FirstIssuespecial11-00FC

Here’s an honest question: do people ever fall for this?

Avengers24NOWCover

At a quick glance, that’s the first issue of new series, right? The number 1 is the largest number on the cover, after all. But then, down in the right corner, hides the book’s actual issue number. What’s even better is how this book was presented by Marvel at NYCC:

Avengers24NOWSlide

HUGE #1, itty bitty actual issue number.

Everyone loves to get in on the ground floor of things, so it’s natural that there’s a fascination with first issues. But it’s pretty spectacular that half of Marvel “All-New Marvel Now” campaign is fake first issues.

Look at all the first issues! ...waitasec...

Look at all the first issues! …waitasec…

The whole thing reminds me of this book from the ‘90s:

Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_Vol_1_17

Just take in the splendor of that cover art for a moment.

“1ST ISSUE of a Brand New Era!” directly above – and I mean just on top of – the actual issue #17. Slap this book in a polybag, add some foil and a blurb calling it a collector’s item, and it’s the ‘90s in a nutshell.

Similarities to times gone by notwithstanding, it’s hard to argue with the short-term success of first issues. History has shown that a new #1 is accompanied by a sales bump, an obvious win for the publishers. Whether those increased sales stick around is where the quality of the book comes into play.

In a recent interview, Marvel’s editor-in-chief, Axel Alonso, talked a bit about issue numbering and adopting ‘season’ formats for series. In describing their experimentation with numbering, he said:

In a world of where characters created on the comic book page pop up on the silver screen, in video games, on TV, we’re always looking to drive people to the comic books where it all began. And for the layperson, seeing “Daredevil” #1 on the shelf is a lot friendlier than, say, “Daredevil” #34. Apologies to fans whose long boxes sport a few more cardboard dividers, but the most important thing – always – is the story. That the story entertains, provokes, educates – or all of the above. When we launch, say, “Iron Fist: The Living Weapon”,” we hope the amazing cover art and the big #1 on the cover provide a big welcome mat for readers who know [the character] and those who don’t.

It got me wondering: do new #1s and regular relaunching of titles really bring in new readers? When I say ‘new readers’ here, I’m not talking about people who already hit up their LCS once a week/month. I’m talking about those magical creatures that exist outside of comics shops, the non-monthly comics reading public. Does it really work?

Let’s imagine a hypothetical. The hypothetical is that Marvel launches a new Wolverine title (actually, this is not so hypothetical, as Marvel is getting ready to relaunch that very title). Wolverine #1 hits stands and people just gobble it up. For whatever reason – let’s say Wolverine dies in it – it’s a huge hit, gets mainstream media attention, the works, and people who’ve never set foot in a comic shop flock there to buy it and it sells out in minutes. This is a best-case scenario for the publisher – non-comics readers checking out their product.

Imagine that you’re one of those non-comics readers who read Wolverine #1 and loved it to pieces, and you want to know what’s next. So you go back to the comic shop and you ask for Wolverine #2. And this is what they show you:

Wolverine2RuckaWolverine2GuedesWolverine2Davis

Those are all Wolverine #2. All perfectly viable options to you because you are a non-comics reader. You don’t know the difference between volumes, or pay attention to who the creative team is. You just know that you read Wolverine #1 and you want to read more.

(Surprise! You’re actually looking for the Wolverine #2 that isn’t even out yet. Not that you, as a non-comics reader, would even know the difference.)

Wolverine2Stegman

Tweaking the hypothetical a bit, say you actually paid attention to who the creative team was and want to read more of their work on that title. With some books like Daredevil and, to a lesser extent, Captain Marvel and Wolverine, those books are relaunching soon with the same creative teams. I can understand relaunching a title when there’s a creative team change. I don’t like it, but I can understand it. But particularly with Daredevil, that book is still going to be written by Mark Waid and drawn by Chris Samnee (Captain Marvel and Wolverine are changing artists, but retaining their writers – CM already changed artists at least once during its initial 16-issue run, with nary a relaunch in sight). It’s not a new series – it’s a direct continuation of their current run. No question on that one – they’re relaunching for the sake of a #1.

Daredevil1

The constant relaunching of titles has the potential to be a nightmare for new readers who are trying to get into a series but who instead either find a nearly-impenetrable system of different volumes and just give up, or end up buying the wrong second issue and having no idea what’s going on…and just giving up. The result is the same. For regular comics customers it’s no big deal – at this point we’re used to it. But for the so-called new readers that publishers are after, it just doesn’t work.

That wasn’t always the case, though. There was a time when this method would have worked perfectly and avoided any potential confusion altogether. That time was when comics were sold on newsstands, in grocery and drug stores, before direct sales and a back-issue market ever existed. And yes, there are still some non-comic shop outlets that stock monthly comics – not that Marvel is interested in them, having suspended distribution to at least one large bookstore chain within the past year.

I realize that these publishers – I’m picking on Marvel, but nearly everyone except maybe Archie Comics is guilty of the first issue obsession – are in this business to make money, and that they’ll do it in whatever way they can, be it by Loki-style trickery, confusion, or (god forbid) strong storytelling. If they’re interested in making comics as accessible as possible, though, perhaps they should adopt a mini-series format, where each ‘arc’ of a series is its own separate miniseries, with a distinct title and discrete numbering. That’s basically the trade paperback system that actually does work in the bookstore market.

Whatever publishers choose to do, it’s not revolutionary to say that comic book numbering is a total mess – I’ve barely touched on the “.1” issues, or the series that renumber for an issue and then go back to their previous numbering (another move Alonso discusses in the aforementioned interview). For the new readers that publishers are working so diligently to bring in, let’s hope they’re willing to try and make sense of the numbering in order to find the quality storytelling that frequently hides behind it.