ABCs for Jan-Jun 2011 - disappointing results...

[kevf]

I honestly think the discussion of the styles of artwork here is a red herring. Personally I like the newer innovative creators like Jamie Smart and the parody strips spearheaded by Nigel Parkinson's Harry Hill, and believe they are much more attractive to young readers than old-fashioned styles of strip, but I could well be in a minority.

The important factor is that we're discussing which comic strips will thrive in the comics market - when there isn't a comics market!

It's not like it was when we were kids, when comics publishers had a captive audience of kids who had to buy comics because there was nothing else of equal quality competing for their attention. In the 1960s and 1970s when there were a couple of hours of TV a day, which you could watch live and not record, or there were books without pictures, and that was it, comics were the most visually exciting entertainment available to kids (short of going outside and actually playing with actual other kids, but that's another story).

Since the advent of VHS & video games in the 80s, cable & satellite in the 90s, and the internet & CGI superhero movies in the last decade, we have seen the comics business lose the battle for kids hearts, minds, eyeballs and pocket money. In the UK.

In Japan comics have stayed vital and big business, for reasons we all wish we could work out and repeat ourselves. Black Butler, one of the few current manga titles with which I'm au fait (having helped present it with an Award at the Stan Lee Excelsior Awards in Sheffield this year) sells over half a million copies per volume and was adapted into an anime series within a year of release, but it made its name purely as a comic book. That suggests to me that kids will buy and read stories told in pictures on a printed paper page, if that comic strip story connects with them and is better than anything else around.

Quite why we've let comics die is a subject I debate endlessly. Was it just because movies and games are better and cheaper than comics? Then how do we explain Japan? Or even the French and American markets which, while smaller than their heyday, still manage to make a lot of creators a lot of money.

And how do we explain books? How do we explain the success of Harry Potter? Surely since the introduction of the radio 90 years ago, books have been obsolete. And since the BBC started adding pictures with this Television thing, doesn't it stand to reason that both books and the radio should be a thing of the past? And newspapers?

But somehow these obsolete forms of media cling on. It's only comics that have given up the ghost. And then only in the UK.

I do wish I knew the answer. And talking of changing the subject, Captain Clevedon No1 is on sale now: http://www.indyplanet.com/store/product ... ts_id=5844

Kev F

[Raven]

I honestly think the discussion of the styles of artwork here is a red herring. Personally I like the newer innovative creators like Jamie Smart and the parody strips spearheaded by Nigel Parkinson's Harry Hill, and believe they are much more attractive to young readers than old-fashioned styles of strip, but I could well be in a minority.

Nigel is an old school artist who draws with old school skill and craftsmanship, though, isn't he - and Jamie is a total orginal who's been successfully drawing in his own unique style for years (though some adults do seem to respond negatively to his style).

I think not taking the content of the comic into consideration when discussing this would be a tad weird, and the artwork styles are a part of that.

There were more than a couple of hours TV per day in the 70s, by the way (kids didn't just sit glued to the 'children's hour'), and there have always been lots of things competing for kids' attention. "Playing out" was indeed one of them!

If you look at copies of 30s-50s Boy's Own Papers, it's interesting to see just what a wide range of activities, hobbies and clubs kids used to divide their attention between (they cycled and youth hosteled, built portable radio receivers, were scouts, rambled, collected stamps, go-karted, were into radio-controlled models, fishing, air rifles, athletic sports, all sorts of things); so much competing for their attention, much of it outdoors, yet a time of very high comic sales, and when they read lots more (word heavy) books, too.

I think the idea that pre-video games and multi-channel TV children were a captive audience because they had nothing much to do can be a bit of a red herring itself.

In Japan comics have stayed vital and big business, for reasons we all wish we could work out and repeat ourselves. Black Butler, one of the few current manga titles with which I'm au fait (having helped present it with an Award at the Stan Lee Excelsior Awards in Sheffield this year) sells over half a million copies per volume and was adapted into an anime series within a year of release, but it made its name purely as a comic book.

I've hovered around this title and had the odd browse at Forbidden Planet, Kev, and it looks quite intriguing. Have you read it? Would you recommend it?

[kevf]

blah blah Black Butler blah blah

I've hovered around this title and had the odd browse at Forbidden Planet, Kev, and it looks quite intriguing. Have you read it? Would you recommend it?

