By Benjamin Nobel, September 16, 2016

Why am I so interested in newsstand rarity estimates and discussions? To understand my way of thinking, I’ll have to set the stage for you… it all comes down to relative value. Read my intro below first, or jump straight to the slideshow.

Background Info — Case Study: 35 Cent Variants

Before 1998, 35 cent variant comics from 1977 were broadly overlooked by collectors as a “class” of comics. Collectors going after any number of comics published during that cover price variant window could have chosen to seek out 35 cent copies or just place the more prevalent 30 cent copies into their collections, when seeking any particular issue in those early years before the variants took off…

Take Star Wars #3 as an example. The exact relative rarity of 35 cent copies wasn’t pinpointed in those early days, and the idea of CGC or their online Census wouldn’t exist until many years later — so there wasn’t a handy way to look up the relative graded count of each type (we are so spoiled nowadays by contrast 🙂 !!)… but those collectors who still put thought into the difference and came to the conclusion that the 35 cent copies were the ones they should target, instead of the regular prevalent 30 cent ones, now have big smiles on their faces today.

Because, fast-forward to today, and guess what? The relative rarity between the two types is now widely recognized among collectors, and 35 cent copies now command a large premium. The days of sellers not realizing their 35 cent copy was any different than the rest, are long gone. How much premium are we talking? Here are two recent eBay sales of Star Wars #3 below: notice that the first one is a CGC Universal Grade 3.0 copy and sold for $305 at auction, while the second one is a CGC Universal Grade 9.8 copy and sold for ~$225… Can you guess which of the two copies is the 35 cent variant? Yep: the top one.

Here are two recent sales of CGC graded copies of Star Wars #3. The top copy received a grade of 3.0 and auctioned for $305; the bottom copy received a grade of 9.8 and sold for ~$225. Both are Universal Grade (blue label). What’s different? The answer: the 3.0 copy has a cover price of 35 cents instead of 30 cents and shows up on the CGC census with relative rarity of 7.83%.

Why are collectors bidding up 3.0 copies of the variant to higher prices than 9.8 “regular” copies? Because there are simply far fewer of the variants out there. They were only sold to “test market” areas of North America, when Marvel was testing market reaction to a price increase — i.e. only the test areas got 35 cent copies, and as a result, fewer of that type were sold. Here’s the CGC census count for 30 versus 35 cent copies of Star Wars #1-4:

Issue	Census Count: Regular Copies	Census Count: Price Variants	Price Variant Percentage
Star Wars #1	5373	179	3.22%
Star Wars #2	764	71	8.50%
Star Wars #3	612	52	7.83%
Star Wars #4	511	55	9.72%

As you can see above, these 35 cent copies are quite rare on a relative basis to their “regular” 30 cent counter-parts looking at the CGC census numbers sitting here in the year 2016. For our Star Wars #3 example, only 7.83% of the total copies graded by CGC are the 35 cent variants.

So think back now to those early collectors who had the opportunity to choose to place 30 or 35 cent copies into their collections, decades back in time from today… The collectors who favored the 35 cent copies back then had two ways to win instead of one: (1) the issue number itself could rise in value over time (which it did), and (2) the relative rarity of 35 cent copies could command a premium over time (which it eventually did, and in a major way).

Newsstand Relative Rarity: Giving Us Two Ways To Win

In the same way that early collectors of 35 cent variants had two ways to win, I believe collectors today have two ways to win by targeting the more rare newsstand version of any given issue, especially in the special cases where CGC “breaks out” newsstand copies as unique variants on census — “Canadian Editions” (cover price variants), $2.99 Newsstand Editions (cover price variants), $3.99 Newsstand Editions (cover price variants), $4.99 Newsstand Editions (cover price variants), Newsstand Variants (UPC code “errors”), and Newsstand Editions (manufacturing differences such as different paper quality between the two versions).

