How long til VEI gets 5% market share?

[leonmallett]

And where would the US be without the opportunity to kick out the British with your war of independence! It gave you a holiday/day of barbecueing for a start!

And where would the British be without cringeworthy 'British' chacarters in American comics! You know the types I mean (stereotypes that is; best British character in a mainstream US comic for me was Firearm).

[tarheelmarine]

And where would the US be without the opportunity to kick out the British with your war of independence! It gave you a holiday/day of barbecueing for a start!

And where would the British be without cringeworthy 'British' chacarters in American comics! You know the types I mean (stereotypes that is; best British character in a mainstream US comic for me was Firearm).

Let us not forget that we also got Austion Powers from you as well.

[leonmallett]

See, one of your mother nations just keeps on giving!

[tarheelmarine]

See, one of your mother nations just keeps on giving!

The three of us have to stick together in this crazy world (US, UK, AUS).

[tarheelmarine]

See, one of your mother nations just keeps on giving!

The three of us have to stick together in this crazy world (US, UK, AUS).

[cjv]

This brings up another question - what would the minimum market share need to be in order to be profitable? Or to keep publishing? Or are there too many variables?

Chris

[tarheelmarine]

This brings up another question - what would the minimum market share need to be in order to be profitable? Or to keep publishing? Or are there too many variables?

Chris

The newest CBG has an article talking about that same question. It's by Marc Patten. If I knew how to put an image up I would. I'll see if I can find an online link.

[leonmallett]

I don't think market share is the whole answer. To look at the big 2 there is no doubt their market share is massive, but not all the books they produce are equally profitable since creators have different rates/deals and in turn books sell differing amounts. Slow and steady build-up, building up capital (and therefore some finiancial security) to allow approriate expansion rather than trying to force the market to accept product it may not want is the way forward in my humble opnion.

[Rufusharley]

Congrats on 1000 tarheel!

[cjv]

This brings up another question - what would the minimum market share need to be in order to be profitable? Or to keep publishing? Or are there too many variables?

Chris

The newest CBG has an article talking about that same question. It's by Marc Patten. If I knew how to put an image up I would. I'll see if I can find an online link.

That would be cool. I think it would be important to see how many issues/how much market share Valiant would need in order to keep going.

Although presumably there will be an initial amount of money lost, as they publish but don't have a huge market.

Chris

[tarheelmarine]

This brings up another question - what would the minimum market share need to be in order to be profitable? Or to keep publishing? Or are there too many variables?

Chris

The newest CBG has an article talking about that same question. It's by Marc Patten. If I knew how to put an image up I would. I'll see if I can find an online link.

That would be cool. I think it would be important to see how many issues/how much market share VALIANT would need in order to keep going.

Although presumably there will be an initial amount of money lost, as they publish but don't have a huge market.

Chris

Leon mentioned that it varies for each publisher and that Marc Patten discusses that in his article. He does say that different publishers have different break even points.

[leonmallett]

As and adjunct to tarheelmarine's point about break even, if I recall correctly (from a post on these boards) the big two's profitability on books exceeds their market share by a few percent. That is probably down to volume of sales and economies of scale which no other publisher is going to match in the current climate.

Further congrats on the 1000 posts, tarheelmarine. Good spot rufusharley.

[tarheelmarine]

As and adjunct to tarheelmarine's point about break even, if I recall correctly (from a post on these boards) the big two's profitability on books exceeds their market share by a few percent. That is probably down to volume of sales and economies of scale which no other publisher is going to match in the current climate.

Further congrats on the 1000 posts, tarheelmarine. Good spot rufusharley.

Thank you gents.

[depluto]

Congrats on 1000 tarheel!

[Elveen]

Congrats on 1000 tarheel!

nice catch Ru.!


... now about this topic....

I have very little info. about comics and even less about the comic industry..... but I do know this......

quality products have a good chance to suceede..... I was not buying ANY comics when I started collecting VALIANTS..... but I started collecting them..... why? they were great!.....

the one thing VALIANT has is name reconigition......

IMO, the most important thing for a sucessful DNV is the beginning..... if the books are good..... then we'll see..... if the books are just ok......


just my opinion......

[BrianT]

Well I think that shows that you can climb fast and fall even faster.

