I don’t drink. Pretty much never have. I don’t like the taste of alcohol nor how it makes me feel. I can remember being quite young when, at or after some party, by Dad gave me a sip of some drink that he said, “Tasted like chocolate” and which utterly disgusted me. And I would drink from time to time in college, typically when I was attempting to ingratiate myself to some girl I was chasing. But I never liked it, and so I just don’t do it, pretty much ever. This means that the typical “bar con” scene at most conventions where creators and company employees get sloppy and start gossiping about whatever has been on their minds is a loss to me. But in thirty-four years, not being an active player in that scene doesn’t appear to have hurt anything in my world, so no big loss.
One thing I've been thinking about recently is the price point of comics. The $3.99 line has been held for a decade. Companies have played with higher prices for larger issues with 40 pagers going for $4.99 and things like the double sized G.O.D.S. going for $9.99. DC's Black Label has experimented with a higher price point but paired with a premium physical product.
In my world (manufacturing not publishing) prices have shot up since 2020 and we don't see a lot of signs that anyone is giving up those higher levels.
How do you balance the need for a higher price to maintain profitability with the expectation from customers the justify that price point with additional content? I guess I'm asking how you think about making customers feel like they are getting their money's worth?
I loved the Brand New Day era and I think Steve Wacker did a great job as an editor for the Spidey line. I do hope he comes back to Marvel one day, I think he is great at what he does. New Ways to Die was fun and still one of my fav stories from one underrated era.
Also, I don't know if you know this, but Pacheco did the same thing that Gruenwald did with his last will, and his ashes were used to print Arrowsmith 2 by Dolmen Editorial.
I'm reading Spidey from the beginning and only in 1989, so I don't have an opinion myself, but I would love to hear you talk a little more about the decision to swap out Peter for Ben as the "true" Peter.
I understand that it was a move to return to a younger-feeling Spidey, without undoing the marriage of Pete and MJ. And that the main criticism was that people felt like it invalidated the adventures they'd be following for decades.
Was there a debate in the room on these things? Were other solutions floated? I'd love to know more about how it all came together.
If you are interested in some behind the scenes stuff from that era, I think this is one of the best readings. Spoiler warning and all that, but very interesting: https://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot.com/
I’m sorry, but putting Conan in Savage Avengers seems to have been incredibly short sighted. I can forgive 1970’s Marvel for all the crossovers creating rights issues, but doing that in the last 5 years? That’s ridiculous.
The decision to make ASM a three-times-a-month series was mine; in the immediate aftermath of inheriting responsibility for the Spidey books, I figured that since ASM was always seen as the primary home of the character anyway, that three issues of ASM would sell better on average than an issue of ASM, an issue of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN and an issue of FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN, or whatever the specific series tiles had been at that moment. I didn’t edit AMAZING SPIDER-MAN directly at any point, though—for that duty, I hired Steve Wacker, whom I had worked with on JLA/AVENGERS, away from DC where he’d been heading up their weekly 52 series.
But NEW WAYS TO DIE was the first, and it was a smash hit that helped bring a bunch of former Spidey fans who had sworn off the series in the wake of ONE MORE DAY and the disillusion of the Peter/MJ marriage to check the series out once again.
How do you account then for Brand New Day having the historically greatest sales drop in ASM sales? In the last period when Marvel Comics sent postal records, as catalogued by Comichron. Especially in the aftermath of "New Ways to Die" that supposedly brought back readers.
The Brand New Era is 2008-2010 while Dan Slott began "Big Time" in 2011. So those years 2009-2011 are easily the lowest sales period in the records of ASM's publication history and the biggest overall drop in sales across time.
"New Ways to Die" came in 2008 so the claim that it somehow brought back readers to ASM after OMD is definitely not borne out in the data. From 2011, Marvel stopped publishing Postal Statements. Making the data for the supposedly high selling Slott run highly sketchy though anecdotally it did well enough. From 2022 you had the exit from Diamond after which we have no more sales data (not including the joke of the ICV2 rankings).
It's also worth pointing out that Amazing Spider-Man sold more issues and made more money in 2008 or 2009 than it did during any other earlier year of the 2000s (althought 06 and 07 are a mystery), and likely the late 90s but I don't have the time to do the math on my phone for every year.
Bit skeptical how you are making that claim from the comichron datasheet because that's not borne out in my data checks of that counter. Not to mention there's stuff like inflation, price hikes (comics were $2.50 from 2000-2005, and 2.99 during BND...later it became 3.99, now it's 4.99). I mean there's counter-veiling factors like the Economic Recession of 2008 that you could have brought up, or TPB sales or digital (which are never made public for reasons I think similar to Netflix hiding numbers).
It's nevertheless a major case of the wallet voting against Brand New Day. Ultimately it's about who counts the votes and how the numbers are spun.
There's no need to be skeptical, because I'm now at my computer and can do the maths.
The data that Comichron provides has three important numbers: the average sales of an issue, the total number of issues produced that year, and the price of said issue. By multiplying the average sales by the total issues produced, you get the total issues sold. By multiplying that by the cost of issue, you can see how much they made (obviously excluding things like production costs)
A reminder: the statement is that in 2008 or 2009, Amazing Spider-Man sold more issues and made more money than at any earlier time in the 2000s, and very likely more than the later 90s.
Here are the numbers:
1985 3,920,340 $2,940,255
1986 3,312,768 $2,484,576
1987 3,416,304 $3,416,304
1988 4,066,500 $4,066,500
1989 3,991,500 $3,991,500
1990 5,023,395 $5,023,395
1991 4,091,724 $5,114,655
1992 6,538,800 $8,173,500
1993 7,109,304 $8,886,630
1994 4,236,300 $6,354,450
1995 2,811,480 $4,217,220
1996 2,601,348 $3,902,022
1997 1,919,400 $3,819,606
1998 1,434,564 $2,854,782
1999 1,534,980 $3,054,610
2000 1,364,220 $3,069,495
2001 1,362,684 $3,066,039
2002 1,470,864 $3,309,444
2003 1,588,249 $3,573,560
2004 1,729,560 $5,171,384
2005 1,350,768 $3,376,920
2006 -
2007 -
2008 3,814,128 $11,404,243
2009 2,786,508 $8,331,659
2010 2,615,868 $7,821,445
2011 2,535,048 $7,579,794
You can see that both 2008 and 2009 sold more issues and for more money than any other year going back until we get to 1995.
