Comics UK

So, quick question- this being a 3 week issue, is it regular page length or a bumper issue? And what price is it?

Thanks!
Ross

It's the usual 36 pages, distinguished only by the bag of plastic landfill.

In a way, I prefer this (the Beano's only 36 pages as well) to arbitrarily upping the page count just to make it seem as if there's more content, as it feels more honest. Printing 44 pages when you can only afford to pay for 24 (or, in the Beano's case, 17) is like calling everyone to a meeting for two hours when you don't have anything to say.

The reason I ask about the price is that i am deciding whether to buy the issue now on my iPad or wait till I can get the physical issue in 2 months time (in Australia). I waited for the Christmas issue and got it for $9 or so, then realised I could have got it for half that price on the iPad and that really I was paying for the 'gifts'. In that case I wasn't too miffed as it was a larger issue so I did get a little more than normal. In this case the issue is the same length, so I would rather pay the online $1.99 which is the usual iPad issue price rather than pay extra for the physical issue which would end up costing me more than a regular issue and all I'd be getting extra is some cheap plastic toys I don't want.

Anyway, love the cover to this issue which is why I'm getting it (sadly can't afford to buy it every week).

Ta,
Ross

swirlythingy wrote:It's the usual 36 pages, distinguished only by the bag of plastic landfill...

I bought this yesterday...four quid for 36 pages - reprints included. I know you get a bit of warehouse left over tat, but that really is very poor value. I'm guessing there are sound economic reasons, but for the first time since the Xtreme days I feel I could have spent my money more wisely. And on top of that, I've a fortnight without Nuke Noodle & co....

swirlythingy wrote:In a way, I prefer this (the Beano's only 36 pages as well) to arbitrarily upping the page count just to make it seem as if there's more content, as it feels more honest.

Nothing very honest about bagging it up with "3 Mystery Gifts" which turn out to be stuff that's already been given away in recent promo issues (obviously left over from those issues). Disgraceful.

£3.99!?! Yeah, sounds like a rip-off to me, should've had extra comic content for that money. And if the gifts are duplicated tat, that's even worse. Haven't bought it yet, shame the newsagent I went to yesterday doesn't sell it, because they charged me £1.50 instead of £2.50 for The Beano, and them making the same mistake on The Dandy would've saved me a couple of quid.

Digifiend wrote:£3.99!?! Yeah, sounds like a rip-off to me, should've had extra comic content for that money.

As has been said on this forum many times, it's all down to the economics of publishing and as we know, publishing is a harsher business today than it was 20 or 40 years ago. If one double-priced issue helps keep the comic afloat I don't mind spending an extra two quid. And why are adult collectors bothered about what toys are given away with the comics? We might consider them "plastic tat" but that's because we're not seven years old. (Although personally I was pleased with the Dandy notepad I had with my issue this week.)

I know this is stretching things too far in a positive spin, and I'm saying it tongue in cheek, but no one's actually out of pocket if you think about it because under normal circumstances you'd be spending £5.97 on The Dandy over three weeks, not £3.99.

Lew, I have a subscription, so I don't pay any more, but that's not the point. And neither is this:

Lew Stringer wrote:why are adult collectors bothered about what toys are given away with the comics? We might consider them "plastic tat" but that's because we're not seven years old.

The point is, the 'mystery gifts' were just left-over ones from previous issues. I'm just imagining all the seven-year-olds ripping open their bags and their faces dropping as they say to themselves, 'Oh, a Bananaman punching hand. I've already got one of those.'
Calling them 'Mystery Gifts': I wonder why? Not at all because they're repeats!?

It's a con, and not only that, it's a con aimed at children. It stinks.

Ginger wrote:Lew, I have a subscription, so I don't pay any more, but that's not the point. And neither is this:

Lew Stringer wrote:why are adult collectors bothered about what toys are given away with the comics? We might consider them "plastic tat" but that's because we're not seven years old.

The point is, the 'mystery gifts' were just left-over ones from previous issues. I'm just imagining all the seven-year-olds ripping open their bags and their faces dropping as they say to themselves, 'Oh, a Bananaman punching hand. I've already got one of those.'
Calling them 'Mystery Gifts': I wonder why? Not at all because they're repeats!?

It's a con, and not only that, it's a con aimed at children. It stinks.

Yes, the idea is to use up old stock of gifts. There's no mystery or cover up about that. Doctor Who Adventures had a "mystery gift" last week for the same reason, but somehow Dandy and Beano are always the focus of these complaints. I see your point if kids are disappointed by receiving something they already have but that's assuming the same kids buy The Dandy week after week, and assuming the kids haven't lost/broken/thrown away the gifts they had months ago. Most readers aren't collectors. They don't keep the "tat" for long.

Also, comics have always repeated gifts. How many thunder bangs, frisbees, and airplane gifts have there been over the years?

Lew Stringer wrote: Yes, the idea is to use up old stock of gifts. There's no mystery or cover up about that....
Also, comics have always repeated gifts. How many thunder bangs, frisbees, and airplane gifts have there been over the years?

Lew, I understand you feel the need to defend the comic you work for, but really, any serious attempt to deny that calling them 'Mystery Gifts' and putting them in a non-see-through bag/cover was anything other than a cover-up of the fact that the gifts were recent repeats, is frankly disingenuous.
It's not a huge deal, especially, as I say, if you're a subscriber, but let's not deny what's happening here, please.