It's not bad, state of the art, and gets better about halfway through, having kept me well baffled for the first 100 pages. It's not designed for me, nor should it be, but I can see how it's perfect for Japanese teenagers, and was the favourite among the 100-odd Yorkshire schoolkids who voted for it in the Stan Lee Excelsior Awards.

[Raven]

Ah, very much kids' stuff, then? Still, I quite liked the look of it.

[-MikeD-]

I honestly think the discussion of the styles of artwork here is a red herring. Personally I like the newer innovative creators like Jamie Smart and the parody strips spearheaded by Nigel Parkinson's Harry Hill, and believe they are much more attractive to young readers than old-fashioned styles of strip, but I could well be in a minority.

Nigel is an old school artist who draws with old school skill and craftsmanship, though, isn't he - and Jamie is a total orginal who's been successfully drawing in his own unique style for years (though some adults do seem to respond negatively to his style).

I think not taking the content of the comic into consideration when discussing this would be a tad weird, and the artwork styles are a part of that.

I think the reason we're still going around in circles endlessly boring each other with a discussion of art styles is simple - most of us still cling to an old fashioned idea that quality sells. If something is sufficiently good, if something is just amazing in a semi-mystical way beyond subjective considerations, it will find a market. Word of mouth is still the most powerful marketing.

I have no hesitation in recommending any Asterix volume to anybody - young or old - they're excellent. Similarly, I bang on about my love for The Moomins to anybody who will listen. As do many others. Years ago, we told everyone about Watchmen.

I suspect The Dandy isn't generating that kind of excitement, certainly not enough to aid a playground renaissance. I still think they need to incentivise creators into handing over their very best work, take their characters into new media and recognise the changing face of publishing. I like to think comics aren't dead, at least not if you define them by their content and not the medium.

btw - the first volume of Black Butler lies all but unread in my studio. I couldn't get into it...there's a whole heap of flaws in the storytelling. I really wish I could fathom it's success. I think it's a girl thing - or am I being sexist?

btw 2 - the adults who respond negatively to Jamie's style need to look again. And again. And again until they 'get it'...

[Little Squelchy Thing]

I don't doubt that the change of art style has alienated some, but I think the people it's alienating are some older readers, or parents. But that's sort of as it should be, isn't it? I can't think of many things that kids seek out that have 100% paternal approval, really. It's all part of growing up, discovering things that make your parents go 'what is THIS? This'd never do in my day...' And as I mentioned before, we can't keep relying solely on parent word-of-mouth to keep the comics going year after year, because with each generation we're getting less and less parents who would have read the title themselves in their youth. We can't rely on nostalgia as the only selling tool.

Kids are much more adaptable to changes then we seem to give them credit for, largely because to them they're not changes, they're things as they are now. And the art style in the comic now is a style they'd be used to seeing on TV as well, where such a kinetic, frenzied way of working has proven successful for such shows as Spongebob Squarepants, the Powerpuff Girls or Adventure Time....despite those shows being quite a different beast to the more 'traditional' or 'well crafted' humour toons of old, like the Warner Brothers output of the 40s onwards.

[Raven]

I don't doubt that the change of art style has alienated some, but I think the people it's alienating are some older readers, or parents. But that's sort of as it should be, isn't it? I can't think of many things that kids seek out that have 100% paternal approval, really. It's all part of growing up, discovering things that make your parents go 'what is THIS? This'd never do in my day...'

I think all these theories would be fine and, erm, dandy if the title was selling well, and its readers were sticking with it.

But ...

(By the way, I'm not sure the modern TV cartoons are anywhere near as frenzied as the vintage Bob Clampett/Tex Avery et al cartoons!

[Little Squelchy Thing]

I think all these theories would be fine and, erm, dandy if the title was selling well, and its readers were sticking with it.

But ...

(By the way, I'm not sure the modern TV cartoons are anywhere near as frenzied as the vintage Bob Clampett/Tex Avery et al cartoons!

All I know, from my own experience working on the title, is that the readers who are with us are loving the comic...I personally have had no end of emails, messages, fan art and stuff from happy, delighted readers. My cockles are warmed by the amount of times I've seen my characters appear on the letters page, drawn by readers who have taken to them, and I know the same goes for a lot of the other artists. I really do think the comic is great at the moment, and I think it does work, it's just finding the readers.


PS: I was referring to the art style of those shows...those toons I mentioned look very different to the classic stuff, yet still entertain kids far and wide.

