How could the Dandy save itself?

[Raven]

You make it sound as if Egmont came along and robbed a generation of a comics industry. Not the case. Comics had been dying for years and the fact is that "traditional" comics such as Tiger, Whoopee, Victor, Topper, TV Comic etc had reached a natural end, as all comics eventually end. Most of the new comics they came up with didn't survive for long, - Wildcat, Nipper, Speed, etc. That format and tone of comic had become as outdated as the comics of the golden age.
Lew

It may well have been partly the case, Lew. I recall hearing that a *lot* of money and time had been spent on looking into new title launches, and that it was quite a shock when Egmont had no interest. Yes, the traditional style seemed to be running its course (though Beano still follows it) but Oink had previously been a big success, pushing humour comics in a freer, looser, more modern direction and Oh No!! tested positively, too. Nipper and Speed were too much in the older tamer format. New titles would have had to be as exciting as 2000AD had been in 1977, but the new owners pulled the plug.

I just think it's not so simple that there was a mass exodus of kids away from comics for the reason that people often cite: technology, video games, etc. Japan was always way ahead of us in high tech entertainment but comics there continue to sell in their millions, alongside video games. A different country but an interesting example of how the two can exist side by side. There were several factors involved in the UK industry changing the way it did, some being to do with companies no longer wanting to invest or take risks or just not seeing high enough returns.

Personally, I still see the move towards a mostly magazine format - for a while there were quite a few younger kids titles with as little as 4 pages or so of strip in - to be predominantly a cost cutting move, not a natural evolution. Though comics and comic-mags could certainly have existed side by side.

[NP]

And by extension other people should be able to freely express their own opinions too, surely?

I'm not the one suggesting others should refrain from commenting, you are, so tell me, are we allowed to freely express our opinions now?

Irony of the combination of those sentences presumably unintended?

There is no irony intended or otherwise. DCThomson are still publishing comics; we are discussing their future, not IPC who are not publishing comics and therefore have no future. Careful reading of others' posts might be a better use of time rather than invention.

[Raven]

I'm not the one suggesting others should refrain from commenting, you are, so tell me, are we allowed to freely express our opinions now?

I'm not quite sure how you've read this. In fact, this is turning quite surreal. You're welcome to say whatever you like, positive or critical. You're the one who told people to just go and read something else if they don't like something. I suggested they feel free to talk about why they don't like it.

There is no irony intended or otherwise. DCThomson are still publishing comics; we are discussing their future, not IPC who are not publishing comics and therefore have no future. Careful reading of others' posts might be a better use of time rather than invention.

The thread had actually broadened to be discussing more than just D C Thomson's future, and we were also looking at what we might learn from history, but let's us two not persist as I don't really see it leading anywhere, or to anything but headaches.

[Lew Stringer]

Yes, the traditional style seemed to be running its course (though Beano still follows it) but Oink had previously been a big success, pushing humour comics in a freer, looser, more modern direction and Oh No!! tested positively, too.

Take it from me, Oink! was never a "big success". It did moderately well and sales began to slide, hence it changing frequency twice, followed by cancellation after two and a half years. IPC really tried to make it work but it was only ever a critical success, not a sales hit.

Nipper and Speed were too much in the older tamer format. New titles would have had to be as exciting as 2000AD had been in 1977, but the new owners pulled the plug.

No, they carried on publishing other titles. Ever hear of Sonic the Comic? A huge success for Egmont. Ran for about nine years. Yes, based on a licensed property but what we did with it was beyond the usual merchandise tie-in: longer stories, character development, good artwork from the likes of Richard Elson and Mike McMahon... 100% comic strips and all British.

Personally, I still see the move towards a mostly magazine format - for a while there were quite a few younger kids titles with as little as 4 pages or so of strip in - to be predominantly a cost cutting move, not a natural evolution. Though comics and comic-mags could certainly have existed side by side.

They did exist side by side, but the hybrids won out because sales on ALL periodicals are sliding and only the fittest survive. Yes, hybrids are cheaper to produce than 100% comics, but kids also seem to favour them. Society as a whole has become more multimedia savvy so if a comic contains features on the fad of the week (this week it's Transformers, next week it's Ice Age) it has a better chance of being noticed. As I said, the "hybrid" isn't a new idea, - Look In did it most successfully, - but kids do like them. Yes budget cuts are an influence so it's pointless speculating they might pump money into new comics, - that's unlikely to happen, - it's a question of what to do within the budget restraints. At the moment I think titles such as Dandy Xtreme are coping admirably.

