Reinventing Micropayments

By: Joel Fagin
Department: Features
Issue: May 2007 Issue

Webcomics have always had trouble making money, and I'm not even talking about a living wage. Not even minimum wage. Just a little something to offset a hobby and pay for some materials. Only the really popular comics can do it -- the pop culture sensations -- can actually create a living for their creators. Most people have given up trying.

The best solution to this problem was given by Scott McCloud in his book Reinventing Comics. He suggested a micropayment system where readers would pay a small amount - a couple of cents to a dollar, say - for creative content from the web, whether novels, comics, music or movies. Among even a few hundred readers, a couple of cents would offset costs for the webcomic artist beautifully.

In the comic continuation of Reinventing Comics titled I Can't Stop Thinking, Scott McCloud compares music downloads to webcomics in his arguments for the viability of micropayments. His points are all excellent ones, but they are concerned with why it should work -- why people should be willing to pay their loose change towards a comic they like. That's not really important. That's simply gospel, convincing people of an idea. We don't need convincing. We don't want to know why it should work, we want to know how it can.

Because in the seven years since Reinventing Comics, micropayments have gone nowhere at all.

Scott McCloud himself had the only comic I'm aware of that used the system and even he has recently abandoned the idea of micropayments for it. The artists don't want to risk losing their readers and the readers seem to have no interest at all in paying even a small amount of money for something they're used to getting for free. Hah! It'd be like people flocking to a service that sells music for, oh, I dunno, ninety-nine cents when they could just download it for free over on the file sharing networks.

Ridiculous.

 

iTunes versus Webcomics

"We wanted to sell a million songs in the first six months. We did it in a week." - Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, 2003

In the same period it took for micropayments for webcomics to go from a great idea to... still just a great idea, the Apple iTunes Music Store has been selling creative content for small amounts of money when the same content is available for free elsewhere. It has managed to sell over two and a half billion songs, captured 80% of the online music market and is now the fourth largest music retailer in the United States along side stores like Walmart and Target. It did this whilst constantly competing against free music download services such as Napster, Kazaa, Grokster, Limewire and eDonkey, against CD retailers, and against other online music stores who got in first, such as Rhapsody and Pressplay.

Eighty percent. In any other market, a 30% share is a resounding victory. 80% is just flabbergasting. There were no special circumstances. They weren't first, or cheapest, or a monopoly. Sure, the iTunes Music Store worked seamlessly with the iPod but it's not like people couldn't still use ripped CDs and illegally downloaded music on it as well. They had staggering amounts of determined competitors on every possible level, much of it backed by the record industry powerhouses themselves. It really is ridiculous. It's absurd, impossible and unheard of. Yet it worked.

So... why not for webcomics? The parallels are still there and the markets are still very much the same. In both cases, there is free content available on the web that the creators would like to encourage people to pay a small and quite reasonable amount for. The only difference now is that Apple is making hundreds of millions of dollars off micropayments and webcomics are not.

So, why exactly can Apple do it and we can't? Why is iTunes so successful and the greater bulk of the webcomic community still unable to make a buck? Why are people willing to pay their loose change towards music but not their comics?

Let's dissect an Apple.

 

But first...

Before we do so, there are some important differences between the music and webcomic markets that we have to be aware of and allow for as we proceed.

One, free music downloads are illegal whereas free webcomics are normal business. This is important because the customer has certain expectations. Whether they download songs illegally or not, the customers understand that music is something you should normally pay for. However, they don't have this expectation of webcomics. This leads on to the next point...

Two, webcomic creators are generally not prepared to risk losing readers. Slam a toll gate down on a webcomic and your readership will plummet. To make this work, then, we must eliminate this problem.

Three, webcomic creators generally treat it as a hobby. They don't expect to get rich, or even usually make a living, but they feel it's fair to get something back. Okay, this is a broad generalization, but due to points one and two, I think earning a living would be difficult for the time being. For now, then, we'll concentrate on just making more money rather than a making a lot of it.

Four, webcomic creators do not have the resources of Apple. Our solution needs to be as easy and straightforward to implement as possible.

Right, with those firmly in mind, let's look at our two markets side by side and work out what, exactly, is going on here.

 

Micropayments

"(With Pressplay and Rhapsody) You can't just go get a song and pay a little." - Steve Jobs, 2003

Micropayments don't make selling creative content online successful. They never did, as Apple clearly understood. All they do - the only thing they do - is make it viable.

Advocates of micropayments for webcomics seem to be expecting it to "just work" to borrow an Apple phrase. They focus on the low cost, assuming that a handful of cents for a worthwhile comic is great value for money, so people should be willing to pay, right? They forget, however, that no matter how little they ask for, anything over zero is a price hike. It doesn't matter if you think it's a fair and reasonable price, or even if you think it's dead cheap and way too low - consumers are not going to spend money because of their sense of fair play. The only people who will are other comic creators, which is hardly the point here.

And after expecting micropayments to "just work" and seeing that they didn't, webcomic creators became not only disenchanted with the idea of micropayments but also with the possibility of ever having a fair market at all. It is far more common now to hear that micropayments "just don't work" -- that the entire premise is flawed and that consumers will never pay for something that they're used to getting for free.

It never occurred to anyone to look somewhere else for the problem. It's like trying to find your glasses when they're on your nose. In fact, it has nothing to do with micropayments at all. The flaw in the market isn't the price, it's the market itself.

 

Services and Subscriptions

"The subscription model has failed so far. Customers don't seem to be interested in it" - Steve Jobs, 2007

Webcomics are currently treated like a service rather than a product. You don't get to keep the comic but rather you get access to it. The creator controls that access and can turn it off at any time. Any money they do make is generally through advertising. It's like how free-to-air television and radio work.

Micropayments as Scott McCloud pitches them don't change this but simply add a small charge for the access, turning it into a subscription model. Other non-micropayment subscription services such as Modern Tales, WirePop and others work more like cable television. They cost more but you get access to an entire catalogue of comics (whether you happen to want to read them or not).

