Disney-comics digest #302.

[Don Rosa]

MARK:
	No, I didn't mean that American comic COMPANIES could have done
anything to help Disney freelancers. I meant that American comic
professionals were quite obvious in not doing or saying a thing about
Disney's policies, even when CBG had a top, front-page headline about
Disney not allowing art to be returned. These are the same people that
raise all hell when Jack Kirby couldn't get back artwork he knowingly
allowed to be kept 30 years ago (because at the time he saw no value in
it), but wanted back later. I, on the other hand, always demanded my art
returned and it was withheld for no other stated reason other than
Disney not wanting me to have it back. Apparently, the professionals
were distressed by Kirby's problem since his situation would reflect on
THEIR situation; what happened to a freelancer doing Disney work (which
they had no interest in for its lack of potential profitability) did not
matter to them.
	Also, even the other Disney comics freelancers didn't try to
help improve their own situation -- they cooperated in their own
subjugation when they could have protested with me. That sort of
situation can only last as long as people don't object to its flagrant
unfairness -- as long as no one (or only one) objects, there's no good
business reason to change the policy.

	How do we know the Gladstone's aren't selling 160,000 per issue?
Common sense. They used to sell about 70,000 per issue 6 years ago;
Disney Comics eroded that to 40,000 copies; I know that store orders
have not increased much, not even back up to the levels of 6 years ago,
much less to have doubled that number! 
	No, I remembered how Hamilton explained their new deal, that
they print a certain number of issues for Marvel to sell to the
newsstands; these issues are marked as SOLD WITH NO RETURNS on
Gladston'es books, even if they never ARE sold by Marvel... Marvel eats
those returns and they aren't reimbursed for them. For the direct sales,
which Gladstone handles, there ARE no returns. Therefore, as I said,
Gladstone prints for both direct and newsstand markets, yet they have
100% sales on the entire runs on their books. The only way this isn't a
phenomenally great deal is that Marvel may not pay much for those
issues.
	And what do you mean "old issues with new covers". They are part
of the same press run, only a certain number have the Marvel logo in
place of the Gladstone. They are concurrent with the Gladstone issues,
and part of that same sales figure list.
	Gladstone's international sales have always been important, but
not all that much. The only way they can be sold outside of the U.S. and
Australia and Canada is in those direct sales stores in Europe, and
there aren't that many of them there. Too bad there's not -- an average
American direct-sales store orders about 5 or 10 copies of a Gladstone
comic; the comic stores I've visited in Norway sold about 400 issues of
each Gladstone Duck title (and about 50-100 once Disney took over). If
direct-sales stores were the way comics were mostly sold in Europe as in
America, Gladstone would be sittin' onna gold mine.
	In my travels to many American comic shows, I "have my finger on
the pulse" of the interest in Gladstone's new Disneys... and the lack of
interest between now and 6-8 years ago is clear and tangible.
	The number of issues that Gladstone PRINTS has not changed
(probably) from those days (though I'll guess it's lower) -- it's just
that they are able to claim their entire print run as "sold" which they
couldn't in those days.

DAVID:
	I haven't seen the German weekly #2000, but are you saying that
the "Return to Xanadu" story is NOT titled "Return to Trala La"? I just
got a FAX fro  the translator himself who verified that the title used
IS "Return to Trala La" and he apologized for it. That's not the title
you see?