Not really. Acclaim was an odd duck in comics publishing. They bought a well established (albeit, long since revered) comic line lock, stock, and barrel, and as such, already had a start out of the gate. People already KNEW who all these characters were, even if they had fallen heavily out of favor, they were still being published less than a year or two prior, so the name/brand recognition was very high.

VALIANT, when it started, (specifically the superhero line) did NOT buy "Dell Comics"....they bought the rights to THREE characters, and characters that had not been published for nearly 10 years (and even then, only in a handful of issues.) The same thing (sort of) happened with Marvel 30 years prior: they had a small handful of established characters that hadn't seen print in anything but a small handful of issues for nearly a decade...

Only they didn't start OUT with the established properties; they started with original concepts to match what DC was doing crosstown. It was only after the original ideas became succesful that they brought in the established characters (FF #4, Avengers #4, X-Men #10, and whatever the Golden Age Human Torch first appeared in...odd that I don't know that off the top of my head...oh well), and integrated them into the "new universe" (to coin an oft-used phrase.)

So....it took Marvel about 7 years (1961-1968) to really begin to challenge DC's (not to mention Dell, Gold Key, etc) market share, and took 10 years, to 1971, to topple DC from the top spot.

It took VALIANT only 3 to become #3, but they never seriously challenged DC's numbers, much less Marvel's.

The stars were aligned, though, and they COULD have.....had everything worked out.

My point was that Acclaim's market share rose steadily in their first 9 months and then procceeded to lose all of it over the next 9 months. I'm not saying they were ever a threat to anyone, just in comparison to its own performance, it rose and fell quickly.

For the record, Valiant did not buy the rights to 3 Gold Key characters, they obtained a license to publish three Gold Key characters.

[BrianT]

This brings up another question - what would the minimum market share need to be in order to be profitable? Or to keep publishing? Or are there too many variables?

Chris

The newest CBG has an article talking about that same question. It's by Marc Patten. If I knew how to put an image up I would. I'll see if I can find an online link.

That would be cool. I think it would be important to see how many issues/how much market share VALIANT would need in order to keep going.

Although presumably there will be an initial amount of money lost, as they publish but don't have a huge market.

Chris

There is no minimum amount of market share needed to be profitable. They do need a minimum number of units sold for a particular title to be profitable (to cover costs of production of that title and a portion of the company's overhead). According to Marc Patten in that CBG article, he believes 12K for a full color 22 page comic to be the point of profitability. Although he says some publishers claim they can do it at 8K. Frankly, it's not a very helpful statistic because it makes no mention of price point, ad revenue, number of creators involved or size of the publisher, among other variables. 20K has long been established as the evaluation point for DC books, so there's obviously some disparity there.

Frankly, IMO, if VEI is able to have their core books at the 10-15K level at the six month point, then I'd say they are off to a terrific start. That's where books like Lone Ranger and Classic Battlestar Galactica are.

[BrianT]

The crucial period in my mind is not the time to achieve market share, but the first 6 months (assuming it ever gets off the ground). The reason I say this is that I am sure I have read that after about 6 months or so sales often drop off on new titles, hence the critical time to establish enough of a foothold to make longer term commitment to the project of VALIANT a viable option.

The point of this thread is not to establish the "do or die" time for VEI. It's more to guess how long we think it'll take VEI to become one of the big boys. Which is well after the do or die period.

Sales on new titles drop off, historically, with the second and third issues because orders are usually higher for a #1 and orders are made for #2-3 before #1 comes out, so most retailers play it safe and lower their orders, assuming that the title is not going to retain all of its readers. Titles begin to stabilize around #4-6.

Some companies are now doing final cutoff points though, which allows retailers to adjust orders up or down up until two weeks before the book is to hit shops or they do advanced reorders which allow retailers to increase their orders. For these companies, the drop off between issues 2-3 and #1 will be significantly less if #1 does well.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I can claim no knowledge of the sales side of the comics industry but for any "continuity" outside the big two to reach a 5% market share anytime soon seems, well, very difficult.

Even assuming good sales (which we shall call, optimisticly what? 15/20K, putting the books around the 100/120 top sellers mark), how many monthly books would that have to be anyway?

I'm with Leon (Brits unite), the first 6 months is key time in gauging the market, allowing the 'newness' of a title to wear off, and word of mouth to spread.

Great thread by the way, and great work MotA on the figures.

Ahhhh....but the comics world was such a different place in 1991 than it is now....