[-MikeD-]

PS: I was referring to the art style of those shows...those toons I mentioned look very different to the classic stuff, yet still entertain kids far and wide.

Funny you should mention the Tex Avery and Warner Bros. cartoons. I was thinking about this earlier while sat at my art desk wondering why I'm trying to draw accurate superhero anatomy, when I could go the whole poor man's Bruce Timm route and get the job done in half the time.

I guess it's because I know that the Hanna-Barbara stuff, and later the Stimpy's, Spongbob's and Powerpuff's of this world are designed within the restrictions of the animation process..time v. money. When I'm drawing a strip, I have a different set of restrictions. Maybe I should consider the potential to spawn a hit animated show...£££££

And congrats on your fan mail*, Andy. You're not under attack here - personally, I can see where your style is coming from and I'm pleased it's successful for you.

* I only ever got one email from someone I didn't know when Bone-O was helping the comic jettison readers. It was from some irate cat owner...maybe the missing seven thousand were all cat owners...

[paw broon]

I find myself in agreement with most of what's been said here and, in particular. with KevF. Hard to get an argument round here.
I must declare that I do not buy or read Dandy (or Beano). I tried them a while ago and they weren't for me, perhaps because they aren't meant for someone as old. However, I passed on a couple of issues of Dandy to the wee boy across the road, who's about 5 or 6 and his mother told me he was frightened by the Harry Hill character and he has since evinced no desire to read them again. He seems to like Ben 10 and Spiderman.
As to why comics lost their appeal in the U.K. but are still performing relatively well in other countries, I think that, even when there were lots of titles and styles available in the 50's and 60's, they were looked down on by many adults incl. my parents. They were something that they saw that I enjoyed reading but which they were sure I would grow out of as I got older. Noses were looked down. Fortunately that didn't happen.
Whereas, in France, Italy, Japan, USA, comics seemed to be part of everyday life and in America especially, were consumed by G.I's. In parts of Europe and Japan it is normal to still find adults and children reading their choice of comic in public. Comics here were a private thing for adults and were certainly considered childish (and dangerous) by many. They were certainly portrayed as such in some British films. Millions were printed and sold here. They were in every newsagent; in pubs, in Woolies, on market stalls. But they were bought reluctantly and consumed by adults furtively for fear of being considered a bit Haigs.
But there is truth in the theory that other things are nowadays more attractive to chidren and young people and that hard earned cash is being spent on games, phones etc. rather than comics. Money is tight - comics suffer. Used to be the other way round - when times were tough, comic sales flourished because they were a very cheap bit of escapism and entertainment. Much like cinemas.
In Europe, it's not that long ago that Dylan Dog was selling close to 1 million a month.
There have been 2 films and a lot of the Sergio Bonelli line is doing well. But these comics are not for children. There is a diverse selection of titles for all ages, same in France, and in the USA.
After all that waffle, I'm still not sure where it went wrong. Perhaps, as a nation, we thought that "good" literature was the goal. Nowadays it's electronic gadgets.
Children, on the whole, don't seem interested in 2D figures doing silly things on a page, no matter how funny. Nor will they be interested in modern versions of the Steel Claw or Stoogie if they are on a printed page (now, Swan had titles that I remember seeing adults reading). On an e-reader or phone though? Hmmmmmm.

[starscape]

Lew Stringer said...
As someone mentioned to me the other day, it's a bit suspicious that sales of The Dandy appear to have dropped exactly half when it went from fortnightly to weekly.

Is there a expert on statistics around to explain this bizarre coincidence?

I'm sure some readers did hate the changes, but it seems a bit odd that despite The Dandy lowering its cover price from £2.50 to £1.50, filling its pages with new comic strips, and having the best distribution it's had for years, that it'd lose HALF of its readers.

I'm not sure what period these figures cover and how exactly they are calculated. Could it be these figures entail the end of the fortnightly period combined with the beginning of the weekly?

If so, it's possible that the figures are being calculated on the basis of a weekly, rather than a split between weekly and fortnightly, i.e.
the first month sells 30,000 fortnightly issues/month = 2 x 15,000
The second sells, say, 40,000 weekly issues/month = 4 x 10,000.
Combined that would give 30k + 40k/2 = 35,000 per month = around 7,500 a week.

Therefore, on those calculations, the Dandy has dropped from the previous 15,000 per issue (assuming no drop between the last sales figures of the fortnightly and the first month of this) to 7,500 per issue. Yet in reality, fortnightly sales are up (1 x 15,000 against 2 x 10,000), as are monthly sales (40k as opposed to 30k).

