drew wrote:overships should not be counted at all they do not reflect the sales interest of customers or retailers and supposedly the retailers are who Diamond is trying assist with this information
Then again, the metric isn't around sale interest, it is around actual sales. Retailers might be interested in buying a lot more than they can afford. That interest can't be measured accurately but the amount purchased by the retailers can be.
But I get where you are coming from. I see both side of this. I completely agree that over-ships don't reflect sales interest of readers or retailers. And, if they are free are they really invoiced to the retailers or gifts of some sort?
It comes down to what the units and dollars are measuring. If it really is sales then over-ships shouldn't be counted. But, and this is the other side of the issue, if the metric is measuring what stores had on hand available to sell, then over-ships should be counted.
Ideally, the over-ships would be counted but distinctly from the regular units. In other words, The Amazing Adventures of Iconic Hero Guy #4 sold X units and had another Y units over-shipped. Ideally, only the units purchases by the retailers (the X units) would count to the ranking and other stats. Currently Diamond reports X + Y as the units which is less than ideal but able to be spotted because of the retail rankings.
Again, until recently, this wasn't really a concern.
drew wrote:no i'm not - you didnt understand what i said
Since you didn't clarify, I still don't understand.
drew wrote:no thanks - i will make my declarative statements based on anecdotal and experiential info since everything is non-transparent anyway - my views are just as valid
While it isn't complete transparency, we have a surprising amount of transparency to the comic book sales. Stating as fact there were minimal or massive returns on DC (or any other publisher) without data to back it up only confuses the issues. We have metrics for what was invoiced. We don't have metrics for what was returned. Stating conjecture as fact, even if it turns out to be an accurate guess, is misleading and can lead to confusion.
drew wrote:This is a FLIP FLOP
It would seem any changes to how the reporting is done, such as changing how over-shipping is handled, would be a flip flop. Seems like a no-win situation. Either the data isn't how you'd like and it should change or it was changed and therefore flip-flopped.
If Diamond did something like counted Batman: The Ten Cent Adventure, didn't count the 9 cent Fantastic Four #60 and then counted Superman: The Ten Cent Adventure then I would agree they flip flopped, were inconsistent and a strong case could be made for manipulating the reporting. But that didn't happen. I don't know of any sort of situation like that either. Not saying it didn't happen, just that if it did that nobody called Diamond out on it.
Between January 2002 and August 2004, five items costing between 9 and 13 cents were released. After the third one, Diamond stopped including items like that on the list. Only one of those items was released after Diamond switched from pre-orders to invoiced orders. (That switch, by the way, is the biggest change in reporting Diamond has ever done).
BATMAN THE TEN CENT ADVENTURE: 2002-01 (pre-orders): Rank 1
GEN 13 #0: 2002-07 (pre-orders): Rank #4
FANTASTIC FOUR #60: 2002-08 (pre-orders): Rank 1
SUPERMAN THE 10 CENT ADVENTURE
BATMAN 12 CENT ADVENTURE
That is a change which was made nearly 15 years ago. It has been consistent since then.
drew wrote:MARVEL is manipulating the numbers and Diamond is COMPLICIT in the manipulation - again you misunderstood or i wasnt clear
Like any man-made system , the sales reporting can be gamed and Marvel does seem to be doing that. Diamond hasn't changes the rules yet but I don't see that as exactly the same as being complicit. Frankly, Diamond is in a no-win situation here. We are better off with the reporting system no changing after every marketing stunt some publisher pulls.
drew wrote:nope i stand by inconsistent - Diamond has a monopoly and does what they want - i really dont care if they get their feelings hurt
Diamond is a de facto monopoly as far as sales of new comics are concerned. But, from a legal point of view, since there are other periodical distributors, Diamond is not legally a monopoly.
Diamond does not have to report the sales data at all. We should be thankful for what they provide. When we want more data or changes to the data, we need to give them a compelling business case for the changes. In other words, how it would benefit them and their business partners.