Unfortunately, subscriptions for creative content don't really work. They actually never have. They only work when the companies that provide the subscription service also have a stranglehold on the product and its distribution so you simply can't get the product any other way. Television functions like this and the networks have only recently started feeling the ground shift beneath them thanks to DVD, iTunes and file sharing services. Cinema keeps their stranglehold on films for a short time by delaying the release of DVDs until after the theatrical run and other performance art - theatre, opera and so on - simply don't work as well on DVD anyway.

And that's it. There are no other subscription models around and the ones we have are all firmly regulated so that, at least for a time, you have no option but to pay for them as a service rather than a product.

In fact, treating a product as a service doesn't even work well when it's free. There are three bookstores in my local town and only one library and the people in each bookstore reliably outnumber those in the library. What's up with that? At the library the books cost nothing. Why is it that even free subscriptions simply don't work in an open market?

Well, how much music do you own, safely on your hard drive or on CDs? How many books and comics do you have?

Now... How many do you rent?

Anyone?

What's wrong with subscriptions is that, no matter how little you charge for them, they don't give people what they want, because what they want is to own it.

 

Ownership

"The experiment's been run. People don't want to rent their music." - Steve Jobs, 2004

When iTunes hit the web, it had two main online competitors called Rhapsody and Pressplay, both of which were subscription services. You payed monthly and listened to any music you wanted. If you stopped paying, your music would stop working. Fzzt.

And they didn't just fail, they never even got up any speed. They weren't doing well even before iTunes came along. Not even remotely. No one was interested in paying for something and not having it to own. They would rather go out and buy a CD - or download it illegally - and get to keep the music.

The paid subscriptions in the webcomic world are a little friendlier since you can always access the most recent comic and can read the first chapter or so as a taster. Still, subscriptions remain a very poor option. The user has to pay for something he normally expects for free and receives nothing permanent in exchange. Oh, you can download the comics to your hard drive one image at a time if you can be bothered spending a few dull and repetitive hours doing so, but you'd have to be quite a fan to think that was anything like a good trade.

And yet... people do this. Those with a little programming know how write automated scripts to do the work for them but others will download hundreds of images by hand if they must.

If people want something then they want to own it. They want control over it so that the product can't be snatched away if they stop paying. This is especially important for webcomics because they do sometimes simply vanish from the web.

To make money, webcomics need to offer the readers something they get to keep.

Ah, but webcomic writers already do, don't they? Many have a voluntary donation scheme which, although doesn't go quite as low as a couple of cents, is basically a micropayment system. Make just a dollar donation and you'll often get a reward for your money. You get... a sketch. Or some wallpaper.

Whee.

 

Target Audience

"Music's a part of everyone's life. Everyone." - Steve Jobs, 2001

Merchandise, such as wallpapers and sketches, is aimed at entirely the wrong target audience. It's like getting a free poster with a CD. Yeah, it's nice to have a quick look at but few people are actually going to hang it up. They're generally more interested in the actual music and are just as likely to throw the poster away. It doesn't make the experience better or easier. There's no improvement in what you care about, just a freebie that you don't much want. You'd have to be a real fan to actually want it

In an article about fans and feedback, I worked out that the true fans of a webcomic amount to just two percent of the total readership. Justin Pixler (creator of the webcomic Masters of the Art) has since worked it out separately at three percent. We'll err on the side of caution and use his figure.

These three percent are the people who will comment in tag boards, sign up for forums and send fan mail. They're the ones who care deeply about the comic and will buy merchandise either because they care enough to want it or because they think the comic creator deserves some payment. They're also the ones who will buy subscriptions should you have them.

And pretty much anything would have roughly the same percentages attached. I have the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy on DVD, for example, but I don't have any painted figurines, replica swords or even a poster. I have a friend with a block mounted poster but he got it for free. He wouldn't have it otherwise. The consumers are legion but the fans are few.

And by selling T-shirts, wallpapers, mugs, posters, badges and prints, webcomic creators are targeting their sales at the fans - at just three percent of the possible market. That's like opening a music shop that sells only Glam Rock. It doesn't matter how cheap you can sell the music - you need more customers than you're going to get. For a webcomic to make a reasonable amount of money, they need that other ninety-seven percent. We need to stop targeting our products at the fans and start targeting them at the readers.

What product can we sell for a handful of loose change that all the readers, not just the fans, will want to own?

 

The Product

"This is how we competed with piracy. We offered a better product." - Steve Jobs, 2004

In order for the greater bulk of a webcomic's audience to pay their money, you must offer them something that they want for that money. So, what do they want? There is only one thing that you know, absolutely and for a fact that every reader of your comic wants. They want to read the comic.

I've already said we won't be messing with the freely available comic on the website - that's a sure way of dropping your readership down to the three percent of fans only. This leaves two immediately obvious things that we can offer them, both of which don't work well in practice.

First, we can sell them a book, as lots of webcomics do. Books are inconvenient, however, slow to arrive and expensive to buy. They're certainly not in the magic micropayment range we want.

The second idea is to make a separate chapter of the comic and make it exclusively available in exchange for donations. This is a better idea which would probably work well if the price was suitably low. However, it's a lot of effort to make the extra comics and most webcomic creators don't have that sort of time.

No, instead we'll take the third option and do exactly what iTunes did. We're going to sell our creative content for money while it's still online for free.

How to perform this clearly impossible feat is the exact same problem faced by Apple and iTunes. The fanatical faithful - of which Apple has plenty - would spend their money as always, but that's not enough. However, everyone else can already get the content for free. How could Apple possibly make them buy it as well?

 

Convenience

"(Downloading music) offers users near instant gratification, at least compared to going down to the record store." - Steve Jobs, 2003

Convenience is a huge advantage of both illegal and legal music downloads. You don't have to grab your keys and wallet, put some shoes on, drive to the shop, buy the music and drive home. You also don't have to then rip the music to listen to it on the computer or on your portable music player of choice. iTunes and the file sharing networks are much easier. Click. Wait five minutes. Done. It's yours.