I've no idea if this is anything to do with it (and before the usual suspects start, I know it's not over two months - this is an example) or what period these figures cover but it might mean waiting for the next round of results to really understand what's happening.

As it is, there seems to be a previous monthly sales of 2 x 15000 = 30,000, against current figures of 4 x 7,500 = 30,000. Stable sales but more expenses.

Edit to add: Ah, I see that doesn't seem to be the case as the Dandy was relaunched late 2010. Back to the drawing board.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Even Tex Avery knew when to use restraint, though, in his vintage animations! Earlier animation had variable pacing leading up to climaxes , and the result of his best films was often unexpected and breathtaking. Vintage animation also had infinitely stronger personalities than what we see today. Or rather, the top personalities of the day wipe the floor with today's contenders.

Stuff like Spongebob Squarepants is strikingly designed, but often it's like a series of Avery 'takes' or extremes, one after the other, with no build-up or structered payoff: it's straining for effect that is very heavily handed in many cases. Avery never really used strong characters, but even his extreme animations used some characterization and personality, which often is completely absent from modern cartooning, either in animation or comics.

The lack of personality coupled with overdone extremes in body language and behaviour is a modern cartoon shortcoming in a lot of modern cartoon graphics. It's similar to the sum total of Japanese monster flicks from Toho in the 60s: bizarreness for the sake of it, which doubtless draws a committed cult following, but goes over the head of most punters.

[felneymike]

Black Butler

Wierdly enough I was looking at this the other day too! Mainly because of it's time period and setting. Mind you I was attracted to the first book of D Gray Man for the same reason (luckily getting it for £1.50) and it turned out to be "just another" shonen battle manga. They're all the same!

Anyway I looked into a Dandy subscription, and in case there's people here (like me) who don't get it very often thay may be surprised at the price, it works out at a pound an issue! And you get 15 issues per sub so "IT WERE ONLY 15 POUND A MONTH!"... Except acually it's 15 pound for much more than a month. I'll be taking one out as soon as my pay goes in!

[Little Squelchy Thing]

I guess it's because I know that the Hanna-Barbara stuff, and later the Stimpy's, Spongbob's and Powerpuff's of this world are designed within the restrictions of the animation process..time v. money. When I'm drawing a strip, I have a different set of restrictions. Maybe I should consider the potential to spawn a hit animated show...£££££

Oh yes, it's true that there are financial considerations with animation, but I'd argue that the look is still generated by what the creator dreamed up, and their designs. I'm speaking as having spent a couple of years being lucky enough to work with an animation studio, and there wasn't really anyone stomping about demanding everything be simplified to think about the budget...it just came from the originator working with designers and directors. I wasn't told to simplify my designs for my project, they just worked from them and made them look even nicer, which was good!

And congrats on your fan mail*, Andy. You're not under attack here - personally, I can see where your style is coming from and I'm pleased it's successful for you.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to imply that I was under attack...I was just using my own personal 'evidence' to show that kids were enjoying stuff. I can only speak for myself, but I get the impression that other artists have had a similar response.

Stuff like Spongebob Squarepants is strikingly designed, but often it's like a series of Avery 'takes' or extremes, one after the other, with no build-up or structered payoff: it's straining for effect that is very heavily handed in many cases. Avery never really used strong characters, but even his extreme animations used some characterization and personality, which often is completely absent from modern cartooning, either in animation or comics.

The lack of personality coupled with overdone extremes in body language and behaviour is a modern cartoon shortcoming in a lot of modern cartoon graphics. It's similar to the sum total of Japanese monster flicks from Toho in the 60s: bizarreness for the sake of it, which doubtless draws a committed cult following, but goes over the head of most punters.

And yet, despite it not (in your view) being as well crafted as other work, I think there's little dispute that Spongebob has become a HUGE hit. That's kinda what I'm saying here, I don't think The Dandy's problems can be dismissed because it looks modern and different, because there's plenty of instances where kids have really taken to that style, including those kind enough to let us artists know they're enjoying the strips.

I think it's more a problem of getting the comic into as many kids hands as possible, and shouting out about it from the rooftops.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I draw cartoons myself, Little Squelchy, and I personally enjoy drawing over-the-top extreme stuff. But I don't want to draw it all the time.......I'd rather try and put over other aspects as well as the 'in-yer-face' stuff.