Comics UK

I am not provoking you, or baiting you, I'm replying sensibly to points you have raised. It is true though that your most recent post is unbelievably spiteful and dismissive. Just because I won't lie down and let you steamroller all over me. I get the impression that no matter what any of us says, if you don't agree with us, you treat us as if we have the intelligence of a troglodite. You've had a go at colcool007, AndyB and me, all on the one thread. We don't need to provoke you, all we have to do is disagree with you, and then you and your paranoia will hang yourselves. Do please carry on, you haven't had a go at Al yet. I'm planning on withdrawing for a few hours of calm reflection. You should consider doing so soon too. In the meantime, could Raven or Phil or somebody, anybody, please get this thread back on track.

Kid Robson wrote:The unprecedented jump in price by 50p a while back tends to suggest that they were trying to compensate for lost revenue from falling sales. {...} I haven't called for The Beano to be returned to a previous state in order to satisfy my personal nostalgia. What I've said is that, because of the harsh realities of econmics, in order to keep the comic going and appeal to a larger readership, it might be wise of DCT to make the comic less expensive. One way of doing this would be to use cheaper paper, drop some colour, have fewer pages. etc.

Actually, that's not at all accurate. The Beano increased in price by 1/3 in the early 1970s, from 3p to 4p, and by 20% in the early 80s (from 10p to 12p), so such a rise now is hardly unprecedented. I agree that it was a crazy rise, but you have to remember that internal accountants in many businesses do not understand the link between price and falling demand - all they see is the bottom line, and that's the end of it. It makes for bad artistic decisions, and I've seen it in other businesses too.

As for wanting cheaper paper, dropping some colour and having fewer pages (not to mention a few reprints)... that is a very good description of returning the Beano to its pre-1993 state, or whichever year it went full colour. I'm not going to get into semantics with you, beyond remarking that "calling for" and "suggesting" have such an overlap of meaning that they are practically synonyms.

When decimal came in, it went from 4d to 2p (0% increase). In 1973, it rose to 3p (a 50% rise) and then to 4p in 1975 (a 33% rise) And by 1977, it was at 5p. By 1980, it was at 8p so in a mere decade, the Beano rose a whopping 300% and that did not kill it off. So saying that the latest price rise is an attempt to increase revenue despite falling sales seems to be pure tosh. Even Commando is now £2 an issue and it is 50% reprint.

Phoenix wrote:I am not provoking you, or baiting you, I'm replying sensibly to points you have raised. It is true though that your most recent post is unbelievably spiteful and dismissive. Just because I won't lie down and let you steamroller all over me. I get the impression that no matter what any of us says, if you don't agree with us, you treat us as if we have the intelligence of a troglodite. You've had a go at colcool007, AndyB and me, all on the one thread. We don't need to provoke you, all we have to do is disagree with you, and then you and your paranoia will hang yourselves. Do please carry on, you haven't had a go at Al yet. I'm planning on withdrawing for a few hours of calm reflection. You should consider doing so soon too. In the meantime, could Raven or Phil or somebody, anybody, please get this thread back on track.

Replying sensibly? Not in my view. And we wouldn't need to get back on track if you hadn't caused a detour. We were talking about whether weekly comics are doomed, yet you insist on interjecting with why (in your view) I can't be using the same criteria as an adult that I did as a kid to decide on whether I buy or don't buy a comic. You're also hijacking the thread to paint your own distorted picture of me in yet another complete disregard for the facts. As for having a go, one only has to look at previous threads to see which of the two of us is more guilty of that. Wasn't it you who said you wouldn't be involving yourself in any thread I'd introduced, or be responding to any comments I'd made on other threads? Or is that just wishful thinking on my part? Either way, it's a good idea, because whenever you pop up you cause strife.

Now, here's why you were wrong in your pointless, off-topic flight of fancy. Here's what you said: "I am trying to distinguish between the way a child responds to a comic and the way an adult does, and they are different, even if the child and the adult are the same person, separated by many years." That's one helluva a dogmatic statement and seems to me to be an assumption of that which you seek to prove. And as should be obvious to anyone, it ain't necessarily so. It can be and it might be in some circumstances, but that's different to being true in all circumstances. I, who am aware why I respond to certain things (while you aren't), know that when it comes to comics, in the main, I decide on which ones to buy (or not) just as I did when I was a kid. Is it funny, is it well-drawn, do I like it, can I afford it, etc. While it's true that there is a possibility that there may be, on a rare occasion, other (adult) factors involved (such as a percentage from a comic's sales going towards a good cause), they only apply (if at all) on specific and isolated instances and are not general principles on which I base all my comics purchases. In short, I repeat what I said earlier and you with your customary turgidity has failed to disprove: I decide on what or what not to buy as far as comics are concerned on (usually - the word with which you had so much difficulty) the same criteria as I did when I was a child. (You may argue that I'm bound to like different things now than then, but no - in the case of comics - I pretty well still like the same sort of things: Funny, good art, etc.)

