From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Ramblings and Rumors
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:30:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.213520.28041@rtsg.mot.com>, chrstnss@rtsg.mot.com (Steve Christianson) writes:

Sorry, couldn't pass this one up:
 
> Miscellaneous comments and rumors:
> >In article <uplink.721704249@cwis>, uplink@cwis.unomaha.edu (uplink) writes:
> >[ stuff deleted ]
> >> 
> >> 	Mark my words, this whole "death of Superman" thing
> >> will be a debacle for DC.
> 
> The manager of the store at which I frequent has been _very_ hot about this
> whole "death of Superman" situation.  He told me that DC "neglected" to say
> that this might be an extremely hot story arc,

I don't think this is DC's job, now is it?  To say nothing of the fact that 
the whole thing was HEAVILY promo'd, from comics-oriented sources to the mass
media.  I think your dealer slept, that's all.

> and consequently under-
> solicited these issues.  When the dealers found out the implications of
> the arc, they went back to DC to resolicit, but DC said "sorry, we can't
> print any more; maybe second prints will be available".  The results?  An
> instant speculator's dream, 

Ha ha ha ha ha. . .
One more time: there is NO way a title with a 4 Million + print run (that is
now going into second printings) is EVER going to be a good investment.

> regular readers of the titles can't get the
> issues they *read*, and second (and perhaps third?) prints available only 
> three weeks after the original issues were sold out.  

If they're just buying them to *read* and not speculate, what difference does
it make?  Unless they're peeved at the speculators buying them up.  In which
case they should beat on (a) the speculators (b) their store owners, *not* DC.

> This manager
> speculated that one of two things happened:
> 	1. DC knew the full implications of the "Death/Funeral" arc and the
> 	company will be sitting on a bunch of first prints for later profit
> 	(interesting thought: the publisher as a speculator. Hmmmm...)
> 	{On a related note: he mentioned that Kevin Eastman, one of the
> 	creators of the TMNT and now Tundra Publishing owner, is sitting
> 	on a large amount of TMNT #1 first prints, and doles them out when
> 	he wishes...}

This is the first I've heard this about Eastman, and it sounds iffy.  Do you 
have a more reliable source?  As far as DC sitting on a bunch of first prints,
the idea is even more absurd.  To say nothing of the fact that they'd probably
make more money just selling them at the outset.  What are they gonna do, 
charge distributors more for "discovered" first prints?
"Ooops, we found some more first prints. . .heh heh heh. . .sorry about that.
Of course, the price has gone up, now. . ."

> 	2. DC truly pulled a bonehead play and didn't realize the amount
> 	of money it could generate (read: profit) with this stunt.

Sounds more likely.

> Whatever the motivation was, there was ample opportunity to provide the
> comic-reading public (and other interested parties) with enough issues
> without generating an instant collector's item.

It's a bit more involved than that.  And keep in mind, this is only a 
"collector's item" for collectors; it'll *never* be rare.  So it'll never
skyrocket in price.  Never never never never.  Just ask all the folks 
sitting on their copies of _Shazam!_ #1.

Kevvy Kev
"Once Superman is dead, no one will see him.  This is not a cheap trick."
  -Dan Jurgens
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc