<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Whitechapel - Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 05:21:30 -0700</lastBuildDate>
			<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>
				Lussumo Vanilla 1.1.4 &amp; Feed Publisher
			</generator>
			<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119422#Comment_119422</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119422#Comment_119422</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:24:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Mike Wolfer</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Read. Then reread. Think. Reread again.<br /><br /><a href="http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/01/diamond-raises-order-benchmarks-for-publishers/" >Here, at Comic Book Resources</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010919-Diamond-Thresholds.html" >and here, at newsarama</a><br /><br />  Discuss. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119432#Comment_119432</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119432#Comment_119432</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:57:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brendan McGinley</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Firk, it's hard enough to get in there as it is, with most stores order 1-5 copies if any. That's a lot more units, which in turn, is a lot more stores to convince to buy your book...or else convince 50-100 stores to pick up a few more copies. <br /><br />You see why I brought most of the material originally designed for print online instead. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119445#Comment_119445</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119445#Comment_119445</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:51:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>TF</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I think this is bad for the small publishers.  Don't know how it will effect retailers except by creating further distinctions between the good ones and the bad ones.<br /><br />Can't think of one good aspect for this move.<br /><br />I wonder if Diamond did it as a democratic way to not have to deal with all the new small press guys....<br /><br />Don't know.  I think it bad. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119512#Comment_119512</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119512#Comment_119512</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:40:04 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Sam Thielman</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I wonder if this will result in somebody with some horse sense and a couple of backers trying to start a competing distributor. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119520#Comment_119520</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119520#Comment_119520</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:47:27 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Doctor Pockets</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Get ready for higher prices. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119558#Comment_119558</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119558#Comment_119558</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:58:15 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>SinisterTwister</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ How will this affect Warren's AVATAR work? And while we're at it, how will it affect AVATAR in general? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119563#Comment_119563</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119563#Comment_119563</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:05:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Mike Wolfer</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >Get ready for higher prices.</blockquote><br /><br />  Looks unavoidable. And get ready for less diversity, at least in print. <br /><br />  We might also see the number of participating publishers at conventions plummet. With no way to generate revenue to pay those outrageous booth costs in advance, small press publishers trying to eke out a living and expose the public to their work at cons will find doing shows cost prohibitive. The cons themselves will surely feel the impact, as well. Wizard has already canceled or "postponed" their Los Angeles and Dallas shows for 2009...<br /><br />  Or, this could be just what the industry needs! (Silver lining, anyone?) ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119569#Comment_119569</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119569#Comment_119569</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:10:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>warrenellis</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <em >How will this affect Warren's AVATAR work? </em><br /><br />It won't, at all. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119574#Comment_119574</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119574#Comment_119574</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:26:11 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Mike Wolfer</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >It won't, at all. </blockquote><br /><br />Right. While no publisher (well, virtually no publisher) is immune to the new guidelines, Avatar will be fine. It's the small press guys that will have a tough time with this. But I'm sure we'll see some interesting developments and more immediate forward momentum in how comics are delivered and distributed. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119576#Comment_119576</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119576#Comment_119576</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:29:03 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Dan Vado's comment from the CBR thread:<br /><br />“That does not mean that Diamond is going to cancel or not carry books which appear in the Previews but do not reach that benchmark,” Vado writes in the email, “but it does mean that if you have a line of books which consistently do not meet that mark, you will not be getting your books listed in the Previews for long.”<br /><br />When they introduced the $1500 purchase minimum Diamond claimed they'd apply it flexibly and in at least soem instances carried books for several issues while they were below thre minimum.<br /><br />It's definitely not good news but it may not be quite as bad as it appears at first glance.<br /><br />As for other distgributors, Haven Distribution (the people who took over Cold Cut) seem the major alternative currently. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119580#Comment_119580</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119580#Comment_119580</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:35:19 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Finagle</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Ignorant question:<br /><br />What counts as a "small press"?  