Comics UK

Kid Robson wrote:It's the comic's job to 'pull me in', Andy - it failed.

No, it's that comic's job to pull in their target audience of children, not blokes in their mid-fifties. Surely most collectors of adult age would buy modern children's comics for other reasons, such as to keep up continuity of a collection, or curiosity to see how things have changed, or to follow a favourite artist, etc regardless of the comic's design or layout?

Lew Stringer wrote:

Kid Robson wrote:It's the comic's job to 'pull me in', Andy - it failed.

No, it's that comic's job to pull in their target audience of children, not blokes in their mid-fifties. Surely most collectors of adult age would buy modern children's comics for other reasons, such as to keep up continuity of a collection, or curiosity to see how things have changed, or to follow a favourite artist, etc regardless of the comic's design or layout?

Wrong. It's that comic's job to pull in readers from wherever it can get them, regardless of their age. Especially a long-time comic reader and buyer who wants to buy the comic (and was until recently), but now won't because it's taken a few wrong turnings.

I'd suggest if it's true that its target audience is children, then it's needlessly restricting its audience. That's probably part of the problem. As there are millions of children in this country and only around 35,000 of them (and falling) buy the comic, it's even failing to appeal to the vast majority of what you claim is its target audience. However, I did a minor bit of research in WHS yesterday and will have more to say on the subject later.

Wrong again. If a comic pulls in readers in their 40s and 50s, all to the good, but not at the expense of 8-11 year olds. We are a significant minority, and every copy helps, but I don't care how often I have to say this: We are not the intended audience of the Beano. We are the intended audience of Viz, but that's entirely different.

The job of a comic is to appeal to its direct audience, and to persuade relatives to buy it for the intended audience. The key question is therefore: Would so-and-so, my child/nephew/niece/whatever like it? That question can only be answered by looking at the substantive content - not the contents page. Style issues, including number of pages, colour etc are all part of it. Stories which an adult finds funny do help, but the kids need to get the jokes first and foremost.

If you and I like the result, that's no bad thing. If you and I don't like the result, we have no right of reply unless we can line up a pile of 8-11 year olds who would say they would buy the Beano if such and such were different - in other words, we could counter DCT's own market research with our own evidence.

I would also have to suggest that it would not be a sensible thing for a man to do to be loitering in or near the children's section of a newsagent for a longer period of time than necessary to decide whether to buy something. It could be misinterpreted by staff.

AndyB wrote:I would also have to suggest that it would not be a sensible thing for a man to do to be loitering in or near the children's section of a newsagent for a longer period of time than necessary to decide whether to buy something. It could be misinterpreted by staff.

If that man was obviously loitering near children in a park, or in a play area, or a school playground, then that would be a concern obviously, but I hardly think that his looking at the comics display in WH Smiths for quarter of an hour or more, trying to make up his mind what to buy, is in the same league. Let's have a sense of proportion, please.

We went from "are weekly comics doomed" to "is society doomed" in a few posts...

Man, that has to be some sort of record.

Bigwords wrote:We went from "are weekly comics doomed" to "is society doomed" in a few posts...

Though you probably can extend it wider to assume that probably all art forms, in the form we know them, are to a greater extent "doomed." Paper won't be the medium the younger generation grow up engaging with.

As they grow up with instant, free access to every game, film, song and book they could possibly want, and dazzling new apps (would a kid now really prefer a weekly Donald and Mickey comic over that Disney Animated app?), paper comics - and probably most narrative art forms in general (written stories that people can't directly participate in and contribute to) will only attract a shrinking minority.

People read books, papers and magazines, people buy comics, but less and less people. None of the above suggestions to save The Beano will change the ever-increasing, speeding-up shift away from old fashioned printed media towards digital technologies that adapt to the individual user. It just can't compete. The problem with ideas of tinkering with potential little changes to the comics is that it ignores that bigger issue, that massive cultural shift which isn't going to reverse.

Kid Robson wrote: I'd suggest if it's true that its target audience is children, then it's needlessly restricting its audience. That's probably part of the problem. As there are millions of children in this country and only around 35,000 of them (and falling) buy the comic, it's even failing to appeal to the vast majority of what you claim is its target audience.

