Statistics

[Travis Seitler]

I might catch flak for this, but I've been listening to both sides on
this issue and I think I have to respectfully disagree with David and
Gary—at least in part.

As Daniel said, "I often see editors hairsplit complaints, without
looking at the message behind the complaint." It's called pride. Pride
leads us to dismiss a complain out-of-hand, rather than consider what
led to the complaint in the first place.

It seems that, generally speaking, Gemstone's readers and fans tend to
fall into one of two categories. Either they:
 (1) love reprints of the classics and find newer stories to be lacking, or
 (2) are tired of paying for reprints and want to see newer stories.

For the most part, Gemstone has published books that combine reprints
and "first time in the USA" tales. While in one sense that means
there's something for everybody, the flip-side is that there's
something for everybody *to be disappointed with.*

As a lifelong comic book fan who got his start in the 80s, I have to
say that reprints in monthly books are extremely rare for the US
market, and almost always give their publishers the appearance of
being cheap. (The exception would be a reprint which provided
necessary back-story for the book's new tale.) The last thing Gemstone
needs on a $7.50 book is to appear miserly with its production—even if
it *is* Uncle Scrooge that we're talking about. ;)

My own opinion (for whatever it's worth) is that it would be in
everyone's best interests (that is, Gemstone's and our readers') if
Gemstone were to completely separate reprints and first-run stories.
That is, I think it would be preferable to delve into more
archival-style "Carl Barks Library" projects for *all* reprints of
classic tales, while using exclusively first-run material in our
monthly books. That way, if you don't want re-re-re-prints, you won't
have to get 'em (and likewise with first-run stories).

If, as Rodney said, it's literally impossible to sell "all new" Disney
comics, then Gemstone ought to just print libraries & trade paperbacks
of "The Greats" and call it a night.

// Travis Seitler


On 11/17/06, Daniel van Eijmeren <dve at kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>  GARY LEACH, 17-11-2006:
> > Daniel, I believe David gave everyone here a fair statistical
> > summation of what lies behind the perception some have expressed
> > about the content of Gemstone comics. And while numbers can't
> > necessarily change someone's perception, they do point out that
> > statements in the nature of "Gemstone is only re-re-reprinting" are
> > only perception, not fact.
> I see the statement "Gemstone is only re-re-reprinting" as a valid
> complaint. It expresses an emotion. I often see editors hairsplit
> complaints, without looking at the message behind the complaint.
> David gave a fair statistical summation. But I know an expression that says:
>  "if you want to be a liar, use statistics". As you can see, others can make
> fair statistics too. Statistics that show that Gemstone comics are
> reprinting quite a lot. Not "only", but still quite a lot. A lot of comics
> contain 30% of reprints.
> Do editors expect that they can teach their paying, complaining audience
> lessons with statistics that praise themselves? I like David's contributions
> a lot and I always look forward to what he writes, but this time was an
> exception. David's statistics themselves were okay, but his conclusion ("I
> think we're doing pretty well!") doesn't make much sense. There are too many
> Gemstone reprints for that.