My working assumption had been that it was anything not of the Big Two, but evidently that is incorrect. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119584#Comment_119584</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119584#Comment_119584</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:39:35 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ THere's no hard and fast rule. I'd say "small press" is any publishing company that isn't a full-time job for the publisher. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119715#Comment_119715</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119715#Comment_119715</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>frequentcontributor</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I guess I don't see how it is prohibitively expensive to ship "one issue" of a small press comic considering that it should be getting shipped with all the other weekly books... Perhaps they just don't want to handle as much merch, which makes sense, but sending 100 Marvel books to a store and sending 100 Marvel books and one small press book along with it don't seem that different... ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119730#Comment_119730</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119730#Comment_119730</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:41:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I think it's more a matter of having X feet of warehouse space given over to Marvel Comics which sell $10,000 worth of books per month or the same space given over to indy books which sell $1,000 worth of books per month.<br /><br />Not to mention the competition for space in Previews including from companies willing to pay for ad space. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119763#Comment_119763</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119763#Comment_119763</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:17:29 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>James Cunningham</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Diamond is a distributor, it's their job to (and this may cause some headaches and confusion if anyone in Diamond management reads is) distribute stuff.  It's why they exist.  And while they seem to be more of a merchandise distributor than a comics one in the last few years (at least in Previews page-count) I wouldn't expect they'd be looking for ways to lessen their product range.<br /><br />I was a comics retailer during the time when all distributors consolidated to Diamond.  I still think the series of events leading to that outcome is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.<br /><br />Nice to hear that Cold Cut is still around, though, even if owned by another company.  Those guys were always great when I dealt with them, willing to recommend good stuff and listen when I recommended back. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119795#Comment_119795</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119795#Comment_119795</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:53:50 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>frequentcontributor</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Well, I can see why they might not want to deal with the hassle of lots of companies putting out a small amount of books and getting a small amount of orders, but perhaps and Amazon.com-type business model could suit them; where they still list the small press product, but the companies themselves store the merch and handle order filling. Diamond would still handle all the money, so ordering Marvel and small press books at the same time would still be a one-stop shopping experience for retailers...<br /><br />Although, Diamond could not be held accountable for lost or late small press titles, since they would be shipped from elsewhere, and shipping costs accrued from ordering through many different small press vendors would be incredibly prohibitive (Amazon's outside vendors shipping runs from around $3 for a DVD to $4 per book... most likely a weight issue or something, but not great if you're ordering from more than one alternate vendor...).<br /><br />Also, I like flipping through the Previews catalog to look at some of the goofy shit, but they should just be putting that stuff online. Perhaps they'd be losing ad revenue, but they'd also be cutting printing costs (although, since they're the publisher AND the distributor, those catalogs are probably pure profit...). But, as it is, now, you can't even use their website to find anything. Every section you click on has like 10 highlight items and nothing else. They should just put the catalog online and charge a $1 per month subscription fee, and the benefit is that you'd be able to browse it at your LCS if they have internet (the guy at mine is online all day...). ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119990#Comment_119990</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=119990#Comment_119990</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:12:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>James Puckett</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I can understand dumping printed Previews, it made much more sense as part of the 1990s hype machine than it does in today’s market. Most stores I go to just heap Previews into piles and dump the oldest pile now and then. But why a PDF? And why put the hurt on small publishes? Why not use all the money saved by dumping printed Previews to create a better web version of Previews that offers a low-cost promotional vehicle to the entire industry so that everyone has a better chance of getting through the recession? Talk about a lack of vision. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120026#Comment_120026</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120026#Comment_120026</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:26:23 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Tom Akel</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ in todays world previews is obsolete.  what they should do, but i'll guess won't, is build out a great site.  diamond's site sucks.  its half editorial, which is not what they do, or at least, what consumers are looking for from them.  how about a fully functional site with the entire months catalogue where publishers can upload their listings and update on the fly should anything change.  stores would have access to this and adjust accordingly, and be better prepared. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120055#Comment_120055</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120055#Comment_120055</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:47:06 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>rickiep00h</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Yes yes, but if they did that, they couldn't make money from selling a catalog people need to get things from other publishers. Hell, even most of the adult stores I've seen have gotten rid of browsing fees, know what I mean?