[ More posts on these special situations where CGC breaks out newsstand comics as variants — category: Canadian Newsstand Edition Comics, category: $3.99 Newsstand Edition Comics, blog: Rare Spawn Comics ]

Amazingly, comics from within each of these categories are able to be found today at prices in-line with their prevalent “regular” counterparts, simply because nobody is paying attention to them, and they don’t know the difference — just like very early sellers of 35 cent copies might not have known their copies were any different from others out there (if their neighbor took home the same type, why would they even think there might be another version out there in existence?). Here’s just one example, from the $3.99 Newsstand Edition category, where the more rare cover price variant can be found today for “regular” price… Amazing Spider-Man #569 (1st Anti-Venom):

The top copy is a prevalent direct edition copy with $2.99 cover price. The bottom copy is a newsstand copy with variant cover price — $3.99. Yet, the seller of the bottom listing did not title it with the “newsstand” keyword (nor the $3.99 keyword), and furthermore they priced their copy in-line with the going rate for the issue number at large.

Newsstand copies of Amazing Spider-Man #569 (first Anti-Venom) are a price variant.

Notice in this example how the seller of the rare cover price variant copy did not title their listing as such — in other words, the word “newsstand” did not appear in the listing title, nor did the “$3.99” keyword. This suggests that this seller did not know their copy was any different from the rest. But of course, it is: due to its variant cover price, this is one of the cases were CGC recognizes it as a variant and “breaks out” such copies.

Here’s one more example in the Amazing Spider-Man title. In the below screenshot, we see two sales of Amazing Spider-Man #601 in the same advertised grade. The bottom copy is actually the rare cover price variant (once you start to look at a lot of UPC codes — such as the pair at right, you start to be able to quickly recognize which copies are newsstand just by looking at the code box). And here once again the seller does not have “newsstand” in the title of the listing, nor “$3.99,” and they chose to price their copy right in line with the going rate for the regular prevalent direct edition:

The top copy is a “regular” direct edition copy of Amazing Spider-Man #601. The bottom copy is the rare $3.99 cover price variant only sold on newsstands. The seller of that bottom copy did not title their listing with the “newsstand” keyword (nor the $3.99 keyword) and priced their copy in-line with the going rate for the issue number in general.

In these examples, the buyer of the newsstand copy has two ways to win: having gotten in at similar cost basis to the prevalent direct edition, the issue numbers themselves may rise in value, and, the relative rarity of the newsstand variant may command a premium in the distant future — much like 35 cent variants are today prized for their relative rarity but for years were overlooked.

So That’s The Premise — Two Ways To Win

If you like the idea as I do of having “two ways to win” then you’ll also be interested in getting a sense of just how rare these categories of newsstand comics may in fact be relative to direct editions… And for this, one must focus on the industry: what was happening with the two comic book distribution channels, at different times?

This subject has been a topic of discussion and estimation by industry insiders, and I’ve collected a bunch of relevant quotes and graphics into this page in the slideshow presented below. At the bottom of the page are links to individual slides with my discussion of what I found particularly interesting about each slide.

Slideshow: Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates

I’ll present the slides in a moment, but first, for anyone interested in a quick take-away / summary, here is a “cliff notes version”:

The early “bar code strike-through” Marvel direct edition comics were sold to comic shops in 1979 and in that year were said to be 6% to >10% of sales depending on the title (the more popular titles like X-Men said to be at that higher range). This new distribution model exploded (the bar code strike-through would become the Spider-Man Rectangle and other such logos), and meanwhile newsstand sales collapsed, to the point where by the early 1980’s those comic book publishers who failed to embrace direct sales and instead remained reliant on newsstand sales began to fail… Harvey ceases publishing in 1982 [side note: later resurrected and had a Type 1A cover price variant window!]; Gold Key is defunct by 1984.

Meanwhile, at Marvel, for the 1985/1986 time-frame we see insiders talking about how the distribution pendulum had swung too far in the direction of direct edition; we see estimates of 50/50 newsstand/direct around this 1985/1986 time-frame. By 1990 we see estimates of 15% newsstand; when Bill Jemas joins Marvel in 1999 we are told not only that newsstand sales are down to 14% but that Marvel made a conscious decision to “walk away” from the newsstand model. By 2003 we see a newsstand estimate of just 4.25% for Marvel.

