Basic Instructions, Part 1
Several months ago I clicked on a web link that led me to a comic called
Basic Instructions, by Scott Meyer. I thought, “Damn, this is good.” So I sent
him my compliments via e-mail.
Scott replied, expressing deep suspicion that I was really the Dilbert
cartoonist and not some a-hole yanking his chain. I thought, “Damn, he’s cynical
and paranoid. He’s a natural cartoonist.”
Somehow I convinced him I was real. Over the course of the next few months I
offered him some tips for getting syndicated in newspapers. It dawned on me that
my blog readers might want to follow that conversation, like a reality show, and
see if my sage advice can help a talented unknown hit the big time.
You can help. Over the next month or more, with Scott’s permission, I’ll give
you updates showing my advice and his responses. Your comments will guide us.
When his work gets to the point where I think he should submit it for
syndication, I’ll show him how that’s done and let you follow along.
Yes, he is a lucky bastard. But talent causes luck, so it’s not a complete
accident.
First, let me catch you up. Start where I did, at his web page, and check out
some of his work as I first saw it. Be sure to read his comic titled “How to
Disguise a Yawn.”
http://www.basicinstructions.net/
The format Scott uses fits his writing style perfectly. Unfortunately, that
physical shape, and his wordiness, won’t sell to major newspapers. Newspapers
are looking for single-panel strips like Bizarro, or the three-or-four panel
strips like Dilbert. And the words have to be large enough for their older
subscribers to read. That means less wordiness and larger text.
My first advice to Scott was to put the comic in strip format and reduce the
wordiness to improve its marketability. Multi-panel strips are easier to sell
than single-panel strips because newspapers use more of them.
A change in format is a huge decision for a cartoonist. Cartoonists tend to
be natural single-panel writers or natural multi-panel writers. If I tried to
put Dilbert in one panel, it would fall flat. If Gary Larsen had written The Far
Side in more than one panel, I think he would have flopped. Douglas Adams needed
a whole page for a joke. Henny Youngman needed one sentence. I think those
differences are hard coded. You need to find the format that fits your
writing.
After a few rounds of trying to fit into the strip format, here are a few
samples of what Scott came up with.
I’ll have lots more advice on making it more marketable. But now it’s your
turn. What do you think?
Holy crap. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a positive response to a new
comic. (See yesterday’s comments.) It looks as if about 80% of you like it a
lot.
Let me put that in perspective.
Dilbert is in 2,000 newspapers, and I would guess that only 20% of the
general public enjoys it. That’s all it takes to be a big commercial success,
especially if that 20% is an identifiable demographic group.
Pick almost any famous music group and ask yourself what percentage of the
general public loves it. First, 70% of the public won’t like music from the
entire genre (country, hip hop, whatever). If your art moves two-out-of-ten
people, that’s huge.
Readers of The Dilbert Blog are far from a representative sample of the
world, so one must use caution in interpreting the feedback. As I described in a
much earlier post, the thing you look for in evaluating entertainment is
physical activity, not opinion. These two comments, for example, are not
equal:
1. I love that comic.
2. I added it to my RSS feed.
Saying you love a comic is words. Adding it to your RSS feed, or taping it to
your door, are examples of action. While only 20% of the public might enjoy
Dilbert, the workplace humor inspires an unusual amount of action. It’s probably
the most copied comic of all time, thanks to the Internet. Action predicts
commercial potential.
If you look at the comments about Basic Instruction, you see a lot of action.
People added it to their favorites list, or subscribed to it, or said they would
buy it in book or calendar form.
Opinions were divided on whether the original square-and-wordy format was
better than the slimmed down comic strip panel form. The comic strip form is far
more commercial, assuming you are selling to newspapers. But as many of you
pointed out, the market for newspapers is shrinking. Many of you advise that
Scott Meyer should take his work directly to books and calendars and Internet
publishing.
Has that ever worked?
Yes, on a small scale. I believe Scott could leverage the visibility he is
getting here to earn perhaps $100K per year with a small book deal, small
calendar deal, self-publication in smaller alternative newspapers, and a small
but growing Internet presence. I put his odds of making that strategy work at
about 90%.
Now let’s look at newspaper syndication. Assuming the comic got picked up by
500 newspapers in five years, and licensing started to take off (books,
calendars, greeting cards), that would put him in the $500K to $1 million per
year range, with lots of room for upside growth. But what are the odds of that
happening, even with my support?
Only a handful of comics per decade have made it to 500 newspapers. And the
newspaper industry is struggling, so the odds of it happening again are falling
fast. In all likelihood, Dilbert will be the last mega-comic, and it launched in
1989.
