The Floating Lightbulb

Webcomics at Comic Conventions

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:03:00 +0000

I have a huge knowledge gap about comic conventions. Sure, I've been, but never as a vendor, and being a curious fellow, I want to learn more.

I asked Kez, creator of the webcomic War of Winds, to tell me more about her forays into the world of conventions, since she's got lots to report and is enthusiastic about her progress. By some standards, she's a total beginner, and by others, including my own, she is far along. I thought it might provide a good point of entry for many readers, somewhere in between the experts and the ignorant (like me), and possibly help fill a gap.

Kez, by Kez

Q: I wanted to speak with webcomics creators who have established themselves but are still growing -- people who are roughly a few years along. Could you give us the skinny on your webcomic, from both a business and creative perspective?

A: My webcomic is 5.5 years old now, and this past year I've seen a lot of increased activity on the site, forum and commenting areas, which is very encouraging. I started out in webcomics with absolutely no experience, stumbling in the dark as it were, and I think finally I've found my stride. Took long enough, right? I completed one short 54-page comic as a printed side-story, which has sold well. While I didn't start out with that story from a business stand-point, I ENDED that way. Out of the 50 copies I had printed, I have sold 42, gave away 2, have 3 left to sell, and 3 that were mis-printed. I bought each for about 7 dollars, sold them for $10 each, and made a profit of over $100. I will be printing more books shortly, as books sell the best at conventions. I've got 2 more comics in pre-production, these two made with print and ad revenue foremost in mind.

In November 2008 I started displaying ads on my site. Since then I have made a total of $230 from Burst Media, a couple hundred from ADSDAQ (before they kicked most webcomics out), and under $50 from Adtegrity. I make about $50/month in ad revenue, which I hope to increase dramatically with the two comics I am currently working on apart from my main comic. By far, conventions have made the most money in the least amount of time. People are much more willing to buy in person the exact same merchandise you have up for sale in your online store. Ads are a long-term revenue source for me, just pocket change so far. Donations for extra pages also worked well for my side-story comic, especially since they were priced at only $15/page. I made $100 doing that over a few months.

All of this is better than nothing, but still ALMOST nothing in the long run.

Q: I haven't been to a con in years. Tell me what it's like.

A: Conventions are a wonderful experience IF you come prepared with things to sell, the confidence to sell them, and especially, good company. The first convention I went to was Tora-Con in April 2006. I had been working on my comic for 2 years, had a few prints that were sellable, but I went about it ALL WRONG. Now I deeply consider the demographic attending a convention, and tailor merchandise to suit it. But as for the atmosphere, it's a bunch of young to middle-aged people who come with small bills ready to buy anything that catches their eye. It's loud, noisy, full of laughter and questions, lots of compliments and/or noses in the air, lots of crowds. Depending on where you are [selling things] you can be in a booth or a table, in a large room or a hallway.

I've always found fellow sellers amenable, helpful, and willing to trade swag. I often find convention-goers rude and obnoxious, but like with any seller, it all depends on how you react to these kinds of situations. If you wilt in the face of someone taking a mere moment to glance over all your goods you spent hours agonizing over, a convention is not the place for you. If you have nothing to say (or too much) when someone asks the inevitable, "so, what's your comic about" question, a convention is not the place for you. If you have the ability to withstand disinterest, and the ability to pitch your comic to complete strangers, foist a business card on them, and ask if they are interested in any merchandise, a convention IS the place for you... especially if you can attend a convention with someone you know or someone you've wanted to meet.

Q: Why go to conventions at all, and spend time displaying and laying out money for a booth and food, not to mention your time?

A: Because it's instant return on a project. If I spend $30 at Office Max to get 20 nice color prints on photopaper and sell just THREE at $10 a piece, I've broken even on that investment. Odds are, I will sell more than 3 at a normal-size convention, especially if the image suits the demographic attending. If I have extra prints, that just more I can bring to the next convention after already breaking even or even making a return. When this is applied to more merchandise that SELLS WELL, it is possible to make hundreds in a few hours. I have to say, after months and months of making pocket-change via ad revenue, it is liberating to make a hundred bucks selling comic books, the very thing I slaved over for hours, in just one day. For once, I'm selling what I make, as opposed to selling the traffic generated BY the pages that I make. It feels good, you know? Of course, one bad convention experience can ruin it forever, as my first convention in 2006 nearly did for me.