For book versions of comics, the actual purchasing is fairly easy but there's a long delay, extra money for postage and a bunch of other hassles. It's even less convenient than going to the shop and it is a huge turn off to all but that three percent of pureblood fans.

So, the obvious solution is to do as iTunes does and deliver the comic as a download. We could allow people who make donations to download a chunk of the comic all at once - a chapter, or a few chapters to make a sort of trade paperback, or even just the previous year's worth of comic. They pay their loose change in order to quickly and easily download the comic to keep for themselves.

But, really, why would they? Is ownership and convenience enough?

Absolutely. You only have to look at the gigabytes of media most people have saved on their hard drives to know that ownership's a really big deal. However, it wasn't enough for iTunes, not with the file sharing services also offering ownership at no cost. Apple couldn't just match them, they had to beat them. They had to offer better value for money than the file sharing services - better value for money, in fact, than a free product.

 

Value for Money

"We're going to fight illegal downloading by competing with it." - Steve Jobs, 2003

Offering something for free is not the same thing as giving value for money. Apple offers a massive amount of value for money across all its products and services. Webcomics, on the other hand, might offer a great deal of free content but not much value for money.

Sounds a bit contradictory, doesn't it? It's very important to define terms here. I don't mean to give them something desirable. I'm sure you're trying your best to make your webcomic as good as possible already. Value for money is different. That's not about giving people something new or something impressive - but rather giving them something that enhances what they already want or already have. Something that completes the experience.

There are two main ways of doing this but they often overlap some.

The first way of offering value for money is to provide, free of charge, ways to reduce or eliminate the inherent disadvantages. One disadvantage of downloading music is the lack of cover art, so iTunes supplies it, giving them an edge over file sharing. Similarly, one disadvantage of using an Apple computer is that it starts out unfamiliar to anyone used to Windows, so they offer training and advice free in the Apple stores.

The second way is to enhance the experience - to take what you have already bought and make it better. Apple computers come with a built in webcamera, for example, as well as a suite of excellent software for managing your media - photos, music, videos and so on. iTunes is not only an online store but a powerful, easy to use music management program with an instantaneous search. Both these things add value to the product.

In both cases, it's important to focus on what the customer wants out of the product and make it better at doing that. Computer companies like Dell and Gateway include "free" software but generally throw on whatever software they're paid to include by other companies. The quality is low and most of it is probably irrelevant at best and annoying at worst. It doesn't enhance anything, let alone what the user actually wants out of the computer.

Webcomics have quite a few disadvantages which are waved away once you have the comic safely on your hard drive. Firstly, cycling through comics online is slow. Even on the fastest broadband, there's a momentary delay as the signal whizzes over to where the comic is and then whizzes back again - something it has to do for every single image on the website. If we allow the users to download to their hard drive, that's all gone.

The second problem is the clutter. Advertising banners, tag boards, voting buttons, newsboxes... It all gets in the way, crowds the comic and almost always means you have to scroll to see it. Even the comic's title is a problem. On a webpage you have to advertise who you are, but if the comic is downloaded to someone's hard drive, they already know. The title can then be much smaller and less intrusive - or even taken out completely and replaced with a cover page at the beginning.

The second part of value for money involves enhancing the experience. That's easy enough. You simply make the comics larger and higher quality, maybe even colour them if they're not already and if you have the time. This downloadable version of your comic then becomes faster, better quality, higher resolution and with far less visual clutter than the online one. This all combines to make the user interface - the webpage - more attractive, more responsive and more pleasant to use. It appeals to all your readers, not just the fans, and they get to own the comic to boot.

Worth paying a buck for?

iTunes music is available for free off the filesharing networks but iTunes offers good quality music which is convenient, reliable and cheap. They provide cover art, allow you to use the music in presentations and home movies, and provide an easy yet powerful user interface for managing, navigating through and listening to it. Unlike the subscription efforts of their quickly dispatched competition, the user gets to own the music to boot.

Worth paying a buck for?

Two billion times over.

 

But Will it Work?

"There's no legal alternative that's worth beans." - Steve Jobs, 2003

As ideas go, it sounds too simple, maybe even simplistic, but there are lots of little reasons why it should work and six huge ones why it will.

One: It already has. Apple has used this strategy to not only beat every single one of its dozens of online competitors but also all but three of the companies who sell CDs in stores as well. They shot up from being nothing to the dominant force in the industry, making hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Two: Get a calculator and do the math and you'll find that by offering a product to the readers instead of the 3% that are true fans, we increase our potential customer base by a staggering three thousand percent. Will the income go up by the same amount? Heavens, no, but it will go up. You cannot offer a product to thirty times more people and not see an increase in sales. Clearly the more people a product is made for, the more of that product you're going to sell.

Three: Being able to own something is a really big deal to consumers. iTunes has proven this, as have illegal music downloads. VHS movies were locked into rentals for a decade and DVDs of television shows were a long time coming due to the stubbornness and paranoia of the networks, but now bought copies of movies and TV shows are where most of the profit is. We have file sharing networks, software that lets you download streaming media and thirteen separate plugins for the Firefox web browser that allow you to download and keep YouTube videos. People want to keep this stuff.

Four: It's better. The quality is higher, the user interface easier and navigation faster and more responsive. If you want to re-read an issue or chapter on the web, that's thirty or more pages to load and thirty or more adverts to scroll past. None of this is a problem once the comic's on your hard drive.

Five: There's no competition. The illegal file sharing services have many of the same advantages as iTunes, being quick, convenient and letting the user own the music. With webcomics, though, users can only download the images painstakingly by hand or buy an expensive book which will take ages to arrive. Webcomics have no viable competition that offer either convenience or ownership.

Six: Like Apple's foray into online music, the risk here is intentionally very, very low. There's some effort involved but not a great deal. You simply need to create larger, better quality versions of the comics with a simpler, cleaner navigation interface. Photoshop will even create the better versions for you with a batch action, meaning you need only do it once and then have a cup of coffee while Photoshop cycles through the rest. The entire process would take most people a couple of days and a week at most - nothing like the preparation involved with making a book.