Syndication means splitting your earnings, typically 50-50, with the
syndication company, in the hope that they can more than double your sales. For
a complete unknown, as I was in 1989, that’s an easy choice. But Scott Meyer
already has traction, a small stream of income from Internet ads and small
publications, interest from potential licensees, and now some extra attention
from this blog.
What are Scott’s odds of making the syndication path work? If he keeps to the
old and square format, I would say 5%. If he moves to the strip form, all things
considered, I think his odds of getting an offer for syndication are 90%, and
his odds of making 500 newspapers, even in a declining market, might be as high
as 50%. If that happened, even if newspapers continued their decline, it would
be a springboard to larger book and calendar deals, etc.
The rational path is to try and develop the strip to the point where Scott
gets a syndication offer. Then he can make his decision.
Your question of the day is this: Should Scott stick to relationship humor,
so the comic is easier to market, or stay broad?
I’ll pause from this topic for a few days until Scott has some more
samples.
Recently I agreed to publicly advise cartoonist Scott Meyer, in the fashion
of a reality show, with your help, as he attempts to develop his comic, Basic
Instructions, for a bigger audience. If you are new to this blog, start with
this link to catch up:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html
In my previous post on this topic, I asked my readers whether Scott Meyer
should focus his strip on relationships, to make it more marketable, or keep it
general. The overwhelming majority of readers recommended keeping it
general.
How many comics have succeeded with a “general” topic? The most successful
example that comes to mind is The Far Side. There’s also Bizarro, Herman, Bloom
County, and Non Sequitur.
But how general are they really?
Arguably, The Far Side had a wildlife theme. It usually featured some sort of
creature acting like a human. And it often focused on an unlucky coincidence,
such as the daycare center being next to the dingo dog sanctuary.
The purpose of having a theme is so readers can say, “That’s me.” The Far
Side accomplished that in a novel way. When people would send me their favorite
Far Side clipping, it was their way of saying, “This is my sense of humor. I am
weirder and darker than you might imagine.” It was completely personal. It was
also one-of-a-kind.
Bloom County had kids and a penguin and a guy in a wheelchair. Its themes
were all over the place. But interestingly, he won the Pulitzer Prize for
editorial cartooning. While the author, Breathed, certainly thought he was
covering a wide variety of themes, many readers perceived it as a political
comic.
Hold that thought, and allow me expand it with a story from my own
experience.
When Dilbert was new, a computer publication approached United Media to
reprint all of my computer-themed Dilbert strips in their magazine. The deal was
made. Then United Media went to the archives to assemble all of my
computer-related comics.
There were six.
Over a thousand Dilbert comics had been published, and both the computer
publication people and my own syndication company thought Dilbert was “about
computers.” Readers tell you what your comic is about, regardless of how many
times you address a theme.
Not long after that strange event, the media started going nuts for Dilbert.
They liked the fact that it showed the workers’ point of view. Again, this was
news to me. In the early days of Dilbert, my themes were quite general. Dilbert
had a job, but it wasn’t the focus. In those days, when I showed the workplace,
I was as likely to show the management view as the employee view. The media, and
my readers, told me I had a workplace strip that took the workers’ perspective.
I took the hint, changed the focus to actually be about the workplace, and
Dilbert’s perspective, and the strip took off like crazy.
It’s much easier to sell a comic if you can describe what it’s about in a
word or two.
Dilbert: cubicle dwellers
Cathy: women
Peanuts: kids
Calvin and
Hobbes: Little boy
For Better or For Worse: Family
Marmaduke: Big
dog
Get Fuzzy: Dog and Cat
Pearls Before Swine: Stupidity
My advice to Scott Meyer is to focus on men-women themes about 25% of the
time at this stage. That’s enough to give the strip an identity without
seriously limiting the topics he can address. And from the samples I’ve seen,
those themes are often his best.
For the other 75% of his comics, it’s enough to simply have a man and woman
in the conversation, acting as men and women do, and it will seem like a
relationship strip regardless of the topic. He can even feature one character, a
male, acting typically male, and it will still seem like a strip about men and
women in the larger context of the comic.
Strategically, if he plans to submit his work for syndication, this approach
will give the editors who review it some choices on which way to develop it.
Scott can always say no to any offer or advice. But if the only syndication
offer comes attached with the strong advice to make Basic Instructions more
about relationships, to make it easier for them to sell, Scott can at least have
that option.
Once he’s in 1,000 newspapers, he can do anything he wants.
If you are new to my ongoing reality series on cartoonist Scott Meyer, start
with this link to catch up:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html
In an earlier post I advised Scott to try focusing on relationship themes, to
make the strip “about something,” and therefore more marketable. The readers of
this blog overwhelmingly advised the opposite.
So who gave the best advice? Was it the award-winning syndicated cartoonist
with nearly two decades of experience? Or was it the random people who have no
expertise?