Also, it's really great to connect with people who have the same interest as you. Now, personally, I have ZILCH interest in attending conventions as just an attendee. Admittedly, I find most people who attend conventions to be of an annoying sort. But fellow comic creators are really cool. It's great to talk webcomic craft in PERSON for once, to make face-to-face business contacts, or take face-to-face commission projects. I've been approached multiple times for business offers as well.

Q: What sorts of things are you selling at conventions, and do they make a profit?

A: Books are big. People are willing to buy your comic book/floppy if they've never read your work before, whereas they may not buy merchandise with your characters on it if they have not read the comic. I make $3 per each book that I sell. To make a return, it's important that you can purchase your product at a reasonable price and then can sell it for a higher one (with a few dollars return on EACH sell). I don't recommend investing in anything where this is not possible the majority of the time. Few people at conventions will buy any one item priced over $15 in my experience UNLESS it's a one-of-a-kind, original item (or conversely, vintage). This is where marketing/targeting come in. With prints that I have, no one needs to recognize my characters to think it's cool. They see action, blood, muscles, tails. Without reading the comic, they like the print, and so the print sells. If the print is not marketable to people who do not read your work, it will not sell.

Other than prints or books, I also sell T-shirts. My first time printing the shirts, I had a wide-range of people targeted with four designs. Only one design sold well (sold OUT actually), so I will be capitalizing on that print with similar designs, and will do another print run. I will not run any of the three designs that did not sell well.

Next I want to try dog tags imprinted with a design, sweatbands, and beer-cozies.

Q: I've got you pegged as an extrovert. Is that accurate? And do you think cons work better for that type of personality?

A: Really? Me? An extrovert? HA. No, quite the opposite, unless I'm defending my own work. At the conventions/festival I've been too, I've been the odd man (woman?) out. At the art festival, I was the first person in the history of the festival to sell comics. At the conventions, I've been the one NOT drawing in an Asian style and/or the only woman in attendance. To me, this is a source of pride. It means I step up to the plate and prove to everyone who goes by my table that I can hold my own.

At conventions, I have to constantly remind myself to smile, to say hello, to be out-going. Really, all it takes is a simple, "hello," or "can I help you with anything," to get people to pause at your table. Eye-contact is key. After an hour of crowds, I start to look for quiet, dark corners, so it's a bit of a trial for me not to lapse into introvert mode. So, to answer your last question, yes, extroverts DEFINITELY sell more. People who don't look up, or just draw the whole time, or who look emo/moody/uninterested do not attract people to stick around, and only people who stick around actually buy merchandise.

Q: Do you actively try to recruit new readers?

A: At conventions I'm more interested in selling things than recruiting readers, but it's still a priority. The biggest thing that I do is always, always mention my comic is available online for free, and then make sure people who pause long enough to look pick up a business card, which of course has my URL. I usually have a small sign that points to my card, reiterating the comic is free online in case someone doesn't want to pause to talk. A lot of people never even talk to you, just grab what's free and move on. Business cards are free, mine personally are shiny, dark and pretty, and LOTS of people grab them. If one in 10 come to my site, I'm happy.

It might also good to try and find spots on posters/prints to have an unobtrusive URL, but I personally don't do that. I hate URLs/large signatures on pieces. Flyers are another thing to try. The biggest thing is definitely talking with people who pause to chat with you though. If you are friendly and speak well, it makes an impact, and people remember to check you out.

Q: One person remarked to me that they dislike cons because they don't enjoy being stared at. Your thoughts?

A: My guess is this person only stared back, creating that long, awkward moment, culminating in the fear of breaking eye contact first. If you catch someone staring, smile and invite them over. Show them your stuff, try to sell what you have. Talk, even it's mostly one-sided. That's all it takes. I've never been stared at except by kids who want a free sketch, and I find that horribly flattering. I usually give them something for making me feel good about myself.

Q: Didn't your con appearance lead to an article in your local paper?

A: My appearance at Corn Hill in July snagged me a spot in my hometown's major newspaper, yes. It was quite amusing how it all came about. Whoever said blogging is worthless, well... lied! I wrote an article at Winged Wolf about being excited and nervous about attending an art festival as the first person in the history of that festival selling comics. I guess the Corn Hill organizers checked their referrals and found my site, and suggested to the newspaper that they interview me. Lo and behold, one phone interview and one photo op later, I find myself--and Ravar, a character in my story--on the front page spread. For two days, I had people coming up to me at the festival saying how excited they were I was attending, that they came ONLY to see me, that they wanted me to check out their art portfolios... it was a great experience. The Democrat and Chronicle no longer allows the article to be viewed for free, but my parents went out and bought 10 copies of that day's paper, so if anyone wants a photocopy, I can oblige. Here is my post about the whole experience.