What you are also overlooking in your needless over-analysis of what prompts my comic purchases, is that there are some things we respond to on an emotional level, not an intellectual one, so trying to assume that me, or anyone, has a reasoned, intellectual, logical, carefully thought out motivation for why we respond to things as we do is pointless because, when it comes down to it, it's all mere speculation which is outside the sphere of demonstration. I may now, as an adult, be able to articulate why I think D. D. Watkins is an artist-extrordanaire, which I probably couldn't do as a child - but the explanation is only a retroactive rationalisation of why I think I respond to his art as I do. It doesn't necessarily explain why I initially liked it as a child. And even if it does, it merely supports my assertion that I respond in the same way as a child and an adult.

Incidentally, this message just popped up in my inbox for my blog. Obviously from someone who is following events on the forum pretty closely and has a personal axe to grind. I usually delete them unread, but this one didn't go to my Spam file as is usually the case.


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE ONE AND ONLY MR VELVET...":

He'll Have To Go

The song that predicts your exit from the Comics forum if you carry on antagonising the bulk of the posters with your paranoid protests.

You have been warned.


I apologise to disinterested forum members for my comprehensive response to Phoenix's comments, but he seemed unable to recognise what was implicit in my earlier, briefer replies. Hopefully this response will satisfy him. ('Though I doubt it.)

Here's another one. Should I put it in another thread called 'Harassment by other forum members'?


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "THE ONE AND ONLY MR VELVET...":

Tall Tales, Short Tempers

That's you that is.

And it's 'uninterested' not 'disinterested' in "I apologise to disinterested forum members".

Too many English lessons skipped. But of course you're a Weegie, aren't you?

Not much longer now.


H'mm, someone with an overdeveloped sense of pedantry, it seems. And I meant 'disinterested', which means 'impartial'. Someone got it wrong again.

AndyB wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:The unprecedented jump in price by 50p a while back tends to suggest that they were trying to compensate for lost revenue from falling sales. {...} I haven't called for The Beano to be returned to a previous state in order to satisfy my personal nostalgia. What I've said is that, because of the harsh realities of econmics, in order to keep the comic going and appeal to a larger readership, it might be wise of DCT to make the comic less expensive. One way of doing this would be to use cheaper paper, drop some colour, have fewer pages. etc.

Actually, that's not at all accurate. The Beano increased in price by 1/3 in the early 1970s, from 3p to 4p, and by 20% in the early 80s (from 10p to 12p), so such a rise now is hardly unprecedented. I agree that it was a crazy rise, but you have to remember that internal accountants in many businesses do not understand the link between price and falling demand - all they see is the bottom line, and that's the end of it. It makes for bad artistic decisions, and I've seen it in other businesses too.

As for wanting cheaper paper, dropping some colour and having fewer pages (not to mention a few reprints)... that is a very good description of returning the Beano to its pre-1993 state, or whichever year it went full colour. I'm not going to get into semantics with you, beyond remarking that "calling for" and "suggesting" have such an overlap of meaning that they are practically synonyms.

Well, when you break it down to statistics, you appear to have a point. (Although it's a slightly misleading one.) However, The Beano has never upped it's price by 50p before so in that sense, it's unprecedented. Also, with most other price rises, wasn't there some compensating factor involved? More pages, more colour. whatever? Also, Andy, I was 'suggesting' possible courses of action that might help the comic in the long run, or to which the comic might have to resort in order to survive. It was for the purpose of kick-starting a discussion of ideas, but all it seems to have done is have you justifying every single decision which DCT have made in regard to The Beano. What do you suggest which might help preserve the comic in print form for future generations?

colcool007 wrote:When decimal came in, it went from 4d to 2p (0% increase). In 1973, it rose to 3p (a 50% rise) and then to 4p in 1975 (a 33% rise) And by 1977, it was at 5p. By 1980, it was at 8p so in a mere decade, the Beano rose a whopping 300% and that did not kill it off. So saying that the latest price rise is an attempt to increase revenue despite falling sales seems to be pure tosh. Even Commando is now £2 an issue and it is 50% reprint.