<br /><br />Also, there's <a href="http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=19613" >this</a>, which I got by way of <a href="http://www.atomic-robo.com/" >Atomic Robo</a> creator Brian Clevinger. His book is put out by Red 5, which has a high chance of getting screwed hardcore by this whole thing. First law of customer service: if we don't take care of our customers, someone else will. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120116#Comment_120116</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120116#Comment_120116</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:20:29 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>dkostis</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <em >most stores order 1-5 copies if any</em><br /><br />Most stores order 0 copies of most books. If they have a pull and hold service they probably don't order shelf copies of most titles that they do order. An unsold copy of a title is a loss equal to the profit of two to four copies that did sell. I don't just mean small press books, lower end Marvel and DC books don't get a shelf presence in most stores. Once they get "subscriber" numbers on a title that's all they order.<br /><br /><em >don't see how it is prohibitively expensive to ship "one issue" </em><br /><br />It's not, but it is less profitable. Since stores need to sell a certain dollar volume each month to make their expenses (and maybe a profit once in a while) Diamond can increase it's own profit levels by eliminating titles with higher overhead. The retailers still need to keep their order levels up so they replace the canceled titles with more profitable (for Diamond, not the retailer) issues. Plus by reducing sales by companies that are not exclusive with Diamond and quite probably putting them out of business, Diamond diminishes the opportunities that other distributors might have to compete.<br /><br /><em >list the small press product, but the companies themselves store the merch and handle order filling</em><br /><br />That's pretty close to how it works now. Diamond doesn't store small press books, it gathers retailer orders from previews and then in turn orders that sum from the publisher. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120367#Comment_120367</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120367#Comment_120367</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:00:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>johnmuth</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ There's a discussion going on at <a href="http://www.panelandpixel.com/forum/index.php?webtag=PANELANDPIXEL&msg=1958.1" >Panel & Pixel</a> right now, about this, with a lot of input of self-publishing/small press creators and up-and-comers commenting and discussing this, as well. Just for the flip side, to see what the people that aren't just spectators (no offense meant) think of this. And for those of you here that run shops, or maybe do your own publishing/comics, giving more input might help or broaden the discussion.<br /><br />( I know Warren, usually points more comic-related posts towards, P&P, so I thought it an appropriate suggestion. And just as a forewarning, the rules there are you have to use your real name to post there...FYI. :) ) ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120567#Comment_120567</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120567#Comment_120567</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>QuidamTulpa</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.  Higher prices?  Less Indie publishers?  A rising competitor? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120686#Comment_120686</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120686#Comment_120686</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:49:11 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Mike Wolfer</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Yesterday, I asked my local retailer if he had heard about Diamond's new policy. He said, "Yeah, the new retailer policy?" Oh... Uh... I hadn't heard about that myself.<br /><br />  In short, (I don't have all of the facts), Diamond raised their order minimum for retailers. Are there any retailers in the room who can fill in the blanks for me? From what I understand, each store has a minimum dollar amount that their order must meet each month, and if they don't... I dunno. Diamond drops them? Help, please. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120699#Comment_120699</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120699#Comment_120699</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:32:23 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>heresybob</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ As a guy trying to get his first comic out the door, the more I read about all of this type of crap, the more I think- "I have to bypass diamond completely."  Yes, quality of the story is one thing, but the real proof is just getting enough people to even notice the story in the first place. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120711#Comment_120711</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120711#Comment_120711</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:14:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>rickiep00h</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote >...but the real proof is just getting enough people to even notice the story in the first place.</blockquote><br /><br />This is the part that annoys me about the whole thing. I'm not going to propose I know what's what here, but I would imagine that just being in Previews is what drums up a fair amount of sales for a book. Yes, there's outside marketing, but what better place than where <em >everyone goes to order their comics</em>? You <em >know</em> someone that doesn't scour the internet for new books or rely on their LCS to bring titles to their attention would get a new impression.<br /><br />I realize this will probably drive some marketing innovation, especially in internet advertising, but the fact is that this move will (I assume) make it more difficult for people to sell their books... and I thought the whole purpose of Previews was to make it easier. Yes? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120721#Comment_120721</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120721#Comment_120721</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:37:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>James Puckett</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @rickie: Seriously, how many people actually sift through Previews every month looking for new books to buy? It’s not especially convenient to sift through all the pages of stuff that’s obviously going to be shipping but appears in previews over-and-over. Previews is the ultimate TL;DR. I think the real problem is that there isn’t a great online replacement. