The Four Color Media Monitor

An economist for the Ludwig van Mises Institute wrote an article for them last week that seems to miss more than a few points about why Spider-Man's popularity and sales dropped in the mid-1990s. First, I'll point out in fairness that their not turning the profit bookstores wanted, leading to their banishing from the bookstore scene for many years, was what caused losses in sales, but there's still a lot more to this that the writer predictably doesn't consider. Let's look at the following:

Whose Fault Is It?

Basic economics tells us that if the demand for Amazing Spider-Man increases at an existing supply, more will be offered for it and the price will rise. Profits at Marvel, Spider-Man's publisher, would grow, and managers at Marvel would therefore increase the supply of comics, or competitors would enter the market with similar products. This increase in supply would reduce prices and profits. Conversely, a drop in demand should result in a decline in price, profits, and supply.

Below is a chart showing circulation statistics for Amazing Spider-Man over the years.

Not exactly stellar. Except for the boom years in the early 1990s, the title's popularity has actually waned. That this hasn't caused a drop in prices seems to defy economic logic. Even the dramatic plummet in demand for Spider-Man from 1994 to present day has been accompanied by more than a doubling in monthly prices from $1.25 to $2.99. What gives?

In fairness, there is the above example I gave, and even the cost of paper. But I wouldn't rule out that bad writing that befell Spidey ever since the notorious "clone saga" was what led to this as well.

Ever since late 1994, the abortive reappearance of the Spider-Clone conceived by the Jackal in 1975's Amazing Spider-Man #149, which saw the stupefying claim made that all these years, Spider-Fans everywhere had been reading about Ben Reilly instead of Peter Parker, an offensive storyline that featured Mary Jane being wounded by the clone, and even an attempt to replace Peter with the clone as New York City's friendly neighborhood web-slinger, that may have spelled the beginning of the end for our much mistreated hero. Even after the considerable backlash that got Marvel at the time to straighten things out by confirming that Peter was truly the guy in the Spidey suit we'd always been reading about and not the clone, and returning Peter to his rightful position, the series may never have recovered. It suffered through tons of bad writing, from Terry Kavanaugh and Howard Mackie to pretentious writing by scripters like J. Michael Stracynski, and now, look at what's happened: there is a divided audience, and many more who lost interest in poor Spidey altogether.

Though some comic fans will be quick to put the blame at the foot of Marvel for price increases, they would be more correct to blame the Federal Reserve, the "publisher" responsible for the creation of our supply of dollars.

I'm sure some would, but there are also those who'd say that Marvel's inability or unwillingness to respect what made Spidey work in the first place, to say nothing of their turning him out-of-character in the wake of Civil War by unmasking and then dragging him into yet more dreadful crossovers, is to blame for their not reading him now. Are these arguments about Marvel's bad misuse of their own characters relevant? More or less.

Spider-Man comics may be rising faster than other goods because they have been nearer to the source of this new credit. One reason for this may be the collectible nature of comics. In the 1980s, the idea of buying comics for price appreciation and investment rather than enjoyment began to take hold. This led to the great speculative mania of the early '90s, followed by the inevitable bust. Even Marvel couldn't survive — it went bankrupt in 1997. But the idea that comics can be bought both for enjoyment and investment means they attract more speculative capital than Time and other simple consumer goods.

I hate to say this, but the enjoyment has been all but absent lately, what with the political mess major comics have become, as well as undergoing editorial mandates that grind all natural developments to a screeching halt, and...the crossovers. Couldn't the Mises Institute at least take that into consideration? Alas, as the last paragraph here shows, no:

For all those disgruntled comic buyers: Keep buying comics. As long as the supply of dollars is controlled by governments, the amount of money in the economy will continue to explode and the value of a dollar in your bank account will erode. Comic books, on the other hand, will keep their value, and may even provide some reading enjoyment.

I'm very sorry, but very few now really do, and if not, then how can they keep their value?

I also think that the idea of buying comics for profit alone, which may still be going on, may have been what spelled doom for good writing in comics. Marvel and DC pandered to investors and went shooing out the real readers, and this is one of the things that ultimately led to the collapse of the market in the late 1990s. If you're going to market only to people who don't even intend to read the books, all you're doing is turning the whole industry into a joke!

And this is why, if you ask me, an economist may not be the best person to analyze what's gone wrong with comic book sales of today.

Labels: marvel comics