The differences between 1991 and 2006 might as well be the differences between 1941 and 2006...and you wouldn't be far off.

In 1991, there was really no "internet", other than in government, scientific, and educational applications, video games were still in their toddler stages, and comics were hot.

They were as good as they'd ever been, with the best group of talent in the industry putting out the best work of their careers.

And, in 1991, the X-Men ruled.

The environment was perfect (though they didn't know that at the time) for Valiant.

But things have changed so dramatically since then, in so many ways (including the ability to self-publish, attract and keep an audience...and NEVER have to pay a DIME in printing costs), that it's just not conceivable that any new company could compete, much less thrive.

The one thing that's the same is...there was a Bush in the White House.

CrossGen had millions of dollars, and top(ish) talent, and it failed.

Layton's line failed.

Zoom suit failed.

It just looks like a losing venture at this point, unless people were doing it solely for the love of the artform...and were incredibly talented.

That's the ONLY way anyone could possibly hope to compete these days.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

And where would the US be without the opportunity to kick out the British with your war of independence! It gave you a holiday/day of barbecueing for a start!

And where would the British be without cringeworthy 'British' chacarters in American comics! You know the types I mean (stereotypes that is; best British character in a mainstream US comic for me was Firearm).

Let us not forget that we also got Austion Powers from you as well.

Well.

Unless you count the fact that Mike Myers is a Canuck.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

My point was that Acclaim's market share rose steadily in their first 9 months and then procceeded to lose all of it over the next 9 months. I'm not saying they were ever a threat to anyone, just in comparison to its own performance, it rose and fell quickly.

Yes, that was my point: Acclaim's share rose for the first 9 months because they were publishing something that EVERYONE already knew about GOING IN...however, when everyone discovered that it was same crap, different name, they dropped it just as quickly.

It's an anomaly in the comics publishing world, and not likely to ever happen again.

For the record, VALIANT did not buy the rights to 3 Gold Key characters, they obtained a license to publish three Gold Key characters.

"Bought the rights" is easier to understand by the common folk than "obtained the license", and it's not about that in any event.

Yes, they BOUGHT the ability to publish Western's characters; while Western continued to hold the copyright on the names and likenesses of said characters, they allowed someone else to create new works of art using those names and likenesses for either a flat fee upfront or a percent of whatever they negotiated (and I'm fairly certain it was a standard licensing contract whereby they paid a certain amount for the use of the characters AND paid a percentage of any profits obtained as well.)

[ManofTheAtom]

Ahhhh....but the comics world was such a different place in 1991 than it is now....

The differences between 1991 and 2006 might as well be the differences between 1941 and 2006...and you wouldn't be far off.

In 1991, there was really no "internet", other than in government, scientific, and educational applications, video games were still in their toddler stages, and comics were hot.

They were as good as they'd ever been, with the best group of talent in the industry putting out the best work of their careers.

And, in 1991, the X-Men ruled.

The environment was perfect (though they didn't know that at the time) for VALIANT.

But things have changed so dramatically since then, in so many ways (including the ability to self-publish, attract and keep an audience...and NEVER have to pay a DIME in printing costs), that it's just not conceivable that any new company could compete, much less thrive.

The one thing that's the same is...there was a Bush in the White House.

CrossGen had millions of dollars, and top(ish) talent, and it failed.

Layton's line failed.

Zoom suit failed.

It just looks like a losing venture at this point, unless people were doing it solely for the love of the artform...and were incredibly talented.

That's the ONLY way anyone could possibly hope to compete these days.

Well, you're forgetting one very important diference between 1991 and 2006.

By 1991 there was only ONE sucsesful comic book-based movie franchise, Batman's.

By 2006 we have Batman's, the X-Men's, Spider-Man's, and Superman's, plus other comic book based movies that, while limited to only one picture sometimes, number in the two-digits when put together (i.e. Daredevil, Hulk, Punisher, Ghost world (which is the WORST movie I've ever seen), Tank Girl, etc, etc, etc).

Back then movies based on comics were far and few between, today they're a hot commodity.

All VALIANT needs to do is sell ONE concept to a big studio to make a movie out of and, if that movie makes money, they'll be able to finance as many comics as they want to at a loss.

Let's say that a studio like Universal makes an X-O Manowar movie (think Battlestar Galactica meets Knight Rider, but instead of a car the AI is an armor), and that movie makes, at worst, 100 million dollars in the box office.

