{"id":4616,"date":"2015-03-16T15:48:00","date_gmt":"2015-03-16T15:48:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2020-08-01T14:28:54","modified_gmt":"2020-08-01T19:28:54","slug":"february-2015-comics-sales-estimates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/2015\/03\/16\/february-2015-comics-sales-estimates\/","title":{"rendered":"February 2015 comics sales estimates online: Of “Asterisk Eras” and sales charts"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

In
\nbaseball, many of the statistics of the 1990s must be viewed with
\ncaution, as they’re part of the “Steroid Era.” Comics had its own
\nSteroid Era in the early 1990s, in the sense that orders were inflated
\nby an unprecedented number of retail accounts that had been opened on
\neasy credit terms by the many competing distributors that existed then.
\nMany issues in that speculation-fueled time sold into the millions, but
\nthe number of actual readers was smaller. And yet the distributors’
\ncharts were accurate: they did what they were supposed to do, reporting
\nthe number of copies they shipped.<\/p>\n

Diamond Comic Distributors<\/b><\/a>
\nis doing exactly the same today with the charts it publishes: reporting what it shipped. Unlike the early 1990s, when nearly<\/i> everything<\/i> deserved an asterisk, we’re fairly sure the number of comics sold is more representative of the number of active readers \u2014 but since the charts are “number-shipped” lists, there are occasions where what we see on them might not represent what we see happening in stores. We have another this month. According to Comichron’s sales estimates for comics ordered in February 2015.<\/b><\/a> based on data Diamond
\nreleased today, in February a comic book has once again topped the
\nmonthly sales charts because of vast quantities by a single retailer,
\nthe repackager Loot Crate<\/b><\/a>.\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n

With nearly half a million copies shipped, IDW’s Orphan Black<\/i> #1 would, in fact, rank as the fourth best-selling comic book of the Diamond Exclusive Era<\/b><\/a>, behind January’s Star Wars <\/i>#1, last year’s Amazing Spider-Man<\/i> #1, and Amazing Spider-Man<\/i>
\n#583 from 2009. It is the third time a comic book has topped the charts
\nlikely due to the massive size of Loot Crate’s order.<\/p>\n

The rankings are, again, consistent with Diamond’s practices \u2014 and a handful of books with sales supercharged by Loot Crate, Nerd Block<\/b><\/a>,
\nand similar firms do not an era make, whatever adjective we choose to
\nlabel them with. But they do present irregularities for market-watchers
\nand statisticians to cope with. Because while orders from mail-order
\ncomics retailers have always been counted in the charts \u2014 and while
\nthose retailers do work with publishers to offer their own
\nstore-specific variant copies of specific titles \u2014 the Loot Crate
\nnumbers in particular are now on a huge scale. The Orphan Black<\/i>
\ntotal makes it possible for Loot Crate’s order to account for as many as
\n400,000 copies \u2014 more than double what they were a year ago.<\/p>\n

So
\nwe’re encountering months in which not just some, but large majorities
\nof the copies the bestselling titles weren’t ordered by comic shops.
\nSince the gigantic purchases are one-time, we’ve been using asterisks
\n(or, rather, daggers) here at Comichron, because readers a decade hence
\nwill definitely wonder why, for example, Walking Dead<\/i> #132<\/b>‘s
\nsales spiked so amazingly in October. But there are other statistical
\ncuriosities that come from these kinds of large purchases, which are
\nworth noting.<\/p>\n

For example, note the Top 5, as Diamond
\nreported it on Friday, plus Comichron’s order estimates. You can see
\nDiamond shipped nearly twice as many copies of Orphan Black<\/i> #1 as its nearest competitor:<\/p>\n

