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

[AndyB]

Mr Kerr is on this board, but hasn't posted for a couple of years! He is Mr Ed, quite appropriately.

As for the Dandy... where do you go from here? They certainly have the product - they have made up the ground they lost on the Beano in those terms, but is it too late? Am I making things worse by subscribing instead of buying in newsagents? (if so, hard luck - firstly, I won this sub from Harry Hill Fan Club's twitter, and secondly, and not insignificantly, I will be saving a lot of money on the cover price when I switch to quarterly direct debit!)

[Digifiend]

I hope Harry Hill hasn't been putting readers off, which is the opposite of what was intended.

Rab, my Euan Kerr quote is from the link Little Squelchy Thing (Andy Fanton) posted.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Thanks for making that clear, guys.

I have had correspondence with Mr Kerr in the past. but I'm not sure if he would remember me now.

He was always very polite and helpful.

[kevf]

I'm a bit late to this news, but it is dreadful and surprising.

My anecdotal feedback from the kids I work with in schools has been very positive towards The Dandy. When scattering the comics around the tables, they always seize upon "Harry Hill comic", almost as keenly as Doctor Who and Sponge Bob. The Beano, in classrooms, comes much lower down the clamoured-after list. But obviously this is not the case in the shops.

I praised and championed The Dandy's brave move in 2010 to lose the toys, cut down the ads, and up the quality of the original content. It seems that move, which is exactly what I'd have done if I was in charge, was not commercially adroit. And now that I remember that all the comics I ever edited, UT, Bloody Hell, Gladiators, all nose-dived because I kept trying to do smart original things instead of copycat commercial things like the publishers wanted, maybe I should have seen it coming.

Let's all drown our sorrows at the Birmingham con this weekend, eh?

Kev F

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I think a lot of modern cartooning and comics often centre on bizarre-looking characters and graphics for the sake of it, and some of this may have spilled over into a few aspects of the revamped DANDY. Looking at the off-putting style of so many modern cartoon characters [some are in animated film/TV animation form] I'm not surprized that so few of them become household names: often there's very little for the reader/viewer to relate to other than sledgehammer visuals, which are fine for instant impact, but usually have no real staying-power.

BEANO'S identity is still easily-defined and recognizable, maybe this is simply the reason why it's sales are more stable.


The new version of the Dandy comic reminds me a lot of OINK! from 1986, which was very contemporary and cutting-edge for it's time. OINK! never lasted all that long though, again maybe it was just too far ahead of traditional fare.

But who knows; Monty Python's Flying Circus got low ratings in 1969/1970, but that worked out OK.


Maybe it will just take longer than hoped for the potential readership to catch up with the brave new experimental DANDY.

[dishes]

It seems from anecdotal evidence on this forum (particularly from Kevin) that most kids really like the new Dandy, but a fall in sales of this magnitude must mean something. My best guess is that it's idiot parents assuming a comic without a "free" gift is less good value than one with a "free" gift. But somehow that doesn't seem enough of an explanation.

Very sad news.

[-MikeD-]

I think a lot of modern cartooning and comics often centre on bizarre-looking characters and graphics for the sake of it, and some of this may have spilled over into a few aspects of the revamped DANDY. Looking at the off-putting style of so many modern cartoon characters [some are in animated film/TV animation form] I'm not surprized that so few of them become household names: often there's very little for the reader/viewer to relate to other than sledgehammer visuals, which are fine for instant impact, but usually have no real staying-power.

You're on to something with this.

It's hard to design and draw a character who can believably emote, relax in the bath or smile in a way that suggests all is right in the world. But, I'd argue, these are the kind of characters that really connect with readers. Conversely, I think it's easier to draw characters with manic grins, P**s-hole eyes and wild gesticulations in the face of a crisis every panel. Perhaps we've let the balance go too far one way in our search for belly laughs?

Added to this is the constant defying of physical rules. I'm sure I've said this before, but if a character constantly defies even the loose laws of physics which notionally govern his cartoon world, then he removes any sense of reality and, it follows, any sense of threat, place, time, impetus or connection with the reader. A disaster in linear storytelling terms. I think a certain banana powered superhero sometimes suffers adversely, in terms of plot, from too much bollocking about with gravity and anatomy (only my humble opinion as a singularly unsuccessful writer and cartoonist...).

None of this reverses The Dandy's fortunes, and we risk sounding like grumpy old men given that most folks on here who work on the frontline have pointed out that the new look is a hit with kids. We have to accept that the problem is much harder to pin down. Maybe Kev's right - smart and original is not commercial and viable. Or maybe smart and original just needs better PR, marketing and media saturation - it's harder to sell new concepts to a jaded audience, but not impossible. You just need time and bottomless pockets!

We've lost Generation X-Factor...I hope the clever folks at DCT have a cunning plan to put things right.