By 2013, when we see an industry-wide newsstand sales estimate of 6.8%, we also learn of Marvel’s decision to pull the plug on their newsstand sales through bookstore outlets thus ending Marvel sales of newsstand comics in 2013 — but we also learn that two years prior to that (circa 2010-2011) they had decided to end newsstand sales across all other outlets — there are $3.99 Newsstand Edition comics in this Marvel newsstand-wind-down time-frame!

Slideshow:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. This slide is a great quote attributed to Wayne Gretzky: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.” The reason I find this to be so applicable to newsstand comic books is that historically, collectors have been buying mostly direct edition comics after the mid-1980’s, with some of the other slides showing estimates like 85% direct edition by 1990, and 86% direct edition by 1999. That’s where the puck was, i.e. where collectors were focusing their comic-buying-dollars. But where is the puck going to be as far as newsstand vs. direct edition comic book desirability in the future? My own conclusion is that the rarity data and discussions show beyond a shadow of doubt that newsstand comics in later years are drastically more rare than their direct edition counter-parts: fewer of them were sold, fewer of those were preserved, the result is that surviving collectible-grade copies are more rare out there relative to collectible-grade direct edition copies — and the best part is that you and I can tell the two types apart and we can pay roughly the same price for the more rare of the two types. Much like 35 cent variants were overlooked for decades yet proved in the fullness of time to be the more valuable type versus their prevalent 30 cent counter-parts, I believe newsstand comics will come to be prized by collectors for their relative rarity in much the same way — especially the Canadian Editions, Newsstand Variants, and $3.99 Newsstand Editions where CGC recognizes them as distinct variants on census. These more rare versions give us a second way to win: the issue number itself may rise in value — that’s the first way — and the relative rarity may command a premium in the distant future, just like 35 cent copies now command a premium — that’s the second way.

Greg Holland's Brilliant Newsstand Distribution Rarity Chart

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I have aggregated newsstand estimates across different sources. Note that all but the last column were indicated by the sources to be specifically about Marvel Comics, while the last was indicated to be an industry-wide number. The newsstand sales estimates for specific years are given for 1979, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2013.

Sources: (1)
http://www.milehighcomics.com/tales/cbg109.html
(2) http://milehighcomics.com/newsletter/031513.html
(3) http://www.businessofcontent.com/dojo/35/v.jsp?p=/comics-ecommerce/comics-intro-5
(4) https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Digital-Comics-Todd-Allen/dp/0974959847/
(5) http://blog.comichron.com/2014/07/comics-and-graphic-novel-market-reaches.html

These estimates paint a clear picture that Marvel (and industry-wide) newsstand sales collapsed, representing a tiny fraction of total sales in later years for modern era comics. The later years are also very interesting in the context of that quote presented on another slide by Marvel’s David Gabriel, that they had ended newsstand sales to all but bookstore outlets back in what would have been circa 2010-2011, before pulling the plug on newsstand sales entirely in 2013. Since the more rare newsstand version is always discernable, collectors who prefer to go for one type over the other can tell them apart, and in some special situations CGC recognizes the newsstand version as a distinct variant on census.

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote by Chuck Rozanski about how Image Comics sold only 1% of their comics on newsstands: “Another consideration about newsstand editions is that different publishers produced them at different times. Image, for example, had a vigorous newsstand program right from the beginning, but still sold 99% of their comics through the Direct Market.” — Chuck Rozanski, Newsstand Editions History What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is the idea that Image did in fact produce newsstand editions as opposed to being exclusively direct market sales (in another slide I show a book quote where Image is said to have been believed to be exclusive to the direct market!). The notion that fully 99% of Image’s comic book sales were direct edition copies sold to comic shops, would therefore give Image’s newsstand comics an extreme level of comparative rarity to direct edition copies, at just 1% newsstand. Presumably within this Image-wide estimate we’d see variation where less popular titles may have done more poorly, and the most popular titles such as Spawn, may have done better. (Along these lines, a quote from another slide says that in 1979 Marvel did 6% direct edition sales but over 10% for the popular X-Men, showing that the popularity of a given title may have effected its sales levels within the more broad “publisher-wide” numbers).
Equally interesting is that there are CGC-recognized newsstand variants for those Image newsstand comics where there were manufacturing differences between the direct edition and the newsstand copies. By having distinct variants for some of these, we can examine how many copies of each type CGC has graded, and what the relative rarity ratio is — in another slide I provide 10 such examples, where as of this writing in 2016, a total of 3359 direct edition copies have been graded, versus 107 newsstand variants (that’s 97% direct edition versus 3% newsstand appearing on census).