Even when you include inflation as a factor (setting 1985 as the benchmark), 2008 and 2009 are still the biggest selling years since 1995:
1985 3,920,340 $2,940,255
1986 3,312,768 $2,561,419
1987 3,416,304 $3,222,928
1988 4,066,500 $3,696,818
1989 3,991,500 $3,470,870
1990 5,023,395 $4,151,566
1991 4,091,724 $4,027,287
1992 6,538,800 $6,287,308
1993 7,109,304 $6,631,813
1994 4,236,300 $4,604,674
1995 2,811,480 $2,969,873
1996 2,601,348 $2,672,618
1997 1,919,400 $2,563,494
1998 1,434,564 $1,890,584
1999 1,534,980 $1,970,716
2000 1,364,220 $1,918,434
2001 1,362,684 $1,869,536
2002 1,470,864 $1,981,703
2003 1,588,249 $2,089,801
2004 1,729,560 $2,938,287
2005 1,350,768 $1,855,451
2006 -
2007 -
2008 3,814,128 $5,702,121
2009 2,786,508 $4,186,763
2010 2,615,868 $3,852,929
2011 2,535,048 $3,626,695
And of course there are other factors, like you say, such as the recession of 2008, and the rise of digital (Marvel Unlimited launched in late 2007), and the negative public reception to Spider-Man 3, and the success of Ultimate Spider-Man, and many other elements at play that could affect the numbers in 2008.
And so, therefore, we must conclude that...it's all because of Brand New Day.
You've put a lot of effort into this, I commend you for it.
At the same time my skepticism is vindicated.
1) In 2005 we had 12 issues published with an average of 112,564 (Total - 12 x 112564 = 1, 350, 768). In 2008 we had 36 issues published with an average of 105,948 (Total 105948x36 = 3,814,128). Now if on the average rate of 2005 we had 36 issues in that year we would have (4,052,304). In 2008 BND Year 01, if there had been 12 issues, it would be (12 x 105948= 1, 271, 376). So on raw numbers 08 is more than 05, but in terms of scale and proportion, going from 12 to 36, that's not impressive on 36 issues for a given year.
Publishing a glut of issues in a single year for proportionately lower returns is a chump achievement in my view. 1991 as you mentioned had 4, 091,724 when it published 12 issues. So basically far more than BND in 36 issues for 12 issues in a given year.
2) And this is 2008 the best year of BND. In 2009, you had the drop in Average to five digits and you still had 36 issues in 2009, 2010, 2011 all for declining numbers. If you had 12 issues in those respective years based on the current average it would be 928, 836 (2009), 871, 956 (2010), 845,016 (2011).
The point that Mr. Brevoort made in this post was specifically on New Ways to Die bringing back new readers, based on the numbers, yours as well as mine, if you had low sales in 2009, 2010, 2011, then there's no reason to claim it did bring in new readers.
3)Now obviously there's the fact that before you had ASM and Satellites, so the comparison ought to be ASM and Satellites in 2005 versus 3xASM in 2008. Now in fairness, even I've scanted that, owing to the limited data for those titles readily at hand.
But that brings us to the major issue of production costs. You mentioned ignoring production costs. Well before OMD, you had three titles of Spider-Man (ASM, MK/Sensational, FNSM). Mr. Brevoort has mentioned in the blogpost that the decision to go three times a month was based on satellites not selling well historically. So on that level yes 3xASM makes sense. But the fact is that the costs of producing satellites would be different as compared to an issue of ASM, owing to the prestige and marketing given to the flagship title. So maybe Pre-OMD in 2005, ASM and Satellites don't make as much as BND three times a month does in 2008.
But the fact is that the production cost for 36 issues of ASM in a single year would be greater than ASM and Satellites. What that production cost is I'm not sure but in my opinion, it would certainly amount to selling a title at a loss. You pay multiple writers a freelance rate on ASM as well as multiple artists, not including commissioning variant covers (there were fewer variant covers in the JMS era by the way, so production costs were lower for that run by comparison than BND). To get off-period, I'll point out that Zeb Wells' current ongoing ASM runs has more variants in less than 24 months than the preceding Spencer run over three years.
4) Your argument seems to be based on how much money is made. That's fair. But that's actually not what Mr. Brevoort was saying originally. His claim was that New Ways to Die brought back readers after OMD's backlash. My point was that this isn't born out by the historically low drop in units. Units does not equal to Dollars. It's about readers, it's about eyeballs. And I think fundamentally in the comics market after the 90s, the greater currency is readers. Now using Comichron as a measure for readership is a difficult and dicey proposition, because obviously stuff like Trape Paperbacks aren't counted. But that's on me as well since I've brought up the Postal Record data which is generally seen as more reliable than anything that has come since.
There's that line from NINOTCHKA, "The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians." Well the view from Marvel is, "There will be fewer but richer readers of Amazing Spider-Man". It's not about how consumers vote with the wallet, it's about who counts the votes, and I'm guessing based on Disney's purchase of Marvel, whose wallet we are talking about.
5) The ultimate point is that BND chased away a readership on the title that based on the records did not return, certainly did not return in the wake of New Ways to Die which was the original claim of this post. Far more eyeballs have read and will read the married Spider-Man than Post-OMD Spider-Man. And that, based on the current state of the comics market, will be forever.
Dan Gvozden here, from the Amazing Spider-Talk podcast. In addition to being a great guest on our show in the past, I wanted to thank you for all the work you put into this newsletter. It has quickly become a favorite part of my week. As for this week, I was thrilled to get new insights into the development of "New Ways to Die", which remains a standout story from the Brand New Day era. The stories that followed that tale from the backbone of one of my favorite modern runs on the character. As you point out, NWTD was a story that brought many readers back to the title, and boy were they in for a treat with what followed.
