Diamond Distribution Screwing Small Press?

Above, Little Shoppe of Horrors had their legs cut off by Diamond Distribution.

Diamond Distribution Screwing Small Press?

by Armand Vaquer

Diamond Distribution, the biggest and who also practically monopolizes the distribution of large & small press comic books and periodicals has announced a new policy, one that could spell the end to small press publications.

According to Publishers Weekly.com:

Diamond Distribution, the largest and practically only North America distributor of periodical comics, is in the process of rolling out a few new business processes, and the results could be a very different landscape for comics publishing.

In a change that will have a far greater impact, according to numerous reports, Diamond is raising its benchmark for products it will carry from $1500 to $2500. (Simon) Jones (of Icarus Comics) has the clearest explanation of this change, (although he later amends perhaps the most key point of all) but the short version is that unless orders to Diamond on a product are consistently greater than $2500 at wholesale, Diamond will no longer carry the product.

From the New York Times:

Is this the end of independent comic books?

That was the fear around the comics blogosphere last week when word spread of a policy change from Diamond Comic Distributors, the world’s dominant distributor of English-language comic books. The company has decided to raise the minimum advance order it needs from comic-book stores before it will agree to distribute a title. The figure, called the purchase order benchmark, has increased to $2,500 from $1,500.

It may seem like a minor matter, but this is life or death for many small, struggling comic book companies.

Diamond is the distributor of G-FAN magazine, the magazine I contribute to, and it was noticed by David, one of the owners of Classic Horror Film Board, that G-FAN wasn't listed in Diamond's current Previews magazine (of upcoming new product). He is concerned that G-FAN, like Little Shoppe of Horrors magazine, may fall victim of this new policy. G-FAN publisher J. D. Lees says, "I'm nowhere close to being under their profitability cut-off."


Above, G-FAN is in 'safe' territory.

Unless Diamond relents (and goes back to its $1,500 former threshold) or another distributor steps in to pick up the small press publications, it appears that the "little guy" is getting screwed.

Go here to read the full article.

ADDENDUM: Tom Spurgeon at The Comics Reporter has this to say about the policy change at Diamond:

I think Diamond's decision was wrong.

I think there are a lot of complications.

I agree with many of you that Diamond has the right to make the best business decisions they can. I remain unconvinced, however, that this is a good decision. The numbers are too vague, the policy implications are too vast and undependable. I hate to say it, but I'm not even sure the logic presented as the basis for the necessity of these actions holds up. A four percent loss following years with significant gains doesn't particularly sound to me like it's totally freaking time to cut staff and change policy. I assume there are other factors involved. I mean, does anyone out there really believe that we're in a recession that somehow forces industry behemoths like Diamond and DC to fire people and change policies while mid-sized publishers pick up projects and tiny boutique publishing houses hold pat? That's one remarkably capricious, Robin Hood-like recession. It's also difficult to argue convincingly, as I think Diamond has been if I'm understanding what's out there, that you're losing money per a certain kind of item and yet you've somehow lost more money recently during a time of selling fewer items. When I was a teenager, that was the kind of two-pronged logic that got me grounded a lot.

J. D. Lees, editor and publisher of G-FAN sent me this message concerning this blog:

I really object to the characterization of Diamond "screwing" small press publishers. Last time I checked, Diamond was a profit-oriented business as opposed to a charitable organization. If they need to raise their limit to cover their costs, it's no one's concern but theirs. Publishers don't have a right to have their work distributed, it has to attract a large enough readership. According to the cover price, Little Shoppe of Horrors must be selling fewer than 500 copies through Diamond. If and when G-FAN drops to that level, I'd have to question whether there was enough interest to keep putting it out. But I certainly wouldn't accuse Diamond of "screwing me" because they refuse to keep me on even though I'm a money loser for them. - J.

I don't necessarily disagree with Mr. Lees's views, but it seems to me that the timing for this change is totally off. For one thing, we're in the midst of a horrendous recession (maybe things aren't so bad in Canada where Mr. Lees operates). No doubt small press publications are hurting. To saddle them with this new policy at this time seems to be a case of adding insult to injury.
This is akin to the wacko legislature in Sacramento wanting to add more taxation to an already overburdened and overtaxed taxpayer as they currently want to do. Raising taxes during a recession is insanity.

In normal times, I don't think the objections would be quite so strong. In the long run, it would also benefit the small press publishers by motivating them to increase their readership to meet the new threshold. They would benefit as would Diamond by increased sales.

The increase from $1,500 to $2,500 seems to be too much too soon in these economic conditions. It would be better if they made the increase in increments. They could raise the threshold by $500 to $2,000 in, say, three months from now. This would be a reachable goal for the small press as they would have some time to work to increase their numbers. Then, Diamond can announce they will increase the threshold to $2,500 six months from there. Again, it would give the small press publishers time to further increase their numbers to meet that second goal.

If the small press publishers still cannot attain those goals, that would fall into the last item in Mr. Lees's comments. Namely, they would have to question whether or not there's real interest "out there" to justify publishing that particular publication.