And, just think... What if it works?

 

One more thing...

Starline X Hodge, writer and artist of Candi, and Ryuko, writer and artist of The Green Avenger, have graciously consented to be my guinea pigs for a test run. Hodge has been offering a book's worth of high quality versions of her comic for readers to download since the beginning of April and Ryuko will be starting a similar download offering this month.

I'd like to thank both artists for their help as the experience of setting up such a system was invaluable. Next month, I'll look at how they did as well as the specifics of how to successfully execute this idea - the formats, prices, image quality, files sizes and marketing considerations.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TCampbell's picture

Joel, I hate to poop on your

Joel, I hate to poop on your party, but I don't want to see somebody else slam into this brick wall.

Of your reasons, #3, #6 and #4 are correct but not relevant to micropayments specifically. #5 is also correct, but the fact that no one else is doing something is not, by itself, a sign that someone should.

#2, though, is unfounded. There is no evidence to suggest that the customer base for T-shirts is more limited than the customer base for high-resolution comic artwork. In fact, the current marketplace suggests the opposite. Wanting to read the comic is not the same as wanting to take extra time to download it, find it on your hard drive and maybe print it out just to get "the full experience." Not everybody wants the DVD. I'm not sure offhand how many people do, but I'll bet you it's a lot closer to 3% than 100%.

And #1 just makes me feel guilty, because I see a dangerous idea I had a hand in spreading.

A couple years ago, I wrote something about iTunes being a workable model for micropayments. And it is, but what I failed to emphasize at the time... and what people seem to keep missing... is something that Clay Shirky captured very well in his latest discourse:

Everyone who imagines a working micropayment system either misunderstands user preferences, or imagines preventing users from expressing those preferences. The working micropayments systems that people hold up as existence proofs — ringtones, iTunes — are businesses that have escaped from market dynamics through a monopoly or cartel (music labels, carriers, etc.) Indeed, the very appeal of micropayments to content producers (the only people who like them — they offer no feature a user has ever requested) is to re-establish the leverage of the creator over the users.

In other words, and ironically, the "huge middlemen" that McCloud strongly dislikes seem to have been necessary to the success of micropayment systems like iTunes' 99-cent price tag. And that "success" is proportional to how much content you have a piece of (iTunes most of all, followed by the music companies, with singers a distant third). So it's possible that DC, Marvel or the syndicates could come up with a working microsystem, since they're sitting on lots of older content people actually want. But the idea that micropayments will be good for the cartoonist individual does not seem grounded in reality.

Anyone who wants to resurrect the concept of micropayments for indy webcomics has to have a good counterargument for the above. I'm not seeing one here.

Give it a try if you have to, but don't bet your reputation on it.

Joel Fagin's picture

Of your reasons, #3, #6 and

Of your reasons, #3, #6 and #4 are correct but not relevant to micropayments specifically.

They're far more relevant to micropayments than anywhere else. The problem is that micropayments are not a market model - they're a price. That price has be stuck on top of an existing market model which has been operating for free until now and can't support a price, even a micro one.

#3 and #4 help construct a new market model around the price. That makes them far more relevant in the same way water is far more relevant to a man dying of thirst. Micropayments for webcomics are dying without the support of a good model.

#6 doesn't help directly but it's nice to know a glass of water is a terribly easy thing to administer.

#2, though, is wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that the customer base for T-shirts is more limited than the customer base for high-resolution comic artwork. In fact, the current marketplace suggests the opposite.

There's no evidence because no one's tried this yet - as far as I know, anyway. Correct me if you know of an example.

At any rate it doesn't really matter for the average webcomicer. The very worst thing that will happen if they try this is that there will be another product alongside the wallpapers and sketches to sell.

Prices and profits I handle next month.

The middlemen bit is speculation - as is my article, of course. It cannot be determined one way or the other until it is tried. As the effort is minimal, I say it's worth determining.

Because it might work, too.

- Joel Fagin

- Joel Fagin

http://www.between-worlds.com/tutorials/index.html

Webcomic Tutorials

TCampbell's picture

Per Xaviar's request,

Per Xaviar's request, Shirky. My piece's most recent draft is in my book but I'd already repeated the important parts.

Creators have been experimenting with selling PDFs, and more recently, CBRs, for a long time now. I will grant you that no one has been pursuing sales of these in a really high-profile way, but that's because even FREE PDF downloads usually meet with little enthusiasm. Ask the LITTLE GAMERS guys: their strip was inarguably popular, but when I spoke to them about their free-for-download print collections they were extremely laid-back. They didn't even CARE that they were making the PDF available for free, because people didn't want digital high-resolution, they wanted a book. If you're looking for a big pile of data, your best bet is probably the crushing drop-off in CBR production at Modern Tales since the feature was introduced there, which doesn't say "high demand" to me.

Joel, you're aware of McCloud's micropayments foray, but I'm not sure you're aware of Jon Rosenberg's, which seemed to find that offering micropayment-based *original content* actually resulted in an across-the-board decrease of sales revenue. So, sorry, but there is a risk to the average webcomicker.

Meanwhile, T-shirts represent the lion's share of income for self-supporting cartoonists like R. Stevens and Jeffrey Rowland.

The difference between "the middleman speculation" and your article is that Shirky's statement is a theory about a seven-year record of many, many people trying micropayments, while your piece is about a new idea birthed from two old ideas that have never really seemed to capture the public imagination.

Joel, I see my earlier self in some of your thinking, and if I seem strident here, it's because I'd like you to avoid my mistakes. You have creativity, enthusiasm, passion and courage, and I'd love it if you seasoned that with a better understanding of the supply and demand curves and a willingness to research like Howard Tayler before you jump into a new business venture.

But despite all the above, there is one thing you say I can't refute: it might work. I think you'd increase your odds of success by taking the last paragraph's advice, but some successes really do come out of nowhere. And you're gonna do this thing now, and you're gonna learn something from it. But I think your articles will be more useful if you write them after you've gathered your experimental data, not before.

xerexes's picture

Link to Shirky Article Here

TCampbell wrote:

Per Xaviar's request, Shirky.

