My argument is that the Data can only be seen as an extension of the public relations machine that Diamond maintains — to create the illusion that the products that they carry (especially products by the brokered partners) -are- the comics industry.

Whether or not you want to agree with that last step in the argument is up to you, but it seems clear that we need to separate the important statistical work done by folks like John Jackson Miller at Comichron, reconstructing the publication history of title, from the current use of the flawed data set. Here is how I end that article:

Final Commentary

The Diamond bestseller list creates the sense that Diamond is the gravity at the center of the graphic novel and comic book universe. I would never deny Diamond’s historical importance in keeping the direct market alive. I would never imply that the comics medium would survive without the direct market. And so, logically, the comics medium at present depends on the existence of Diamond. But that recognition does not undercut my claim: A healthy city depends on its roads, but the roads do not define the city, and a survey of the roads (and what passing along them) is not a survey of the city. I do deny the illusion of the importance of Diamond in defining the industry, market or medium – the illusion that the Diamond data creates and that the endless commentary upon that data reinforces.

The mistake that many commentators on the Diamond data make is that they confuse assessments of “the industry,” “the market” and “the medium” with assessments of Diamond, its central distributor, based on Diamond’s public relations machine – its bestseller lists.

To assess the market, we need to look beyond the primary distributor to the 3,600 outlets Diamond serves. We need to be able to investigate all of the ways that those 3,600 outlets obtain material and the ways that they move that material into the hands of readers.

To assess the industry, we need to investigate what “comics” means to more than the addicts who shop 3,600 stores for their weekly fix. We need to investigate what “comics” means to the huge population of the country that live more than 20 miles from any comic shop, and so see Star Wars, superhero movie tie-in and Archie comics more often than they see X-Men. We need to see sales of comics and graphic novels in a B. Dalton, a Waldenbooks, or a discount chain as part of the industry.

To assess the medium, we need to be able to fully appreciate the consistent success of materials that are choked out of the bestseller lists by the volume of the materials offered by Diamond’s brokered partners – the Strangers in Paradise, the Owly, the Zoom Suit, even the Naruto – that flourish in nontraditional outlets and via nontraditional marketing.

As long as we are dependent on Diamond data, our ability to assess the industry, market and medium is crippled….

I hope you might take a look.

here’s my 2 cents
( and i am only speaking on my behalf as a comic book fan)

I am so glad i am just a fan who has the power to choose what comic or books i want to buy and not worry about the “politics of comics”..

if i like a comic or book I will buy it no matter what…
it doesnt matter where its coming from, who distributed it, who else likes it or if Im the only one buying it..

Also, I know it’s hard when you think your work is being hurt by these numbers but most of the people who see these numbers aren’t going to be swayed from reading DMZ or Jonah Hex in trade or singles because of a sales chart. It’s fine for people with inside knowledge to point out when they think the numbers are wrong but perhaps their time would be better spent talking to their bosses and trying to get them to put pressure on Diamond to release sell through numbers instead of the pre-order Batman mumbo jumbo we’re stuck with now. Wishing that people would quit trying to figure out what’s selling is kind of a waste of time since it’s something people want and sometimes even need to see. All of us would like the real numbers but until we get them we’re left with the hard work that Mayo and others put forth, which is often the best they can do with what they have. Diamond has the ability to give us the real numbers and the only way that’s going to happen is if the exclusive publishers and/or DM retailers demand it. However, I think that the bad data actually skews the numbers in benefit of the Big 2 and their top line books so they have no interest in changing the status quo.

I bet Karl Rove could answer this.

All sales charts kind of suck. I appreciate why they exist, but they’re all compromised and skewed to some degree. Diamond’s lack integrity more than most, because of the way they guard hard sales data like it was gold at Fort Knox and focus on preorders (not sell-thru), and present their data in such unscientific ways (the whole “Batman index” thing they use is just stupid) and skewed ways that only reinforce The Way Things Are.

Bookscan is just as skewed, leaving out such major markets as wholesalers, Amazon, and most of the direct market. PW’s methodology is a complete mystery to me. Even John Miller, who has done so much work on this front, has had a certain tunnel-vision in the way he refuses to look at anything BUT the direct market, which again is only a piece of the entire book business puzzle and any analysis he does completely ignores massive trends in other niches that could be useful to retailers in anticipating demand from all consumer ends. For example, over the last five years, our reported market share in the DM has trended downward, even though our overall sales as a company have gone up because of continued growth in other areas. If you only read the Comics Retailer market shares, you’d think overall consumer demand was lower than ever for Fanta, when in reality our overall sales have proven just the opposite. This kind of info I would think could be useful to retailers, but more to point (and getting back to what I think Brian is talking about), not having that info can be actively misleading and harmful to our business.

Seriously, everyone, the name of the game is PERCEPTION, and most readers aren’t going to scour an article or a comments section looking for the grand big picture or the little caveats sprinkled around. They’ll breeze through, reading the title, looking at the charts, and walk away depressed that their favorite book is tanking, or whatever, never knowing they’re only getting part of the story.