\u00a0Titles ranked by many copies Diamond shipped <\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTitle<\/td>\nIssue<\/td>\nPrice<\/td>\nPublisher<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>Copies shipped\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nOrphan Black<\/td>\n1*<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nIDW<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>497,002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nDarth Vader<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n$4.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>264,399<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nSpider-Gwen<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>254,074<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nStar Wars<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>162,042<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nBatman<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nDC<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>118,106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/div>\n
Now,
\ntake a look at Diamond’s “retail rankings,” which it also released
\ntoday. We don’t look at these very often, but they’re ranked in order of
\nhow much money Diamond received for the comics it shipped: the
\nwholesale value. It is this wholesale value that Diamond’s market shares
\nare based upon, not the full cover price (though we have computed it in
\nthe column at right). And we can see that despite what we might expect
\nfrom the numbers, Orphan Black<\/i> #1 comes in not first, but third:<\/div>\n
Titles ranked by how much retailers paid Diamond <\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nTitle<\/td>\nIssue<\/td>\nPrice<\/td>\nPublisher<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>Copies shipped\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nDarth Vader<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n$4.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>264,399<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nSpider-Gwen<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>254,074<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nOrphan Black<\/td>\n1*<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nIDW<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>497,002<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nStar Wars<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nMarvel<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>162,042<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nBatman<\/td>\n39<\/td>\n$3.99<\/td>\nDC<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/span>118,106<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
<\/div>\n

Diamond
\ndoes not reveal the wholesale amount it received for the books it
\nshipped, but in providing the rankings, we can see that, while Diamond
\nshipped nearly twice as many Orphan Black<\/i> issues as it shipped Spider-Gwens<\/i> (another comic book with a $3.99 cover price), it realized more revenue overall on Spider-Gwen<\/i> than on Orphan Black<\/i>. Put another way, Diamond took in about half as much for every Orphan Black<\/i> copy it shipped as it did for every Spider-Gwen. <\/i>This
\nsuggests a lot of books moving at a steep discount, which makes sense
\nwhen dealing with a reseller willing to buy hundreds of thousands of
\ncopies.<\/p>\n

Since Comichron and everyone else uses full
\nretail dollars to track the market, though, we now wind up with a
\nsituation in which all the statistics for this month’s performance
\ninclude between $1-2 million in “Loot Crate copies.” That \u2014 and the
\nseveral hundred thousand units Loot Crate’s purchase added to the total
\nnumber of comics sold \u2014 might make you wonder whether the Direct Market, apart from Loot Crate, really was up in February<\/b> or not.<\/p>\n

The answer: yes, in all categories.<\/b>
\nNearly 1.3 million more comics were shipped this February versus last
\nFebruary, probably three times what Loot Crate added. Subtracting out all<\/i> the Orphan Black<\/i>
\nsales (including copies ordered by comic shops), we still get a Top 300
\nand an overall market that’s up nearly $4 million. We actually see
\nlarger anomalies on a regular basis on the graphic novel sales chart,
\nwhere we’ve often seen a lot of deep-discounting: some months as much as
\n$4 million in full retail has been added to the overall totals when, in
\nfact, those books moved at a fraction of their normally discounted
\nprices. It’s just part of the hazard in reporting sales based on retail
\nprices rather than wholesale ones. Retail prices are easier to
\nunderstand, but there can be complications.
\n
\n<\/a>
\n\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/CCMarvSW1\"So
\nLoot Crate is making a splash, but its impact, at least so far, is
\nlimited to the sales rankings. Were its subscriber numbers to double or
\ntriple, or were the phenomenon to spread, then we’d begin to worry about
\nhow well the Diamond charts report Direct Market performance. Diamond’s
\ncharts report what Diamond shipped, of course, and for many years now
\nthat has tracked Direct Market performance very well. But as new kinds
\nof outlets offer comics, we shouldn’t expect that any charts will always
\nbe a perfect mirror.<\/p>\n

Darth Vader<\/i> #1, <\/b>with at least 21 variant covers<\/a><\/b>, had <\/b>orders of approximately 264,400 copies <\/b>and would have been the top title of the month were it not for Orphan Blac<\/i>k’s Loot Crate edition. Marvel’s relaunch issue from January, Star Wars<\/i> #1,<\/b><\/a>
\nplaced 53rd with more than 33,100 copies reordered. That brings the
\ntotal number of Diamond-shipped copies to 1.019 million, clearing the
\nmillion mark (which it had cleared anyway with British sales). The
\nsecond issue had orders of more than 162,000 copies.<\/p>\n

