The audience that Whitley and Charretier built up. The audience who loved Nadia, and the GIRL gang, and Janet and Bobbi and Jarvis. Loved the tone, loved the fun science facts, the sense of joy. That audience is why this book is getting a second chance. So, why would you change all the things that made that audience fall in love with the book?

Because the readship it built wasn't enough to sustain it the first time around.

Look,I'm happy that kids liked the book.However,the fact is something about the book has to change otherwise there is no reason to expect the book lasting any longer then the last run.

You can't do the samething over and over and expect a different result

[Frontier]

I'm just happy to see Gurihiru on a new book .

[KurtW95]

It has never been a true statement. Marvel does not publish books that don't make money. The conspiracy bullshit saying otherwise is ridiculous nonsense.

If that were true, they would cancel the books consistantly selling under 15,000 and tell more stories about characters people like. The true conspiracy is the imaginary document showing the great trade sales.

[Tiamatty]

Because the readship it built wasn't enough to sustain it the first time around.

Look,I'm happy that kids liked the book.However,the fact is something about the book has to change otherwise there is no reason to expect the book lasting any longer then the last run.

You can't do the samething over and over and expect a different result

Yes, the floppy sales were bad. The trade sales were strong. Changing up the book is unlikely to make a big difference for the floppy sales. And it puts at risk the trade sales. Marvel's clear hope is for the book to remain a success in trades. So keeping the things that made the book a success in trades is a good idea.

If that were true, they would cancel the books consistantly selling under 15,000 and tell more stories about characters people like. The true conspiracy is the imaginary document showing the great trade sales.

Here's the thing: WE DON'T KNOW JACK GODDAMN **** ABOUT HOW ANY SERIES SELLS! That 15 000 threshold? Completely meaningless today. Because the Internet. Because trades in bookstores. Because trades in libraries. Because the direct market is only one way people get comics, and the estimates we have are only for the direct market.

But you're so hung up on outdated models that you've apparently decided that not a single goddamn one of those other markets matters. That they're nothing but a lie, that the only thing that matters is ComiChron's direct market estimates, and if a book has low sales there, then Marvel is keeping the book going because they are just that damn terrible at being a business. Or because Disney is forcing them, or whatever the hell nonsense conspiracy theory you prefer. And anyone who's actually directly involved with those books, including the creators and the editors, if they say that a book is doing well outside the direct market, well, they're just dirty goddamn liars and we shouldn't believe a single word they say. Because that doesn't fit the estimates of Diamond's direct market distribution, as determined by people unaffiliated with the publishers.

Sure, makes perfect sense.

baloney (2).jpg

[Digifiend]

We never find out sales data for digital, Scholastic, or Amazon, do we? We do know the trades sold out at distributor level.

[responsarbre]

This might be a hot take but I think that Marvel knows their business better than we do. I know it's a bold claim, but I suspect they have access to information that we do not on the financial health of their books. (In any case, looking at Diamond sales for this title alone seems awfully short-sighted.)

If there's one thing we know about Marvel lately, it's that they don't actually take pity on series that lose money and will cancel a title awfully quickly. There was a long list of titles that got cancelled under 12 issues at Marvel that included all types of characters: Storm, Iceman, Elektra, Hercules. None of these characters have gotten a second chance yet, especially not so soon after their last books were cancelled. But Wasp comes back? I think it's safe to say that Marvel had a financial reason to do that. As much as Marvel might want to build a reputation as a forward-thinking company, it's still the same Marvel that cancelled all of their female-led books at once in 2011 . They're a business, first and foremost.

[CrimsonEchidna]

So, they say so, but don’t provide any evidence? Yeah, that’s believable.

Ah, the Fake News tactic.

[KurtW95]

Yes, the floppy sales were bad. The trade sales were strong. Changing up the book is unlikely to make a big difference for the floppy sales. And it puts at risk the trade sales. Marvel's clear hope is for the book to remain a success in trades. So keeping the things that made the book a success in trades is a good idea.


Here's the thing: WE DON'T KNOW JACK GODDAMN **** ABOUT HOW ANY SERIES SELLS! That 15 000 threshold? Completely meaningless today. Because the Internet. Because trades in bookstores. Because trades in libraries. Because the direct market is only one way people get comics, and the estimates we have are only for the direct market.

But you're so hung up on outdated models that you've apparently decided that not a single goddamn one of those other markets matters. That they're nothing but a lie, that the only thing that matters is ComiChron's direct market estimates, and if a book has low sales there, then Marvel is keeping the book going because they are just that damn terrible at being a business. Or because Disney is forcing them, or whatever the hell nonsense conspiracy theory you prefer. And anyone who's actually directly involved with those books, including the creators and the editors, if they say that a book is doing well outside the direct market, well, they're just dirty goddamn liars and we shouldn't believe a single word they say. Because that doesn't fit the estimates of Diamond's direct market distribution, as determined by people unaffiliated with the publishers.

Sure, makes perfect sense.

baloney (2).jpg

If they were selling great, they’d have nothing to hide. We know exactly how well they’re doing. Also, appreciate the poorly drawn picture of the ugly little boy.

[Tiamatty]

If they were selling great, they’d have nothing to hide. We know exactly how well they’re doing. Also, appreciate the poorly drawn picture of the ugly little boy.

No publisher puts out information on how their books sell. Not Marvel, not DC, not Image, not IDW, not a single one. I'm beginning to think you don't understand how the comic industry even works, if you don't even understand that none of the publishers release sales information on any of their books, through any outlet.

[KurtW95]

No publisher puts out information on how their books sell. Not Marvel, not DC, not Image, not IDW, not a single one. I'm beginning to think you don't understand how the comic industry even works, if you don't even understand that none of the publishers release sales information on any of their books, through any outlet.

If you think Marvel is still interested in making money, I don’t know if you understand how the comic industry works.

[Baseman]

I don't think you guys the going to get any were arguing about trade sales.No one really knows the exact numbers so there is no point.