I'm sorry to hear that the "What If...?" branded line seems to have ended, even if I've liked the one-shot nature of the few titles that have followed. I thought the imprint was the start of a way to potentially establish a Marvel version of DC's Black Label. I would be curious, amongst other things, to ask you about if Marvel has plans or had any discussions about creating a space for more stand-alone stories and/or graphic novels. I've been digging the Tradd Moore "Silver Surfer: Black" and "Dr. Strange: Fall Sunrise", even if I had a hard time making heads or tails of the narrative of the latter. But really, I'm desperate to read some continuity-light stories of my favorite heroes with bravura art talent on them. I guess "What If...?" isn't exactly "continuity light", given most are about bending continuity specifically, but it seemed, to me, as good a place as any to house a venture like that, without breaking from the established meta that everything happens in the Marvel multiverse.
As for the title of this newsletter: "Drinking", I've always been curious about the waterhole element that seems to have formed as a sort of backbone of industry connection-making but also a potentially dangerous place for peer pressure and ickier social interactions to find their way into the industry. I feel like every time I hear about a personality in comics taking a turn for the worse it stems from behavior that came out of drinking at the end of a convention. Is there any internal discussion at Marvel about breaking up or providing an alternative for the post-convention social habits? I ask this knowing that it would be pushing back against... well... culture. But I'm sure many, like you, would appreciate a safe place to engage in the same activities without the downsides that drinking tends to illuminate, so to speak.
As to my main interest in responding to you here (I know, I've gone long already), I wanted to put forward my appreciation as to how you have handled commenters/questioners like Jack Elving over the past few weeks, hopefully ending here. To be totally honest, Jack was a longtime commenter in the Slack associated with my podcast and has evolved from being a nuisance there, to bullying me personally on Twitter, and now going after you here. As one of the members of my Slack put it, "It's like watching your high school bully suddenly start throwing pot shots at Joe Biden." And heck, given the world we live in... it's not all that unusual. I half expect to see my high school bully start throwing pot shots at Joe Biden!
The reason I mentioned my podcast at the top, other than to established our familiarity, is because I created the show 10 years ago to push back against what I perceived then (at the outset of Superior) was the formation of a very toxic fan culture on the Internet. I know that most readers aren't that way, and your comments section is a good indicator of that. But, I will admit that I think I've done only a moderate amount to make the type of change I would like to see. With the Zeb Wells run I've seen that toxicity reach a fever pitch, with Jack being a huge contributor to that discourse.
I personally think the Wells run has had some high highs and low lows, but watching people take bits and pieces of it out of context only to further fuel the beast has been very dispiriting to me that we will ever have discourse online that's not dominated by these "bad faith" actors, or at least responding to them (which is why I liked your approach). I used to think it was about opinions or preference and that transparency would be the cure. Surely, if these people could see that comics creators were flawed and passionate individuals, they too could find a way to dial down the rhetoric. But, as you can see in your back and forth, no amount of transparency is enough. They will twist and turn the plot to make it about their conspiracies and victimization. It eventually amounts to bullying and harassment. I can't stand bullies. Comics were supposed to be my escape from that.
Anyway, to the question. How do we, as fans and readers (or even podcasters), push back against this increasing behavior without contributing to it?
This really matters to me because I think it has tangible downsides that impact us as fans. The Spider-Office doesn't seem to do interviews about their process because of this bullying, and I can hardly blame them (as much as I'd love to have them on the show to talk about the books). Creatives like Chip Zdarsky admit that they don't want to take on a book like ASM. Here he is on an AMA on Reddit:
"It just seems to be a ludicrous amount of work for a readership that has too many specific ideas of what should happen, and get too angry when their expectations aren't met. Maybe I'd get to a place in my life where I could handle it, but it sure isn't right now."
His Spectacular Spider-Man aside, I would love to see him take another whack at the character outside of his DD run, or at least not dismiss the option because of the toxic fandom. What is there for us, the quiet majority, to do to help solve this feedback loop? Has Spider-Man become too controversial a character to talk about in polite society?
My answer, right now, has been to get off social media platforms, but disengaging when metered voices are needed doesn't seem to be the right answer. I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
It's so weird to see someone insert himself into a conversation despite not being mentioned once.
It's not like I mentioned how it was your Slack that bullied me, routinely calling me with the "f" word and others and despite multiple complaints from me to you, you never stepped in to stop that. I could also point out how you spoke rudely and insulted John Semper (Showrunner of the Fox 90s Spider-Man cartoon, one of your interviewees) multiple times on the Slack for claiming credit on the Spider-Verse, only for me to bring up Dan Slott's 2022 interview crediting Semper's work, and now you go around pretending you're friends with Mr. Semper on Social Media to newcomers. How your recent The Hollywood Reporter article on Spider-Verse easter eggs had numerous errors and omissions that only got fixed after I brought it to light to your editor on twitter, leading to a weird spectacle of it being altered over a week about a hour or so after my tweets. You also haven't always been especially polite about Mr. Brevoort and others on that Slack of yours. Notably, never having a kind word to say about Chip Zdarsky even once.
Anyway, I'm not angling to work or network in the comics business. I like being a critic more than a creator, for all that it implies and contains. Where possible I'll intervene, till I'm shown the door. Obviously it seems I've built my reputation and that seems to carry forward, that's got nothing to do with my current or future arguments here or elsewhere I think.
In this week's response to you, Brevoort said, "But we’re done here, all right?" Short being banned altogether, I don't know a more direct way you could be "shown the door" here
Reddit was my primary comics discussion forum and ~93% of every mention of Spider-Man attracted the same predictable complaints you see on Twitter. Spidey had been my favorite character since I started reading in 1978(!) and I was desperate to find anywhere where I could hear people share thoughtful, good-faith comments in a positive atmosphere. Not positive in the sense that you're not allowed to dislike any creative choices, but positive in that expressing those comments could be done in a mature, thoughtful way without malice directed towards those people whose jobs it was to make these books. I found your podcast having NO IDEA the tenor of the production and it was exactly the thing I was looking for. So thank you again for creating it.