Following your logic, comics have always been 'failing' because they've never sold to the majority. Also, as population has increased, sales of comics have decreased, so should we count the entire history of comics as a failure?

I suggest 'failing' is too negative a term in this context. With the amount of things competing for people's attention these days, it's not a failure if comics only attract a small proportion of them. Also, as The Beano has been published continuously since 1938, we should surely be praising it for all the things it's done right to maintain its longevity, when all of its companions and rivals have fallen by the wayside, not nitpicking on perceived flaws such as a contents page and other 'filler'?

AndyB wrote:Wrong again. If a comic pulls in readers in their 40s and 50s, all to the good, but not at the expense of 8-11 year olds. We are a significant minority, and every copy helps, but I don't care how often I have to say this: We are not the intended audience of the Beano. We are the intended audience of Viz, but that's entirely different.

Andy, we get the idea that you'd like to work for The Beano, but there's really no need to go to such lengths to ingratiate yourself with DCT. And who said anything about pulling in older readers at the expense of younger ones? Certainly not me. It would help if you addressed what I actually said and not what you think I said. From day one, I've always said that it should be possible to produce The Beano in such a way that it attracts an all-age audience. Actually, the way things are now, the reverse is in operation. The comic is alienating older readers because it's being aimed specifically at infants, it seems.

AndyB wrote:The job of a comic is to appeal to its direct audience, and to persuade relatives to buy it for the intended audience. The key question is therefore: Would so-and-so, my child/nephew/niece/whatever like it? That question can only be answered by looking at the substantive content - not the contents page. Style issues, including number of pages, colour etc are all part of it. Stories which an adult finds funny do help, but the kids need to get the jokes first and foremost.

I will repeat again, as you seem to have missed it, Andy, that I was not judging the contents on the strength of the contents page. What I was saying is that, in my opinion (and I've been buying comics for far longer than you), a contents page and some of the other filler material is decidedly unattractive, and is more likely to deter casual browsers than persuade them to buy it, whether they're buying it for themselves or for their kids. Open a comic, page of boring text hits you in the eyes, stuff that for a game of soldiers, back on the shelf with you, my lad.

AndyB wrote:If you and I like the result, that's no bad thing. If you and I don't like the result, we have no right of reply unless we can line up a pile of 8-11 year olds who would say they would buy the Beano if such and such were different - in other words, we could counter DCT's own market research with our own evidence.

Utter pants, Andy. Anyone who buys the comic for themselves (and I used to until recently) has a right to voice their opinion on it, whether good, bad or indifferent. I am not someone coming to a comic for the first time, but rather a lifelong buyer, reader and collector of the medium. It would be folly for editors to dismiss the opinion of people such as me on the grounds that we're not the so-called 'target' audience. I repeat, because you've missed the point - the target audience simply isn't responding to The Beano in the way that is required to sustain it, so some other approach is long overdue.

AndyB wrote:I would also have to suggest that it would not be a sensible thing for a man to do to be loitering in or near the children's section of a newsagent for a longer period of time than necessary to decide whether to buy something. It could be misinterpreted by staff.

You're presuming two things, Andy, in order to make your, frankly, bad-taste insinuation. I don't loiter, and I'm not there any longer than is necessary. Also, I'm well-known by most of the staff as a comics collector, and it's not often I'm in there at times when kids are around. When I have been 'though, the situation I described earlier is very much in evidence. One sees the same thing in just about any supermarket also.

Lew Stringer wrote:

Kid Robson wrote: I'd suggest if it's true that its target audience is children, then it's needlessly restricting its audience. That's probably part of the problem. As there are millions of children in this country and only around 35,000 of them (and falling) buy the comic, it's even failing to appeal to the vast majority of what you claim is its target audience.

Following your logic, comics have always been 'failing' because they've never sold to the majority. Also, as population has increased, sales of comics have decreased, so should we count the entire history of comics as a failure?