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120745#Comment_120745</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120745#Comment_120745</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:35:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>rickiep00h</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Well, I do, so that means some segment must, no?<br /><br />I agree that the main problem is that there isn't an online Previews. Significantly lower overhead costs, in printing and labor. I think it's simply an unwillingness from Diamond to adapt. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120753#Comment_120753</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120753#Comment_120753</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:07:07 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>lordmitz</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ as someone who orders the comics for their shop, i'll be frank and say i hate getting to the indie part and sifting through it for the good stuff. putting it online will make me even less tolerant for browsing. for every james kolchalka there's 10 leifelds, so i can understand kind of what diamond wishes to do.<br /><br /><em >however</em>, this change will be stopping new people getting in, and seems fairly detrimental to the development of new creators. it's a tricky situation. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120829#Comment_120829</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120829#Comment_120829</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:09:16 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>dkostis</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I'd like to hear more from shop owners or managers on this. I've been out for almost two years now and worry that any specific comments I make would be out of date. Plus looking back at my previous post, I apparently can't say anything about Diamond without the bitter loathing showing through. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120948#Comment_120948</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120948#Comment_120948</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:00:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brandon Seifert</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Mike Wolfer — I'm working on an article about this whole thing.  Thanks for your tip on the retailer thing — I'm looking into that.  Let you know what I find. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120991#Comment_120991</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=120991#Comment_120991</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:20:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>James Puckett</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <em >i hate getting to the indie part and sifting through it for the good stuff. putting it online will make me even less tolerant for browsing</em><br /><br />Having it online makes it easier for everybody to link to the good stuff. Or for filters to strip out junk like the porno comic rereleases. Or even just only show the good publishers. I could have a previews account that learned what I like a-la Netflix and recommends new stuff without me even needing to sift through the rest. And it could spit out an order page that I can take straight to my local shop and hand-off to the manager so that they don’t have to try and find the book in the system and screw up my subs. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121003#Comment_121003</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121003#Comment_121003</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:09:05 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Elana</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I do the comics orders for my shop, and I actually enjoy flipping through the indy pages. It's a fun little quiz of my Good Taste detectors.<br /><br />All this does is make me wonder what proportion of the actual Good Stuff in the indy pages will have trouble reaching the minimums.<br /><br />If everyone doing the orders has a reasonably good sense of taste, might the new minimums be a little... well... Darwinian?<br /><br />Because if no one is ordering certain books because they're actually crap...<br /><br />Then I'm kind of with Diamond on this one. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121013#Comment_121013</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121013#Comment_121013</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:58:50 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Mike Wolfer</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ For what it's worth, I did a web search for comic book distributors. Excluding Diamond, the only one I could come up with is Haven Distribution (formerly Cold Cut) at <a href="http://www.havendistro.com/" >www.havendistro.com</a>. I have no idea what kind of numbers these guys do, but it's an alternative for the smaller "Small Press" publishers who may not meet Diamond's minimum order threshold. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121031#Comment_121031</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121031#Comment_121031</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:22:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Beth Wagner</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Putting my two cents worth in. The more I think about it the more I wonder if this will actually strengthen Haven as a distributor as they tend to cater to smaller press comics. At it's worst, it will cause an influx of companies going to Haven after being dumped by Diamond and may cause Haven to look at it's submission policy. At it's best it would put Haven as the "go to" distributor for anyone with a small readership and strengthen it's place in the market.<br />But what do I know? ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121086#Comment_121086</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121086#Comment_121086</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:41:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brandon Seifert</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Mike Wolfer:  I checked with my LCS, and he hasn't heard anything about new order minimums from Diamond for retailers.  (He's also a fairly modest-sized store... and he still spends $8,000-$10,000 a month on his Diamond orders, so he's not really worried about an increase.)<br /><br />There are a few distributors that do some different things — Last Gasp carries some titles, as well as zines and magazines, and yes, there's Haven.  