Spider-Man is hardly alone in terms of pop culture properties that have attracted angry fandoms who lose sight that this is all just entertainment product. That care more for the welfare of fictional characters than that of any of the countless actual human beings around us whose plight is justifiably worthy of outrage. I once thought that purveyors of stories of selfless heroics would tend to be kinder people, but I also think that people who seek out escapist power fantasy fiction may also tend to have been bullied in their lives. And while some people resolve not to do to others what was done to them — other people have been so hurt that sometimes the only relief from it is to lash out at others. As smarter people than I have said: "Hurt people hurt people." They won't change unless they want to, and even then it takes a lot of patience and tenacity from someone who cares about them to help ween them off toxic tendencies.
But YOUR time is better spent by maintaining a positive destination for others seeking a respectful, thoughtful community of good-faith contributors. So, to repeat for necessary emphasis…
That's an incredibly kind response and very motivating. I'm blessed to have you as a listener to my show. I was motivated by the same instincts as you, looking for "good faith" critics of the creative endeavors featuring Spider-Man. I'm not looking for enthusiast press, but I needed to find a place that understood the medium, took it with the exact right amount of tongue-in-cheek it deserves, and discussed it also as seriously as it deserved as an art form. I couldn't find it, so I thought it best to create that space myself. I'm glad it is working for you.
As someone who writes about Star Wars for major press, I'm not of the delusion that this level of vitriol amongst "fans" is exclusive to Spider-Man. However, amongst online comics discourse it does seem to be uniquely awful. It's probably because the character is so popular that he has such a spotlight, with everyone claiming their own unique interpretation of the character as the *right* version or way to interpret him. I think OMD and editorial have become easy targets, rightfully or not, for people to pour their anger into. And you are right, I often think it is anger that is being redirected from some other lacking element of their lives being given a "punchable" form. Especially if it can be done anonymously and from a distance.
I'm happy to know that you feel I'm already providing an alternative and potentially modeling behavior to the alternative, but I'm still curious to hear what Tom thinks from someone deep inside the production process, who often has to interact with customers and the Internet at large. What is he seeing that I'm not seeing? What solutions might he have that I can't begin to grasp as a fan/critic? I want to make sure that I can remain respectfully critical but also help to lower the temperature.
I know this isn't your office, but I just realized after reading it that SPIDER-MAN #11 was the final issue, and that seemed to be the latest in a string of what seemed like big "ongoing series" launches that became miniseries or short-lived (see also: ALL-OUT AVENGERS).
Might it be better to tell audiences they're in for a shorter run?
Also: I know in the past, at least, you and I do not always agree about legacy numbering and relaunches and such, and I respect that and respect you, but I was curious: Is it harder to cancel a series at #167 than it would be at #11? Personally, I feel that some collectors/readers do it out of habit, and as an example, I followed UNCANNY X-MEN through #544 but found it easy to jump off after 3 or 4 relaunches. Also the same with DEADPOOL, which seems to relaunch every other year or so.
Thank you, as always, for this Substack and your other blog. You have such a great perspective that is obviously unique, and I love reading these stories.
Way back when (geez, just under 20 years ago now) when Avengers/JLA was coming out, I did a Usenet post with a tiered ranking of Avengers with respect to their importance to the team. Let's just say even then, 36 ended up in tiers amounting to "OK, officially you're an Avenger, but boy were you an insignificant one". Monica, to my surprise, ended up in the "One-Trick, er, Writer Ponies (Really only used significantly as a regular Avenger by one writer, with sporadic guest appearances afterwards. But they do have long enough tenure that Jarvis wouldn't lift an eyebrow if any of 'em showed up for lunch at the Mansion)" tier, along with 15 others.
As indicated, she was very significant in Roger's run, but it'd been almost 200 issues since then at the time and she still hadn't been part of a regular roster again. (Link to specific post, which is in the middle of a long thread including commentary on my rankings (the only one I'd've changed was to bump T'Challa up one, as I'd forgotten his use for a reasonable period in the Englehart run): https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe/c/1-8gET0e-0I/m/fgMfzpXF4E4J
Nice peek behind the curtain on New Ways to Die. I love that story! I bought the TPB when it came out and it played a big role in me getting back into picking up monthly comics.
And I can never get enough Ben Reilly so your story about Mysterio’s re-design was right up my alley. Spider-Man #65 is a personally favorite. JRJR shared penciling duties with Tom Morgan in that issue and, unless I’m mistaken, JRJR handled the in-costume Spidey action, including a smokey-headed, not entirely un-Dormammu-esque Mysterio which I loved as a 10 yr old. So heap the praise - not the blame - on JRJR for that gem. The cover to that issue is fantastic!! Look it up, readers.
I’ll part with some praise for you too: Funeral for an Octopus! Love it!! I read it for the first time last year after finding all three issues in a dollar bin and I had a blast with it. Equal credit to your co-writer Mike Kanterovich and artists Stewart Johnson, Ron Lim, and Al Milgrom.
Those X-Men ToyBiz drawings are great! Absolutely loved that line of toys, so kudos to you for that. I was just starting to get into the X-Men comics at that time, and that toy line introduced me to a number of characters. Are these (and the missing Deadpool) the only ones you did? If so, who did the others?
I am curious about the origins of Savage Avengers and the Conan/Marvel crossover in general. When I saw it I figured the Conan rights must have been locked down for an extended period to avoid any reprinting problems like this (or Godzilla or whatever else). How was the decision making different than for other licensed crossovers?
"Of course I remember Nightwatch." Good grief, man. Who *don't* you remember?
And that's coming from Jess Nevins! : -)
I never realized how much I wanted "Rob Liefeld characters as interpreted by Tom Brevoort" before.
One thing I've been thinking about recently is the price point of comics. The $3.99 line has been held for a decade. Companies have played with higher prices for larger issues with 40 pagers going for $4.99 and things like the double sized G.O.D.S. going for $9.99. DC's Black Label has experimented with a higher price point but paired with a premium physical product.
In my world (manufacturing not publishing) prices have shot up since 2020 and we don't see a lot of signs that anyone is giving up those higher levels.
How do you balance the need for a higher price to maintain profitability with the expectation from customers the justify that price point with additional content? I guess I'm asking how you think about making customers feel like they are getting their money's worth?
Will you still be editing Fantastic Four once you switch to the X-Men office? Or does the FF fall under the Avengers umbrella?