Yeah, Col, but you know there's a big difference between a comic going from 2p to 3p and £1.50 to £2. A quarter of £2 is a far higher amount than a third of 3p. Let's keep it real, eh? Statistics don't always portray the 'true' picture. So, in The Beano's relatively recent case, why such a drastic rise, then?

The point Colcool and I are both making is that DCT could have increased the cover price in 1/2p increments in the 70s, but didn't. 50p feels like a lot, and as I say, it is ridiculous, but in relative terms it is far from unprecedented.

That said, there is no denying that the price rise must surely be a quid pro quo for keeping the Beano the same size - the accountants would have presented an alternative of cutting the Beano's budget, reducing quality, page count, etc, which would have drastically reduced the Beano's attractiveness in a market saturated with colour magazines. It must surely have been a pragmatic approach that recognised that the Beano is still the cheapest in the market.

It is quite possible that the Beano doesn't make any money. D C Thompson is a large conglomerate these days with fingers in many pies. Given their structure it is quite feasible that it is somewhat subsidised. I know from past conversations that they love that comic and all it's heritage.

My six year old daughter has been reading her first Beano. Now I thought she would have got through it in a week but her life is full of a lot of other things. I'm realising that there is no need to get every issue (e.g. no serial).

AndyB wrote:The point Colcool and I are both making is that DCT could have increased the cover price in 1/2p increments in the 70s, but didn't. 50p feels like a lot, and as I say, it is ridiculous, but in relative terms it is far from unprecedented.

That said, there is no denying that the price rise must surely be a quid pro quo for keeping the Beano the same size - the accountants would have presented an alternative of cutting the Beano's budget, reducing quality, page count, etc, which would have drastically reduced the Beano's attractiveness in a market saturated with colour magazines. It must surely have been a pragmatic approach that recognised that the Beano is still the cheapest in the market.

Well, perehaps, Andy, but surely the fact that they didn't increase the price in increments during the '70s means that profits were extremely healthy and that they just didn't need to. And a 50p price rise in one go is ridiculous, as you say, but as it's the first truly ridiculous price rise in its history, surely that alone qualifies it as unprecedented?

However, on a more pertinent point, if, as you suggest, the reasons for the rise were to maintain its attractiveness on the shelves, then let me explain why I think it was still a mistake. Sales are slowly declining, which means that less people are buying it. Putting the price up in one fell swoop is more likely to deter regular readers from continuing with it, especially as, in a lot of cases, it's the parents who are footing the bill. Also, a higher price may well also deter potential buyers from picking it up. If the page count were reduced by even a modest 6 pages and some of the colour was dropped, those sort of changes, not being immediately apparent to casual browsers, would be less likely to deter them - and I don't feel that regular readers would be put off as much as a sudden 50p hike in price. (Allowing, of course, that such a course of action as I have described would impact on the cost of production.)

Now, of course, that's just one possible course of action, and not one to which you ascribe. I can see what you're saying and why you're saying it, but I feel that the best way to sustain the comic is to keep the price in check. I agree with you that it's the cheapest comic on the market, and in today's terms, offers relative value for dosh. But here's the catch, which I've mentioned before. There is a very real perception amongst parents, who could possibly be persuaded to buy the comic, that it's too dear - which is why they don't. That might be a misperception on their part, but that's how they feel.

Anyway, I think we've exhausted the topic and we're all basically just repeating ourselves now. Let's agree to disagree, rather than let those who are following a different agenda in this discussion stir the pot in pursuit of their own ends.

See? A happy ending, with no black eyes for anyone involved in a frank exchange of views.

Shiner wrote:It is quite possible that the Beano doesn't make any money. D C Thompson is a large conglomerate these days with fingers in many pies. Given their structure it is quite feasible that it is somewhat subsidised. I know from past conversations that they love that comic and all it's heritage.

My six year old daughter has been reading her first Beano. Now I thought she would have got through it in a week but her life is full of a lot of other things. I'm realising that there is no need to get every issue (e.g. no serial).

Very possibly, Shiner, but there's a cut-off point to that love, as The Dandy's fate demonstrates. Let's hope we're all worrying over nothing and that The Beano goes on forever, eh? Some of us may disagree on how the comic can be sustained (if it can), but it all springs from a desire to keep it going for as long as possible.