I suggest 'failing' is too negative a term in this context. With the amount of things competing for people's attention these days, it's not a failure if comics only attract a small proportion of them. Also, as The Beano has been published continuously since 1938, we should surely be praising it for all the things it's done right to maintain its longevity, when all of its companions and rivals have fallen by the wayside, not nitpicking on perceived flaws such as a contents page and other 'filler'?

No, Lew, only according to your interpretation of my logic. Success or failure, as you well know, are very often relative terms. Once upon a time, comics sold well enough to sustain a multi-million pound industry in this country. A comic might not have sold to every kid, but it sold well enough (along with its stablemates) to make bucketloads of bucks for the publishers. That's no longer the case. DCT is down to one weekly comic (that I know of) and it only sells to a fraction of the amount that it once used to. In that very real sense, it is failing - failing to appeal to the same numbers of people that it once used to.

However, I agree with you that it should be praised for all the things it's done right (which are mostly past tense), but that doesn't mean that they should get complacent. The way the comic is heading in terms of sales doesn't bode well for its future as a published weekly comic. And it could certainly be doing more things right than it is at the moment.

But no children's comic has ever been aimed at an all-age audience, with the possible exception of Classics from the Comics, because it would fail. You can write for kids in a way that appeals to adults, and vice versa, but if you try to appeal to both equally, you are doomed to fail because you are neither a comic for children nor a comic for adults.

You keep saying you are not judging the contents by the existence of the contents page on page 3 rather than a comic strip, yet that is precisely what you did do. Oh, it has a contents page on page 3 instead of a comic strip. Well, I'm not buying that then. Oh look, all the other comics and magazines have contents pages too. That's cutting your nose off to spite your face.

You are talking nonsense, Kid. It doesn't matter what you and I think of the contents unless we are buying a comic for a child. It is a fact that if we write to Mike Stirling or Craig Graham, they will take an interest in what we have to say, but if kids are also in contact to say something different, whether directly or via focus groups, they will ignore what we think, because we are not the target audience, and we will always take second place to those who are. That is the reality, and it is well beyond time that you recognised that.

You also promulgate the absolute lie that the Beano is being aimed at infants. One look at the depth of the writing will tell you the opposite - your hatred of the art is blinding you to the complexities of the writing.

Raven wrote:Though you probably can extend it wider to assume that probably all art forms, in the form we know them, are to a greater extent "doomed."

I don't know if anyone here went to see the Three Graces when it was on show - I happened to have the misfortune of admiring it when some schoolchildren - somewhere in the region of twelve years old or something (old enough to know better) - arrived and started mocking it. The guide which was there did his best, but... *sigh*

It isn't the fault of the comics. The writing and art in many publications are magnificent. It is the children who are unable to appreciate the work. Yeah. That's it...

AndyB wrote:But no children's comic has ever been aimed at an all-age audience, with the possible exception of Classics from the Comics, because it would fail.

In recent years. Numerous comics were drastically retooled in the 1900s to appeal to children, as the publishers realized they had an untapped pool of younger readers. Film Fun and Comic Cuts are two examples. There's a reason those text stories stayed for as long as they did, with some very impressive writers providing material - if it was cheaper to run text than strips, then the big names who were brought in wouldn't have been so heavily noted.

You can also tell a lot longer story in one page of text than you can in two pages of Ken Reid Jonah artwork I would enjoy reading text stories in the Beano, but I happen to love reading, and I don't see it happening.

Bigwords wrote:

Raven wrote:Though you probably can extend it wider to assume that probably all art forms, in the form we know them, are to a greater extent "doomed."

I don't know if anyone here went to see the Three Graces when it was on show - I happened to have the misfortune of admiring it when some schoolchildren - somewhere in the region of twelve years old or something (old enough to know better) - arrived and started mocking it. The guide which was there did his best, but... *sigh*

It isn't the fault of the comics. The writing and art in many publications are magnificent. It is the children who are unable to appreciate the work. Yeah. That's it...

Are you aware of the Second Screen Live app that Disney have created, initially for kids to take along to cinema screenings of The Little Mermaid:

' ... in which viewers can “interact with the film, play games, sing along, find new surprises, and compete with the audience,” according to their website. It seems that Disney has caught on to the trend of how we tend to watch movies and TV these days anyhow — while constantly checking our devices. Apparently, viewers will be able to watch Ariel, Flounder, and Sebastian while playing against other moviegoers on their device.'
http://family-room.ew.com/2013/09/10/li ... creen-app/

This could be the future of cinema. People encouraged to constantly check their "devices" throughout the film (which many lack the patience to resist anyway) for an enhanced, live experience.