I loved the Brand New Day era and I think Steve Wacker did a great job as an editor for the Spidey line. I do hope he comes back to Marvel one day, I think he is great at what he does. New Ways to Die was fun and still one of my fav stories from one underrated era.
Also, I don't know if you know this, but Pacheco did the same thing that Gruenwald did with his last will, and his ashes were used to print Arrowsmith 2 by Dolmen Editorial.
https://dolmeneditorial.com/la-ultima-voluntad-de-carlos-pacheco-y-arrowsmith-2/
I'm reading Spidey from the beginning and only in 1989, so I don't have an opinion myself, but I would love to hear you talk a little more about the decision to swap out Peter for Ben as the "true" Peter.
I understand that it was a move to return to a younger-feeling Spidey, without undoing the marriage of Pete and MJ. And that the main criticism was that people felt like it invalidated the adventures they'd be following for decades.
Was there a debate in the room on these things? Were other solutions floated? I'd love to know more about how it all came together.
If you are interested in some behind the scenes stuff from that era, I think this is one of the best readings. Spoiler warning and all that, but very interesting: https://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot.com/
This is amazing! Going to check it out. Thanks for sharing!
I’m sorry, but putting Conan in Savage Avengers seems to have been incredibly short sighted. I can forgive 1970’s Marvel for all the crossovers creating rights issues, but doing that in the last 5 years? That’s ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision to make ASM a three-times-a-month series was mine; in the immediate aftermath of inheriting responsibility for the Spidey books, I figured that since ASM was always seen as the primary home of the character anyway, that three issues of ASM would sell better on average than an issue of ASM, an issue of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN and an issue of FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD SPIDER-MAN, or whatever the specific series tiles had been at that moment. I didn’t edit AMAZING SPIDER-MAN directly at any point, though—for that duty, I hired Steve Wacker, whom I had worked with on JLA/AVENGERS, away from DC where he’d been heading up their weekly 52 series.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But NEW WAYS TO DIE was the first, and it was a smash hit that helped bring a bunch of former Spidey fans who had sworn off the series in the wake of ONE MORE DAY and the disillusion of the Peter/MJ marriage to check the series out once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you account then for Brand New Day having the historically greatest sales drop in ASM sales? In the last period when Marvel Comics sent postal records, as catalogued by Comichron. Especially in the aftermath of "New Ways to Die" that supposedly brought back readers.
The drop between 2008 and 2009: 28,545
The drop between 1985 and 1986: 50,631
The drop between 1996 and 1997: 56,829
The drop between 1994 and 1995: 118,735
The drop between 1993 and 1994: 239,417
The Numbers:
(Approx,)
1990-1995: 334,000 to 234,000
1995-2000: 234,000 to 113,000
2000-2005: 113,000 to 112,564
(Actual)
2008: 105,948
2009: 77,403
2010: 72,663
2011: 70,418
(https://www.comichron.com/titlespotlights/amazingspiderman.html)
The Brand New Era is 2008-2010 while Dan Slott began "Big Time" in 2011. So those years 2009-2011 are easily the lowest sales period in the records of ASM's publication history and the biggest overall drop in sales across time.
"New Ways to Die" came in 2008 so the claim that it somehow brought back readers to ASM after OMD is definitely not borne out in the data. From 2011, Marvel stopped publishing Postal Statements. Making the data for the supposedly high selling Slott run highly sketchy though anecdotally it did well enough. From 2022 you had the exit from Diamond after which we have no more sales data (not including the joke of the ICV2 rankings).
It's also worth pointing out that Amazing Spider-Man sold more issues and made more money in 2008 or 2009 than it did during any other earlier year of the 2000s (althought 06 and 07 are a mystery), and likely the late 90s but I don't have the time to do the math on my phone for every year.
Bit skeptical how you are making that claim from the comichron datasheet because that's not borne out in my data checks of that counter. Not to mention there's stuff like inflation, price hikes (comics were $2.50 from 2000-2005, and 2.99 during BND...later it became 3.99, now it's 4.99). I mean there's counter-veiling factors like the Economic Recession of 2008 that you could have brought up, or TPB sales or digital (which are never made public for reasons I think similar to Netflix hiding numbers).
It's nevertheless a major case of the wallet voting against Brand New Day. Ultimately it's about who counts the votes and how the numbers are spun.
There's no need to be skeptical, because I'm now at my computer and can do the maths.
The data that Comichron provides has three important numbers: the average sales of an issue, the total number of issues produced that year, and the price of said issue. By multiplying the average sales by the total issues produced, you get the total issues sold. By multiplying that by the cost of issue, you can see how much they made (obviously excluding things like production costs)
A reminder: the statement is that in 2008 or 2009, Amazing Spider-Man sold more issues and made more money than at any earlier time in the 2000s, and very likely more than the later 90s.
Here are the numbers:
1985 3,920,340 $2,940,255
1986 3,312,768 $2,484,576
1987 3,416,304 $3,416,304
1988 4,066,500 $4,066,500
1989 3,991,500 $3,991,500
1990 5,023,395 $5,023,395
1991 4,091,724 $5,114,655
1992 6,538,800 $8,173,500
1993 7,109,304 $8,886,630
1994 4,236,300 $6,354,450
1995 2,811,480 $4,217,220
1996 2,601,348 $3,902,022
1997 1,919,400 $3,819,606
1998 1,434,564 $2,854,782
1999 1,534,980 $3,054,610
2000 1,364,220 $3,069,495
2001 1,362,684 $3,066,039
2002 1,470,864 $3,309,444
2003 1,588,249 $3,573,560
2004 1,729,560 $5,171,384
2005 1,350,768 $3,376,920
2006 -
2007 -
2008 3,814,128 $11,404,243
2009 2,786,508 $8,331,659
2010 2,615,868 $7,821,445
2011 2,535,048 $7,579,794
You can see that both 2008 and 2009 sold more issues and for more money than any other year going back until we get to 1995.