See for yourself. Click to enlarge.
Yes, yes, you people with no experience as cartoonists seem to have given the
best advice. If we are to judge by these four new comics, I think you’ll agree
they don’t achieve the same level of humor as Scott’s work on http://basicinstructions.net/
But why?
First, these four comics yell to the reader, “I sat down and tried to think
of some ideas about relationships.” Once you’re in that hole, it’s hard to write
your way out. Scott’s a terrific writer, but my advice created a large
burden.
Compare these new comics to Scott’s recent comic on http://basicinstructions.net/, about trying to silently
open a bag of snacks at the movies. That premise is an inspired observation. You
immediately have that “been there” feeling. And in its own way, it is a
relationship theme because the woman solved a problem for the man. The premise
lifts the writing and makes it easy. And the reader knows the premise came from
life, not sitting and thinking of ideas.
As a creator, it’s tough to have a great inspiration every day. If you add
the constraint that the inspiration has to be in a narrow field, you bring down
the odds considerably.
Scott has another obstacle when focusing his comic on relationships, and this
one is bigger than the first: Humor requires a level of truth that is
incompatible with staying married. Realistically, Scott can’t venture too far
into relationship truth with a comic that is autobiographical.
In the aforementioned snack-opening comic, his wife was the problem-solver.
That comic works because it rings of truth. But there can’t be that many marital
truths that are also a compliment to the spouse. So Scott is limited both by the
narrow focus (relationships), and also by the fact he’s married.
When I started Dilbert, I worked in an office. I wrote truth about the
workplace, and it had an immediate negative impact on my so-called career. If
you think people will understand that a joke is just a joke, you’re wrong. Jokes
are an implied criticism. That’s why you like ‘em.
My other advice to Scott involved changing the physical form of the comic to
a rectangle, so it fits in newspapers. I also recommended making it less wordy.
Most of you advised against those changes too. Judging from the rectangle
samples I’ve seen (including a few you haven’t seen), I have to say you’re right
again. His best work is in the wordier, four-square format.
So what the hell good is all my expertise if I keep getting everything wrong?
Obviously I need to step up my game.
What now?
Do I advise Scott to quit on the relationship theme, and the strip format,
and try to be the first cartoonist to make it big the “alternative” way? Does
the Internet change the game enough to make that a smart strategy? Maybe, but
that option stays open no matter what.
Let’s try one more strategy to make the strip format and the relationship
theme work. I’d like you to suggest comic themes for Scott, based on your own
observations. They don’t have to be husband-wife centric, as long as they expose
a gender difference in how people think or act.
I’ll start. In my house, when it’s “time to go” someplace, I put on my jacket
and go stand near the door. Once there, time stands still. To me, “time to
leave” means “go stand near the door.” To other people, it signals the start of
an infinite sequence of events that may or may not culminate in leaving.
That’s a comic.
What’s your relationship observation? (Watch how hard it is to avoid clichés
you have seen a million times.)
If you are new to my ongoing reality series on cartoonist Scott Meyer, start
with this link to catch up:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html
Readers of this blog overwhelmingly preferred reading Basic Instructions in
its original 4-panel and wordy format compared to the simpler strip format, the
sort that newspapers are more willing to buy. As an experiment, I asked Scott to
keep all of the content of an existing 4-panel square formatted strip and simply
stuff it into newspaper strip dimensions. The question was whether the lettering
would become too small to read.
Click to enlarge.
I think it works, but just barely. Newspaper readers are mostly older, and
they aren’t keen on tiny print. Without the benefit of real data, I would guess
at least twenty percent of newspaper readers would have a hard time reading
it.
But that’s true of existing comics too. Doonesbury has small text and lots of
words.
Do you think he should try to get syndicated in this hard-to-read format, or
use fewer words, increase text size, and dilute the humor density?
In yesterday’s post I showed you how Scott Meyer’s comic, Basic Instructions,
would look stuffed into a traditional comic strip format. It’s a tight fit.
Today, as an experiment, I rewrote Scott’s joke for Dilbert, to see how many
words I could save by featuring a well-understood character, and reducing the
humor peaks from four to two.
There are only about a hundred jokes in the universe. All humorists recycle
them with their own twists and characters. In this case, you’re seeing a
variation of “advice that makes things worse.” Scott’s twist on it is great
because doing a bad job calming a child is naturally worse than doing a bad job
at most other things. His setup does half of the work. That’s how he can find
four separate humor points on one setup.
I took that same excellent setup and put it in an office setting. By
featuring Dilbert, there’s a lot I don’t have to explain to the reader. You
already know Dilbert has no skill in dealing with people, much less children.
