
There's an old episode of 3rd Rock From the Sun where John Lithgow's character decides he needs to be more mainstream and less eccentric. His plan essentially is to lose any shred of individuality he possesses in an attempt to fit in. This leads to him doing things like praising a movie by noting it is "the #1 movie in America", much to the chagrin of his date, who wants to actually discuss the quality of the flick they've just seen. Lithgow's dilemma is an old one - we all want to "fit in", even those of us who claim we don't - and at times we can let that desire cloud our judgment. It really shouldn't matter to Lithgow how well a movie is doing at the box office - what's important is whether *he* liked it. In attempting to fit in, he's allowing other people to tell him what to think.
It seems to me that more and more of the discussion of comics - particularly the DC and Marvel superhero lines - is dominated by discussions of what sells and what doesn't. Threads over the "month-to-month" analyses proffered at The Beat every month seem to be among the most heated around, as armchair pundits draw all sorts of conclusions about what sells and what doesn't, what's going to be cancelled, what creative team needs to be changed, and whatnot. That's bad enough, but lately that discussion seems to bleed into substantive discussions of the books as well. How many discussions of the merits of Ultimates 3 have been derailed with "well it sells a ton, so suck it haterz!"?
Most of those kinds of statements are made by total hypocrites, of course. People use sales figures to support their pre-existing biases. If they like a particular series, high sales are "proof" that the book is good. But when an internet-favorite series sells poorly, or someone's pet publisher drops in market share, the sales figures are suddenly irrelevant, and we're offered the nugget that "sales do not equal quality", as if that is news in a world where the Spice Girls made gazillions of dollars.
The increasing focus on sales figures wouldn't be nearly as appalling if the discussion was particularly intelligent. But it's not. In fact it's VERY dumb and getting dumber by the minute. First - let's establish a few key points.
1. The figures posted online are WRONG. Every single month - they're wrong. And not just in the "add 10-15% to every book and you'll get the real number" kind of wrong. Wrong as in Dead. Frickin. Wrong.
The stuff online is released through Diamond. It covers ONLY sales to the direct market. The direct market is a significant part of the comic industry, but it is not the whole industry. There are numerous other outlets - and sometimes they reflect the same trends as the direct market, and sometimes they do not. Gears of War #1 reportedly had a higher print run than either Secret Invasion #1 or Final Crisis #1 - but you'd never know it from looking at Diamond's figures. Archie actually does publish its sales figures, and almost all of its books are selling in the neighborhood of 100,000 per issue - numbers DC and Marvel consider huge successes. But they're selling in places other than your LCS.

2. The estimates online reflect sales to *retailers*, not customers. When a series drops by a few thousand copies, that does not mean it has "shed readers". It means retailers ordered fewer copies than of previous issues. Now, one reason for that MIGHT be that the book is losing readers, but another, equally likely, reason is that retailers simply overestimated demand for previous issues and are now correcting. Likewise, discussion that sales for Buxom Lass #342 must have been higher than #341 because "readers really responded well to that issue" is asinine and stupid - the orders were placed, and the figures set, long before any reader anywhere had read the issue.
3. One cannot draw conclusions about the financial health or weakness of a company based on sales figures OR market share. The market is not the same size every month. It grows some months and shrinks in others. Would you rather have 40% of a 150,000 market, or 45% of a 120,000 market? I'll take the former, thanks.
In order to determine whether a company is making money, you have to know how much revenue it's taking in, AND how much it's spending. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that we know how much revenue an issue generates (which we don't) - we have NO information about cost structures and such. Nor do we need that info, and frankly it's no one's business except the publisher and its shareholders. Thus the profit calculation is impossible to perform. People who make proclamations about this company or that company losing money have no clue what they're talking about, and deserve to be mocked mercilessly.
To some extent it's human nature to draw comfort from the fact that something you like is selling well. It's validation of a sort, I suppose, to know that others agree with you that something is good. It's also comforting to know that the thing you like will probably continue to exist, if a market is shown to exist for it. But all the publisher-centric discussion - "YES! 47% market share for Marvel! Take THAT, DC!", or vice-versa, is idiotic. It's. Not. A. Race.
And just to add a little historical perspective - Marvel was outselling DC at the time it went into bankruptcy. Take that in for a moment. Marvel as a company *failed* while it was #1. DC at #2, and Image at #3, were both healthier than Marvel at a time when Marvel outsold them both. Crossgen's market share was significantly higher than, say, Avatar's or Ait/ PlanetLar's - yet CG is gone and the others are still around. Isn't it just possible that there's more to it than just capturing market share?
Further, I'm a big believer that speculation about unhealthy books exacerbates their peril and hastens their demise. People don't jump onto titles they think are about to get cancelled. DC and Marvel have always waited until the last minute to announce cancellations, because they know that as soon as they do, sales will drop. There are decades worth of empirical evidence on this point. If you enjoy a book, buy it and pimp it - but when you embark on a "save X" campaign, you're just highlighting than X needs saving, and that will run people off, not bring them in.

But at the end of the day, for the luvva God can we just talk about whether books are good or bad or indifferent or whatever rather than viewing everything through the lens of inaccurate and widely misunderstood statistics? One of the best books I read this year was The Highwaymen from Wildstorm. It sold like (apparently) cherry-flavored herpes. I don't care. I liked it. It has a permanent spot on my bookshelf. Don't bother me with talk of marketing strategies or sales figures, because I just don't care. I'll buy what I like, you buy what you like, and let's let the market take care of the rest.
Oh, and internets - stop discussing sales figures unless you actually understand what they mean and what they don't mean. Thanks.