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote from Erik Larsen about newsstand sales of Savage Dragon comics: “I can’t speak for the big two but I pulled Savage Dragon off the newsstand when it started costing me money. It wasn’t that I was breaking even — I was actually losing money.” “#28 was the last newsstand issue (although there was a newsstand one shot called Spawn/Savage Dragon #1, which was #30. Returnable books and the newsstand gamble have put many ambitious publishers out of business.” — Erik Larsen What is particularly interesting to me about this quote is that “the newsstand gamble” of returnable sales was a money-losing proposition for Savage Dragon comics by 1996, implying that sales towards that end date for the title were very low. In the context of the quote from another slide about how Image Comics sold fully 99% of their comics as direct editions, this quote by Larsen really drives the point home that Image Comics newsstand editions are incredibly rare as a percentage of the sales of any given issue, and then title by title we may see more variability. The fact that there was no newsstand version of #31 suggests that sales of Spawn/The Savage Dragon #1 were too low to justify continuation of newsstand sales, despite all the extra effort that went into that final attempt (extra efforts to attract newsstand buyers included an “as seen on TV” logo on the newsstand version, and a combination-Spawn/Savage-Dragon-logo). If the 99% direct to 1% newsstand ratio holds for Spawn/The Savage Dragon #1, and if sales of issue #30 were within the 35,000-40,000 ballpark range suggested by what we see for issues around that same time (#32 is when the monthly sales data starts at Comichron), and then applying a sales boost for having Spawn on the cover, then the math suggests there may only be on the order of 400 copies of Spawn/The Savage Dragon #1 out there…

Direct Edition Overtakes Newsstand Edition

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, we can see the start of direct edition comics (1979), the estimated 50/50 point where direct edition and newsstand sales were even slices of the market (circa 1985/1986 based on the estimates from another slide), and then the industry-wide estimated newsstand sales percentage in 2013, which was the year when Marvel pulled out of the newsstand sales model.

Middle of 1980s: Direct Edition Takes Over

“In the 1982-1986 period about 10% of Marvel’s print run was Canadian, with Newsstand and Direct Market editions split at about 50% each; because Newsstand editions have a far lower survival rate than Direct Market Editions, Canadian Newsstand editions may be as scarce or scarcer than Pence price variants, with both estimated to have original print runs equivalent to 5% of U.S. print runs, but with an estimated survival rate of only 1-2%.” — Jon McClure, A History of Publisher Experimentation and Variant Comic Books

In Overstreet #46, Senior Advisor Jon McClure discusses 1980’s Canadian price variants, their increasingly strong premiums in the marketplace, and the impact newsstand-exclusivity had on their rarity. McClure here estimates that roughly 80% of surviving copies are Direct Editions, and pegs surviving VF/NM-and-up Canadian newsstand comics at 50x to 250x scarcer than Direct Editions.

1980's Newsstand Sales Share Estimates Vs. Direct Edition

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote about 1980’s Marvel newsstand percentages: “Because I had such a personal vested interest in the growth trends of the Direct Market, during the early 1980’s I quizzed everyone at Marvel who would give me figures as to what impact comics shops were having on the sales at company. I derived the following estimated numbers specifically from conversations with Jim Shooter, Ed Shukin, Michael Hobson, and Carol Kalish: 1979 Direct Market 6% of Marvel’s gross sales 1982 Direct Market 20% of Marvel’s gross sales 1985 Direct Market 50% of Marvel’s gross sales 1987 Direct Market 70% of Marvel’s gross sales” — From Modifications to the Distribution System, Chuck Rozanski What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is that it reveals Rozanski’s estimated newsstand versus direct edition sales percentages for 1979, 1982, 1985, and 1987. This is one of two Rozanski articles I’ll quote from, the second giving estimates for later years as well. It is particularly interesting to compare these estimates against those others have given, for example the quote that Marvel’s newsstand percentage was 14% when Jemas came on board in 1999, and the estimate by Miller that industry-wide newsstand sales in 2013 were 6.8%. Also interesting is the context of Jim Shooter’s discussion of trying to support the ailing newsstand market with ideas in 1986 that were ultimately shot down by the “brass” in favor of the profitable direct market.