Lew

[Lew Stringer]

isn't it sealed up in a bag, Lew? [forgive me if I'm wrong: I know that BEANO MAX is]. This marketing approach works fine in the short term: punters are enticed by the 'exclusive' mystery of the 'concealed goods', but many potential readers eventually switch off and seek more accessible imagery.

Yes, but I presume you'd bought Dandy Xtreme as you were saying how "samey" DCT strips were.

Personally I hate the idea of bagged comics. It started with Lucky Bag Comic several years ago. That was a success (initially) and other publishers followed suit. The problem now is all those bagged comics make the shelves look so untidy and nothing stands out. Tell a lie, - the Battle Classic Comic stands out because it's NOT bagged and it's on heavier, firmer paper.

Lew

[Raven]

Take it from me, Oink! was never a "big success". It did moderately well and sales began to slide, hence it changing frequency twice, followed by cancellation after two and a half years.

Was the dip in sales after a strong start not to do with major newsagents - W. H. Smith, I recall - suddenly sticking it on the top shelf, way out of reach of children, though? I recall that being cited at the time.

No, they carried on publishing other titles. Ever hear of Sonic the Comic? A huge success for Egmont. Ran for about nine years. Yes, based on a licensed property but what we did with it was beyond the usual merchandise tie-in: longer stories, character development, good artwork from the likes of Richard Elson and Mike McMahon... 100% comic strips and all British.

Yes - and Richard Elson was one of my favourite UK artists at the time. But, as I said, they plugged the plug on the *self-contained, non-licensed* titles, which was the big change. Titles in thrall to big conglomerate license holders - often heavy on control, and who will want a say in and approval of every aspect of a comic based on their 'properties' seem to me less likely to reach the great creative heights of the best of comics past. There isn't the same freedom.

They did exist side by side, but the hybrids won out because sales on ALL periodicals are sliding and only the fittest survive. Yes, hybrids are cheaper to produce than 100% comics, but kids also seem to favour them.

Well, they don't have a tremendous amount of choice, though some hybrids *are* done very well with a lot of effort put in , and look exciting - but, again, I do think we're going round in circles so I'll bow out unless there's a completely new angle to add anything to. Hopefully somebody new will now bound in and add a fresh insight!

[Lew Stringer]

Take it from me, Oink! was never a "big success". It did moderately well and sales began to slide, hence it changing frequency twice, followed by cancellation after two and a half years.

Was the dip in sales after a strong start not to do with major newsagents - W. H. Smith, I recall - suddenly sticking it on the top shelf, way out of reach of children, though? I recall that being cited at the time.

Yes but my point was it wasn't the "big success" you claimed it was when you used Oink! as an example of how comics could sell well.

If publishers truly believed there was a market for brand new comic they'd be out there. You can point the finger at Egmont, and some of it is justified, but the fact is that NO publisher is launching a new comic at the moment. The DFC gave it a valiant try but sadly it failed with sales down to 3,000. It'd be a very brave or foolish publisher to try that again in the current climate. Believe me, everyone in the industry would love there to be more comics out there but there are sound economical reasons why that's not happening right now.

Lew

[Raven]

I had assumed Oink had been quite a success, but you'll certainly know better than me about sales. Did you not think it would have continued to do well if the top shelf thing hadn't happened? I had the impression Oink was an initial success story unfairly nipped in the bud due to such unfortunate circumstances, but certainly stand to be corrected.

[Lew Stringer]

I had assumed Oink had been quite a success, but you'll certainly know better than me about sales. Did you not think it would have continued to do well if the top shelf thing hadn't happened? I had the impression Oink was an initial success story unfairly nipped in the bud due to such unfortunate circumstances, but certainly stand to be corrected.

It was doing moderately well before it was top shelved with issue 8. IPC were pleased but not ecstatic with sales. Bear in mind that was over 20 years ago, when comic sales were around 200,000. Using that "model" today would not guarantee anywhere near the same sales, so it's not economically feasible.

