Are weekly comics doomed?

[Digifiend]

I'm not quite convinced that printing on cheaper paper means that the cost of actual printing would rise.

Not if it was a regular thing, but doing a one-shot - and the ancillary costs which comes with that - means per-page costs are more than a comic which has been running for a while.

I don't think anyone has pointed out that DCT sold their own presses yet - this out-sourcing might add to the overall cost, but without explicitly asking anyone there, it is merely a guess on my part...

Speaking of which, the Beano has a one-shot due out next week. A Christmas special, in the same style as the Ultimate Summer Specials, I think.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 553&type=1

As for selling their presses, they've subsequently bought new ones, a photo was used in the Beano a few months ago!

[Lew Stringer]

I loved that, too, and it's a great idea, Phil, but perhaps that was their market test.

I wonder if Lew can shed any light?

The Pathetic Sharks Bumper Special, as a sort of 'junior Viz', was, if memory serves me correctly, John Brown's idea when he was publisher of the comic. It was packaged outside of Viz, at John Brown Publishing, and edited by Dave Elliot (but with Viz having the final say in everything). I wrote/drew most of it.

I don't know how well it sold but I think it would have done better if a) it hadn't had the 'Viz' name on the cover (which led to a lot of shops top-shelving it), and b) it had been in Summer Special format instead of being a softback book. At £2.99 I think it was far more expensive than other summer specials in 1990.

I guess they wouldn't attempt anything similar now because the children's comic market isn't as healthy as it was in 1990 (and it wasn't that healthy then).

Regarding Beano paper stock, personally I'd be happy if it was on the same matt paper as that used for the pull-out comics in the Dennis & Gnasher Megazine. It has a nice texture to it and makes 32 pages feel chunky and value for money. But it may not be practical to print The Beano on that stock, for the reasons that Andy explains. It may even be more expensive paper than the glossy stock for all I know.

[AndyB]

I would guess the Megazine insert paper is more expensive, for the simple reason that if it was cheaper they would use it for the weekly Beano! It's also a lot heavier and nicer, which hints at it being more expensive. Of course, it could be other factors (bulk of the paper etc) adding to the cost of shipping and distribution.

Digi, which issue of the Beano was that? The one with Charles and Camilla? I'd be pretty certain the presses they showed were those owned by the external printers.

[Kid Robson]

Both the Beano and the Dandy were way behind on content in the 80s. Euan Kerr and Morris Heggie gave them a much-needed shot in the arm.

Just a shame that "much-needed shot in the arm" didn't really revitalise the comics' fortunes then, isn't it? Otherwise we wouldn't now be talking about The Beano's potential demise.

I would suggest that whatever printers are working for DCT now would be perfectly happy to be very flexible about the paper they use, and would charge accordingly for the privilege. I would also suggest that if the contract wasn't tied into two or three types of paper, we would see more variety between titles, rather than the homogeneity we have.

Do you know for a fact that DCT are tied into paper types, Andy, or is that merely an assumption?

These days it's probably not significantly dearer to print in colour rather than black and white, which is quite different from years ago - indeed, it may be that the contract assumes all internal pages of a given magazine are the same - either black and white or colour, and nothing inbetween.

"Probably", "may be", "assumes" - all very well when it comes to supposition and conjecture, Andy, but you're insisting on your point far more dogmatically than that.

I'd suggest you spend some time in the children's magazines section of a newsagent. Note how many titles (not just comics) have a contents section. Note how many have it on page 3 (there's an extremely good reason not to put it on page 2, by the way.) Note the purpose of having a contents page (not so much to tell you where to find what, but to advertise that the characters and features are there without you having to look!)

