From: khale@camilla.Eng.Sun.COM (Abhijit Khale)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Sandman ... (and other random stuff)
Date: 11 Oct 1992 01:55:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: camilla-50

In article <1992Oct10.183818.9085@hellgate.utah.edu> speterse%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.213301.6295@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>
>>Bear in mind that while Sandman is popular and profitable, it isn't
>>incredibly so.  (Wasn't it something like number sixty in terms of
>>sales?)  Also DC isn't exploiting it to the hilt.  In my own opinion,
>>this is wise:  The value to DC (image, PR, related titles) of having
>>a title of Sandman's caliber is far more than they could recoup if
>>they were to milk it for all it was worth.
>
>I recall a while back, someone asked an Official Marvel Person why they
>didn't do something like SANDMAN, and the response was along the lines
>of "why should we?  It sells as well as DR. STRANGE."
>
>However, from a purely economic standpoint, SANDMAN is much more 
>profitable than the circulation figures would indicate, simply because
>of the reprint volumes.  As I understand it, the revenue brought in
>from them is basically pure gravy (especially at the prices they charge
>for them--I know color printing is expensive, but $20 for 8 issues?).

Sandman is generally in the 60 or so range in terms of sales. However, it
does much better than any other DC mature title (excluding Lobo mature
titles). Also, there arent that many regular DC comics that do better than it
actually : the bat titles (LOTDK is probably DCs best seller), and some misc.
stuff like  Deathstroke, and occasionally some of the titans and JL titles. 
[ I havent counted  mini-series/one-offs like Robin or Lobo ]. 

Sandman is probably very profitable though, because the book is fairly
expensive (and well worth it !!). And yes, all the reprints are pure gravy
minus printing costs and royalties. The Season of Mists hardcover sold  very
well and probably made a lot of money for DC : hardcovers rarely do that well.
And there is all the PR value as well as the awards its obtained. 

>Furthermore, the reprint volumes, by appearing in "real" bookstores, are
>attracting an audience to DC that doesn't normally read comic books--a
>fact of incalculable importance, especially since they've basically 
>lost the battle for the kiddie-superhero market.

I agree completely that Sandman appeals to non traditional readers : I know
several people who dont read any other comics who read Sandman (and other
Gaiman stuff). I dont agree though, that Sandman appearing in traditional
 bookstores represents that much of a breakthrough : many bookstores and
chain bookstores stock comic TPBs and graphic novels including Sandman,
but also Batman, Spider-man, Superman, X-men, Asterix, Tintin etc (not to
mention Maus).  


>Marvel is simply being short-sighted here.  When reprints of last year's
>DR STRANGE storylines start selling in large quantities from non-traditional
>outlets--then the comparison will be valid.
>

Well, Marvel is probably being diplomatic, because it doesnt want to say
"These days, we have maybe two good writers ( PAD and DeMatteis) and maybe
two good writer-artists (Alan Davis and John Byrne) who work on regular
titles for us. We tend to value artists and characters more since they tend
to make a book sell, not writers.  We're still doing very well in the kiddie
super-hero market, even with the competition from Image. Why should we
waste time tracking down the Gaimans and Morrisons and Wagners and Delanos
and Giffens and Simonsons when we can get a larger sales boost just by having
the Punisher or Wolverine on the cover ?"

Abhijit