Q: I know you are in graduate school and manage a heavy schedule. Do you think the larger con circuit is in your future?

A: Yes. Even though grad school is very time-intensive, I've had such a good experience with my two conventions this year I'm committing to three more already: Steel City Comic Con, Penguicon, and Tora-Con. I just make sure to schedule these far in advance so that if I have any academic responsibilities, I can plan ahead.

Q: Any advice for someone doing their first con?

A: If someone is attending their con as a trial con, getting their toes wet, not necessarily to make money, be sure to be able answer the following questions before going:

1) What is your comic about? (2 sentences, MAX!)
2) Can you draw me something for free? (I recommend, NO, but hey, it's up to you!)
3) What is a webcomic?
4) Who is that? *points to character*
5) Why do you make comics?

If someone is doing their first con in an attempt to make money, ALSO be able to answer the following before you go:

1) What kind of fans attend, and therefore, what type of merchandise will sell well?
2) Do you have anything that will appeal to the demographic in answer one? No? Then adapt your work to suit. Adaption does not involve selling out (which I never recommend), only making your work appeal to the largest common denominator through themes rather than details, the latter of which can only appeal to readers of your own comic.

Good things to have:

1) a vinyl banner is a one-time purchase and is extremely eye-catching. This is great advertising from all the way across the con.
2) Business cards!
3) Price markers (ex, index cards, etc). If you forget the price of one item and tell two people two different things... you will get flak.
4) Water bottle and snacks
5) Extra paper, pencils and pens.
6) Bags for goods! When people buy things, they like to have something to hold them in.
7) A friend. Having to pee really bad, and having no one to watch your table, is a horrible experience. If this is your first con, either as a visitor or a seller, drag along a friend.

Random: I don't recommend printing more than 10 of each print design, maybe even 3-5 for starting out, to find out for yourself what sells. Of course, you may get lucky by printing 50 of something that sells like hotcakes! It's always a risk-benefit. For T-shirts, print a variety of sizes. Dark colors seem to sell better, and everything sells better than a white-T. Try to keep all pricing under $20, and keep prices even (you WILL have to break larger bills, so have small bills of your own.) Never EVER slap your logo or title or character on a T-shirt and expect it to sell. IT WON'T.

Q: Any tips on finding smaller, local cons to keep costs low and start gradually?

A: Stop in at your local comic book store! They have the scoop on everything, and may even offer you a free table.

Editor's note: Comments are off. Anyone with personal con experiences to report is welcome to email it to me and it I get some that fit well with past coverage, I'll post a batch of them together, crediting you. You can contact Kez directly via the links above. Many thanks to her for pitching in yet again.

The Math of Twitter's Fail

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:29:00 +0000

  Last year, News Corp. offered to buy Twitter for $500 million dollars, but was rebuffed. I think News Corp. dodged a bullet.

  I cannot figure out a way for Twitter to overcome its inherent flaws. It suffers from mathematically provable problems that make it a candidate to be the next Pets.com.

  A school of anthropological research concerns itself with efficient sizes of human groups. The most coherent groups, in which all members know the inter-relationships of all other members, are theoretically limited by the Dunbar Number, which equals about 150. History shows again and again that social units like agrarian villages and military units optimize near this level but not beyond it, at which point bureaucratic control impairs coherence.

  Twitter has two math problems. The first is that the incentive to gain followers pushes most players to try an gain audience share. As audience size increases, the intimacy level decreases. We have a problem of dilution. Because Twitter users do not interconnect as a unit, a user can go well beyond the Dunbar number, but ultimately the same limiting principles kick in.

  The second is that as each Twitter member receives more and more tweets, more go unread and unacknowledged. Twitter lost its usefulness to get a question answered about a year ago, and frivolity has replaced functionality. This is a problem of magnification. If everyone expands their tweet reach by a factor of ten, we are all overwhelmed by the number received. As institutions are advised by PR gurus to join Twitter and broadcast tweets, the number of mouths will exceed the number of ears. It's shouting into the darkness.

  Some Twitter members have been invited to use a new feature, called Lists, to parse people into subgroups for purposes of prioritizing. This is a red flag. It suggests that Twitter's brain trust perceives the math undermining the model. It also smells of desperation: they don't know how to blunt the math problem, so they have subdivided it into numerous math problems, or more precisely, a sociopolitical math tangle.

  Next comes the return of the anthropologists, who will observe that lists are more likely to be sorted by status than any other category. The result: hard feelings, cliques, and finding yourself on lists with titles like "kooks" or "people who talk about food too much."

