Why aren't Disney comics profitable anymore? Looney Tunes

>>94188997

I have to assume it's a logistics issue, past a certain point.

If Disney wanted to do a committed Mickey series they'd probably do it through Marvel, even if it's obviously a separate continuity. But then they'd have to deal with diamond's shitty distribution system which would limit physical copies to specialty stores and book stores, rather than places like wal-mart or grocery racks like Archie or their smaller magazines. So they'd need to actually fix Marvel's disgusting distribution problem, which they've been refusing to do for like a decade now because Disney insists on being hands off whenever possible.

Looney Tunes does so poorly it's not even in the top 300 sales most months. Scooby is better but still at cancellation levels if it was a main series book. I don't think the Disney ones do significantly worse.

DC likely just prints them because WB asks them to and it doesn't hurt as much because they have Batman and shit to subsidize the costs.

>>94189096
who the fuck is buying looney tunes at $3.99 a pop

>>94189164
It's 2.99 but yeah I don't know

>>94189071
I feel like distribution issues are a major problem since it leads to not many people knowing they exist.

What Disney should do is create a digest series similar to Archie Comics and get them out in grocery stores and whatnot. This is exactly what other countries like Italy are doing and Disney comics are super popular there. Imagine how much sales would go up if they started selling these at the theme parks.

File: marvel-digest-01-cover-web-1491910845461_1280w.jpg (408KB, 1280x1721px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1280x1721px

>>94189826
They'd rather do that for Spiderman, though.

>>94189071
DIsney put all their core books at IDW and Joe Books.

Only thing they've been putting out under Marvel is those books based on the theme park rides.

>>94189910
Technically, that's Marvel doing it. And IDW has the Disney comics right now since Marvel doesn't give a shit about them.

Which IDW does have a lot of good properties for Digest collections if they ever wanted to pursue that.

Diamond in general is just fucking everybody over when it comes to sales.

>>94190047
Diamond isn't great, but it doesn't explain low bookstore (well Amazon) sales. No one is buying these books period even in places where they would normally buy other merch.

>>94190137
That goes back to the problem of people not knowing they exist. Actual bookstores never seem to carry them either and no one is going to come across them online unless they specifically look for it.

I guarantee you 75% of people looking forward to the new DuckTales series have no idea that there are Disney comics.

>>94190246
For some things that applies, but normies don't even think to type in "Iron Man comics" even though they know those exist. I think it's just disinterest in the format more than access at this point.

nobody knows the characters anymore

>>94189826
They do have comics at the theme parks.

There's trades, and even a few floppies for sale at California Adventure, in the animation building.

File: xadhoom.jpg (585KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 1200x1600px

>>94192741
>Because if we're honest Disney's very properties are NOT interesting to make comics out of.
>Implying.

>>94188997
But Diney comic are pretty big... in Europe.

>>94192777
Yeah same at the Florida locations. They usually have like Ms. Marvel, Guardians of the Galaxy and its assorted spin-offs, Squirrel Girl, Avengers, and a boatload of the recent Star Wars books.

>>94192888
From everything I can see, Disney comics in the USA got to be really childish and stupid in the late 1960s, after Carl Barks retired. Sometimes Barney-level.
They were really stupid until the mid 1980s, when fans and collectors of the pre 1960s comics took over. (Bringing Dan Jippes as well as Don Rosa)
But they've always been a niche product because they lost a ton of market share while they were spending 20 years being stupid, and never got it back.

Europe, meanwhile started making smart stories in the 1960s and got smarter when the American comics got stupider. They knew that if they did "just for babies" stuff, they would lose sales.

>>94188997
>>94189071
The problem is that comics in general are caught in a no man's land because of price. They're actually priced too cheaply.

At less than $5 a pop, comics ought to be impulse buys, where saturation is more important than marketing and low sell through rates are the norm. I think this is something Disney understands, and this is why they aren't really concerned about having a presence in the direct market.

Disney does plenty of higher profit margin books and collector art books, where you do want a high sell-through. It's a comfortable place to be, such that there's no reason they should invest in comics.