I would much rather they bag sweets alongside the comics than those cheap plastic toys. Cos then they appeal to both adults and children. It also another excuse to eat sweets.
On a more serious note, it would be interesting to see what the readers prefer though. Hopefully it's sweets but that wouldnt change anything if the plastic toys were actually cheaper, which wouldn't surprise me.

Ginger wrote:Lew, I understand you feel the need to defend the comic you work for, but really, any serious attempt to deny that calling them 'Mystery Gifts' and putting them in a non-see-through bag/cover was anything other than a cover-up of the fact that the gifts were recent repeats, is frankly disingenuous.
It's not a huge deal, especially, as I say, if you're a subscriber, but let's not deny what's happening here, please.

Oh please, let's not turn this into a straw man argument of claiming my comments are down to some sort of vested interest. As I said, Doctor Who Adventures also had a "mystery gift" in a covered bag last week, which was no doubt one of the old gifts again. (I've never worked for that title by the way.)

Perhaps any members who buy The Dandy for their children might like to comment if their kids feel "ripped off" or not? Otherwise speaking on behalf of someone else's kids is just theory.

Lew Stringer wrote: Oh please, let's not turn this into a straw man argument of claiming my comments are down to some sort of vested interest. As I said, Doctor Who Adventures also had a "mystery gift" in a covered bag last week, which was no doubt one of the old gifts again. (I've never worked for that title by the way.)

Interesting argument. You're saying that because another comic is pulling the same dirty trick then that makes it okay?

Lew Stringer wrote: Perhaps any members who buy The Dandy for their children might like to comment if their kids feel "ripped off" or not? Otherwise speaking on behalf of someone else's kids is just theory.

Actually, whilst my kids aren't that interested in the comic these days (or comics in general, ignorant scallywags!), they do sometimes get a few minutes enjoyment out of the 'gifts'. On this occasion, they immediately recognised the tat from not-very-long-ago, and were pretty non-plussed.

I'm not trying to goad you here, Lew, I just think you're trying to defend the undefendable. What's the point? It's a bit of rather dubious marketing, why not just admit it? You're coming across like a dodgy politician at the moment.

Ginger wrote:

Lew Stringer wrote: Oh please, let's not turn this into a straw man argument of claiming my comments are down to some sort of vested interest. As I said, Doctor Who Adventures also had a "mystery gift" in a covered bag last week, which was no doubt one of the old gifts again. (I've never worked for that title by the way.)

Interesting argument. You're saying that because another comic is pulling the same dirty trick then that makes it okay?

No, read it again. I'm defending myself from your accusation of saying I'm speaking from a vested interest by pointing out that other comics I've never worked for also repeat old gift stock.

Ginger wrote:

Lew Stringer wrote: Perhaps any members who buy The Dandy for their children might like to comment if their kids feel "ripped off" or not? Otherwise speaking on behalf of someone else's kids is just theory.

Actually, whilst my kids aren't that interested in the comic these days (or comics in general, ignorant scallywags!), they do sometimes get a few minutes enjoyment out of the 'gifts'. On this occasion, they immediately recognised the tat from not-very-long-ago, and were pretty non-plussed.

I'm not trying to goad you here, Lew, I just think you're trying to defend the undefendable. What's the point? It's a bit of rather dubious marketing, why not just admit it?

I'm not defending the policy, just explaining it. The problem here is that people are so quick to condemn The Dandy and Beano but if one looks at the bigger picture many other titles are doing exactly the same thing. Why are Dandy and Beano always singled out?

Ginger wrote:You're coming across like a dodgy politician at the moment.

Really? So saying that kids might actually like having the same gift they'd previously broken is as bad as parliamentary corruption now is it? Get real. You sound like the sort of person who'd complain about the contents of a Lucky Bag, which, thinking about it, is basically what people are doing.

Speaking of Lucky Bags, there was Lucky Bag Comic about ten years ago which had mystery gifts (and some were repeated). The idea has been around a long time so it's bemusing to see it causing such a fuss this week just because The Dandy has done it once.

(And yes, I did contribute to Lucky Bag Comic. So before any more comments about vested interest I'll repeat again that I'm not defending the recurring gift idea, just explaining that it's not unique to The Dandy.)

I'm not defending the policy, just explaining it. The problem here is that people are so quick to condemn The Dandy and Beano but if one looks at the bigger picture many other titles are doing exactly the same thing. Why are Dandy and Beano always singled out?

I think the Beano and Dandy aren't singled out as such. Doctor Who Adventures, to take the example you mentioned, is a far younger comic than either and as such I think it's fair to say that it doesn't have anywhere near the same adult following, as there hasn't been time for a nostalgia base to be established. No adult who picks up Doctor Who Adventures can say 'It's completely changed since I read it', as it hasn't been around as long, whereas many parents who get the Beano or Dandy for their children will inevitably say this.

The other thing is that the Beano and Dandy are the only traditional humour comics still with us - indeed, when the Dandy was Xtreme, the Beano was the sole representative of the genre. Most of the other titles do not appeal to those of us who still enjoy humour comics, but are above their intended age demographic (A bracket I include myself in). On a personal level, I feel Toxic has too much magazine content and too few comic strips, I'm not especially into Doctor Who or The Simpsons, and Viz's humour style just doesn't sit comfortably with me. Just about all the others are licensed titles based on children's TV series which, I suspect, are of little interest for most members on here. If the Beezer, Topper, Buster, Whizzer and Chips etc. still existed, I think far fewer people would complain about the Beano and Dandy (I'm not saying they should be brought back, just that having more titles would either show that they weren't so bad compared to other similar comics, or if readers didn't like them they would have more choices to turn to).