Even when you include inflation as a factor (setting 1985 as the benchmark), 2008 and 2009 are still the biggest selling years since 1995:
1985 3,920,340 $2,940,255
1986 3,312,768 $2,561,419
1987 3,416,304 $3,222,928
1988 4,066,500 $3,696,818
1989 3,991,500 $3,470,870
1990 5,023,395 $4,151,566
1991 4,091,724 $4,027,287
1992 6,538,800 $6,287,308
1993 7,109,304 $6,631,813
1994 4,236,300 $4,604,674
1995 2,811,480 $2,969,873
1996 2,601,348 $2,672,618
1997 1,919,400 $2,563,494
1998 1,434,564 $1,890,584
1999 1,534,980 $1,970,716
2000 1,364,220 $1,918,434
2001 1,362,684 $1,869,536
2002 1,470,864 $1,981,703
2003 1,588,249 $2,089,801
2004 1,729,560 $2,938,287
2005 1,350,768 $1,855,451
2006 -
2007 -
2008 3,814,128 $5,702,121
2009 2,786,508 $4,186,763
2010 2,615,868 $3,852,929
2011 2,535,048 $3,626,695
And of course there are other factors, like you say, such as the recession of 2008, and the rise of digital (Marvel Unlimited launched in late 2007), and the negative public reception to Spider-Man 3, and the success of Ultimate Spider-Man, and many other elements at play that could affect the numbers in 2008.
And so, therefore, we must conclude that...it's all because of Brand New Day.
No, wait. That's not it. That's not it at all.
You've put a lot of effort into this, I commend you for it.
At the same time my skepticism is vindicated.
1) In 2005 we had 12 issues published with an average of 112,564 (Total - 12 x 112564 = 1, 350, 768). In 2008 we had 36 issues published with an average of 105,948 (Total 105948x36 = 3,814,128). Now if on the average rate of 2005 we had 36 issues in that year we would have (4,052,304). In 2008 BND Year 01, if there had been 12 issues, it would be (12 x 105948= 1, 271, 376). So on raw numbers 08 is more than 05, but in terms of scale and proportion, going from 12 to 36, that's not impressive on 36 issues for a given year.
Publishing a glut of issues in a single year for proportionately lower returns is a chump achievement in my view. 1991 as you mentioned had 4, 091,724 when it published 12 issues. So basically far more than BND in 36 issues for 12 issues in a given year.
2) And this is 2008 the best year of BND. In 2009, you had the drop in Average to five digits and you still had 36 issues in 2009, 2010, 2011 all for declining numbers. If you had 12 issues in those respective years based on the current average it would be 928, 836 (2009), 871, 956 (2010), 845,016 (2011).
The point that Mr. Brevoort made in this post was specifically on New Ways to Die bringing back new readers, based on the numbers, yours as well as mine, if you had low sales in 2009, 2010, 2011, then there's no reason to claim it did bring in new readers.
3)Now obviously there's the fact that before you had ASM and Satellites, so the comparison ought to be ASM and Satellites in 2005 versus 3xASM in 2008. Now in fairness, even I've scanted that, owing to the limited data for those titles readily at hand.
But that brings us to the major issue of production costs. You mentioned ignoring production costs. Well before OMD, you had three titles of Spider-Man (ASM, MK/Sensational, FNSM). Mr. Brevoort has mentioned in the blogpost that the decision to go three times a month was based on satellites not selling well historically. So on that level yes 3xASM makes sense. But the fact is that the costs of producing satellites would be different as compared to an issue of ASM, owing to the prestige and marketing given to the flagship title. So maybe Pre-OMD in 2005, ASM and Satellites don't make as much as BND three times a month does in 2008.
But the fact is that the production cost for 36 issues of ASM in a single year would be greater than ASM and Satellites. What that production cost is I'm not sure but in my opinion, it would certainly amount to selling a title at a loss. You pay multiple writers a freelance rate on ASM as well as multiple artists, not including commissioning variant covers (there were fewer variant covers in the JMS era by the way, so production costs were lower for that run by comparison than BND). To get off-period, I'll point out that Zeb Wells' current ongoing ASM runs has more variants in less than 24 months than the preceding Spencer run over three years.
4) Your argument seems to be based on how much money is made. That's fair. But that's actually not what Mr. Brevoort was saying originally. His claim was that New Ways to Die brought back readers after OMD's backlash. My point was that this isn't born out by the historically low drop in units. Units does not equal to Dollars. It's about readers, it's about eyeballs. And I think fundamentally in the comics market after the 90s, the greater currency is readers. Now using Comichron as a measure for readership is a difficult and dicey proposition, because obviously stuff like Trape Paperbacks aren't counted. But that's on me as well since I've brought up the Postal Record data which is generally seen as more reliable than anything that has come since.
Given the rise in price of comics to $2.99 and the lower number of units moved in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, what that amounts to, as Bleeding Cool said here on this matter back in 2011, "selling more comics to fewer people." (https://bleedingcool.com/comics/recent-updates/numbercrunching-spiderman-statistics/).
There's that line from NINOTCHKA, "The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians." Well the view from Marvel is, "There will be fewer but richer readers of Amazing Spider-Man". It's not about how consumers vote with the wallet, it's about who counts the votes, and I'm guessing based on Disney's purchase of Marvel, whose wallet we are talking about.
5) The ultimate point is that BND chased away a readership on the title that based on the records did not return, certainly did not return in the wake of New Ways to Die which was the original claim of this post. Far more eyeballs have read and will read the married Spider-Man than Post-OMD Spider-Man. And that, based on the current state of the comics market, will be forever.
The data you're showing is a drop of 100k between 90 and 95, and a drop of 121k between 95 and 00.
And then the "biggest drop of sales across time" is a drop between 2005 and 2010 of about 40k.
Squint any angle you like, the lowest numbers are in 2008-2011.
"It was the biggest drop in the history of ASM"
"No it wasn't"
"But if you look at the numbers, it shows the biggest drop in the history of ASM"
"No it doesn't"
"Well...there are low numbers there!"
Squint away, my good man.
This thread is giving me major flashbacks to the CBR forums circa 2009.
Tom,
Dan Gvozden here, from the Amazing Spider-Talk podcast. In addition to being a great guest on our show in the past, I wanted to thank you for all the work you put into this newsletter. It has quickly become a favorite part of my week. As for this week, I was thrilled to get new insights into the development of "New Ways to Die", which remains a standout story from the Brand New Day era. The stories that followed that tale from the backbone of one of my favorite modern runs on the character. As you point out, NWTD was a story that brought many readers back to the title, and boy were they in for a treat with what followed.