Overstreet Advisor Greg Holland studied observed newsstand rarity for comics published 1980-1986 and shared his research, showing the percentage of CGC graded copies found that were direct edition vs. newsstand for each year studied. “I just checked the CGC listings on Ebay for the years we’re discussing and looked at the covers of the comics themselves (not relying on the word “newsstand” in the title)… CGC 1980 results in 82 direct editions, 48 newsstand CGC 1981 results in 98 direct editions, 27 newsstand CGC 1982 results in 103 direct editions, 27 newsstand CGC 1983 results in 114 direct editions, 21 newsstand CGC 1984 results in 120 direct editions, 10 newsstand CGC 1985 results in 130 direct editions, 9 newsstand CGC 1986 results in 160 direct editions, 5 newsstand These books have already been CGC graded, so we’re talking about “slab-worthy” comics from these years, but the results speak for themselves. For the mathematically lazy, that corresponds to: 1980 = 63% direct, 37% newsstand 1981 = 78% direct, 22% newsstand 1982 = 79% direct, 21% newsstand 1983 = 84% direct, 16% newsstand 1984 = 92% direct, 8% newsstand 1985 = 94% direct, 6% newsstand 1986 = 97% direct, 3% newsstand It’s just a sample, taken at a random time of day, but those were the results. Try it yourself, if you like!” – Greg Holland, Overstreet Advisor

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote about the state of Marvel’s newsstand sales in 1986: “I felt that we needed the newsstand market. That, if we became completely dependent on the Direct Market, we’d wind up in the same position as when we’d been entirely dependent on the newsstand market. Up the creek without a paddle. Screwed. Helpless. At their mercy. I spoke with Marvel’s newsstand sales manager, Denise Bové. Denise was in charge of our dealings with Curtis. Like me, she felt the pendulum had swung too far. So did our Curtis account people. We came up with a number of support-the-newsstand-distribution ideas. I suggested, for instance, doing a newsstand exclusive. Why not? You know the Direct Market shops would go to their local ID’s and buy copies anyway. It would be a big hit for the ID’s, and maybe the retailers they served. And great PR in that market. Maybe get them interested in comics again. A little. That would have been in 1986. At that point, I was engaged in daily battles with the President and the other owners of Marvel.” — Jim Shooter, Comic Book Distribution Part III What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is that it reveals how by 1986 the pendulum had swung so far in the direction of direct edition sales (away from newsstand sales) that Shooter was trying to support the newsstand channel and engaging in daily battles. I find this quote particularly notable in the context of 1980’s newsstand sales estimates given by Rozanski (quoted in another slide), where his 1985 and 1986 estimates drawing from two different articles were 50% newsstand, down from 94% newsstand in 1979. That pendulum sure took quite a swing, considering that direct edition sales only began in that 1979 year.

Amazing Spider-Man Newsstand Returns By Year

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am showing a compilation of the average per-issue sales numbers and returns numbers for Amazing Spider-Man, from statements published by Marvel (note that not every year has a statement actually available, and eventually Marvel stopped publishing these). Because only newsstand sales were returnable (versus direct edition sales which were non-returnable), the returns column reflects only newsstand copies being returned. In 1978 there were more returns than sales; in 1979 distinguishable “direct edition” comics began to be sold; in 1980 the first “direct market exclusive” was introduced; 1982 is the last year where returns outnumber sales; by 1985 there are published estimates out there that direct edition sales overtook newsstand sales (as quoted in other slides). Looking at that 1985 returns number for Amazing Spider-Man, in relation to the sales number, the level of returns was about half that of sales; down from return numbers exceeding sales numbers back in 1982 and prior. In the context of the quote from another slide about how newsstand sales were 14% when Jemas came on board in 1999, and that Marvel made a decision to “walk away” from the newsstand, for that 1999 year we have returns down to 77,951 copies, which would plummet to 17,210 copies for 2001. I present a bar chart of these figures in the next slide.