It’s a problem, and kudos to Mayo for seeing that and clarifying his article.

bri

And your title: it was in CBR’s favor in that you added and changed bits to counter the arguments being made in the comments section (mostly by me), and after the fact. Not to say the bits you added aren’t correct or helpful, but thank god your original title is still in the URL. But it makes my reposted blog entry look unnecessary.

bri

How about this: Diamond expands its top 100 GNs to top 300 GNs as they do with periodicals. That would reflect more accurately the focus of the industry right now AND allow number crunchers to get more data. And I do think more data is needed. The music industry changed forever on the day Soundscan was introduced and it was shown that Nirvana and Public Enemy were selling more albums than Winger. the more accurate information the better for EVERYONE.

In DMZ’s case, the info labeled “year to date” is simply the eight-month-old pre-order number (http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/10271.html)

bri

b

I just went into Bookscan and checked on some numbers. Bookscan’s numbers are ALSO low, but by a smaller factor. AND NO IT IS NOT BECAUSE INDIE BOOKSTORES SELL 1000s and 1000s of graphic novels. They don’t. Honest.

Most trades published by Marvel and DC sell MUCH MUCH MUCH better in the direct sales market than bookstores. Random House and DC’s deal may change that where DC is concerned, but as of now that is the case. That goes for Vertigo and Wildstorm, too with the EXCEPTION of name authors like Alan Moore and Brian Vaughan. Books like Y the Last Man and V FOR VENDETTA sell loads in bookstores. The books that are at the top of the Diamond charts — Halo, Marvel Zombies, Walking Dead — also sell very well in bookstores.

Of course, they are all eclipsed by Naruto. And Fruits Basket. And a ton of other manga the LCS system can’t sell.

All of these numbers are compromised. Brian may see his royalty statement but he doesn’t see Brian Bendis’s or Joss Whedons. I think a dialog about a flawed system with a look to improving it is better than no dialog at all.

(Personally I don’t find it at all surprising that only 40% of Brian Wood’s DMZ sales made the Diamond chart; that leaves 60% of sales to go through non-DM bookstores, to sell abroad, or to be caught in long-term re-orders. Sounds about right to me.)

These problems are less serious with the monthly singles chart. It goes down to 300 and the sales of most periodicals tend to be heavily front-loaded into the first two months (at least at Marvel). So it’s much more likely that the chart is going to catch enough of the sales to allow for meaningful trends to be identified. It’s adequate for the purpose, as long as you accept the limitations of the segment of the market that it claims to cover. And besides, it’s the best we’ve got.

But the DM trades chart? I wouldn’t trust it as far as I could throw it.

I agree you don’t have the info. No one does, that’s part of the problem. And what makes any kind of chart-making or sales analysis at all a bit of a fool’s game.

It’s misleading, though, to title an article “Top Trades Year To Date” with such incredibly incomplete info, even with disclaimers sprinkled around. Much the same when the “Actual” orders for monthly comics are reported. There is nothing “actual” about them at all. Still mostly North American pre-orders only.

And analysis of an incomplete picture can be a harmful thing. Consumers and retailers can see a monthly title dropping low in these charts, read some snarky one-line analysis about how bad its looking for a book, and maybe decide its not worth buying/ordering any more if its likely to be canceled. When the reality of the situation can be very different.

bri

The information I have available is only the sales of items through Diamond to retailers as reported by Diamond. That is why I refer to the total known estimates sales as such. It is simply a total of the known estimated sales, not all of the year to date or life to date sales. I can’t include data that I don’t have.

This data should only be used to serve as indicators of trends within the direct market. Using them to declare an item a “failure” is not why I report the data. I try to use the available data to explain the sales trends as I see them. Nothing more, nothing less.

I tried to point out in the article what the numbers do and don’t measure and why and that these are not all inclusive sales figures. I try to be very upfront about this as much as possible and practical. I’m constantly trying to improve the reporting and analysis that I do. I agree that more inclusive data would yield more information analysis. If more data sources become available I’ll gladly add them to my number crunching an analysis. If anybody had suggestions on how I could improve the scope or quality of my analysis, please email me and let me know.

Comic book stores seem to have a hard time figuring out what people will buy in a lot of cases. My old store used to sell out of Infinite Crisis before it hit the shelves but fill the shelf with Civil War one week, then under order Civil War the next week but have 20 extra copies of Cable/Deadpool. That and most of the time you’d never know if Batman (of all comics) came out unless you checked the internet because none would ever make it on the shelves.

So if sales charts mostly show store orders, I personally can see where they ought to be off base.

So, useful to make broad statements involving the general health of a books sales and to see how much retailers are willing to gamble on a book initially, but anything beyond that is guesswork.

Again, I know what my DMZ singles sell, as reported on my royalty sheets. A couple thousand more than reported by ICV2.

bri