I'm sorry to hear that the "What If...?" branded line seems to have ended, even if I've liked the one-shot nature of the few titles that have followed. I thought the imprint was the start of a way to potentially establish a Marvel version of DC's Black Label. I would be curious, amongst other things, to ask you about if Marvel has plans or had any discussions about creating a space for more stand-alone stories and/or graphic novels. I've been digging the Tradd Moore "Silver Surfer: Black" and "Dr. Strange: Fall Sunrise", even if I had a hard time making heads or tails of the narrative of the latter. But really, I'm desperate to read some continuity-light stories of my favorite heroes with bravura art talent on them. I guess "What If...?" isn't exactly "continuity light", given most are about bending continuity specifically, but it seemed, to me, as good a place as any to house a venture like that, without breaking from the established meta that everything happens in the Marvel multiverse.
As for the title of this newsletter: "Drinking", I've always been curious about the waterhole element that seems to have formed as a sort of backbone of industry connection-making but also a potentially dangerous place for peer pressure and ickier social interactions to find their way into the industry. I feel like every time I hear about a personality in comics taking a turn for the worse it stems from behavior that came out of drinking at the end of a convention. Is there any internal discussion at Marvel about breaking up or providing an alternative for the post-convention social habits? I ask this knowing that it would be pushing back against... well... culture. But I'm sure many, like you, would appreciate a safe place to engage in the same activities without the downsides that drinking tends to illuminate, so to speak.
As to my main interest in responding to you here (I know, I've gone long already), I wanted to put forward my appreciation as to how you have handled commenters/questioners like Jack Elving over the past few weeks, hopefully ending here. To be totally honest, Jack was a longtime commenter in the Slack associated with my podcast and has evolved from being a nuisance there, to bullying me personally on Twitter, and now going after you here. As one of the members of my Slack put it, "It's like watching your high school bully suddenly start throwing pot shots at Joe Biden." And heck, given the world we live in... it's not all that unusual. I half expect to see my high school bully start throwing pot shots at Joe Biden!
The reason I mentioned my podcast at the top, other than to established our familiarity, is because I created the show 10 years ago to push back against what I perceived then (at the outset of Superior) was the formation of a very toxic fan culture on the Internet. I know that most readers aren't that way, and your comments section is a good indicator of that. But, I will admit that I think I've done only a moderate amount to make the type of change I would like to see. With the Zeb Wells run I've seen that toxicity reach a fever pitch, with Jack being a huge contributor to that discourse.
I personally think the Wells run has had some high highs and low lows, but watching people take bits and pieces of it out of context only to further fuel the beast has been very dispiriting to me that we will ever have discourse online that's not dominated by these "bad faith" actors, or at least responding to them (which is why I liked your approach). I used to think it was about opinions or preference and that transparency would be the cure. Surely, if these people could see that comics creators were flawed and passionate individuals, they too could find a way to dial down the rhetoric. But, as you can see in your back and forth, no amount of transparency is enough. They will twist and turn the plot to make it about their conspiracies and victimization. It eventually amounts to bullying and harassment. I can't stand bullies. Comics were supposed to be my escape from that.
Anyway, to the question. How do we, as fans and readers (or even podcasters), push back against this increasing behavior without contributing to it?
This really matters to me because I think it has tangible downsides that impact us as fans. The Spider-Office doesn't seem to do interviews about their process because of this bullying, and I can hardly blame them (as much as I'd love to have them on the show to talk about the books). Creatives like Chip Zdarsky admit that they don't want to take on a book like ASM. Here he is on an AMA on Reddit:
"It just seems to be a ludicrous amount of work for a readership that has too many specific ideas of what should happen, and get too angry when their expectations aren't met. Maybe I'd get to a place in my life where I could handle it, but it sure isn't right now."
His Spectacular Spider-Man aside, I would love to see him take another whack at the character outside of his DD run, or at least not dismiss the option because of the toxic fandom. What is there for us, the quiet majority, to do to help solve this feedback loop? Has Spider-Man become too controversial a character to talk about in polite society?
My answer, right now, has been to get off social media platforms, but disengaging when metered voices are needed doesn't seem to be the right answer. I would greatly appreciate your feedback.
Humbly,
Dapper Dan Gvozden
It's so weird to see someone insert himself into a conversation despite not being mentioned once.
It's not like I mentioned how it was your Slack that bullied me, routinely calling me with the "f" word and others and despite multiple complaints from me to you, you never stepped in to stop that. I could also point out how you spoke rudely and insulted John Semper (Showrunner of the Fox 90s Spider-Man cartoon, one of your interviewees) multiple times on the Slack for claiming credit on the Spider-Verse, only for me to bring up Dan Slott's 2022 interview crediting Semper's work, and now you go around pretending you're friends with Mr. Semper on Social Media to newcomers. How your recent The Hollywood Reporter article on Spider-Verse easter eggs had numerous errors and omissions that only got fixed after I brought it to light to your editor on twitter, leading to a weird spectacle of it being altered over a week about a hour or so after my tweets. You also haven't always been especially polite about Mr. Brevoort and others on that Slack of yours. Notably, never having a kind word to say about Chip Zdarsky even once.
Anyway, I'm not angling to work or network in the comics business. I like being a critic more than a creator, for all that it implies and contains. Where possible I'll intervene, till I'm shown the door. Obviously it seems I've built my reputation and that seems to carry forward, that's got nothing to do with my current or future arguments here or elsewhere I think.
In this week's response to you, Brevoort said, "But we’re done here, all right?" Short being banned altogether, I don't know a more direct way you could be "shown the door" here
What does that have to with Gvozden going off topic here and dredging up stuff off topic?
I moved on and addressed another part of the post rather than the previous week’s discussion.
You're already doing it. And I'm grateful for it.
Reddit was my primary comics discussion forum and ~93% of every mention of Spider-Man attracted the same predictable complaints you see on Twitter. Spidey had been my favorite character since I started reading in 1978(!) and I was desperate to find anywhere where I could hear people share thoughtful, good-faith comments in a positive atmosphere. Not positive in the sense that you're not allowed to dislike any creative choices, but positive in that expressing those comments could be done in a mature, thoughtful way without malice directed towards those people whose jobs it was to make these books. I found your podcast having NO IDEA the tenor of the production and it was exactly the thing I was looking for. So thank you again for creating it.