Amazing Spider-Man Newsstand Sales Trend

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing the statement numbers for Amazing Spider-Man as published by Marvel Comics, for the years where these statements exist. I have charted two data series here: the blue bars are the average total sales per issue for Amazing Spider-Man for that year as reported by Marvel, and the purple bars are the returns per issue in the same reports. Any returns would only be returns of newsstand copies, because direct edition copies were sold on a non-returnable basis. For the period circled in cyan at the left, we can observe that the returns numbers exceed the sales numbers through 1982. As quoted in another slide, it was common for newsstands to sell only on the order of 30% of the comics displayed, and the rest would be returned to the publisher. Therefore we can look at the purple bars, and draw a reasonable conclusion that newsstand sales were some amount smaller than the returns. The average returns of the later years circled in orange is a very low average number, which suggests the number of copies actually sold on newsstands would be smaller still. Marvel eventually stopped publishing these statements, but as we saw on another slide, David Gabriel indicated newsstand sales through outlets other than bookstores ended sometime circa 2010-2011, while newsstand sales to those bookstore outlets ended in 2013. For that 2013 year, as we saw on another slide, the industry-wide newsstand sales estimate for that year came in at a mere 6.8%. We also saw on another slide that when Jemas came on board in 1999, Marvel’s newsstand sales represented 14%; and a decision was made to “walk away” from the newsstand.

Jim Shooter Quote About The Direct Market

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote by Jim Shooter describing internal opposition at Marvel to special efforts to support the newsstand distribution channel: “Kalish vehemently opposed a newsstand exclusive. She vehemently objected to any support of any kind for the newsstand. She claimed that the Direct Distributors and shop owners would see any such things as betrayal, rise up in anger and retaliate against Marvel. Why not just hand the Direct Market over to DC?” “The Direct Market was easy money, quick money, sure money to the brass—not that any of them had ever set foot in a comics shop or even opened a comic book. To them it was about moving the units and collecting the cash. Might as well have been widgets we were selling. But, they knew the Direct Market was shooting fish in a barrel. Why jeopardize that?” — Jim Shooter, Comic Book Distribution Part Three What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is how it reveals internal opposition at Marvel to the idea of special support for the ailing newsstand distribution channel. The idea that a “newsstand exclusive” would cause comic shop owners to feel betrayal is such an interesting notion — and highlights how throughout modern comic book history, the shops and the newsstands were in competition… A comic book buyer picking up the next issue of Amazing Spider-Man on the newsstand didn’t need to buy it from the local comic shop (and vice versa). This sets up an interesting dynamic where newsstand comics were almost an “enemy” of comic shops.

Six To Ten Percent Direct Edition In 1979

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote about Marvel’s newsstand sales and returns related to one another: “While it was seldom that a newsstand sold more than 30% of the new comics they displayed (they were able to return unsold copies for full credit at the end of the month), comics specialty stores were a guaranteed 100% sell-through, as they purchased on non-returnable basis. Freed from the enormous printing costs of publishing three comics for every one that sold, and also being able to eliminate the administration costs of issuing credits for returns, the publishers suddenly found themselves awash in profits.” — Chuck Rozanski, Destroying the Entry Point of Most New Readers,” What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is that it provides insight into how the introduction of Direct Edition sales would change the dynamics of comic book distribution. The idea that newsstands only sold 30% of the comics they displayed gives us a sense of the relationship between sales and returns, i.e. that returns would have been a large number in comparison to sales, because if only 30% of the comics displayed were sold, that leaves 70% being returned. In the context of some of the Amazing Spider-Man sales and returns numbers over the years (presented on another slide), this is really fascinating to contemplate because it could spell rarity numbers for later Amazing-Spider-Man issue that are incredibly low: for example consider the average returns number given for the 2001 year at 17,210 copies (if that is what was returned, then a smaller number would have been sold in the context of that 30% / 70% relationship that Rozanski discussed in this quote). Also very revealing in this quote is the phrase “awash in profits” to describe how publishers benefitted from the shift to more direct market sales.