That's a bit feeble, Andy. To say that other titles have contents pages is no argument at all for justifying that The Beano should have one. As you said, other comics have more filler pages and less comic strip content - is that a valid reason for The Beano doing the same if it wanted to? And I for one, when it comes to a comic like The Beano, would much rather thumb through the comic on my own initiative, without having a contents page to guide me. I spend quite a bit of time in the comics sections of shops, and I see kids doing one of two things. Opening The Beano and then putting it back on sight of text pages, or just opening the comic up in the middle, then sitting down on the floor to read it. However, it was once regarded as a given that a comic should grab a kid's attention as soon as they turned the cover, and I know that I'm more inclined to read it if it has something interesting on page 3. (Hey, it works for the Sun.)

Also note the prices and the quality of the paper where they aren't bagged. Have a look at the DCT titles such as Jacqueline Wilson etc.

Then come back here and seriously try to tell us that a 20 page comic selling at £1.50 just to cover its costs could hope to compete. It's not realistic, and if that model worked, the Beano, Dandy, Beezer, Topper and Nutty would still be with us. The Beano still is the best and least expensive product on the market, demonstrably so, and that is reality.

You're forgetting that when The Dandy was relaunched in late 2010, for 36, full-colour pages it was selling for £1.50. Up until fairly recently, when it shot up a whole 50p in one go to £2, it was selling for £1.50. That was for 36, full-colour pages. What I'm saying is that as far too many of these pages are pointless, it would be better if the page count could be reduced to the bare eseentials and the comic could be cheaper. Yes, I got your point from the very beginning, but I wasn't so much interested in what you imagine to be the case (and may well be), but in what would've been better for the comic in the long run. As for it being a demonstrable reality that The Beano is still the best and least expensive product on the market, I'll tell you what else is. The fact that I still regularly hear parents telling their kids to put it back on the shelves because there's no way in hell that they're going to pay two quid for a comic. There's a possibility that if comics were cheaper they'd sell more; if they sell more, circulation (and thus profit) increases.

Something has to be done. Publishers can't keep increasing prices whenever sales drop in order to compensate for lost revenue. All that'll do in the end is price their product out of the market.

[Bigwords]

As for selling their presses, they've subsequently bought new ones, a photo was used in the Beano a few months ago!

Hopefully this is a sign that things are going well - I would hate to see more titles disappear.

If it is merely the economics of printing which this conversation is settling on as the major crux of the issue, then there are a few notable attempts at extremely low-cost publishing which failed (albeit in magnificent, noble ways) the most interesting being the attempt to publish a newspaper full of comic art back in the... 90s? I don't have the details to hand, but I am sure that it didn't last nearly as long as other attempts to do something new. There are equivalents across Europe which lacked the support to keep going, though this may be attributed to the mess which comes with newsprint. Personally, I would love to see a weekly tabloid-sized comic printed on newspaper stock, but I can understand the resistance.

Slipping from the main subject of weeklies for a moment, I have to ponder something wider - which, of the multitude of formats, is the best selling? Fortnightly titles? Monthlies? Quarterlies? I can't imagine that the problem is entirely down to schedule...

[Ginger]

there are a few notable attempts at extremely low-cost publishing which failed (albeit in magnificent, noble ways) the most interesting being the attempt to publish a newspaper full of comic art back in the... 90s? I don't have the details to hand, but I am sure that it didn't last nearly as long as other attempts to do something new.

I think you may be thinking of The Cartoonist, a broadsheet (I think it was a broadsheet anyway) on newsprint, filled exclusively with cartoons, and all black and white (again, if memory serves); which was indeed a lovely idea, but failed, sadly, to catch on with the public.

[AndyB]

There's a possibility that if comics were cheaper they'd sell more; if they sell more, circulation (and thus profit) increases.

Something has to be done. Publishers can't keep increasing prices whenever sales drop in order to compensate for lost revenue. All that'll do in the end is price their product out of the market.

It is a vicious circle, but in the end publishers are out to make money, not to educate or entertain people. The Beano is only demonstrably expensive compared to what it used to cost ten years ago (even though I've shown that it's comparable to Plug in Mars Bars) - in terms of the market, it's nowhere near being priced out. The challenge is to get the message out that the Beano is cheap compared to other magazines aimed at the same market.