Haven traditionally has been a backlist distributor that's not set up to deal with new monthlies, but I understand they're retooling their business to catch some of the run-off from this — Bluewater Publishing is going to be distributing books like 10th Muse through them. (Bluewater President Darren Davis also estimates it's only going to be two or three months before the indys figure out what they're going to do about all this — I interviewed him last night — and though he's having to alter his publishing line to deal with the new benchmarks, he thinks this is actually a good thing for himself and other indys, because Diamond simply isn't a good match for their needs.)<br /><br />Also, Bluewater has known about this whole thing for three months, so they've had some time to deal with the changes — Darren told me he's surprised the news just now broke. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121088#Comment_121088</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121088#Comment_121088</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:47:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brandon Seifert</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @ Elana:  "Because if no one is ordering certain books because they're actually crap..."  Part of the problem is that some stores cater to segments of the market that Diamond has never been fond of — books that are definitely not crap, but that aren't as commercial as Diamond would like.<br /><br />Yes, this means some companies and comics that are just awful will get canned.  But suffering right next to them are books like the stuff published by PictureBox, which are actively trying to be artistic in ways most of the industry doesn't.  These people aren't hobbyists, but they're artists more than they are businesspeople.<br /><br />The good thing in this case is that Diamond hasn't traditionally been interested in art comics — so a lot of these smaller companies weren't dependent on Diamond to begin with.  (That's the case of the three small art comics publishers I talked to in Portland — one of them never went through Diamond, and the other two saw Diamond lose interest in them a while ago, apparently no matter how well their books did.)  But then, some of them (like PictureBox) apparently do rely on Diamond. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121091#Comment_121091</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121091#Comment_121091</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:53:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Doctor Pockets</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Dan Nadel of PictureBox has said that some of their higher profile books from last year - like Monster Men Bureiko Lullaby, Travel, and Goddess of War - would not have made the cutoff under Diamond's new requirements. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121115#Comment_121115</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121115#Comment_121115</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:50:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Diamond responds via an interview for<a href="http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/14147.html" > icv2</a> with VP Steve Schanes.<br /><br />Pulling out the interesting bits:<br /><br /><blockquote >"So our brand managers evaluate all the products that come in to us for solicitations to review those products to make sure that they meet our benchmarks.  They give some latitude based on say, a brand new publisher we’ve had no experience with, or a brand new creative team that we’ve never had any experience with before, versus a long-running title that shows a decline every issue and sells below the benchmark. " <br />....<br />"Our sales were down at Diamond last year, and they look to be down a little more in 2009 based on publishers’ projections, which are given to me in December by the top 15 to 20 publishers.  So we’ve determined that with sales going down this year we’re going to need to make some slight adjustments on our side so that we can remain profitable and continue to service the industry at the very highest levels possible. "</blockquote><br /><br />Responding to falling sales by cutting back the range of things you sell doesn't seem to make much sense - unless you're losing money on the stuff you're eliminating.<br /><blockquote ><br />ICV2: Does that apply to new product and backlist both?<br /><br />Schanes Yes, if it has an order form line, it applies.  And there are some exceptions to that guideline, and I’m using the word guideline, not a rule.  It’s not hard and fast.  Certainly things like Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Hero Initiative, those we look less at the bottom line because those are more contribution projects, charity projects.</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote >The change will affect “offered agains” in a pretty big way.  What Diamond calls an “offered again” is something that’s already been published and gone through our system once and now either the publisher or Diamond it gets put back in the catalogue a second time.  Some people call those relists. <br /></blockquote><br />  <br /><blockquote >ICV2: What about items you sell out of but there’s still demand in your system?  Does that purchase order also have to hit a $2500 minimum? <br /><br />Schanes: No, we routinely issue purchase orders for relatively small quantities or dollar P.O. amounts to supplement the initial shipments after we sell through.  That dollar amount is unbelievably low, $25 or $50 P.O. value.  It’s very low and at this point in time we’re not making any adjustments there.</blockquote><br /><br /><br />T"ICV2: he last Previews you closed orders for--out of the new product listings or the offered agains, how many products would have been affected by the new threshold? <br /><br />Schanes: I didn’t do that particular breakdown.  We’ll have a much better sense when Previews #3 comes out the last week of February of what happened between Previews #2 and Previews #3.  We think over-all for the very small press publisher that may have been under the $1500 minimum for some time but for which we’ve been flexible, heading into 2009 we won’t be able to afford to offer that level of service any more ..."<br /><br />"...the very small press side, people that publish one or two books a year, that have been around for a while, probably 20 to 30 of those publishers will see an immediate impact of not being listed in Previews.  The next level up of those small press publishers, that publish more frequently, some of their titles may be affected and some not.  