Image Comics Mostly Direct Edition Sales

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote by Chuck Rozanski about how Image Comics sold fully 99% of their comics as direct edition copies: “Another consideration about newsstand editions is that different publishers produced them at different times. Image, for example, had a vigorous newsstand program right from the beginning, but still sold 99% of their comics through the Direct Market. Dark Horse has been extremely spotty, with most licenced comics having newsstand distribution, while almost none of their own titles came with barcodes. We are still struggling to figure out all these crazy variations.” — Chuck Rozanski, Newsstand Editions History What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is that it provides insight into how the newsstand sales percentages were different at different publishers. Image Comics, as an up-start in 1992, had an incredible amount of competition not just from magazines but other comic book publishers on newsstands. The idea that fully 99% of Image’s comic book sales were direct edition copies made to comic shops, would give Image’s newsstand comics an extreme level of comparative rarity to direct edition copies. Presumably the most popular titles like Spawn would have done better than other titles, for instance I quote Erik Larsen in another slide about how Savage Dragon sold so poorly on newsstands that he pulled the newsstand plug and went exclusively direct edition by 1996 (Spawn/The Savage Dragon #1 being his final attempt on the newsstand, and an incredibly rare comic book to find). Manufacturing choices such as cheap newsprint paper and omitting special features such as centerfold posters may have been an attempt by Image to control costs and try to remain competitive on the newsstands. Manufacturing differences such as these cause CGC to “break out” newsstand copies of some Image titles, so we can actually see the count of each type — in another slide I present the current census count for a series of Image titles, where we find as of this writing in 2016 that across ten known examples, 3,359 direct edition copies appear on census, versus 107 newsstand copies (3% newsstand to 97% direct edition).

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote by Jim Shooter about how he lost his battles to help support the newsstand: “The Direct Market was easy money, quick money, sure money to the brass — not that any of them had ever set foot in a comics shop or even opened a comic book. To them it was about moving the units and collecting the cash. Might as well have been widgets we were selling. But, they knew the Direct Market was shooting fish in a barrel. Why jeopardize that? Circulation V.P. Ed Shukin, both Kalish and Denise’s boss, kept his head low and his mouth shut. He knew which way the wind was blowing upstairs. So, Denise and I lost and Kalish won. I was gone from Marvel not too long afterwards, so, it was my problem no longer. Kalish passed away in 1991, but ultimately Marvel arrived where she wanted it. And that’s where we are now.” — Jim Shooter, Comic Book Distribution Part III What is particularly interesting to me about this quote, is that it provides insight into how the “brass” at Marvel felt about Direct Edition sales, as compared to newsstand sales. In the context of another quote from another slide about how publishers were “awash in profits” on account of direct edition sales, it would definitely make sense that the sales-focused executives would choose the more profitable distribution channel to support. But in doing so, newsstand sales suffered to the point where the pendulum had swung so far, that Marvel was completely dependent on direct market sales. Shooter mentions how Marvel ultimately arrived at that point of total direct edition dominance; it is interesting too to see that 1991 year mentioned, in the context of some of the other slides — for example there is that quote that a mere 14% of Marvel’s sales were newsstand by the time Jemas arrived at Marvel in 1999; and Rozanski’s 1990 estimate of 15% newsstand sales.

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote by Jim Shooter about the first Direct Edition Exclusive, Dazzler #1 in 1980: “At the end of 1980, Marvel published the first regular comic book that was sold exclusively through the Direct Market, Dazzler #1. It sold 428,000 copies.” “After that success, many more Direct-only offerings were published by Marvel and others. As the Direct Market boomed, increasingly it became the focus at Marvel. It was a low-margin business, yes, but it was firm sale, and it was pretty easy to target Direct Market consumers. We knew what they wanted. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.” — Jim Shooter, Comic Book Distribution Part III What I find particularly interesting about this quote is how “direct edition exclusives” such as this were something you could only find in the comic shops, i.e. they simply did not print any newsstand copies. So for these cases of direct edition exclusives, the number of newsstand copies sold of the issue would be -zero-… This may have had the effect of increasing total direct edition sales by year, i.e. the 1980 direct edition total sales number at Marvel would have incremented by the amount of those Dazzler #1 sales, with no corresponding increase to the total newsstand edition sales for that year. Also particularly interesting is that “shooting fish in a barrel” quote, revealing how the top executives felt about the direct market. Something else I find interesting to contemplate about direct edition exclusives is how it would have had the incremental effect of drawing collectors away from the newsstands and into the comic shops, because these comics simply could not be bought on newsstands. Having come to a comic shop to buy one of these exclusives, the shop owner might then succeed in turning that shopper into a regular customer, perhaps even get them into the idea of collecting if they had just been a reader previously.