And you know his impulse for honesty and quantifying things causes him trouble.
I don’t need words to describe any of that.
Click to enlarge
Using familiar characters, in familiar situations, makes humor work more
easily. People perceive the familiar as funnier than the abstract. Familiar
situations allow readers to add their own feelings to the situation. I would
imagine, for example, that taking your own kid to the workplace would make you
wonder about the worst thing that could happen to him there. That adds
something, if you’ve ever been in that situation or considered it.
I’m not trying to compete with Scott’s frightened child comic. It’s his joke.
If it works in Dilbert, it’s only because the setup is so strong. I’m just
showing the benefit of having established characters. And one of the benefits is
reduced words.
It should be noted that The Far Side had no established characters and used
few words. There isn’t one solution to art. I’m just showing you the
options.
In my ongoing reality series, I continue advising Scott Meyer on how to
become a syndicated cartoonist. If you haven’t been following the story, start
here:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/08/basic-instruc-1.html
Allow me to set the stage for today. Have you noticed that bad movies seem
like good movies when you watch them on an airplane? Your context changes the
experience. On a long flight, you are delighted about any form of
stimulation.
When you judge the potential of comics, you have to make sure you have the
right context. To make my point, here are a few of the original Dilbert comics I
submitted to syndicates in 1988. These were reviewed by the top comic
syndication editors on the planet, all experts at recognizing future comic hits.
Only one editor, Sarah Gillespie, at United Media, saw potential in Dilbert and
offered me a contract. The other editors passed.
Only one other syndicate gave me a personalized response. The editor
helpfully suggested that perhaps I could find an actual artist to do the drawing
for me. Ouch.
When United Media offered me a contract, I offered to partner with a real
artist so I wouldn't embarrass them. That’s when a strange thing happened.
Sarah Gillespie said my art was fine.
Within a week, my art improved about 30%, simply because someone with
credibility told me I was an artist. It was like my very own Wizard of Oz
moment, where the Wizard told me all I needed was a syndication contract and I
would become a talented cartoonist. In the following years, my writing and art
steadily improved. It was the mid-nineties before Dilbert grew into something
the public could embrace.
That’s your context for looking at Scott Meyer’s new batch of comics. The
question to ask is “What could it become in three years.” Would he master the
3-panel strip form, and find the rhythm? Does he have the right stuff to develop
the right stuff? Is he already there?
For your comments, please tell me your age and then list any comics currently
IN NEWSPAPERS that you like better than Basic Instructions. That will be
revealing.
In my ongoing reality series, I continue advising Scott Meyer on how to
become a syndicated cartoonist. Most recently, I asked Scott to try drawing some
strips with three panels and fewer words. That’s the formula for successful
syndication in newspapers because newspapers traditionally avoid buying anything
else.
Every writer seems to have a natural rhythm. For example, I’ve never written
a funny single-panel comic despite numerous efforts. Scott’s natural rhythm
seems to be a longer, wordier format than you see in typical newspaper comics.
But he and I both thought it was worth testing that assumption.
Here’s a comic that Scott created primarily to test the newspaper size and
word count.
I like it, but not as much as his longer form. Compare it to his archive on
http://basicinstructions.net/
Still, his short form is funnier than 90% of what you’ll see in the funny
pages today, including Dilbert. (I just checked dilbert.com. Today’s Dilbert
wasn’t my best work.)
Is being funnier than 90% of other comics enough to be syndicated? The answer
is yes, definitely, if the comic is “about something,” such as marriage, or the
workplace, or kids, etc. Without that extra demographic hook, it’s a tougher
sell. Dilbert wouldn’t have made it without the workplace angle.
Or does it make more sense for Scott to stick with the longer and funnier
format and try to grow it online while also trying to convince newspapers to
change their ways? You can fit a square peg into a round hole if you have a big
enough hammer, but new cartoonists don’t have big hammers. There’s a first time
for everything, but it’s a tough sell.
Some of you will say Scott should stick to the long form, keep his artistic
integrity, and live a modest life with a modest income. I’ll respect that advice
from anyone who quit his job as a high powered lawyer, donated his assets to
charity, and found happiness as a barista at Starbucks.
Next step, I arranged for Scott to get some expert advice from my syndication
company, United Media. What would you advise United Media to tell Scott?
1. Keep developing Basic Instruction in the short form.
2. Try to sell the
long form to newspapers.
3. Team Scott with another artist to do the
drawing.
4. Add a theme hook to the strip. Make it “about something.”
5.
Distribute the long form online only.
6. Pass.
Keep in mind that syndicates only launch about two strips every year, and
they have thousands of submissions to choose from. I doubt any submissions will
be as funny as Basic Instructions (99% are dreadful) but some could be easier to
sell.
]]>
