I don't really have an opinion on Nick Spencer. I haven't read enough of his material to form one, although what I have read did not inspire me to read more.
However, his recent Twitter rant against DC is the rant of someone with rudimentary maths skills and pretty poor understanding of business.
He states that a $1 price drop requires a 25% increase in sales to break even. And with 20% returns, most titles are therefore doing worse than they were in the New52.
But, his own source of data clearly contradicts that:
16/ 26 titles show an increase in sales over 1 year ago. 14 of those have more than a 25% increase. 9 of the 14 are shipping twice monthly.
That's a significant increase in cash flow - the lifeblood of a business.
Now, assuming for a moment that there's credibility to the 20% return rate. As far as I know, that's a totally unverified number, but it's not entirely unreasonable.
That's a variable rather than fixed cost. With economies of scale in play, printing an extra 20,000 copies of a 100,000 print run book does not in any way, shape or form equate to a 20% increase in cost.
Unless you've got a really crappy supply base, and that's really unlikely in DC's case.
What does a significant increase in cash flow less a marginal increase in cost give you again?