Keskustelujen arkisto

Quote from user: MustangRockstarIt's time to swallow hard and honestly ask ourselves if Disney comics are even feasible in North America at this
point. In the last 30 years, we've seen five efforts to produce these comics, and all failed.
They didn't all fail. Please don't spread incorrect information.

Gladstone I (1985-1990) was a big success -- and only partly due to the DuckTales TV show. Its comic books often sold more than 100,000 copies, and there was a plethora of thriving titles. Gladstone I was so successful, in fact, that Disney revoked Gladstone's license so they themselves could publish those successful comics and bring those big profits in-house.

Disney Comics (1990-1993) made several strategic mistakes regarding choice of reprint material, what kind of material they themselves should produce, advertising, analyzing sales figures etc. And yes, they did end up having to cancel a lot of titles. But in the end they weren't really a failure, either. In their last days, Donald Duck Adventures, Uncle Scrooge, and Walt Disney's Comics and Stories still sold in OK numbers... just less than Gladstone I had done. So they gave the license back to Gladstone.

Gladstone II (1993-1998) was hit by several problems. From what I understand, the publisher (Bruce Hamilton) wanted to save money on producing the comics, perhaps because sales had gone down during the Disney Comics years. Unfortunately, Gladstone II's cost-saving measures made sales go down further. Hamilton chose to print old inventory material even though it was often very unpopular with readers (just look at the negative responses to "Goofy History" and "Mickey and the Sleuth" stories in the letter columns... and yet those stories kept being published), and lots of stories from the earlier Gladstone period were reprinted again and again. Some comics were printed with newsprint covers to keep the price low, but this was again a very unpopular move that lost more buyers than it kept on board. As a result, sales fell and fell...

Gemstone (2003-2008) made money. This has been mentioned in several places -- also on this message board. Their problems are still a little unclear (to me, at least), but from what I understand their earnings were being used to finance Steve Geppi's other enterprises. Problems with those other enterprises apparently eventually led to a cash crunch, which made Gemstone unable to afford continue publishing. But what they did publish, made money for them.

BOOM! (2009-?)... Well, we don't know. And until BOOM! announces something, it's all speculation and hearsay. Which means it is premature to write them off, in my opinion.

So no, publishing Disney comics is not doomed to failure. In fact, over the last thirty years, publishing Disney comics has traditionally made money for the publisher.

MustangRockstar, McDuck_Enterprises... I really don't understand your (and others') defeatist attitudes. Why do fans keep trying to come up with arguments for why companies should not publish Disney comics... or, at the very least, not publish them the successful way that Gladstone I or (to a lesser degree) Gemstone did?

Mcduck_Enterprises, please don't be silly.

Let's move back to GeoX for a minute:
Quote from user: GeoXI don't for a minute buy this idea that Disney comics don't sell, or must be consigned to a niche. [...] They don't sell well when they're not promoted well. [...] Will somebody please explain to me why we--who are supposed to be FANS of this stuff--are determined to make this "Disney comics just DON'T SELL!" narrative into a self-fulfilling prophesy?
As a fan community, we've spent years asking ourselves why Disney comics supposedly don't sell.
One point not usually considered is that they've often been under-advertised.

GeoX and Lars are on the right track??even if I might disagree a little with a few of their statements, and I won't discuss past licensees in too much detail for the obvious reasons of privacy.

But I can refer back to a communication between myself and an exec at one Disney comics licenseholder years ago??long before Boom or anything recent. The exec disagreed with the idea that advertising was even necessary, because "everyone knows Disney characters."
I argued that sure, everyone knows Disney characters, but average people on the street might not know there are Disney *comics*.
"Sure they know," the exec would say. End of discussion.
Later, when this line of Disney comics began to face problems, this same exec lamented that "print media is dead" and that the comics must be unpopular.
Er... unpopular? Among a public who didn't even know the product was out there? That's not unpopularity, that's just unawareness due to insufficient promotion.

Looking at some (relatively) recent events at Gemstone: WALT DISNEY TREASURES Vol 1 was advertised a lot (in conjunction with the coinciding DVDs), and sold about 14,000 copies.
By contrast, TREASURES Vol 2??their all-Scrooge edition??wasn't advertised as much, and "only" sold about 8,000. Still profitable and good; just not *as* good.
(Even though Vol 2 had more Barks, Rosa, and especially Scrooge: all elements traditionally seen as being extra-popular.)

For years, I feel like Disney comics conventional wisdom has been built largely on pessimism ("our hobby isn't cool") and unfounded assumptions ("I'm just *sure* character/creator X won't appeal to a young/old/mass audience").

Please stop, fellas. It's really damaging.

Yes it is nerve wracking to hear that Disney Comics are going to be cancelled again. I hope another company publishes them whether it be Marvel or someone else.

Quote from user: rodneyQuote from user: Mcduck_EnterprisesAs for marketing, good luck, unless there is a toy line, cartoon, movie or some other outside source to go along with it to actually move these books.
Explain how toys, cartoons and movies affect the high sales of the Archie books.
No clue on how that is.(Presuming they sell a ton at Walmart.) I've never met one person (or at least known to me,) that reads Archie. Ever...... I mean ever. Really.......

That's a nice rendition showing Archie still maintaining its publication. Perhaps there are pockets of the country where it really moves. It's just not seen in my area...nor any area I have ever lived in where I was an active member of the comic book community.
I'm considerably positive in seeing is believing with Disney Comics. If someone can make them work, we will buy them. If not, dissecting theories is a futile endeavor for the time being.

Boom's Disney books were sold on newsstands. I've seen them in supermarkets and bookstores. I would like to see some full numbers for the Boom titles.

Those are only comic shop sales. They do not take into account newsstand sales, which would certainly make the numbers of certain books jump.