Thanks.

TCampbell wrote:

Joel, I see my earlier self in some of your thinking, and if I seem strident here, it's because I'd like you to avoid my mistakes.

You do seem awfully strident. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to wrap up what would otherwise be simply interesting responses to Joel's article in such rhetoric.

 

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
TCampbell's picture

Um, I just said that.

Um, I just said that. Because I'd like to see Joel avoid my mistakes. Or at least learn faster than I did.
TCampbell's picture

One more thing I somehow

One more thing I somehow missed. Joel says "The Right Number" was the only comic he was aware of to use micropayments. There were many, many others besides it and Goats, the majority of which used the Bitpass system on Scott McCloud's recommendation. The demise of Bitpass has made finding the full list more difficult, but the Internet Archive has it.

Experimentation is fine, but research should come first.

xerexes's picture

Jon Rosenberg Experiment Doesn't Conflict With Article

Scott McCloud himself had the only comic I'm aware of that used the system and even he has recently abandoned the idea of micropayments for it.

Perhaps this could have been phrased differently, but in the context of the piece I thought it was clear that this was about the relative obscurity of just about every other comic that tried micropayments (and I'm not counting Goats in this b/c it's a very unusual case), not that there were never any other comics that were made available for a small payment And for the record, all of Bitpass's comics? -- a different approach than Joel's writing about here.

Second, I honestly don't think Jon Rosenberg's experiment is really relevant (that much) to the discussion we're having. Rosenberg, first of all was responding essentially to the argument that "micropayments is the answer" and a better answer than "merchandise" as a primary (some said exclusive) business model. I'd have to go back and look to see what I wrote (if anything) about Jon's experiment but with all of the over-the-top rhetoric of the time stripped away (remember it was a big McCloud VS. Dumbrella kind of thing) Jon did not collect enough data to answer anything universally. At the same time no one has so Jon's effort and write-up is still a very interesting example to consider.

But let's unpack what Jon said. His most provocative point was that selling extra content for a small fee is bad business because you can sell merchandise for a larger fee (and more profit) and your fans are only going to buy so much from you. That's a pretty straightforward point that, to put in the context of Joel's article would read like this: your core fans are going to buy some stuff from you - better to sell them things you'll make a bigger profit from (like t-shirts) than a smaller profit from (like extra content). The key insights Jon made (and I think it's valid for any content) are that your hard-core fans want to support you and that as a creator you should tap into that in a way that maximizes value to you and to them. What Jon was suggesting (I think) is that fans will buy something/donate, etc to show their fan-dom. But once that impulse is satisfied they're done (at least for awhile - since Jon's experiment was incredibly brief he has nothing to say about such behavior over time).

Joel's piece - to me anyhow - seems to accept this conclusion entirely and in fact works with that to lead to the kind of suggestions the article makes. The problem is how to activate the larger readership of a comic, not just the hard-core fans. Jon's experiment either doesn't address that or assumes you can never activate the larger readership beyond the hard-core fans (and therefore Jon might argue that Joel's idea would therefore lead back to cutting into the potential profit from fans by offering fans a lower profit item (downloads) to demonstrate their fandom than merchandise).

 

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
TCampbell's picture

Unless you know something I

Unless you know something I don't, Xaviar, "the only strip I'm aware of that did this" means "the only strip I'm aware of that did this!" If Joel comes back in and says "no, that wasn't what I meant at all, of course I knew about Diesel Sweeties" then fine, but until then...

My only point in bringing up Jon was that his admittedly incomplete data did show that sales on T-shirts and everything else dropped when micropayment-comics were added to his store, and rose when they were gone. His theory was that there's a more or less fixed percentage range of readers who support a comic.

Now, I don't think anyone argues that a 100% conversion rate is possible, so to characterize your and Joel's interest in "accessing the larger readership of a comic" that way would be a strawman argument. But a lot of working cartoonists do find the fixed-percentage-range theory fits their experience. And if it does, then slashing your prices below a certain point does not significantly increase sales, it just decreases profit per sale, which adds up to what Rosenberg cheekily called "microincome."

I also worry about the long-term dangers of setting your prices too low... if people feel like they've supported you last month by purchasing your $1 print, will they be inclined to support you again next month if all your offering is a $15 book?

So let's be clear: Joel's experiment is low-risk-- especially since he's doing it with people who aren't entrepreneurs-- but it's not no-risk. Few things are.

I've put more time and energy into this than I really meant to, I'm afraid. I like what I perceive as Joel's fire. I think it does take guts to say "this idea that's gone nowhere in seven years? I'M gonna MAKE it work." I just wish he'd done more homework first, just as I wish I'd done more homework before I tried One Simple Ad. But I hold out hope that next time either of us gets a Big Business Idea, we will.

Joel Fagin's picture

[i]Unless you know something

Unless you know something I don't, Xaviar, "the only strip I'm aware of that did this" means "the only strip I'm aware of that did this!" If Joel comes back in and says "no, that wasn't what I meant at all, of course I knew about Diesel Sweeties" then fine, but until then...

It is, in fact, the only comic I aware of that uses the system but I knew there were probably others. I didn't look them up because they're not really relevant to the article. It's common knowledge that the existing system doesn't work.

I did look for people using anything similar to the ideas here. I found a couple that were close. One person was selling micropayment access to a colour version of the comic but not a downloadable one. Someone else had CBRs to download for free.

...even FREE PDF downloads usually meet with little enthusiasm.

PDFs are terrible for this sort of thing. They're slow, unwieldy and made for print, not for the screen. Formats were the first part I wrote about in the second half and PDFs were the worst option to my mind.

I also worry about the long-term dangers of setting your prices too low... if people feel like they've supported you last month by purchasing your $1 print, will they be inclined to support you again next month if all your offering is a $15 book?

Books don't sell well and deliver very little profit. They're not much better as a market model. Again, though, price and profits are next month.