Similarly the new way to try to get kids reading involves redefining the book with iPad titles that, to quote the mission statement of Touch Press: "re-invent the reading experience by offering information that is enhanced with rich media and that adapts dynamically to the interests and experience of the reader."

The media and art forms we grew up with probably won't be in a recognizable form for much longer. The traditional children's comic - and probably print media in general - will seem archaic to tomorrow's kids.

AndyB wrote:But no children's comic has ever been aimed at an all-age audience, with the possible exception of Classics from the Comics, because it would fail. You can write for kids in a way that appeals to adults, and vice versa, but if you try to appeal to both equally, you are doomed to fail because you are neither a comic for children nor a comic for adults.

On the other hand I'd say that the 'Toy Story' films managed to appeal to adults and children equally - often by pitching their storytelling at two different levels. Eric Thompson did something similar years ago with his 'knowing' scripts for The Magic Roundabout.

...But on the other other hand I think it's widely recognized that American comics went through a very damaging phase in the 1970s when the first generation of scripters who'd been fans themselves started to write stories that they wanted see, with impenetrable layers of retroactive continuity that simply baffled the intended readers as a consequence.

- Phil R.

AndyB wrote:But no children's comic has ever been aimed at an all-age audience, with the possible exception of Classics from the Comics, because it would fail. You can write for kids in a way that appeals to adults, and vice versa, but if you try to appeal to both equally, you are doomed to fail because you are neither a comic for children nor a comic for adults.

It seems to me, Andy, that to write a comic that can be appreciated by kids and adults - or adults and kids - is all I'm suggesting. And I'm not talking about 'adult' humour. Perhaps 'all-age' is the wrong description - 'age-free' would perhaps be better. Of course no children's comic has ever been (specifically) aimed at an all-age audience (as far as I know, but we could both be wrong), but things are different now. Firstly, there have been very few comics that have survived anywhere near as long as The Beano, which means that there are now loads of people who have a sense of nostalgia about the comic which could be exploited. It works (to a degree) with the reprint books issued by DCT, so why not cater to the affection that former readers have for the weekly? And, Andy, with all due respect, you're talking complete mince. A comic which can appeal to both children and adults is not something which is, conceptually, mutually exclusive. Look at the classic Tom & Jerry cartoons - kids and adults enjoy them equally. Are you seriously saying that a comic could never do likewise?

AndyB wrote:You keep saying you are not judging the contents by the existence of the contents page on page 3 rather than a comic strip, yet that is precisely what you did do. Oh, it has a contents page on page 3 instead of a comic strip. Well, I'm not buying that then. Oh look, all the other comics and magazines have contents pages too. That's cutting your nose off to spite your face.

On what sense of logic are you operating, Andy, because it bears no resemblance to any sensible one?! I made no pronouncements on the quality (or otherwise) of any individual strip in that particulr weekly issue - therefore no judgement on the contents. The only point I made was that the contents page deterred me from browsing through the issue because it acted as a barrier to getting right into the main meal. Doubtless it won't matter to regular readers or subscribers who get the comic anyway, but it could certainly put off a casual browser from delving any further into the comic .

AndyB wrote:You are talking nonsense, Kid. It doesn't matter what you and I think of the contents unless we are buying a comic for a child. It is a fact that if we write to Mike Stirling or Craig Graham, they will take an interest in what we have to say, but if kids are also in contact to say something different, whether directly or via focus groups, they will ignore what we think, because we are not the target audience, and we will always take second place to those who are. That is the reality, and it is well beyond time that you recognised that.

I'll concede that one of us is talking nonsense, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ on who more rightfully deserves that dubious distinction. When I buy a comic, I'm buying it for the child that yet exists within me. The fact that you can't recognise or account for that means that you're not taking all the pertinent facts into consideration when evaluating what I'm saying.