The aggregate changes are as follows:<\/p>\n

TOP 300 COMICS UNIT SALES<\/b><\/span>
\nFebruary 2015<\/a>: <\/b>7.19 million copies
\nVersus 1 year ago this month<\/b><\/a>: +22%
\nVersus 5 years ago this month<\/b><\/a>: +34%
\nVersus 10 years ago this month<\/b><\/a>: +23%
\nVersus 15 years ago this month<\/b><\/a>: +32%
\nYEAR TO DATE: 16 million copies, +16% vs. 2014, +27% vs. 2010, +29% vs. 2005, +27% vs. 2000<\/p>\n

ALL COMICS UNIT SALES<\/b>
\nFebruary 2015 versus one year ago this month: +22.14%<\/b>
\nYEAR TO DATE: +15.76%<\/b><\/p>\n

TOP 300 COMICS DOLLAR SALES<\/b><\/div>\n

February 2015: $27.56 million
\nVersus 1 year ago this month: +27%
\nVersus 5 years ago this month: +48%
\nVersus 10 years ago this month: +65%
\nVersus 15 years ago this month: +91%
\nYEAR TO DATE: $54.46 million, +21% vs. 2014, +43% vs. 2010, +78% vs. 2005, +90% vs. 2000<\/p>\n

ALL COMICS DOLLAR SALES<\/b>
\nFebruary 2015 versus one year ago this month: +20.42%<\/b>
\nYEAR TO DATE: +15.20% <\/b><\/p>\n

TOP 300 TRADE PAPERBACK DOLLAR SALES<\/b><\/div>\n

February 2015: $5.96 million
\nVersus 1 year ago this month: -4%
\nVersus 5 years ago this month: -24%
\nVersus 10 years ago this month, just the Top 100 vs. the Top 100: +3%
\nVersus 15 years ago this month, just the Top 25 vs. the Top 25: +40%
\nYEAR TO DATE: $12.59 million, +5% vs. 2014<\/p>\n

ALL TRADE PAPERBACK\u00a0 SALES<\/b>
\nFebruary 2015 versus one year ago this month: +0.08%<\/b>
\nYEAR TO DATE: +14.17%<\/b><\/p>\n

TOP 300 COMICS + TOP 300 TRADE PAPERBACK DOLLAR SALES<\/b><\/div>\n

February 2015: $33.5 million
\nVersus 1 year ago this month: +20%
\nVersus 5 years ago this month: +32%
\nVersus 10 years ago this month, counting just the Top 100 TPBs: +43%
\nVersus 15 years ago this month, counting just the Top 25 TPBs: +103%
\nYEAR TO DATE: $67.02 million, +18% vs. 2014<\/p>\n

ALL COMICS AND TRADE PAPERBACK SALES<\/b>
\nFebruary 2015 versus one year ago this month: +14.17%<\/b>
\nYEAR TO DATE: +13.2%<\/b><\/p>\n

OVERALL DIAMOND SALES (including all comics, trades, and magazines)<\/b><\/div>\n

February 2015: approximately $42.19 million (subject to revision)
\nVersus 1 year ago this month: +14%
\nVersus 5 years ago this month: +42%
\nVersus 10 years ago this month: +59%
\nYEAR TO DATE: $85.94 million, +13% vs. 2014<\/b><\/p>\n

RELEASES<\/b><\/span>
\nNew comic books released: 458<\/b>
\nNew graphic novels released: 221<\/b>
\nNew magazines released: 38<\/b>
\nAll new releases: 717<\/b><\/p>\n

The average comic book in the Top 300 cost $3.75; the average comic book
\nretailers ordered cost $3.83. The median and most common price for comics offered was $3.99. Click to see comics prices across time.<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

That’s it for the February report. I’ll be on several panels this weekend at Midsouthcon<\/b><\/a> in Memphis; be sure to drop by if you’re in the area.
\n<\/b>
\n
\n<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In baseball, many of the statistics of the 1990s must be viewed with caution, as they’re part of the “Steroid Era.” Comics had its own Steroid Era in the early 1990s, in the sense that orders were inflated by an unprecedented number of retail accounts that had been opened on easy credit terms by the … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4617,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[66,17,40],"class_list":["post-4616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-2015-sales","tag-diamond-monthly-reports","tag-loot-crate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4616"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4616\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6407,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4616\/revisions\/6407"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4617"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/comichron.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}