You'll recall all the reprint titles Fleetway published in the 80s and 90s - cheap, cheerful, fantastic stuff being reprinted, and in the end unsustainable.

I've already demonstrated that cutting back on content in the Beano wouldn't have a great impact on production costs - there will still be an editor, several sub-editors, at least two graphic designers, and a pile of piece work by external writers and artists to pay for. If any publication won't pay its way, the choice will be to resort to reprints, to charge more, or to fold - and that really will be the end.

[Phoenix]

even though I've shown that it's comparable to Plug in Mars Bars

I really must get out more. I've never even seen a Mars Bar that you have to plug in.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Absolute great points, Robbo and Andy: [and Feen]



---well, this dilemma of value for money, as regards escapissed [sic] treats depends on how the consumer feels at that particular time:


---if I was hungry, I would probably buy 6 bars of 'name choc bars' in multipack wrapping for 2 quid-------if, on the udder hand, I entered Asda in a state of full stomach, in a 'mantra' of visual longing, then the current BEANO would elicit my ill-gotten coin.

[Bigwords]

there are a few notable attempts at extremely low-cost publishing which failed (albeit in magnificent, noble ways) the most interesting being the attempt to publish a newspaper full of comic art back in the... 90s? I don't have the details to hand, but I am sure that it didn't last nearly as long as other attempts to do something new.

I think you may be thinking of The Cartoonist, a broadsheet (I think it was a broadsheet anyway) on newsprint, filled exclusively with cartoons, and all black and white (again, if memory serves); which was indeed a lovely idea, but failed, sadly, to catch on with the public.

That may very well be the one I was thinking of. And yes, a broadsheet. 1993... Man, it really doesn't seem as long ago as all that.

You'll recall all the reprint titles Fleetway published in the 80s and 90s - cheap, cheerful, fantastic stuff being reprinted, and in the end unsustainable.

At least a little of the problem in the early-to-mid-90s was

a) a lack of younger children reading comics (or, honestly, anything, which has only increased in recent years with spikes in illiteracy)
b) the dearth of introduction and follow-on titles. Without the nursery and teen-oriented comics, the drop-off in readers of existing titles (pitched at somewhere in the 7-10 year old range) was something which was inevitable.

Maybe the notion of handing out comics to primary schools to get children reading can be looked at again. At least they will be reading.

As to the notion of publishers not being out to educate, this is something that all publications should at least aspire to. You may not think you have learned anything, but hopefully you come away from any reading experience having gained wither an appreciation of something, or been led in the direction of something else. Not the most popular position to hold these days, but it is something that many of the comics of the fifties and sixties did so well.

[AndyB]

Don't get me wrong, Bigwords, publications should always educate as you describe, just that a company will only provide educational publications as long as it's in their financial interests.

I believe that DCT does quite a bit of focus group work, which gets the word out as they go round different schools. I think I've mentioned in the past that Mike Stirling organised a pile of complimentary Beanos and other children's mags for the kids' goodie bags at my wedding in February. If one of the 16 kids starts reading the Beano as a result...

[Kid Robson]

It is a vicious circle, but in the end publishers are out to make money, not to educate or entertain people. The Beano is only demonstrably expensive compared to what it used to cost ten years ago (even though I've shown that it's comparable to Plug in Mars Bars) - in terms of the market, it's nowhere near being priced out. The challenge is to get the message out that the Beano is cheap compared to other magazines aimed at the same market.

Well, as I demonstrated, that all depends on where you're buying your Mars Bars, but, I agree that perceptions of how expensive The Beano is need to be tackled.

You'll recall all the reprint titles Fleetway published in the 80s and 90s - cheap, cheerful, fantastic stuff being reprinted, and in the end unsustainable.