Let's say for the sake of argument that VEI sees 10% of those 100 million and comes out with 10 million dollars.

How many comics could they produce with that money?

Let's look at this page rate chart

SCRIPT (per page)
Beginning Rates: $40 to $60
High End Rates: $80 to $100

For comparison, here are the pay rates of other comic book jobs:

PENCILS (per page)
Beginning Rates: $80 to $120
High End Rates: $180 to $200

INKS (per page)
Beginning Rates: $40 to $60
High End Rates: $100 to $140

COLORING (per page)
Beginning Rates: $20 to $25
High End Rates: $35 to $40

LETTERS (per page)
Beginning Rates: $20 to $25
High End Rates: $35 to $40

Let's say that VEI pays creators the high end rates.

For a 22 page-story (32 pages total with ads and extras) comic book, the cost would be around $11,440 for production before printing.

According to Bob Layton, it cost him around .50 cents to print each issue of Future Comics. Let's say that VEI prints 5,000 copies of this comic book. That could cost them another $2,500, which brings the total to $13,940.

Let's round it up to $15,000 for whatever odds-and-ends I'm leaving out (like the cover and paying people to produce additional material to fill out the 32 pages besides the ads).

Let's round it up again to $25,000 to include the editor's and assistant editor's pay check, plus whoever else I'm missing.

So that's $25,000 USD to produce and print one 32 page comic, multiplied by 8 (an ideal number for a full VALIANT line of comics) brings the total to $200,000.

With a budget of 10 million dollars and a monthly expense of 200,000 USD, VEI could produce a line of eight titles for four years and two months at a complete loss.

This poor-man's analisis, of course, is completely missing other revenue from ad sales (which can bring the production cost down) as well as that brought on by the ancilery product based on the movie, like toys, music, t-shirts, etc.

Even so, four years and two months for every 10 million dollars that VEI makes off one single property isn't that bad at all.

All they need is the good enough luck to find a studio willing to commit to producting a movie based on one of their concepts and for that movie to be a success, so basically we don't have to worry about how the comic book market might affect VEI, we have to worry about the movie market.

[ManofTheAtom]

Um, btw, Magnus is stronger than the Hulk...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Ahhhh....but the comics world was such a different place in 1991 than it is now....

The differences between 1991 and 2006 might as well be the differences between 1941 and 2006...and you wouldn't be far off.

In 1991, there was really no "internet", other than in government, scientific, and educational applications, video games were still in their toddler stages, and comics were hot.

They were as good as they'd ever been, with the best group of talent in the industry putting out the best work of their careers.

And, in 1991, the X-Men ruled.

The environment was perfect (though they didn't know that at the time) for VALIANT.

But things have changed so dramatically since then, in so many ways (including the ability to self-publish, attract and keep an audience...and NEVER have to pay a DIME in printing costs), that it's just not conceivable that any new company could compete, much less thrive.

The one thing that's the same is...there was a Bush in the White House.

CrossGen had millions of dollars, and top(ish) talent, and it failed.

Layton's line failed.

Zoom suit failed.

It just looks like a losing venture at this point, unless people were doing it solely for the love of the artform...and were incredibly talented.

That's the ONLY way anyone could possibly hope to compete these days.

Well, you're forgetting one very important diference between 1991 and 2006.

By 1991 there was only ONE sucsesful comic book-based movie franchise, Batman's.

That's not true. In 1991, there was only ONE Bats movie out (not a franchise at that point), and you seem to forget a little franchise called Superman I, II, III, IV, and Supergirl.

By 2006 we have Batman's, the X-Men's, Spider-Man's, and Superman's, plus other comic book based movies that, while limited to only one picture sometimes, number in the two-digits when put together (i.e. Daredevil, Hulk, Punisher, Ghost world (which is the WORST movie I've ever seen), Tank Girl, etc, etc, etc).

Back then movies based on comics were far and few between, today they're a hot commodity.

Also not true...they just weren't taken as seriously, AND.....Marvel characters were tied up in FAMOUS legal battles for almost TWO DECADES before they were finally allowed to make movies with the characters.

There were, however, SEVERAL TV shows from the 60's through the 80's that were Superheroic, including Batman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, and the Hulk, most of which enjoyed moderate to great success.