Newsstand Distribution Helped Advertising Revenue

Sensational Spider-Man Newsstand Skipping

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote from my Q&A with the seller of “The Doc Collection” (a large collection of 50,000 all-newsstand late modern comics): “Q) I feel very fortunate to have picked off some of the Doc’s comics at auction, especially some Amazing Spider-Man books in incredible shape. But there are notable “holes” in the Doc’s ASM run, which seem to correspond to the UPC code that was used on them. At some point, Marvel started “cycling” the codes on these, alternating between “Amazing Spider-Man”, “Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man”, and “Sensational Spider-Man”. It seems every third comic was missed by the Doc?
A) I was puzzled by Doc’s Amazing run when I first saw it — after they started putting Amazing and Friendly on the UPC code every third issue was missing! I found out later about the missed ones that they had Sensational Spider-Man on them!!!” What is particularly interesting to me about this exchange, is the idea that this gigantic collection of 50,000 newsstand comics was missing every third ASM issue — and that those missed copies had to do with the distribution: Any copy with the Sensational Spider-Man UPC code simply wasn’t sent to the drugstore. I find this to be a very interesting highlight of the idea that newsstand distribution was spotty and unreliable, and that we may see quite a lot of variability in the numbers issue by issue depending on strange circumstances such as this.

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am discussing a quote from my Q&A with the seller of “The Doc Collection” (a large collection of 50,000 all-newsstand late modern comics): “Q) I’ve noticed some Doc listings where there’s a sticker over the UPC code, like the Wolverine #47 listing, I’m curious if you can tell what’s behind that sticker, i.e. is this maybe a case where there wasn’t a distinct print run of newsstand copies for that issue number and the distributor is using copies from the direct edition print run and covering up the UPC code with a sticker to get the right code onto it? A) According to what I’ve been told when there was a mistake like with price instead of reprinting them, a sticker was placed on the comic! Along with the 47 I’ve found JLA 118 and Superman 677 had stickers also!! Even crazier is that there’s two different stickers for the Sup 677–I only have one of them!!” What is particularly interesting to me about this exchange, is the idea that some newsstand batches were mistakes and the UPC codes were covered up by stickers. Might some issues not even have distinct newsstand copies, but have stickers slapped onto copies out of the direct edition print run? We see a similar phenomenon in the case of Spawn Batman where bookstores got copies out of the direct edition print run with white UPC code stickers slapped onto the back — yet it turns out that there was indeed a distinct batch of copies printed for the non-bookstore newsstand outlets as well for that issue. Lots of mystery and strange circumstances issue by issue with newsstand comics!

Newsstand Comics: Preferable Over Direct Edition

This slide is part of my post entitled Newsstand Rarity Discussion & Estimates where I have collected quotes and graphics related to the discussion of relative newsstand rarity over the years, compared to direct edition copies. In this slide, I am sharing my own conclusion about newsstand desirability. Representing a smaller percentage of sales after the mid-1980’s, and then being purchased by a “mostly-reader-group,” surviving collectible-grade newsstand copies are very rare in contrast to collectible-grade direct edition copies. Therefore, given the opportunity to buy a Near Mint surviving copy out of one channel or the other at similar price, my preference is the newsstand copy hands down. As mentioned in another slide, during the mid-1980’s there’s also a cover price variant window where the higher cover price variants were the newsstand copies sent to Canada (which was 9.8% of the North American market for comic books by population size) — I prefer those newsstand variants when they exist. Another known cover price variant window where higher priced copies are a newsstand-only phenomenon is $3.99 newsstand editions.