Talk:Direct market

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not direct marketing[edit]

As a brief reading of the article indicates, this is not the same thing as Direct marketing, so I've removed the merge tag. Tverbeek 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Direct market' a proper noun?[edit]

I (ike9898) moved this article from 'Direct Market' to 'direct market', but at least one user believed that the original title was correct. Please weigh in so we can get a consensus on this issue:

I created the article Direct Market, capitalized the way it was, with Wikipedia's naming standards in mind. It is a proper noun, routinely (although admittedly, not always) capitalized, referring to a specific distribution network in a particular industry. That is, it's not an article about "direct markets" or about "a direct market", but about "the Direct Market". Tverbeek 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree about 'direct market' being a proper noun. Isn't the direct market really just a specific manner of distributing comic books? By your logic wouldn't we also capitalize newsstand distribution system? I won't make any further changes along these lines, until we get some input from other users.ike9898 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could go around in circles like the Internet vs. internet debate, which I don't want to do; it's not that big a deal. But I will point out that this isn't without precedent: Interstate Highway System, for example, is capitalized. The Direct Market is a distinct thing, of which there is only one, and it is often capitalized in formal discussion of it (less often when used as an adjective), as in these recent articles: Brian Hibbs' "Tilting at Windmills" Tom Spurgeon's "The Comics Reporter", and older items by notable industry figures such as Chuck Rozanski's "Evolution of the Direct Market" Joey "ModernTales" Manley's blog. Tverbeek 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with a "Direct market" article that points just to comics, as the concept can be applied to virtually anything, and I know it is used for small automative constructors (although nobody calls it that - but buying directly from the constructor is the same concept as the original comic book direct market, which isn't the case now, since there is a middle-man, specifically Diamond Comics Distributors). I believe the article's correct name should be "Comic book direct sales market", with no capitals. Pc13 08:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article about a concept. It's an article about a specific, existing distribution and retail network. (Which is also why it's treated as a proper noun.) One of the guidelines for article naming is that it should be the shortest, most commonly used form of the subject's name, to facilitate wikilinking and searches. For example, the article about America's greatest living ex-president is titled "Jimmy Carter" rather than "James Earl Carter, Jr." even though the latter is more technically correct. If the automotive people used the same term, then some kind of disambiguation would be needed, but unless a naming conflict comes up, common usage is supposed to take priority. Tverbeek 12:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the article only discussing comics for now. If people in the wider world use this term, they will put their 2 cents in and either the article will have sections or we will create a dab page and multiple articles. I still think that the term shouldn't be a proper noun, but I'll go along with the opinion of a knowledgable third party. ike9898 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people in the wider world don't use this term, but it can theoretically be applied to any model of commerce where the producer sells directly to the retailer (ironically, the comic book direct market is now dependent on an intermediary). And I can agree with the article, as it stands, being called simply "direct market" although I don't believe capitalization is needed. The direct market isn't an entity, or an organisation, it's a system, a tool. When referring to it, we even need the definite article, further indication it is a noun. You could claim musical group names use the word "The" and their name is capitalized, but "The" is part of the group's designation and equally capitalized. And we wouldn't say "comic books in North America are sold throught The Direct Market". Pc13 08:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, "the" is not necessarily capitalized in band names; e.g. "the Rolling Stones" is common usage.) Regardless of whether you categorize it a "system" or an "organisation" or whatever, "the Direct Market" is its name. The phrase isn't merely a description, because - as you point out - it'd be inaccurate as a description. Names requiring the definite article in front of them are still proper nouns, such as "the Atlantic Ocean" or "the Upper Peninsula" or "the World Wide Web", "the Intracoastal Waterway", "the Bible Belt", or "the Third World". And I've already cited examples that "the Direct Market" is a common usage for this particular name. Tverbeek 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either this article should be moved back to Direct Market, or (what I'd prefer) all instances of this term in the article should be decapitalized.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this article covers[edit]

Rather than "North America and elsewhere in the market for English-language comics" would it be more correct to specify "comics published in the US and Canada"? Or something along those lines? I'm just thinking that this article probably does not apply to UK published comics, when they are sold to customers in the UK. Maybe it does apply to UK comics sold to US customers. Just asking, I don't personally know. ike9898 16:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right that UK retailers get UK comics through other channels. However retailers in the UK, Australia, etc. do get Marvel and DC books through Diamond, which is also the means of getting 2000AD in the Colonies, so I don't want to imply it's a North-America-only system. Tverbeek 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that UK comics distributed in North America by Diamond are available in other countries, through specialty stores that order through Diamond US. Pc13 12:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline[edit]

So, nothing on the decline of comic book shops around America, huh? BratmanGodzilla (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact--no references[edit]

The section titled "Impact" contains not a single reference. Criticized by whom? Argued by whom? Who are the "some" who "say"? And who says what the Direct Market was intended and not intended to do? Wikipedia is only as reliable as its references are.Matt Thorn (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direct market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Direct market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Direct market. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Dominant distribution and retail network"[edit]

According to the most recent report on the comics and graphic novel market from Comichron and ICv2, the book channel is now more than twice as large as the comic shop channel (the direct market). https://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales/industrywide/2021-industrywide.html The book channel sells $1.7 billion worth of product, while comic shops sell $705 million. However, I think it's probable that comic shops sell far more periodical comics (or "American comic books" as Wikipedia calls them), while the book channel sells mostly perfect-bound books. However, the report doesn't cite sales by both format and channel, it just aggregates the total sales for each separately.

Does anyone have a source, perhaps from a paid ICv2 account, that backs up the statement that the direct market is still the dominant distribution network for periodical comics? Or is there another way we could phrase the opening sentence to explain the significance of the direct market? Klintron23 (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a free ICv2 article from 2023 that by implication provides a reliable source for the "dominant distribution and retail network" claim. The article argues that the book channel could eventually come to challenge the direct market in periodical sales, the implication being that as of 2021 few book store even carried periodical comics at all. Klintron23 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Direct_market&oldid=1201549412"