Frankensteining DC Comics For April 2017 – Are All The Monthlies

>>89136545

Bad move from DC if true. The monthlies are getting buried under the bi weeklies already. Raising the price would only make that worse

>>89136545
If every book goes back to $3.99 monthlies I'm dropping everything but Detective Comics and pirating the rest.

>>89136708

Seems like it's just the monthly books. DC would stop double shipping before making them all $3.99

>>89136545

How long until full solicitations are released?

>>89136545
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtChPB6NjJY

File: DC_Logo_Blue_Final_573b356bd056a9.41641801.jpg (111KB, 1200x1200px)

111KB, 1200x1200px

is there a worse fucking company?

>>89136880
Marvel

>>89136772
Monday I think.

>>89136880
Marvel's books of crap are at 4.99 and 5.99 but i didn't see you complain my dear pathetic drone. If you want books remain at 2.99, you should buy them for support, and not buying Marvel's overpriced garbage.

>>89136880
Marvel.

File: intern.png (169KB, 679x864px)

169KB, 679x864px

>>89136880
I know right. They totally suck. It's so sad the way they have to literally ship out tens of thousands of free issues every month just so it appears they're winning.......oh......wait.

>>89136545
>Are All The Monthlies Going To $3.99

No, just the ones that sell. Like Batman, which was a $4 title since #6 hit the shelves way back in 2012.

>>89136600
No, good move. They want to look profitable so they can keep their jobs. Time Warner doesn't need the expense of maintaining a failing publisher - it can maintain the IPs just fine without comic books. They have to be profitable, or at least appear to be, now that they're based out of Burbank and can't just bullshit down the phone about how things are going.

The double-shipping books are the ones likely to go back up to $4 (like Batman). That's $8 per-title, per-reader, per-month in that particular case - it's a ludicrously consistent audience, almost unheard of in comics. Some might say suspiciously consistent, as though it were being propped up by something.

The point is if you have two $4 titles and one of them double-ships, you'd need to run four $3 titles (or two double-shipped $3 titles) just to make the same income. Then it gets into the minutiae of page counts and production costs and things get weird, but by and large if you can double-ship a book at $3, you should be able to do so at $4. Batman already has done, for a substantial period.

tl;dr they'll make more turnover that way, which is a way of making it look like they could become profitable in future even if they aren't right now

>>89136708
They'll drop back to 20% or so of the market. It might be worth it for them, if they cut a lot of shitty titles that don't sell and got ruthless about canning bad books up front. Smaller turnover but potentially higher profit, in real terms as well as a percentage.

>>89136880

Marvel

>>89136880

Marvel

>>89137076

Batman wasn't shipping twice a month at $3.99 but you know what. I'm not sure it will even effect it that much. It didn't stop Deadpool from being a big seller and Deadpool is no Batman

>>89136958
No books can remain at $3 and stay full color and use market-expectation paper stock and stay profitable. The cost of paper is too high - if you want to do something about that, convince every office in the US to go analog so they have to buy more paper and the paper mills can start up again, which will kick up production of paper and reduce the cost of it to consumers.

It's an inevitable consequence of inflation that eventually the rising costs of production will mean end-product price rises. There's nothing you can do about that; buying more of the product will eventually fail. Progress is inevitable.

>Kirkman is still only charging $2.99 for Walking Dead

Fuck Marvel and DC

>>89136880
Marvel

>>89137076
>The double-shipping books are the ones likely to go back up to $4
They won't double ship $4 books.

>>89137162
I'd be fine if they moved action comics and detective comics to digital only, kept double shipping and kept pricing them at $2.99. As a consumer DC made a pledge to keep books at $2.99. I understand if they can't keep all books at $2.99 but they need to keep some or I'll loose faith in the band and not spend any money on them.

>>89136898
>>89136958
>>89136970
>>89137088
>>89137128
>>89137173
Can you please stop with this??
It is not funny

>>89136880
>>89137348
Marvel, Top Cow, basically anyone that isn't Image or Valiant.

>>89137076
>he double-shipping books are the ones likely to go back up to $4 (like Batman)

But according to OP's article the opposite has happened. I'm flicking through a copy of SS v JL right now to look at upcoming books. JLA is twice monthly at 2.99, Batwoman is monthly at $2.99, Detective #950 is 48 pages at $3.99 (Just thought I would throw that in there because I just noticed it) and Super-Sons is monthly at $2.99

So I have no idea what's going on

>>89137348

Marvel__

>>89137348

I wasn't trying to be funny

>>89136898
>>89136970
>>89136958
>>89136992
>>89137088
>>89137128
>>89137173
Fuck off

>>89136545
>Super Sons on $3.99

Ad's had it at $2.99. Is it possible somebody fucked up with the pricing on the solicitations? It wasn't so long ago that DC dropped the price of Justice League v Suicide Squad so they seemed committed

>>89136880


>>>/qa/952422

Was this you?

>/co/ has a problem with DC fans shitting up our board. Every time sales figures come out or some no name comic store owner starts ranting about how much he hates Marvel, DC fags start spamming the board with "lel Marvel is dying!" to defend their failing company. Likewise everytime somebody criticizes their movies they throw autistic tantrums, but they constantly spam threads about how much they hate the MCU. There are 20 DC threads in /co/'s catalog right now, and that's not including their anti-Marvel threads.

>They are the Narutards of /co/ and should be treated like it. Nobody wants them so get them the fuck out. Put them in /trash/ like Steven Universe.