S.O.D.

[Raven]

I think a lot of modern cartooning and comics often centre on bizarre-looking characters and graphics for the sake of it, and some of this may have spilled over into a few aspects of the revamped DANDY. Looking at the off-putting style of so many modern cartoon characters [some are in animated film/TV animation form] I'm not surprized that so few of them become household names: often there's very little for the reader/viewer to relate to other than sledgehammer visuals, which are fine for instant impact, but usually have no real staying-power.

You're on to something with this.

I thought that was a moment of lucid insight about 'sledgehammer visuals', too, ISPY! I think the ultra-cartoony style does lack a certain warmth and relatability (I think of just how *likeable* the old Terry Bave, Reg Parlett, Sid Burgon, Mike Lacey etc. characters were), and when almost everything is at the same hyper-intensity, there can be a lack of balance and it can all seem a bit samey - even a bit of an eyesore.

There's a lot to be said for being able to visually tell a story clearly, with a recognisable degree of realism - and there's also much to be said for tight scripting with strong punchlines, and many strips, to me, despite the hyperness, seem strangely static and over-wordy, while others just seem to kind of ramble almost randomly from panel to panel as if the creator is making it up as they go along.

meherenow, earlier in the thread, spoke of reading with his kid and some strips just "tailing off", saying:

"Compare this with a reading from, say, Classics From The Comics - a beginning, a middle, and an end of a strip, normally with a clever play on words happening. I was reading from the Buster Egmont special the other night and he was laughing out loud to the like of Chalky etc. More so than I have seen of late with The Beano and especially The Dandy, which we stopped reading pretty quickly I'm afraid to say."


I wonder if the tightly scripted humour strip, with progressive gags and a strong punchline, is becoming a lost art - the same way the DFC seemed to suggest that the gripping adventure serial strip with a compelling cliffhanger was.

None of this reverses The Dandy's fortunes, and we risk sounding like grumpy old men given that most folks on here who work on the frontline have pointed out that the new look is a hit with kids.

But I think we have to balance these assertions that the look is a hit with the kids with the fact that Dandy has lost 48.1% of its readers, Mike. If an entertaining guy with piles of comics and what look like incredibly fun lessons in creating your own comics had turned up at my school instead of algebra, I would have been wildly enthusiastic myself, even if I *wasn't* a comic addict (which I was) - but these kids don't seem to be going out and buying them.

And though Jamie - a brilliant cartoonist in my opinion - mentions the problem of getting kids to know about the title, we're not talking about the comic not attracting enough new readers here, but about it apparently losing an average of almost three hundred of its *existing readers* per issue. So if the content really connects with kids, why are so many of its existing readers jumping ship each week?

[Little Squelchy Thing]

I'm really not so sure it's as simple as waving an accusatory finger at a change in cartooning style to account for the drop in sales really. We can all sit back and shake our heads and say 'well, it was obvious really, they're nowhere like they were in the old days' because, lest we forget, all but two of the titles from the golden age now survive, and both have had their readership drop. The Beano shedding 20% of its readers doesn't really show that the 'old style' is working perfectly.

There's a much bigger problem that's blighted our comics landscape since the late 80s onwards, which has seen title after title fall by the wayside. I don't have a quick-fix solution, but I don't think shooting down any attempts at change or innovation is going to save the industry.

[Raven]

I don't think anyone is shooting down attempts at change or innovation, Andy. Though, something "new" or different is not automatically something good or improved. You can only take everything on its own merits: is it well scripted, is it well drawn, is it easy to follow, is it a compelling concept, is it funny, etc.

[Peter Gray]

I think bringing old characters back was the right path..like Harry and his hippo..Korky..and could lead to more...Laura H drawing Bully Beef and chips for the Dandy comic for ezample..
Harry Hill and little celeb were fine But the other celeb stuff got a bit tiring and started to get a bit filler...I didn't mind the mad advert..

Kids are not the same anymore...they are missing out..

Glad I was an 80's kid and enjoyed Whizzer and chips..Whoopee..Buster..Wow!..Nutty..Big Comic..
these memories stay with you forever..

More George and the dragon types and less celeb stuff..

Lew has some good points
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Downthet ... dandy.html

the figures could be wrong due to The Dandy now being weekly now not fornightly..

I agree with him the comic is soo much better and makes no sense why this has happened..

[-MikeD-]

None of this reverses The Dandy's fortunes, and we risk sounding like grumpy old men given that most folks on here who work on the frontline have pointed out that the new look is a hit with kids.

But I think we have to balance these assertions that the look is a hit with the kids with the fact that Dandy has lost 48.1% of its readers, Mike.