And then the middle-sized press will be more about changes in schedule, or packaging, or price point, or format. "<br /><br /><blockquote >"We’re going to be more flexible for those publishers that have marketing plans and sales plans, but I’d say that for 85% of the small press that sends us solicitations once they hit that send button to us, or put that stamp on their mail solicitation, that was their entire marketing budget; and it’s hard to support folks that aren’t doing much to support themselves, especially when those sales aren’t profitable in the first place. " <br /></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote >ICV2: This is a 60-70% increase in the minimum purchase order.  Why the size of the increase?<br /><br />Schanes: We looked at the last two years of sales data, and we felt that was a reasonable amount of money to have gross profit against.  A $2500 purchase order at Diamond’s cost of 60% off is about $6200 retail value.  That would give us gross profit at Diamond on a blended average discount to retailers of 44% off retail of about $950, and a contribution to fixed costs, overhead, and profit of $200 or $300 after all the different departments and operations handle it.  At $2500, Diamond’s not getting rich. </blockquote> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121425#Comment_121425</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121425#Comment_121425</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:41:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>davebaxter</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ My biggest question about Diamond raising the minimum purchase price though - what exactly ARE Diamond's overhead costs?  I've heard that publishers pay printing and shipping costs, plus pay for placement in Previews, so...what exactly is Diamand offsetting by the increase?  Does anyone know?<br /><br />Oh, and Mike (Mr. Wolfer, dude-man) here's your silver-lining, which I believe in: the writing for this has been on the wall for YEARS.  And yet new publishers, no matter how small, have routinely ignored the sinking ship scenario and are jumping on the Titanic AS IT'S SINKING, thinking - "Oh boy! I just made the ship!"  This then forces small press publishers to FINALLY get over it and look toward new venues of distribution.<br /><br />To be honest, we've all long (since the 90's) been wondering how to break the Diamond monopoly.  Well, in a weirdly, possibly inadvertent (possibly not) altruistic act, Diamond has just broke their own monopoly for us.  I do believe that this will domino into a market where distribution for anything outside of the most mainstream of mainstream will ACCEPTABLY be offered in other distribution venues, be they digital or simply other small-press-centric distributors like Haven.  Before now, readers and retailers always saw Haven and digital books as the "third party" presidential candidate - not really credible in any sincere sense.  But this may at long last change that.  I think that's a huge silver lining.  Diamond hasn't been serving the small press well for a while now, if arguably ever.  Small press has always had to fend for themselves and market themselves and make their properties work against the odds.  Diamond wasn't what made them succeed, though small press has stuck to it like a glued-to crutch. In that sense, this could be the best thing to happen to the industry since the 80's. --Dave B. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121488#Comment_121488</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121488#Comment_121488</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:48:35 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brandon Seifert</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @davebaxter:  Here's the part of the ICv2 interview that covers that:<blockquote >We looked at the last two years of sales data, and we felt that was a reasonable amount of money to have gross profit against.  A $2500 purchase order at Diamond’s cost of 60% off is about $6200 retail value.  That would give us gross profit at Diamond on a blended average discount to retailers of 44% off retail of about $950, and a contribution to fixed costs, overhead, and profit of $200 or $300 after all the different departments and operations handle it.  At $2500, Diamond’s not getting rich.<br /> <br />On a typical product, there’s a huge number of departments that are involved.  There’s the catalogue department, proofreaders, editors, designers; we have to pay for the catalogue space at the printer; when the order comes in there’s order entry; then the product comes to us and it has to be received at four distribution centers; we have to put it on the pick line for packing; we’ve got to pay for the box to put it in; we have to process the invoice through accounts payable.  Often there can be problems with the shipment, such as overages, shortages, or damages.  It’s a huge number of departments that are involved, and we’ve got to make sure those people are paid and we can service the market properly.  So the product life cycle is very intense, and that’s often misunderstood by the small press, or even by retailers or consumers.  At $1500 we were losing money on every purchase order, and that’s just not healthy.</blockquote> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121502#Comment_121502</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121502#Comment_121502</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:42:52 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>heresybob</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @rickiep00h  All I know is that if I had material I wanted to sell, and if I wanted to use Diamond, I'd wait until a very appropriate time, find the right Diamond employee - find out his/her sexual preference and kink, and arrange for sexual favors. <br /><br />If they were into blow, I would buy them dope.<br /><br />If they were into Tijuana donkey shows, I'd buy them a ticket.  <br /><br />If the fucker pissed me off in anyway, I'd record it and go for blackmail.<br /><br />@Mike Wolfer - thanks for the Haven lead.<br /><br />@davebaxter  - I agree with the sentiment. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121533#Comment_121533</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121533#Comment_121533</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:51:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>davebaxter</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ @Brandon Cyphered - Ah, danke, knabe.  Nice 'n informative.  That's what happens when one skims and doesn't read.  Stupid internet, making me skim!<br /><br />@heresybob - You, sir, are what they call <em >invested</em> :) ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121744#Comment_121744</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121744#Comment_121744</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:32:23 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>chris g</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <a href="http://atomic-robo.livejournal.com/60115.html" >Atomic Robo chimes in, and chimes in good</a><br /><br /><blockquote ><br />Basically: there was no reason to go into print. The only difference is that it's now official Diamond policy to laugh at you for trying.