Comic Book Resources

I'm thinking they're trying to compensate for what I like to call The Amazon Quotient.

Yeah, I noticed the same thing back when the Civil War TP was solicited. I think it's silly, and another example of the awful consideration Marvel has towards their customers.

We wouldn't want to be expanding our customer base now.

You're just now noticing this? Isn't Amazing Spider-Man on the shelves for a dollar more than every other comic? Or am I imagining that?

You're imagining that. Yeah, that's the case, Dave, on the newstands, Amazing Spider-Man is now four bucks. On the direct market, though, it is still three dollars.

The first part of New Ways to Die (Amazing #568) was a buck more, but it was extra-sized.

Yeah, but I just had to pick up Fantastic Four #559 (LCS was out) at the only bookstore nearby that has single issue comics and it was $3.99 for a normal size issue. The price was also $3.99 on Thor #10, which I got at the LCS for $2.99.

Wow, Craig, for real?

That's intriguing.

Let me see what I shall see!

I'm not saying your wrong, but it's really hard to judge, because:

A - You're comparing the number of issues in a comic instead of page-count.

B - You're comparing oversized hardcovers with "premier" hardcovers, which is apples and oranges. Oversized hardcovers are oversized collections containing (usually) a larger number or issues and released after the TPB for a reasonable price. "Premier" hardcovers are overpriced smaller editions that are released early to fleece the people who don't have the patience to wait for the TPB or oversized HC.

(As an aside, what the hell does "premier" mean. I used to think it referred to the fact that it was the first collection of that material, but no we're getting "premier" editions of older stuff I don't know any more)

A - You’re comparing the number of issues in a comic instead of page-count.

When the books have the same page counts, the number of issues is the same thing as judging by page count. It's a fair enough point that Civil War had more pages than normal comics, though - not MUCH more (the seven issues had a total of 16 more pages than a standard seven issues of a comic - 10 extra pages in #1 and 6 extra pages in #7), but yeah, more. Hulk and Ms. Marvel were both the same page counts, though (except the aforementioned backup story).

B - You’re comparing oversized hardcovers with “premier” hardcovers, which is apples and oranges.

The Ms. Marvel and the Hulk hardcovers are both "premier" hardcovers, so they're apples and apples costing an extra five bucks.

As for Runaways vs. Civil War, if the oversized hardcovers containing a dozen or more issues are cheaper than the smaller hardcovers, then that is worth noting, yes?

Don't forget that all the Vaughan issues of Runaways were traded as six-issue digests for $7.99 a pop.

Whedon's six issues? $20 hardcover.

Or you could say, Ms Marvel isn't as popular as Red Hulk, so Marvel sell it for five dollars less in the hope of attracting impulse buyers.

Voila! The glass is half full.

I get that they're businesses and all, and I have no problem with these companies trying to make a buck, but I feel kind of insulted when they go out of their way to squeeze a buck out of me.

As for Runaways vs. Civil War, if the oversized hardcovers containing a dozen or more issues are cheaper than the smaller hardcovers, then that is worth noting, yes?

Worth noting if your point is that premier harcovers are a rip-off, but not really relevant to your point about a popularity tax.

Voila! The glass is half full.

Slight tangent here, but...
A "half full" glass is a glass that isn't full. A "half empty" glass is a glass that isn't empty. So why is thinking of a glass as not empty considered more positive than thinking of it as not full.

A “half full” glass is a glass that isn’t full. A “half empty” glass is a glass that isn’t empty. So why is thinking of a glass as not empty considered more positive than thinking of it as not full.

Framing. In all seriousness, the way people frame issues or products has a big effect on how happy they are with said issues, or purchases. Psychology is a funny thing.

Back on topic: Is some of this Marvel trying to push new readers? Vertigo is really good about having a lower price point on their first trades, as opposed to all others. It certainly gets me to pick them up.

If that's not it, well, I'm just happy that I'm not buying Marvel's most popular titles in either trade or singles.

At Barnes & Noble I saw how Marvel priced its latest "New Avengers" and "Astonishing X-Men" paperbacks and dropped them like a hot rock. No more bookstore purchases for me.

A “half full” glass is a glass that isn’t full. A “half empty” glass is a glass that isn’t empty. So why is thinking of a glass as not empty considered more positive than thinking of it as not full.

Because the glass is "already" half-empty, showing that it will soon run out, and it's "still" half-full, showing how much more there is to enjoy...

Or you could say, Ms Marvel isn’t as popular as Red Hulk, so Marvel sell it for five dollars less in the hope of attracting impulse buyers.

That wouldn't be a bad take on it if they debuted this way, but they all debuted with the HCs being the same price, and then slowly began increasing the prices just on the more popular series.

I think that demonstrates an intent of charging more for popular titles rather than less for less popular titles.

The paperback for Planet Hulk retails at $35.

The paperback!

It wasn't *that* good, Marvel.

It was also 14 issues long plus parts of Giant-Sized Hulk (I think) and the new Amazing Fantasy #15. TPBs with 10-12 issues tend to be $30.
I have no problem with the high sellers being a bit more expensive. It keeps the price down on the lower selling titles and levels the playing field a bit.

I missed the comment by Brian pre-refuting my above point, so I'll regrettably have to double post. While it would be better from our POV to charge say $2.50 for a lower selling comic but they still have to deal with the growing cost of production and make the shareholders happy. It's easier from their end to just delay the inevitable price increase for most books and apply it now to the higher sellers.

A little economics: To maximize profit, a firm must raise the price as long as demand is inelastic (when demand is inelastic, the increased revenue from the higher per-unit price more than makes up for the lost revenue from decreased sales). Since the demand for each book differs, it should be no surprise that prices differ. The only downside for Marvel could be losing the good will of fans, which could decrease demand in the long run (which comments like Mecha-Shiva's indicate might be happening) or, as some have mentioned, losing some new readers put off by the price. But I'm sure they've considered this and believe that the short-run profit outweighs these potential long-term losses.

And I usually check in on CSBG when I want to take a break from teaching economics!

Thanks for the info, Slaz.

Yeah, do note that I'm not saying that what Marvel is doing here is wrong or anything, just noting they're doing it period!

Actually, I think you COULD argue that it's wrong based on personal views of fairness or morality. But of course companies don't make decisions based on those criteria unless they think long-run demand depends on it. (Markets are efficient, but not fair.) What the pricing does show is that Marvel has probably increased its use of market data and is taking the time to apply it to each individual book. It's interesting that DC would reach a somewhat different conclusion, apparently sizing books to fit the $20 price, as pointed out in the other post. I'm sure each is watching the other's sales for clues as to which strategy is working better. It's possible that these companies are trying to find ways to respond to cost inflation without engaging in obvious across-the-board price increases.