All VALIANT needs to do is sell ONE concept to a big studio to make a movie out of and, if that movie makes money, they'll be able to finance as many comics as they want to at a loss.

So incredibly much easier said than ever done.

Let's say that a studio like Universal makes an X-O Manowar movie (think Battlestar Galactica meets Knight Rider, but instead of a car the AI is an armor), and that movie makes, at worst, 100 million dollars in the box office.

Let's say for the sake of argument that VEI sees 10% of those 100 million and comes out with 10 million dollars.

Studios keep, on average, 55% of box office receipts. The theatres keep the other 45%. Of the 55% that studios keep, how much do you think they will have paid to OPTION the character(s) (keeping in mind that THAT is how Hollywood WORKS: studios OPTION concepts, characters, and ideas, and SELDOM...VERY SELDOM...do original creators see ANYTHING from the box office), as opposed to what they paid the actors, the director, the casting agents, the set designers, the cinematographers, etc...not to mention advertising...?

Answer: little to next-to-nothing.

That's how studios make their money: they take a HUGE risk in developing ANYTHING and frontload that risk by paying as little as they can for the OPTION of developing the idea into a feature film. That's why you hear so much about the winners of independent film festivals like Cannes and Sundance optioning their creations (already MADE creations, by the way!) for $1 million, $2 million, etc. to be carried by a major studio.

How much do you think Marvel Entertainment (the parent corp of both Marvel's film studio that Avi Arad once helmed and Marvel Comics, Inc.) saw from the $400+ million (domestic) gross of Spiderman.....?

CERTAINLY not $40 million.

Not even CLOSE.

And Spiderman is an INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN name. Marvel went INTO the negotiations with Sony knowing full well what they had, and the value therein.

X-O who?

Valiant what?

And, as proof of how even HUGE names in the comic industry have been unable to get the most well known properties made into film, one need only look to Watchmen....a series owned by a company that OWNS a MAJOR MOVIE STUDIO (Time Warner)...a property that STILL cannot get made.

Another fact: Mel Gibson had to finance The Passion of the Christ with HIS OWN MONEY, because no studio...DESPITE it being a MEL GIBSON FILM....was willing to carry the risk of production...

Their loss, because it made Gibson a hundred millionaire, but it was still a HUGE risk.

How many films flop?

Lots.

How many comics could they produce with that money?......

.....With a budget of 10 million dollars and a monthly expense of 200,000 USD, VEI could produce a line of eight titles for four years and two months at a complete loss.

This whole argument is based on something that doesn't exist, the incredibly fanciful notion that a comic publisher will see 10% of a film's gross box office receipts (that's almost as naive as saying Magnus is made of blue cotton candy...honest), and therefore cannot be argued against. You flat don't understand how the film industry works. Suffice it to say that the chances of an unknown comic company selling a property to Hollywood (for sell it they would be FORCED to do...they ain't no Marvel), to a major studio, and having that film gross $100 million, and then having the studio come and GIVE almost 20% of THEIR share of the GROSS RECEIPTS (NOT profits) to the comic publisher is so far out of the realm of possibility as to be statistically nil.

This poor-man's analisis, of course, is completely missing other revenue from ad sales (which can bring the production cost down) as well as that brought on by the ancilery product based on the movie, like toys, music, t-shirts, etc.

None of which the COMIC COMPANY will EVER see. Ancillary licensing is negotiated BEFORE the film is produced, and is lucractive for the STUDIO, NOT the PUBLISHER, because it's the STUDIO that is taking the risk. PUBLISHERS rarely, if EVER, see ancillary profits EITHER.

Even so, four years and two months for every 10 million dollars that VEI makes off one single property isn't that bad at all.

Again...you're basing an entire analysis on something that doesn't exist even as a possibility.

All they need is the good enough luck to find a studio willing to commit to producting a movie based on one of their concepts and for that movie to be a success, so basically we don't have to worry about how the comic book market might affect VEI, we have to worry about the movie market.

Please...pick up a copy of Variety or any of the other Hollywood trade journals (or Variety.com) and read about how the film industry REALLY works before inventing fanciful arguments based on something outside the realm of possibility.

Truly, you are speaking entirely out of your bum.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Wow.

No offense, MOTA, and you've gone off the deep end before....but you truly had no CLUE what you were talking about up there....

I'm impressed!