</blockquote> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121750#Comment_121750</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121750#Comment_121750</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:56:56 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>rickiep00h</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Clevinger (of Atomic Robo) speaks the truth. I did an e-mail interview with him (and Templesmith, et al) for my blog last summer, and the guy knows what he's talking about. It's easier, it's cheaper.<br /><br />Also, I'm one of the people that read 8-Bit Theatre and gets the trades. Apparently I'm some weird marginal case, but oh well. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121755#Comment_121755</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121755#Comment_121755</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:04:26 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>chris g</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ it really inspired me. i really don't see myself trying to print again unless I wanna go broke overnight. Dean Haspiel said it best too, the time for webcomix revolution is now ^_^ ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121955#Comment_121955</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=121955#Comment_121955</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:12:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ The two major US magazine distributors are imposing a 7 cents per issue handling fee from February.<br /><br />Doesn't sound like much but for a a $2.99 magazine at 60% or more off, that's a cut of more than 5% in what the publisher gets.<br /><br />I think this could mean the end of the $2.99 newsstand comic. <br /><br />It's even worse for the $2.50 Johnny DC titles and the $2.50 and $2.69 Archie titles, both of which reportedly get most of their sales from non-DM sources.<br /><br />Oh and no idea if its in any way related but Mad magazine is shifting to quarterly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/14155.html" >Link</a> ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=122188#Comment_122188</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=122188#Comment_122188</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:31:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Kosmopolit</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ People interested in iverse should probably also check out<a href="http://comics.drivethrustuff.com/" > drivethrucomics.com</a>.<br /><br />I don't think there's going to be a single alternative to Diamond though.<br /><br />I think a future self-publishing strategy for comcis will likely involve web-comics AND selling books through a POD set-up like Comixpress or Ka-blam and merchandise AND selling those POD books yourself at cons and hand-selling into local shops AND small press distributors like Haven AND selling down-loadable PDFs.<br /><br />And for the one in a hundred or so that are good enough, lucky enough and work hard enough; Diamond will still exist as one sales avenue amongst many. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=123855#Comment_123855</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=123855#Comment_123855</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:41:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Cameron C.</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Looks like Ka-Blam's direct market distribution has a name and blog: http://www.comicsmonkey.com/blog/ ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124213#Comment_124213</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124213#Comment_124213</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:33:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>morganagrom</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ This was funny.<br /><br />http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/im_sick_of_the_complaints_an_anonymous_message_on_diamonds_new_minimums/<br /><br />I realize the value of distributors, obviously, but come on, it's not like an independent filmmaker, who makes a "cheap" movie for two million bucks on credit cards, and has to get distribution or he loses his house and wife along with it.<br /><br />Quit complaining, grow and evolve, or shut the hell up and go away. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124254#Comment_124254</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124254#Comment_124254</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:56:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brendan McGinley</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ I actually appreciate the "move units or go home" kick in the ass counter-response to the collective OH NOES! that went up, and I don't have any real complaints about Diamond, having made my one bid at them, one bid around them, and settled into the receptive world of online comics. I fully understand Diamond's gotta do what Diamond's gotta do. <br /><br />But this anonymous chap telling the crybabies to get out there and cut the Gordian Knot of our rather screwed-up direct market overlooks one thing: that only works if you've got a sword. Not every creator is a good businessman. Mark Twain, for example. The cold, hard base of the matter is retailers won't order outside of Diamond, outside of a few wonderful shops that are quite deservedly at the top of the game and can spare the interest. Their names are known. Something like 17 stores sell the majority of the direct market's merchandise, don't they? <br /><br />I called a LOT of retailers to move DOSE after we were declined Diamond distribution, and even if they could move a humor anthology, and if they liked the material -- very, very few wanted to order anything outside of Diamond -- and that's with free shipping and full refunds on returned material. That's with press releases and interviews and trying to get any eyes I could on the book. I commissioned pages from special guests. Anything to show...hey, you might not personally look this book; I know I see a lot of flaws in it, but it's an attempt to present a professional, new comic. And that's not to complain; it's to illustrate that good or bad, it's HARD for one person, and the source at that, to get attention even in this tiny market. <br /><br />I want to be careful here to make these points separate from the attempt to get DOSE in Diamond, because I'm trying to talk out of my experiences about what a challenge this can be without falling into the very form this fellow describes. I'm not bitter; I don't feel anybody owed my book attention or a chance. I knew the risks; I took a lot of shots to get it out there, and I'm pretty happy with what I came up with. Just about everyone I've spoken to who read it is happy with it, so that's me