Kid Robson wrote:

colcool007 wrote:When decimal came in, it went from 4d to 2p (0% increase). In 1973, it rose to 3p (a 50% rise) and then to 4p in 1975 (a 33% rise) And by 1977, it was at 5p. By 1980, it was at 8p so in a mere decade, the Beano rose a whopping 300% and that did not kill it off. So saying that the latest price rise is an attempt to increase revenue despite falling sales seems to be pure tosh. Even Commando is now £2 an issue and it is 50% reprint.

Yeah, Col, but you know there's a big difference between a comic going from 2p to 3p and £1.50 to £2. A quarter of £2 is a far higher amount than a third of 3p. Let's keep it real, eh? Statistics don't always portray the 'true' picture. So, in The Beano's relatively recent case, why such a drastic rise, then?

How can you say a rise of 50% is a lower rise than a set sum of cash which comes in at a 33% rise. You originally said that this was unprecedented. I have demonstrated by the use of figures and previous rises that this is not so.

You seem determined to quote facts and figures to back up your statements, but when the facts do not back up your statements, then you say they are not telling the true story. How can you say that the facts do not portray the true story all the time?

And as to keeping it real, I am by only using easily verifiable facts such as the price in the year we went decimal was 4d and it changed to 2p.

and indeed, 4d to 2p was a price cut.

Kid, I would learn some basic mathematics before you try to lecture us on the significance of a 33.3% increase in price. Colin and I have both debunked that nonsense, and you are lucky that Phoenix hasn't also done so too.

Actually, what has just struck me is the cost of the summer promotional Beanos. Is £2.50 less than they were last year? I was once told that curiously the expensive Beanos with cover mounts sell better than the normal priced ones, which sounds ridiculous, but it's a fact - perhaps the idea is that by evening out the price over the year, the regular readers will keep buying as well as the "Ooh, tatty bling on the cover" occasional buyers.

I'll tell you why, Col. Or to be precise, I'll reiterate why. But first allow me to make an analogy. If I have £200 in my wallet and I give you £100, I've given you 50%. However, if I have £400 and I give you £150, I've only given you 37 and 1/2%. I've given you more money, but percentage-wise, it's less. So, while you have indeed shown that percentage-wise, The Beano has had higher rises, in actual money terms, none of them have been as high as 50p, which is why I regard it as unprecedented. Sure, it was only a 25% rise, but it was the heftiest yet in real terms, surely? That is why politicians very often resort to statistics, because it makes it easier to distort the true picture of events. I'm not suggesting that that's what you were trying to do, but it has much the same effect.

Andy, I'm been trying to be as nice as possible here, but I've just seen your comment and your hostility is crystal clear. Time for you to take a step back, I'd suggest. Your prejudices are protruding.

And as for cover-mounted comics selling better than non-cover-mounted, it may well be a fact in some instances, but is it a fact in all of them? Do they actually sell more, or just make more money because they cost more? Does it make any difference what the cover-attached tat is.? Does the comic with the best toy sell better that week (or month, or fortnight) than other comics with lesser cover toys? I for one gave up The Beano and Dandy when they charged for cover-mounted toys on the grounds that I wasn't going to pay more for junk I didn't want. (Of course, if I did want it, I'd stump up.) It might be a short-term fix (in some instances), but is it a long-term one? Before the trio jump on me, just asking.

AndyB wrote:and indeed, 4d to 2p was a price cut.

No, 2p = 5d, so it rose by a penny. However, it added 4 extra pages a few weeks later, from 16 to 20 pages.

Kid Robson wrote:I'll tell you why, Col. Or to be precise, I'll reiterate why. But first allow me to make an analogy. If I have £200 in my wallet and I give you £100, I've given you 50%. However, if I have £400 and I give you £150, I've only given you 37 and 1/2%. I've given you more money, but percentage-wise, it's less. So, while you have indeed shown that percentage-wise, The Beano has had higher rises, in actual money terms, none of them have been as high as 50p, which is why I regard it as unprecedented. Sure, it was only a 25% rise, but it was the heftiest yet in real terms, surely? That is why politicians very often resort to statistics, because it makes it easier to distort the true picture of events. I'm not suggesting that that's what you were trying to do, but it has much the same effect.

There may be lies, damn lies and statistics, but that is the sort of argument that a right winger makes when they try to argue that everyone should pay a flat rate of tax because then it would be fair, yet for a poor taxpayer to pay 25% tax could be the difference between surviving and bankruptcy, but a rich taxpayer isn't going to have any significant effect on their ability to do much other than put money in the bank whether they are taxed at a flat rate of 25% or a marginal rate of 50%.

Thanks, Lew!