Sales on comics had been gradually sliding since the 1960s and publishers have pretty much tried everything to find a "hit" over the decades, from REVOLVER to NIPPER. The comics that have longevity are the ones that are the most original, - 2000AD, Viz, etc. But the way the market is at present it's a massive risk to try something new, not to mention convincing supermarkets to stock something they're not familiar with. Also, 20 years ago Smiths weren't charging publishers thousands for shelf space. It's a costly game now, and a failed new comic could easily cause significant damage to a publisher today. Sorry if that sounds "negative" but it's realistic I'm afraid.

Lew

[Digifiend]

The DFC gave it a valiant try but sadly it failed with sales down to 3,000. It'd be a very brave or foolish publisher to try that again in the current climate.

DFC's problem was that it wasn't available in the shops. But I suppose they couldn't afford to do that because they weren't selling enough - a vicious circle and a catch 22.

[NP]

I just don't think it would be ideal if professionals always put forward the industry viewpoint in a way that seems to suggest critics should shut up.

You don't seem to understand what you've written there. Anyway, like Lew says, I've got work to do. Why not READ Dandy Xtreme though?

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Lew: the cream of DCT talent traditionally makes it to the BEANO, so if I want to see the best that THOMSON have on offer, I will flick through this comic: moreso since the DANDY revamp, which was, er......interesting to be polite.

If the DANDY XTREME is being used to promote cutting-edge, experimental new work of quality, then I'm all for it: but DCT should make it easily-seen to potential new readers, and not seal it up in a bag. If it has true merit, it should be easily accessible. Most 'bagged-up' publications I have bought in the past have turned out to be pretty disappointing, and I usually avoid them now for this reason.

Sealed-up publications are maybe OK for 'gentlemen's mags' but they are a real pain for comics fans who are possibly missing out on a lot of great new material.

THOMSON have the dilemma that much of their output is formulaic-----and this is what many readers prefer------and I'm certainly not knocking a winning formula, and I don't blame DCT for putting out a lot of 'samey' stuff, and to their credit, their strips have always shown genuine invention [in the main].

How many Baxendale clones were there in the 60s and 70s? But few people complained......perhaps today with so much rapid-fire imagery on the web and on TV, people are just tired of the non-stop bombardment of visuals from all quarters, and it gets more difficult to impress viewers/ readers.......

[Old Freddy]

I dug up a copy of the Illustrated Chips (from 1918) a short while back and it's dawned on me that the failure of the new dandy is partly due to the fact that kids these days have "Better" things to do. I say this because kids these days certainally don't want to read text stories, and in the 1950's the text stories in the Beano & Dandy came to an end. The Dandy & the Beano used speech bubbles so children would want to read it more, because text stories were now a bit dated and it was a good idea to introduce the new method to great britain. These days, Kids have video games, DVD's and YouTube so comics don't mean much to them. Less people are buying comics these days because of this. Some comics have moved with the times to try and get people to buy it, but when you think of it, the Dandy didn't really do this until too late.

It wasn't until around 2001 where the Dandy introduced some new strips and hired new artists. They got rid of Terry Bave who drew Winker in a rather old fashioned way, and instead they got Steven White to do it. They also introduced Ollie Fliptrik, and got rid of characters that they thought wouldn't fit in a modern comic, namely Growing Paynes, Fiddle O'Diddle, Rasper, Peter Piper, I hate Miss Eve L. Powers, Etc. I suppose that Peter Piper wasn't the most exciting strip on earth and has been around since 1939. Since 2004 there has been 2 relaunches, neither of which were the success they wanted.

So how COULD the Dandy save itself? Well I can't see them being Gaming Characters but maybe with the new Marvo TV Series and maybe if they rerun Bananaman on a channel of some sort, there's a slight chance the Dandy might live a little longer.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

even if the DANDY 'buys it', Freddy, there will be opportunities for a new comic possibly from a new publisher: comics are undoubtedly dwindling in readership for all sorts of reasons, but cartoons and strips will always have a readership of some discription......

[Digifiend]

Freddy, the text stories stopped in the 1950s! Beano stopped the adventure stories in the 70s, so I assume that's what you're thinking of. Dandy was still using them until the 2000s! (The Comet, Winker and Brassneck)