>>89137433

He asked

File: 1469504976932.gif (1MB, 392x294px)

1MB, 392x294px

>>89137467
>There are 20 DC threads in /co/'s catalog right now, and that's not including their anti-Marvel threads.

How could somebody be this much of an assblasted faggot?

>>89137467
no

but I did make that picture though I got rid of it because there was no animated series and part of the justice league picture is missing

>>89137546
>but I did make that picture though

Holy shit you're pathetic

>>89137467
>be a fanboy of the objectively worst comic company ever that only exists because shutting it down would mean bad PR for the studio that owns it
>"wahhh why are people saying bad things about Marvel waah"

The most pathetic thing I've read today and I just looked Champion's drop in the chart

>>89137546
Post your revised version.

>>89137564
I figured other people would make ones for marvel or sony and other companies

but they didn't

File: ain't nothing DC can't fuck up.jpg (301KB, 969x537px)

301KB, 969x537px

>>89137650

>>89137433
In your butt drone.

>>89137675
>but they didn't

Really makes you think huh

>>89137675

Did you at least post a template? You realize you're worse than the people you hate by trying to promote this company Wars shit, right?

>>89137546
Hahahahahahahaaaaaa you're pathetic.

>>89137142
>I'm not sure it will even effect it that much
Anon it's one month away from selling below 100k for the first time in almost 6 years and that's with the 2.99 price

File: 1040461-superman_reeve.jpg (27KB, 445x363px)

27KB, 445x363px

>>89137910

May as well go $3.99 then to make up for the losses

File: there are no heroes left in man.jpg (19KB, 170x236px)

19KB, 170x236px

>>89136600
It's a bad move anyway because DC keeps trying this 2.99 thing and then after a few months go back on it. This practice only serves to spoil their fans and when prices increase there's massive backlash and nobody cares that what other companies do. For that one month when Snyder/Capullo batman got it's price increased there was a massive backlash and I think it's the only that that run dipped under 100k, and then they decreased the price again and back up to constantly top 5 it went.

Their 3.99 titles were already in the crapper, their imprints are doing horribly and their mainline minis are doing disgusting numbers. The numbers for the non A list titles are the worst they've ever been in the last 5 years.

>>89137348
It's pretty funny

>>89138076
>I think it's the only that that run dipped under 100k, and then they decreased the price again and back up to constantly top 5 it went.
their run never dripped below 100k if you don't count the annuals

>>89138280
Regardless, it dropped out of the top 10 for one month when the price was increased and then it was back at #1 the next month. Meanwhile marvel has no problem selling titles at 5.99, not even talking events here, Old Man Logan debuted as 5.99

>>89138344
Marvel sold a fucking $10 Deadpool comic and it ended up in the top 10

>>89138344
>Old Man Logan debuted as 5.99

Variant baby

>>89138076
>For that one month when Snyder/Capullo batman got it's price increased

What are you talking about? Snyder and Capullos Batman run had price increase spikes multiple times

>>89138419
I think they tried it again and the audience was less receptive. But yeah, Marvel has some rich/dedicated fans.

>>89136545
But the comic book websites complained that the low prices were bad. And that 2.99 books are bad. And that it ruins business. Isn't this what people wanted?????

>>89136545
I'm pretty sure they promised a $2.99 price tag on comics before and then had to renege on it and raise the price back to $3.99. That time, however, they made up for it by putting back-ups in almost all of their books. Unfortunately, no one seemed to care about the back-ups because they lasted a short while.

>>89137171
Because Kirkman knows he's going to make money regardless?

File: 13689557_200933656975040_348148384_n copy 8.gif (956KB, 498x278px)

956KB, 498x278px

I'm sorry DC, but this initiative came right around the time I gave up on floppies. I'm trades all the way, baby.

File: 1434433586943.jpg (57KB, 637x360px)

57KB, 637x360px

>>89137348
>>89137433
Sweet, sweet tears.

To be expected

I guess most of the double shipping will be stopped after the first 12 months/24 issues

>>89136545
I'm really interested in seeing what the Bleeding Cool Bestsellers lists will be like in April. It wouldn't surprise me if $3.99 might have some effect, though I know I've been seeing some retailers saying that New Super-Man and Cyborg haven't been selling well for them so the price change might not have much effect.

>>89142065
Vast majority of the books on the weekly BC bestseller lists are the bi-weekly's so I doubt this'll change much.

>>89143263

I think titans is the only monthly ive seen make the charts

Maybe if this happens Marvel will try to one-up them by dropping their prices to 2.99, at least on books that aren't A-list. They could even pretend it was planned ahead and not just them being opportunistic by saying that getting rid of the digital codes was part of it.

>>89137467
>Ban DC From /co/
Wow could he be any more of pathetic? I mean /co/ shits on the DCEU as much as they shit on Marvel Comics, why can't Marlel bitches learn that not everything Marvel is perfect?

>living in the first-world country
>muh dollar
You're fucking pathetic. DC is the only capeshit company whicg raised quality for you. Stop crying you cunts.

>>89148011
They're full of normies and SJWs by proxy, of course they're going to be whiny bitches who can't take different opinions.

>>89148054

Most people in this thread aren't that angry about it. Not even all their books are going up in price which still makes DC the cheapest publisher

>>89148011
Let's not act like /co/ doesn't give Marvel a much harder time than DC though. Like current Marvel is one thing, but the idea that Marvel has ALWAYS been complete shit is something you see fairly regularly here.

>>89136545
>Over so soon?
Dude, they began to hold the line five years ago. It's more than enough.