Man of the Atom returns with part 2 in his series on the history of American comic books.
This time, he examines comic book distribution, among many other topics.
Return rate was the fraction of the total print run that was returned to the distributor by the retailers. Newsstand distribution in the years before the 1990s was based on a model of ‘pay for what you eat’. As an example, consider a retailer who orders 20 copies of Whiz Comics #25 from the distributor and places them on display until the pull date when they are supposed to go off sale and be removed from the rack. Over the course of 30 on-sale days, the retailer sells 17 copies of the comic book, then pulls the remaining three from the stand, likely to replace it with some number of Whiz Comics #26. The three remainder copies would be sent back to the distributor for a full or partial credit that could be applied to a future order. The return rate in this case would be 15%. See this Comichron page for an example of a Postal Service ‘Statement of Ownership’ and the yearly return rates versus actual sales.
Over time, rather than shipping back the entire book, the retailers were allowed to deface the cover and return proof of this action to the distributor. This usually entailed tearing off the top third or so of the front cover with the title and masthead, then returning these portions. While the retailers were supposed to dispose of the periodical after the book was defaced, it was not uncommon that these defaced copies would be quietly sold for half price or given away to customers. High return rates meant lower profits for both distributor and publishers.
Both newsstand distributors and comic book publishers were anxious to find another method of distributing comics during the Superhero heydays of the 1960s and early 1970s.
It’s not surprising that the Big Two comic book publishers used the same pseudo-consignment sales model as Oldpub. Nor should it shock anyone to learn that the legacy comic and print book industries now exist mainly as IP holding entities for Hollywood.
Read the rest of his informative and fascinating post here.
Read part 1 here.
And get Combat Frame XSeed and Combat Frame XSeed: SS for just 99 cents each while the sale lasts!
Brian,
Did the Thor power tool decision also have a negative impact fore comic book distribution?
xavier
(Butting in, Brian. Apologies.)
Xavier –
If distributors or publishers were saving those books to move into the hands of third-party marketers, then yes, it would have.
Another feature of the 60s and early seventies was the comic book four-pack (or later when prices were rising, the three pack). Four titles from Marvel in one of two sets. One would have say Fantastic Four, Thor, Iron Man, and Sub-Mariner, while the other set was Spider-Man, X-Men, Captain America, Hulk, or some such. I believe that DC did the same for a while. These were bundled and marketed to grocery store spinners and magazine racks.
I don’t know that the publisher made much if anything on the books, but they got more comics into readers’ hands, so from a marketing perspective it was a win for them. They were usually titles from a month or more prior to the current issues, so no doubt came from a warehouse to a re-bundler.
Thor Power would have impacted any inventory similar to Big Pub’s book warehouses, so once 1979 (retroactive) and 1980 hit, the warehouses became larger liabilities than they were before.
Good question!
Man of the atom,
Thanks very much. Quite informative. So this decision had an industry wide impact everywhere.
Hmmm. I wonder if the digital editions are exempt from this ruling?
Thanks again!
xavier
Thor Power impacted physical inventories only. Digital would have been on computer reel tapes, and was likely regarded as part of the computer in which it ran. I doubt it would have been considered as part of the publishing output by the people making tax law.
Man of the atom,
Thanks. The Thor decision was early 70s?
If that makes sense.
I look forward to your next installment.
Thor Power was decided in 1980, but was retroactive to 1979. That meant that whether by planning or by accident, the Direct Market established in 1976-1978 would benefit both publishers and distributors by removing large static inventories from their ownership. Those would now be the province of the dealers.
It also meant that there would be no more inventories for the multi-packs of comics being re-marketed by third parties (or for other uses), as the inventories the publishers/distributors typically had due to returns would eventually be eliminated between the mid-60s and when Thor Power came into effect in 1979/1980.
Think ‘no returns’ from Direct Marketing as a means to move excess inventory away from the publisher and distributor into the hands of the local comic store. Thus, there was a tax incentive for using Direct Marketing for the comic companies and the distributors.
From the article:
“Over the next decades, subscription services for comics would also vanish, leaving the local comic store as essentially the only game in town for comic book sales. Two significant changes resulted from direct-sales distribution: no returns (“eat all you take”), and potential minimum order numbers of selected issues (“take all we want you to eat”).”
Does this mean that the distributor could make a comicbook store take titles it didn’t want? That is, “OK, we can give you a price break on the latest Spiderman [which fans want], but you have to take x number copies of The Unstoppable Wasp [which no one wants].”?
I’m answering for them (apologies) but the answer is yes. This happens all the time.
Thanks, JD.
Example links are in a post awaiting moderation.
@Scott W.
That’s what Marvel has done with recent popular titles. Several comic book sites have reported on this. Diamond and other distribution houses have done the same. The dealer works at the whim of either or both.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/5370-diamond-s-new-minimums-shape-a-tough-comics-market.html
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/dc-and-marvel-offer-retailer-exclusive-covers-for-february-to-april/