Nowadays 'though, Andy, the circulation they had when they were cancelled could well be enough to keep them going. They were a bit too enthusiastic in cancelling comics back then. If DCT's Dandy had continued to sell 15,000 a week (or even better, increased to 20,000), it would doubtless still be around.

I've already demonstrated that cutting back on content in the Beano wouldn't have a great impact on production costs - there will still be an editor, several sub-editors, at least two graphic designers, and a pile of piece work by external writers and artists to pay for. If any publication won't pay its way, the choice will be to resort to reprints, to charge more, or to fold - and that really will be the end.

I wouldn't go as far as to say you've 'demonstrated', Andy, seeing as how your conclusions are based on suppositions and not hard facts. However, they aren't unreasonable suppositions and are entirely worthy of consideration. I'm bound to say 'though, that in The Beano's case, several sub-editors and at least two graphic designers seems a bit top-heavy, staff-wise. It all adds up. I'd say a cut in unnecessary staff, reduced page count, reprints, cheaper paper, etc., would mean that they could reduce the price and increase profits. If not all pages were in colour, they'd save a bit of dosh there too, as far as contributors go.

Anyway, in conclusion, I'm sure we both agree that neither of us would like to see The Beano fold.

[AndyB]

I wouldn't be so sure about the Dandy if it were at the 15k mark. Maybe 20k. Maybe it's fair to say that they were a bit quick cancelling titles in the 80s, but if the income from a title wasn't meeting its costs (in other words, the bottom line again) it wasn't going to keep going.

Until recently, those several sub-editors wrote all the content of the weekly Beano and Beano Max, and I believe the graphic designers are busy enough. I still believe that if it were possible to print the Beano on cheaper paper, they would, in order to save money, and reprints of Calamity James, Roger the Dodger, Bananaman, Number 13, the Germs, Les Pretend, Billy Whizz, Ball Boy and more did not save the Beano in the last ten years (the shock is how much of the Dandy was reprints in the 1970s! At the time, the Beano was running all new strips except when Dave Sutherland and Keith Reynolds were too busy to do the Bash Street Kids and Tom Dick and Sally, and John Sherwood didn't have time to fill in for Dave)

It's also worth noting that not all artists colour their own work. Dave Sutherland still delivers his work by hand every week, where most artists scan it before submission. It's still probable that black and white pages in a colour comic would be charged at the colour rate these days to save time against doing the black and white pages separately and assembling later, which could easily cost more.

[AndyB]

Actually, a little explanation on the colour vs black and white printing thing.

If a magazine is printed as multiple folios, you can separate out colour and black and white sections easily, and assemble them later, like the Beano 75th birthday special.

If the magazine is a single folio, you might get all the colour pages onto single sheets of paper, and you could print them separately then sort them out later. Takes a lot of work.

In reality, the printers will receive a single PDF file with pages 3-34 of the Beano, and even if there is no colour on a particular side by the time it reaches us, before being trimmed it will still have had the usual colour checking marks in the margins which you see when a corner of a page is trimmed wrongly because the paper has got folded wrongly. The comic gets assembled concentrically, with the good paper in the middle for the Megazine and the card cover on the outside for both titles.

Same goes for 2000AD - there may be a rebate for not all sides being printed in colour, but there is now no single sheet of paper which is entirely devoid of colour, unlike the 90s when 12 pages were set aside for black and white serials.

[Kid Robson]

In the case of IPC/Fleetway/Egmont, Andy, I believe they had an expectation of what they wanted a comic to earn, money-wise. Even when a title was covering its cost, it was very often cancelled to make room for a new publication that might do better. In the '60s. titles were cancelled and merged with others, even when they had circulations of 130,000 plus. And let's not forget that they were cheaper to produce then.

As to the question of whether artists colour their own work or not, it doesn't really matter. It's an expense that could be reduced, simply because a black and white page is cheaper to create than a colour one, regardless of whether the printing costs are the same in either case. DCT would be saving money on creating the actual page, even if not in printing it.