- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
It wasn't meant to. It was meant to point out that the dip in sales coincides with the decision by the big publishing houses to scale back distribution to various brick and mortar retailers in the early 90s. Including non-specialty retailers like your corner convenience store.Your graph doesn't establish your point at all either in terms of spinner racks or success.
My point here is that while there were a number of reasons why sales went to hell in the 90s, I would not necessarily dismiss out of hand that Chuck's reasoning isn't ONE of the reasons companies like Marvel found themselves in trouble. It's beyond dispute they started to choke distribution.
No, but you can extrapolate from that graph that readership tanked. It's just that you can't do it with fine accuracy. It's not the best data point to start with.A graph that shows dollars instead of units won't illustrate what happened to the reader base well.
You can draw a valid conclusion of sorts from that graph because inflation is an economic reality, and if revenue remained the same between the peak of the early 90s and the peakof the 2000s then unit sales almost certainly dropped... a LOT. Because the chart plots sales revenue, and not gross profit, you can't really fob that off on "overhead" either.
Besides, it's my understanding that nobody really doubts that unit sales went to shit in the 90s. The debate is one of why. My point here (as is yours, it seems) is that Chuck might have hit upon A legitimate reason. My own empirical knowledge is that it became a lot harder to find comics outside of specialty retailers, and sales began to crater shortly thereafter.
EDIT: Fucking autocorrect.
Last edited:

