I am very late to this discussion. I recall when JB left X-Men to go to FF. I thought it was a mistake. FF was a lame title (my opinion before I ever saw any of Stan and Jack's run) that was a step down for JB. He made me a fan and proved me wrong. Then he created Alpha Flight and made it a hit. (A claim no other artist can claim. Mignola and Jim Lee included.) He then moved to Superman which was another "lame" book in my opinion. (I was a mean kid.) He made it cool and popular. Then when he moved back to Marvel and started doing "B-List" books I was then used to the idea that Byrne would go to a title that needed a boost or create a new series that would help Marvel or DC's bottom line. X-Men and the others were selling well. Moving JB back into one of those books might not have helped Marvel increase sales across the board. But having him do smaller selling books like West Coast Avengers could. Plus by creating new series like She-Hulk and Namor it also helped Marvel across the board.

Erik Larsen has done the same thing. He and the momentum of Image made Savage Dragon a hit in the early 90's. He came back to Marvel and DC and worked on Defenders and Aquaman. I never looked at that as any step down. I thought that he was adding his name to titles that may not be a big seller and hope to make them rise into another hit.

I find the approach of using ones star power to help out a smaller title more admirable than just riding the wave of popularity. Which is easier to maintain if you move from hot title to hot title. I would not, however, call it a step down. It's the comic book version of Pay It Forward. I'm actually shocked when someone like Erik, who has done the same thing in the comic business, make such a claim.

Marvel was listed recently as one of the top companies in terms of licensing and branding of their IP.  Not sure if they'll ever be at where Disney is, but they seem to be making strides in diversifying the outlets for their products.

If you look at the Vertigo books over at DC, the tpbs earn more than the single issues.  So the individual issues are basically loss leaders.

Or is it wrong to apply to Larsen's work the same "rules" he applies to others?

Chris: It might be a bit of a shock to the system to those 75,000 but most will move over to the trades if they really want to continue reading.  Although it's a different medium, people have made the change from Vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD to Digital.  

It's all music. 

***

If you look at the Vertigo books over at DC, the tpbs earn more than the single issues.  So the individual issues are basically loss leaders.

***

The test isn't how their growth happens to be now, but in the long run. They had a couple hit movies.  So did Lionsgate, CastleRock, Orion, New World, and a long long list of other movie studios that are now bankrupt. Not every Marvel movie is going to do Iron Man business-- and every one that tanks will effectively ruin that property.  No one wants to buy Daredevil dolls and Punisher toys.

Disney was always diversifying -- not just its list of characters and properties, but its way of exploiting the wholesome "DISNEY" label.  The invention of the theme-park really saved the company, but none of that would have been possible if Disney didn't fiercely protect its brand, its "on-model" designs and writing, its all-ages approach to the market, and a lot of other horse-sense which Ma***l has seen as "unnecessary concerns".

Marvel's relatively short-term success does not impress me because they don't seem to know where they are going, why their brands have endured this long, and what will keep them appealing in the long run.

I think their tolerant embrace of "rose growers" speaks to their judgment.  Its a dance with the devil, not a business plan.