- Joel Fagin

- Joel Fagin

http://www.between-worlds.com/tutorials/index.html

Webcomic Tutorials

xerexes's picture

Links please

T,

For starters, you should link to your own piece and Clay's piece that you're essentially basing your comment on so we can all read it.

Second - Joel's offering some reasonably constructed thoughts - not claiming that he has the "answer". Which is a much better way to discuss questions about whether or not we'll ever be able to construct a model for charging for comics online than many previous discussions about "micropayments" have gone. Despite previous discussions there continues to be plenty of room for new discussion just as there are new people trying new variations on charging for comics online (Joel doesn't mention companies like Slave Labor Graphics, etc that are doing downloads for $ but that's another data point that's interesting to look at) So please participate in the discussion here, but don't try to end it.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
TCampbell's picture

Xaviar, you know I have

Xaviar, you know I have endless respect for you, but certain arguments just make me feel about a billion years old. We've HAD this discussion.

I doubt I could stop Joel from trying his thing if I wanted to. I know he has to learn the hard way and at least he's smart enough not to be taking a huge risk with it. Hey, I had to learn the hard way with One Simple Ad, too. And maybe he'll prove me wrong! That'd be great.

I'll say this, though: it's the most interesting thing I've seen on Comixpedia in a while. But "interesting" doesn't equal "sensible."

xerexes's picture

Nothing Personal on my end either...

Nothing in webcomics is more than 15 years old! That's a lot smaller number than a billion. :)

Seriously, I think the point I'm making (and I guess I need to restate to this comment) is that you're welcome to discuss but don't try to end the discussion. Your opinion is welcome but it's only as persuasive as the facts and arguments you marshal (btw really, could you give us the links to your earlier piece and the Clay Shirky piece you referenced - it'd be helpful to the discussion here)

Yes we've had heated discussions in the past but I think in large part because there was such a emotional attachment to certain ideas. (Also maybe b/c it was pre-civility code at Comixpedia? - who knows...) Have we had a discussion in the past about what largely boils down to sellling a higher resolution package of a complete webcomic (or substantial portion) for $ in addition to continuing to make the basic webcomic free? We might have, although I can't say that we have except for possibly within the swirl of many "micropayment" ideas (most of which were about charging for comics displayed in your browser). The interest of paper publishers like SLG in a pretty similar model to Joel's idea is validation enough for me that the marketplace is still willing to give some of these variations on things a spin.

Another point to make is that we're also past any poorly-framed discussion of merchandise vs. micropayments. Merchandise as a means to make a living with a webcomic is a model that works very well for some people already. Nobody is (or should be) trying to tell Jon Rosenberg (Goats) how to run his business - he has the experience and results to do that himself. Joel wrote a pretty humble piece - here's some thinking and something we're going to try. Most of the heat and angst from past discussions have come from people writing from a pretense of authority without any practical experience (or data) to back it up.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
Erg's picture

For most strips....

For most strips advertising and merch is still going to be the best bet. This is the model (more or less, syndcation is simply the newspaper paying you to advertise for them, and licensing is farming out merch or advertising) that has been successful for the last 100 years or so and I have seen little to suggest large scale change now. And why would you want it to? Most comics have no trouble selling books if they are big enough to think about printing them and they make alot on each book. It might be a worthwhile experiment to sell cbr-s or whatever in addition, but I think it is risky and far from proven, and will never be the primary revenue stream of most strips.

As far as micropayments for long form comics goes, I do think it is the future, but I think there are several things that have to happen first. One of the big publishers needs to adopt a format and go online in a serious way. Preferably all of them. A format war needs to be settled on how we are going to view these puppies. Technology will need to be developed that makes it more convienent for the average print reader to read digitally, some sort of e-book maybe. And then we need a couple sites where we can just go and purchase them, in addition to the home sites. IComics. Then we can have a successful micropayment industry. Until then, the web is mostly going to be prepublishing advert and hype generation for them.

xerexes's picture

Question About Newspapers

Erg wrote:
For most strips advertising and merch is still going to be the best bet. This is the model (more or less, syndcation is simply the newspaper paying you to advertise for them, and licensing is farming out merch or advertising) that has been successful for the last 100 years or so and I have seen little to suggest large scale change now. And why would you want it to?

Creators got paid by newspapers to make comics. The newspaper was essentially a monopoly on the distribution of daily comics (the comic book in fact came second but it was never a perfect substitute for the newspaper system). When the newspaper & syndicate had that monopoly (pre-Internet) it had control over that type of content and could "monetize" it. I don't think it's all that different from how things have evolved in music and video other than the overall demand for comics is so much smaller than those other mediums that it's not always as easy to pull out trends and changes in comics...

 

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
Erg's picture

Phenomenal cosmic powers?

First off, Xerxes, apparently I have much too much power and can actually edit your posts. I accidentally hit edit instead of quote when I tried to repond, and then tried to undo it, but I mangled your post pretty badly by erasing something. So I am sorry for that. I hope you can reconstruct your statement. The meat is there.

But what I was trying to say is regardless of how creators feel about their comics, there are pretty much only three ways comic strips make anyone money. The first, and smallest, is they are used to sell subscriptions, traditionally newspaper subscriptions but now also subscriptions on the web for the comic itself. They get people to read advertisements. This is the chief reason newspapers buy comic strips, has been in the past, and is a very important part of licensing comic strip characters by synidcates who also pay cartoonists in print. Webcartoonists advertise directly for themselves on their site. And they sell merchandise, via licensing deals with the syndicate for print comics or directly themselves when on the web. The way comic strips turn into money is not in any way different on the web, even if print cartoonists can pretend they are purer because they simple sell a comic to other people so they can be used in that way, it is simply their is no middle man on the web. The cartoonists don't have to give anyone a cut of the benefits of their work.

xerexes's picture

Close enough

Can't remember myself now!