I've read lots of anecdotal evidence that Da Kidz respond to cartoons that zip along using the the more geometric, less fleshy, more flashy aesthetic that is common nowadays. Too much positivity to dismiss, really. I don't think this is the real heart of the problem.

(And as Andy pointed out - the old comics have already faded away, with their old art styles, as their popularity diminished.)

So we're left with at least two other things to consider. Firstly - the scripting. I agree with your point, Raven - and as I mentioned earlier, I will admit that, imho, sometimes certain aspects of modern cartoon art (including ISPY's sledgehammer visuals) work against good storytelling. There was a surprising amount of subtlety in the old strips.

Secondly, properties like Ben 10 (circulation 71,222!!!) have a ginormous PR spend and cross-media presence. They're too big to fail, so they're precision tooled and focus grouped to minimise risk. It looks like this kind of shameless, generic rubbish is seeing off anything at a financial disadvantage. The corporates have become so adept at mugging tired parents that there's no money left in the pot for quality. I bet someone more clued up than me could draw a parallel with the music industry.

Damn...I've almost ended on a negative, which is definitely not a good thing to do. So I'll reiterate an idea mooted earlier - maybe artists and writers should get paid to work with DCT editorial to develop characters as properties, with potential beyond a weekly strip. Creators should get a rights share (at the moment they buy all rights in your character for the princely sum of...nowt) to encourage/incentivise them to guerrilla market the property across the media, a tactic which could undermine the rich corporate players. Probably a little complex legally, but the result would be to everyone's benefit. And with enough support, verve and enthusiasm it could work...

S.O.D.

[Little Squelchy Thing]

I don't think anyone is shooting down attempts at change or innovation, Andy. Though, something "new" or different is not automatically something good or improved. You can only take everything on its own merits: is it well scripted, is it well drawn, is it easy to follow, is it a compelling concept, is it funny, etc.

Well there we get into subjective territory - one person's classic might be another's rubbish, and that is of course true for all comics ever since the dawn of the form. And I didn't say I thought a 'new' style is 'automatically better', all I'm saying is that I think trying to shake things up a bit was the right idea, because if you look at ALL the sales figures, there's nothing really bringing in huge numbers at the moment. Should we all just adhere to a more classic template, or try something new in the hope that it hits?

There's no denying the figures aren't good, but I don't think it's fair to just pin the blame on the new style. I think _ and yes, I am being subjective here - there's a lot of good stuff in the comic at the moment, from the beautifully drawn Yore!, to NP's always amazing work, to Jamie Smart's brilliant bonkersness. Sure, it may not appeal to everyone, but it's about trying to find the audience that WILL love it. And there are people who do love it already, and I firmly believe that there are lots more than 7,448 people in this land who would also love it, if they were given a chance.

[Little Squelchy Thing]

Damn...I've almost ended on a negative, which is definitely not a good thing to do. So I'll reiterate an idea mooted earlier - maybe artists and writers should get paid to work with DCT editorial to develop characters as properties, with potential beyond a weekly strip. Creators should get a rights share (at the moment they buy all rights in your character for the princely sum of...nowt) to encourage/incentivise them to guerrilla market the property across the media, a tactic which could undermine the rich corporate players. Probably a little complex legally, but the result would be to everyone's benefit. And with enough support, verve and enthusiasm it could work...

S.O.D.

I think this is a good point too, I'm sure if artists and writers had an actual, financial stake in their creations (aside from the page rate) you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd be promoting their work like crazy, and thus the comic as well.

[Raven]

I've read lots of anecdotal evidence that Da Kidz respond to cartoons that zip along using the the more geometric, less fleshy, more flashy aesthetic that is common nowadays.

Sounds like the kind of thing market research people tend to say - but you have to be very careful doing this with kids, who will often tell you what they think you want to hear.

As I've said before, most things that are really huge with kids are fairly traditional: Harry Potter, High School Musical, Pixar's stuff etc. and rely on a traditional - even "old-fashioned" - kind of craftsmanship. I'd put Ben 10 in there, too, which I think is a perfectly decent timeless concept for kids and would have been as popular as a strip in Valiant in the early 70s as it is in its various incarnations now.

Whether many of the Dandy strips - the most iconic ones like Desperate Dan or Korky the Cat, say, have a strong enough concept to spread over a wide range of media, with animated series, etc. I'm not so sure.

(And as Andy pointed out - the old comics have already faded away, with their old art styles, as their popularity diminished.)

I think what happened there is much, much more complex than just "their popularity diminished" and involves many factors.

(at the moment they buy all rights in your character for the princely sum of...nowt)

Eeple! Is that still the case? That's a good way of ensuring creative people aren't going to hand their best ideas over!

Nobody should ever agree to this - you could lose a potential fortune. Imagine handing Ben 10 over for nowt ...

Amazing that nothing has changed since Siegel and Shuster.