Spider-Man is hardly alone in terms of pop culture properties that have attracted angry fandoms who lose sight that this is all just entertainment product. That care more for the welfare of fictional characters than that of any of the countless actual human beings around us whose plight is justifiably worthy of outrage. I once thought that purveyors of stories of selfless heroics would tend to be kinder people, but I also think that people who seek out escapist power fantasy fiction may also tend to have been bullied in their lives. And while some people resolve not to do to others what was done to them — other people have been so hurt that sometimes the only relief from it is to lash out at others. As smarter people than I have said: "Hurt people hurt people." They won't change unless they want to, and even then it takes a lot of patience and tenacity from someone who cares about them to help ween them off toxic tendencies.
But YOUR time is better spent by maintaining a positive destination for others seeking a respectful, thoughtful community of good-faith contributors. So, to repeat for necessary emphasis…
You're already doing it.
Mortimer,
That's an incredibly kind response and very motivating. I'm blessed to have you as a listener to my show. I was motivated by the same instincts as you, looking for "good faith" critics of the creative endeavors featuring Spider-Man. I'm not looking for enthusiast press, but I needed to find a place that understood the medium, took it with the exact right amount of tongue-in-cheek it deserves, and discussed it also as seriously as it deserved as an art form. I couldn't find it, so I thought it best to create that space myself. I'm glad it is working for you.
As someone who writes about Star Wars for major press, I'm not of the delusion that this level of vitriol amongst "fans" is exclusive to Spider-Man. However, amongst online comics discourse it does seem to be uniquely awful. It's probably because the character is so popular that he has such a spotlight, with everyone claiming their own unique interpretation of the character as the *right* version or way to interpret him. I think OMD and editorial have become easy targets, rightfully or not, for people to pour their anger into. And you are right, I often think it is anger that is being redirected from some other lacking element of their lives being given a "punchable" form. Especially if it can be done anonymously and from a distance.
I'm happy to know that you feel I'm already providing an alternative and potentially modeling behavior to the alternative, but I'm still curious to hear what Tom thinks from someone deep inside the production process, who often has to interact with customers and the Internet at large. What is he seeing that I'm not seeing? What solutions might he have that I can't begin to grasp as a fan/critic? I want to make sure that I can remain respectfully critical but also help to lower the temperature.
Thanks again Mortimer,
Dapper Dan Gvozden
Critics have opinions like everybody else. If you love the medium, realize that for every story you dislike, it’s somebody’s favorite story.
Marvel and it’s creators are as open as they have ever been.
Maybe Jack, you need a new hobby or at the very least, take your negative energy elsewhere.
I can't believe New Ways to Die was 15 years ago! Thanks, as always, for the great BTS stories.
I know this isn't your office, but I just realized after reading it that SPIDER-MAN #11 was the final issue, and that seemed to be the latest in a string of what seemed like big "ongoing series" launches that became miniseries or short-lived (see also: ALL-OUT AVENGERS).
Might it be better to tell audiences they're in for a shorter run?
Also: I know in the past, at least, you and I do not always agree about legacy numbering and relaunches and such, and I respect that and respect you, but I was curious: Is it harder to cancel a series at #167 than it would be at #11? Personally, I feel that some collectors/readers do it out of habit, and as an example, I followed UNCANNY X-MEN through #544 but found it easy to jump off after 3 or 4 relaunches. Also the same with DEADPOOL, which seems to relaunch every other year or so.
Thank you, as always, for this Substack and your other blog. You have such a great perspective that is obviously unique, and I love reading these stories.
Way back when (geez, just under 20 years ago now) when Avengers/JLA was coming out, I did a Usenet post with a tiered ranking of Avengers with respect to their importance to the team. Let's just say even then, 36 ended up in tiers amounting to "OK, officially you're an Avenger, but boy were you an insignificant one". Monica, to my surprise, ended up in the "One-Trick, er, Writer Ponies (Really only used significantly as a regular Avenger by one writer, with sporadic guest appearances afterwards. But they do have long enough tenure that Jarvis wouldn't lift an eyebrow if any of 'em showed up for lunch at the Mansion)" tier, along with 15 others.
As indicated, she was very significant in Roger's run, but it'd been almost 200 issues since then at the time and she still hadn't been part of a regular roster again. (Link to specific post, which is in the middle of a long thread including commentary on my rankings (the only one I'd've changed was to bump T'Challa up one, as I'd forgotten his use for a reasonable period in the Englehart run): https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe/c/1-8gET0e-0I/m/fgMfzpXF4E4J
Tom - good read!
Nice peek behind the curtain on New Ways to Die. I love that story! I bought the TPB when it came out and it played a big role in me getting back into picking up monthly comics.
And I can never get enough Ben Reilly so your story about Mysterio’s re-design was right up my alley. Spider-Man #65 is a personally favorite. JRJR shared penciling duties with Tom Morgan in that issue and, unless I’m mistaken, JRJR handled the in-costume Spidey action, including a smokey-headed, not entirely un-Dormammu-esque Mysterio which I loved as a 10 yr old. So heap the praise - not the blame - on JRJR for that gem. The cover to that issue is fantastic!! Look it up, readers.
I’ll part with some praise for you too: Funeral for an Octopus! Love it!! I read it for the first time last year after finding all three issues in a dollar bin and I had a blast with it. Equal credit to your co-writer Mike Kanterovich and artists Stewart Johnson, Ron Lim, and Al Milgrom.
Thanks Tom
Those X-Men ToyBiz drawings are great! Absolutely loved that line of toys, so kudos to you for that. I was just starting to get into the X-Men comics at that time, and that toy line introduced me to a number of characters. Are these (and the missing Deadpool) the only ones you did? If so, who did the others?
I am curious about the origins of Savage Avengers and the Conan/Marvel crossover in general. When I saw it I figured the Conan rights must have been locked down for an extended period to avoid any reprinting problems like this (or Godzilla or whatever else). How was the decision making different than for other licensed crossovers?