Remember with great power comes great responsibility! ;-)

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
joeymanley's picture

The only reason not to give

The only reason not to give this a try is that people will demonize you if it doesn't work. You'll be the guy who led poor, innocent creators down the primrose path. Popular cartoonists will write manifesto's denouncing you, and less-popular cartoonists will draw pictures of themselves hitting you in the face with a brick. Business experimentation in the webcomics world carries with it a political payload that you'd best be prepared for, if you're going to proceed. As much as I like and respect everybody on this thread, I think you may already be seeing some of that political blowback.

All of which is to say: I don't see any reason not to give this a try, Joel, provided you've girded your loins and thought everything through. We can use as much experimentation as we can get, still, even though some folks who have done well using the current, limited, cottage industry mentality will get their backs up. Let them.

Good luck with your efforts, if you decide to implement your ideas.
xerexes's picture

Well Said! Well sort of...

I agree, kind of, with what Joey's saying. If T or anyone else wants to mock this or anything else at Comixpedia - have at it, but on your own website. I mean people have gone out of their way in the past to draw really funny comics that are pretty harsh on Comixpedia (not on this subject though). I always thought of most of it as a complement (and I never mind the traffic either...), well in a weird sort of way anyhow.

But right here on Comixpedia we have a place to discuss and I'm quite comfortable now in keeping things on subject and respectful. (And while it may not always be in real time I do moderate things eventually) The fact of things is that webcomics may always be what it is today (in terms of the shape of business/distribution/etc) but maybe not. Probably not -- as comics as a whole is still going through a lot of transition and experimentation.

All I can say, is that people reading this thread are only going to be convinced by the strength of your arguments and what facts/data you present. Moreover, again, unlike some of the more messianic discussions of years before, this is a pretty humble piece exploring some ideas in a thoughtful way by taking a close look at what's going on with iTunes.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
joeymanley's picture

McCloud is still my personal

McCloud is still my personal Lord and Savior!

Meanwhile, my own criticism of Joel's jumping-off point, hopefully respectful.

I think Shirky's recent argument about the inapplicability of iTunes to non-music markets holds very true: in the music industry, a small cartel holds all the intellectual property rights for 90% of the music that any of us have ever heard of. That makes iTunes a very difficult model to compare to comics, especially webcomics, where the popular creators are widely scattered, independent, and diverse, and the gateway to popularity is not controlled by A&R goons and radio station managers. If you've got a jones for Tom Jones, or Norah Jones, or even Joan Jett, downloading some unknown band's free MP3 from MySpace isn't likely to satisfy. In webcomics, newly notable creators spring up every few months, and there's no one place to get your hands on all of everything (nor should there be).

So iTunes doesn't work because of all the indie bands in the system (though it sells plenty of those, maybe even more of those than the "popular" stuff, per the Long Tail, the popular stuff is still required, just to pull in the audiences in the first place). iTunes works because almost every famous major label is represented. To really implment an iTunes-like model in webcomics, one that's truly analogous, you'd have to convince Marvel, DC, King Features, United Media and all the other large corporate publishers and/or syndicates to participate. Plus Penny Arcade and MegaTokyo and ctrl-alt-delete or whatever. That's not likely to happen.
Erg's picture

I really don't think strips are the same thing...

MegaTokyo would be needed, but Penny Arcade is a comic strip. Its consumed in a different way, for different reasons, by different people than MegaTokyo. The only overlap is hangers on from MegaTokyos strip days. Comic strips always have had a different audience than long from comics. Lets not shoehorn them together just because they are all sequential art

And I'd say King and United Media don't matter for the same reason, and Dark Horse, Viz, etc. are more impirtant. Manga matters.

joeymanley's picture

(grin). Originally I didn't

(grin).

Originally I didn't include comic strips, but edited the comment to add them, fearful of -- you guessed it -- political blowback! Ha! Maybe I'm just too careful these days ...
Erg's picture

Its a minefield!

I am just some guy with no webpage and a psuedonym. i say what I want with wreckless abandon!

Seriously though, and equally as enflammatory I guess, its not knocking web strips, I just think there is an effective web strip business model and path to follow. With a little talent, luck, a reasonable amount of time and above all iron willed discipline most strips can at least get to a place where they have a moderate sized readership and make some spending for the creator, which is much more than most hobbiest can say. There are about as many pro strip creators on the web as in print. Soon I bet there are alot more. The problems webstrips have are details and fine tuning. Long form webcomics just don't make money on the web. They need to go into print to survive. Micro-payments is a solution, or an attempt at one, for them not for the strip guys I think.

Erg's picture

Maybe it would be better....

Maybe it would be better if Joel tried it and then reported back to us about it. He says he can go around the world in eighty days. Lets not try to send a bunch of greenhorns on the first expedition. He should try it first. If it works, great, he can tell us why, how and we can try it too. I think alot of the problems with shooting the messenger is that by trying to get people to try something untested you look less like a messenger and more like an preacher. I would love to see Joel try, succeed, and return a champion. But I don't think an army of people should head down the path until explorers like Joel have made it. Or not go at all if Joel falls off a cliff into the Amazon and is devoured alive by piranhas and those gross little fish that lodge themselves in people's man parts.

xerexes's picture

Experimentation Going On All The Time

Really - there is experimentation going on all the time from companies and individual creators. Let's not turn Joel's article into something it's not. If people want to try Joel's ideas, they can do it. If they want to wait and see, they can do that too. If they want to do something entirely different or nothing at all they can do that too, of course.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
xerexes's picture

Tim OReilly Essay on Piracy Is Progressive Taxation

One of the links from Clay Shirky's short note on Scott McCloud rereleasing The Right Number for free is Tim O Reilly (publisher)'s essay "Piracy Is Progressive Taxation". His basic point - the biggest hurdle for creators is getting known - not piracy.

It's a point painfully obvious to webcomic creators - there are probably thousands of threads on how to promote your webcomic - to cut through the curtain of obscurity. The basic operating model of free comics served to your browser? - that's a response to the overwhelming task each comic creator has of overcoming obscurity.

