Looking at more news on today’s sales figures, including this Tilting at Windmills article (via The Beat blog), I discovered that Vertigo’s sales have dropped considerably in the past three years. The observation that the editors of this line ended u…

I don’t know the exact date for sure, but I think the retailer can change his order number about 3 weeks before the issue comes out. The previous issue has been on the shelf a week or two when he finalizes his order.

At my LCS, if it hasn’t sold by Saturday night, it probably isn’t going to sell.

As I understand it, unlike most of Vertigo’s more recent titles, 100 BULLETS has never dropped to a level where it would cease being profitable as a periodical.

“I am merely suggesting that perhaps the single-issue sales don’t represent the same thing for Vertigo titles as they do for DCU titles.”

I agree.

I do enjoy reading the monthly numbers and enjoy the occasional snide tone, but all of this is done outside of the info bubble. While all businesses have a proprietary right to certain information, either Diamond or DC or Marvel could solve the mystery of the short numbers with a wave of a magic wand. They choose not to, so we are left to wonder about their continued profitability. Does the occasional in-house movie option money still make Vertigo viable? Aside from keeping Jim Lee happy and penciling All Star Batman, is there a reason to continue the Wildstorm line? And what if anything can be done to stop the sales erosion?

Jimmy- Brian Hibbs occasionally gets numbers from Bookscan, but there really doesn’t seem to be any reliable way of getting out-of-DM trade sales. The best way I would think to do it would be to track the Amazon rankings and apply the formula listed here, but it would by no means be exact:

http://www.webpronews.com/expertarticles/2006/06/15/navigating-the-amazon-sales-ranking

There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. Because the direct market puts all the risk of unsold copies onto the retailers, they have a powerful incentive to order what they think they can sell - which almost invariably means cutting orders every month, unless there’s a positive reason to think that the book in question will be an exception to the rule (e.g. a crossover or an unusually hot title), or unless the publisher offers an unusual incentive (e.g. a variant cover or some degree of returnability).

Otherwise, the retailer would be taking a big risk to order issue #2 in the same quantities as issue #1.

Since retailers have had this behaviour for years, it’s reasonable to posit that it works for them, and that they do sell a lot more first issues.

09/2007: The Four Horsemen #2 of 6 — 37,764 (-22.8%)

—————————————————————————-

08/2007: The Un-Men #1 — 11,868

09/2007: The Un-Men #2 — 8,758 (-26.2%)

I don´t understand this. Can someone help me out?

Both books had to be pre-ordered, right, three months in advance? So retailers can´t have any data whatsoever how much they would actually sell of the no.1, when the time came to order no.2. No.1 wasn´t actually on the shelves.

But over 25% just decided on a whim that they can´t sell these books? While surely being resigned to the sad fact that the no.1 they ordered - and paid for - will go straight to dollar-box, will be a loss for their business? As no one will buy them?

Why order the no.1 in the first place?

What happened in the meantime, which gave those 25 % the insight that these books will be a failure? Before they sold the no.1!

Sometimes I just don´t understand these numbers and what they mean. This is as arcane as trading at Wall Street or wherever.