getting what I wanted. At no point did I feel my effort was owed attention or a spot in the catalog, or any of that nonsense. I've been on the fringe of the industry this entire millennium -- first as an intern, then at Wizard while creating my books. I've learned a lot, and I think this is a market where the author's right -- there's so much love for the medium, people can forget about the business side. Comics make us feel good; and some people get upset when they get told "No." <br /><br />So my experience is that while many appreciated seeing the material (I provided PDFs to anyone who wanted to preview what they'd be getting in full), just as many, before even taking a look and figuring out if the comic was viable for them or a brick, had no interest in ordering outside of Diamond. And I don't think you can blame, them, either. We're all stuck with what things are, and change is to come, it's going to take, a coordinated effort. <br /><br />Personally, I kind of think this new Diamond thing is good, in the long-run: it's making room for Ka-Blam or Cold Cut to become a larger faucet for the indie stream. And I've already moved my material online, so it doesn't affect me much. But you can marvel at where the industry stands. Diamond's locked to the Big Two, they're locked to superheroes, comic stores are locked to everything. <br /><br />[cont. next post] ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124255#Comment_124255</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124255#Comment_124255</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:56:05 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brendan McGinley</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ Not every creator should have to become PT Barnum to move a book. What if you're the next Bryan Lee O'Malley but have no marketing skills? That's WHY publishers and distributors exist, to move that product into retailers' hands, weed out the crap, and make noise about really kick-ass material while the creator goes back to creating. By all means, show your dedication to promoting the book, and if you're all you have, do all you can, but really, the lone distributor is latched to a couple of companies who are in turn zeroed in on a thin band of spandex and not taking any new talent on unless you can show you have an audience and can sell product for them, regardless of how good your samples are. <br /><br />So how to get in on that when the sole pipeline to shops expects you to move huge numbers for one person? Yeah, there are ways, but again: just because some of us can do it doesn't mean all of us should have to. <br /><br />EDIT TO ADD: The indie filmmaker is a false comparison. Sinking yourself into a lifetime's earnings worth of debt for your artistic vision is the very example of bad business the author chides. Wouldn't you, the distributor and publisher, rather work with someone who knows how to manage a project within reason of the time and money available? Why are we supposed to have more sympathy for somebody who takes a giant, flying leap off a cliff and prays to land in the creek as opposed to someone who puts a reasonable couple of grand and project management into a new comic and then...can't put it out anywhere? For that matter, why isn't Diamond being cited to find a way to get the material that appeals to the public at large into that public's hands? I can think of reasons why, but none are covered under "Try harder and find a way nobody's thought of."<br /><br />Diamond's entitled to change their requirements; they don't owe anyone anything. But if you're going to holler "Suck it up" from your Executive-Plus throne at those of us who've been slogging towards print since 2001, dealing with changes in policy and artists who crap out, printer delays, surprise shipping and import costs, rattle those giant stones you're cupping so tenderly in your hands -- rattle them for me just a little louder so I can hear them sing your name. <br /><br />After all, you're a sales superman, right? You should be able to criticize the powers of the industry and find a way. <br /><br />Me, I'll be over at my website, working on comics, evolving and growing. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124286#Comment_124286</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=124286#Comment_124286</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:53:03 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Brendan McGinley</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ And the last thing I want to add: I'm very grateful to all the retailers who did order, and the comic press and bloggers who gave it a spot and some time, all the friends who took a look and passed it on. It's a tough market, but the people in it make it worth doing. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=128100#Comment_128100</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=128100#Comment_128100</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:28:41 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>davebaxter</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ That really sums it up nicely, Brendan.  Agreed on all counts - it's a crying shame indie books can't get the retail support they need, but "Retail support" is just a sly way of saying "reader support" without blaming readers.  80% of the people who are horrified at Diamond's machinations and feel bad about the tough luck of indie books, are folks who <em >don't buy</em> indie books.  And that's the thing right there - retail shoppers aren't really most indie books' audience, so why struggle so hard to change minds?  Just find the venue where your readers ARE.  Bryan Lee didn't create SCOTT PILGRIM right out the gate, and nobody knew who the hell he was until he did.  Success always seems sudden and simply in retrospect, but that's only because we weren't paying attention to the poor toiling struggling artists before said success.  Wow, this is almost incoherent - anyway, good rant! --Dave B. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Diamond Raises Minimums</title>
		<link>http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=128811#Comment_128811</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4783&amp;Focus=128811#Comment_128811</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:54:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<author>Lucifal</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[ <blockquote ><strong >Kosmopolit </strong><br /> I'd say "small press" is any publishing company that isn't a full-time job for the publisher. </blockquote><br />I'm full-time on <a href="http://www.murkydepths.com" >Murky Depths</a>. I'm small press.<br /><br />We've just joined Haven as Diamond US won't take us and, in any case, we'd loose money on every copy with their hefty cut.<br /><br />Murky Depths #7 is in February Previews UK. ]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>