But note how OReilly sees that benefitting musicians for example:

I have watched my 19 year-old daughter and her friends sample countless bands on Napster and Kazaa and, enthusiastic for their music, go out to purchase CDs. My daughter now owns more CDs than I have collected in a lifetime of less exploratory listening. What's more, she has introduced me to her favorite music, and I too have bought CDs as a result. And no, she isn't downloading Britney Spears, but forgotten bands from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as their musical forebears in other genres. This is music that is difficult to find -- except online -- but, once found, leads to a focused search for CDs, records, and other artifacts. eBay is doing a nice business with much of this material, even if the RIAA fails to see the opportunity.

The question here is what is comics' CD? Is it books? Joel piece throws out a download idea. Maybe there is no such CD-equivalent (a pessimist would note that even music's CD isn't going to be around much longer.)

The question before us is not whether technologies such as peer-to-peer file sharing will undermine the role of the creative artist or the publisher, but how creative artists can leverage new technologies to increase the visibility of their work. For publishers, the question is whether they will understand how to perform their role in the new medium before someone else does. Publishing is an ecological niche; new publishers will rush in to fill it if the old ones fail to do so.

This is an interesting point though - iTunes is iTunes, not a single band's website.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.
HFrankenstein's picture

The Experience

xerexes wrote:

The question here is what is comics' CD? Is it books?

I think a big hurdle may be the fact that the CD of comics is typically the comic book slash graphic novel.

When a music fan purchases something off of iTunes, they are getting the full music-listening experience for the low price of 99 cents. It is no different from purchasing a CD or vinyl insofar as how the product is consumed: the music plays out of speakers or headphones, and you listen. The only difference is where the Play button is located.

With comics, though, the comic-reading experience isn't as flexible in its delivery. Clicking the right arrow in Comical just doesn't feel the same as breaking in the spine on a book. For the low price of 99 cents (or $2.99), you are not getting the same product in electronic form. You are getting the electronic form of the product. The limited success of e-books is a worthy analogue to point out.

I do find myself wondering, however: does this hurdle affect webcomics? That's a toughie for me. They're already electronic, after all. Right arrows are right arrows. And yet, personally, when I'm reading through the archives of my own webcomic, I prefer to go to my site and read it there, even though I have 600dpi versions of the whole thing on my hard drive. The experience, for me, of flipping through the files in Preview isn't the same as flipping through the pages on my site, even though the physical actions are as good as identical.

Do you guys feel similarly about webcomic reading? I think given a choice between a dead tree version of my favorite webcomic, and a CBR version, I'd be more likely to go through the inconvenience of buying the book. Of course, would I choose that for the 30-odd other webcomics that aren't my favorite? Maybe. I'm inclined to think that if I want to re-read a comic that I'm fond of, I'll be more likely to pull up the website than to plunk 299 measly cents for a download, even if the experience is better.

However, it's probably worth noting that I rarely re-read webcomics, although I may be in small company on that, as it's mostly just because I don't typically have time to re-read.

I think when it comes down to it, the Experience being delivered for the Money is going to be the deciding factor. This is exactly the sort of thing that I love to be wrong about, though. I would really like to see this work.

mooncity's picture

I like the ideas in Joel's

I like the ideas in Joel's article, and the iTunes comparison is very interesting. But I'm not sure this will work across the entire spectrum of webcomickry. A comic with a large readership would undoubtedly have more success with the download option than a webcomic with a smaller readership. "Candi" is an excellent example of a comic that has a good base of readers growing popularity. So while the data Joel gleans from Ms. Hodge's foray will be interesting, I'm not sure a more average webcomicker will find a lot of traction from trying a similar experiment.

Still, any new avenue for bringing in some dough is welcome. The clever part of what Joel suggests is that unlinke micropayments or subscriptions, the download option is in addition to the regular content. So the reader can opt in or not, but still have no barriers to their daily reading.

Mooncity

Autumn Lake

Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow since 1976!

Mooncity

Autumn Lake

Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow since 1976!

Doc Nickel's picture

You forgot porcupines are allergic to raisin bran...

Conceptually, this is all well and good, but Mr. McCloud forgets one rather major point: Simply put, people will listen to the same song many, many times, but few people re-read books and comics more than just a bare few times.

Therefore, it's not the perception that "comics have always been free" that's the problem, it's the perception that music holds inherently more value to a listener; almost anyone will listen to a given song dozens or even hundreds of times. I know I have more than a few songs in my system that I've very probably listened to thousands of times.

But I read Howard's Under New Management twice, and then put it on the shelf. If it's anything like my old Bloom County and Calvin & Hobbes books, I'll re-read it on average once every three or four years.

As a more direct example, an older webcomic called Albion Fuzz ended his run back in 2002 or 2003. After ending the strip, he posted the entire thing- strips and page HTML to make navigating as easy as clicking the "next" button- as a zipped download.

After I downloaded it, I read through the entire thing once- after I'd already been a regular reader of the online version- and I haven't touched it since.

But I am, at this moment, listening to Tool's Schism, despite the fact I bought the CD nearly a decade ago and have heard this song umpteen jillion times before.

Doc.

Miles's picture

This, I must say, is a

This, I must say, is a really dang good point.
xerexes's picture

It is and it isn't

It certainly is a good observation of how people listen to music. But people also buy DVDs and while some watch some movies repeatedly there are some movies I've bought that I've watched only a few times. People buy books and only read them once. Does that mean that there will never be an iTunes for movies? (My opinion -- there absolutely will be an iTunes for movies once the broadband/technical and business (rights for example) issues are resolved)

It's not a bad point, but I'm not sure how to plug it into the debate that's spun off of Joel's article.

And just while I'm here on this thread - let's try to keep it civil (it largely has stayed that way) and just from my own "watching the comments unfold perspective" - people responding directly to the article or making observations/points tied closely to their own experiences are much more persuasive and interesting then... well the comments that don't do that.

____

Xaviar Xerexes

On second thought, let's not go to Comixpedia. It is a silly place.

Xaviar Xerexes Oh yeah... this place is called ComixTalk now.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.