  Efficiencies in social networking are illusory unless you can monopolize them. The din of everyone chatting away to hollow empires of followers is likely to yield to networks that offer precision and value over network size.

Questions about Webcomic Convention Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:42:00 +0000

  It's my style to try thing personally if I can before I write about them. This makes it hard for me to learn about conventions, because I avoid crowds and have been to enough in my life (years ago).

  I am interested in accounts of how webcomic creators feel conventions help their bottom line. Sure, I've read most of what's out there, but I bet different people have different priorities when attending cons, from face time with people to selling merchandise to doing sketches.

  I'm interested in hearing what part of annual income people are drawing from conventions, for people willing to share such things. I'm not looking for dollar amounts, but rather, rough percentages. I imagine there would be a wide range of reports if lots of people answered, so if anyone answers, it would be interesting to hear their sense of why they have the results they do.

  If I was interviewing someone on the topic, a question I'd surely ask is, Webcomics are already hard work. Why pack up all your stuff and travel to some city to hang out in a stuffy hall all weekend when you could be cultivating mail order instead?

  I'm not unaware of the positives. I would like a better understanding of how they outweigh the hassle, and for everyone over 30, how you bounce back in the aftermath. :)

Easy Answers, Easy Errors

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:58:00 +0000

From this recent post:

How To Make a Living With Webcomics

by Joey Manley

So this is a quick post, because the answer is far simpler than you may have heard. There are two steps, and only two steps.

1. Make a great comic.
2. Make it very popular.

That's the essence of the post. The rest is mostly about how simple it all is and how anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't get it.

I tried starting a discussion on the original thread, but it was selectively deleted and closed. An email went unanswered. I got a lecture for not being civil enough.

What do you think? Is it all so easy?

If Joey didn't excuse himself abruptly, I'd pose some questions:

Who slaves away at a comic without thinking it is great?
Who can conceive a great comic in advance of creating it?
Who can return with an improved effort if they don't subject themselves to critical analysis?
Is greatness better measured by popularity or loyalty?
How do you know it's great? Who tells you? How do I speak to this person?

As for popularity:

If the comic is great, will it become popular, or are there other things required?
Do great comics ever fail to become popular? Can we identify any?
Do any particular strategies make a great comic popular?
What role do popular comics play in deciding what other comics become popular?
Can we write a great comic for any demographic and become popular, or must we target our audience?
Does advertising work?
Is it better to dominate a niche or share a pie?
Where does the "making a living part" come in?
Are some comics more likely to make a living than others, even if they are equally popular?
Which matters more: profits, or profitability?
How's your own business coming along? And your comic -- you do have one?

Across any field, gurus who tell you how simple something is tend to outsell those who tell you how to do it. Those who tell you how to do it tend to outsell those who show you how to do it. But when it comes to outcomes, those who have been shown are the most likely to succeed.

The "easy sell" guys get most of the failures, and the mentors produce most of the successes. But people threatened with failure will open their wallets to save their prospects, while those good enough to become apprentices can often succeed on their own.

I am reminded of those ads offering to teach you French in 14 days. Yes, after two weeks you've learned some words and phrases, and technically, you are speaking French.

But you are a fool if you think you've mastered anything, except to regard oversimplifications with suspicion.

In the future...

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:46:00 +0000

...when people search for the definition of "The Perfect Gift," this page will be among the top results.

I Wish I Got Better Criticism

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:10:00 +0000

The quality of the criticism I receive disappointments me. A lot of it, to be blunt, is shallow, ill-informed and driven by personal issues of the complainant.

These types are the weakest:

Dismissive know-it-alls. Don't bother them with logic or facts, they just spout.
Ignoramuses. They are in over their head, and blame you when they embarrass themselves.
Cherry pickers. They can't manage seeping overviews, so they nitpick about inconsequential items.
Evaders. These are the ones who dodge serious questions, to distract others, and to avoid answering.
Self-righteous peaceniks. They shield themselves by denouncing debate as "drama" or "arguing," and so try to raise their own self-regard. This is generally a cover for what is simply intellectual cowardice. Debate and rhetoric are art forms dating to Ancient Greece. Read up before you start squelching people.
Snipers. Afraid to confront me here, they blow steam about how I've ruined their lives in blog posts, most of them obscure. I find them because, ironically, they send a disproportionate amount of traffic, jumping out of analytics reports. Love it or hate it, they plunge into the blog for long periods. (There really is no reason to fear criticism, and people who over-react are probably revealing insecurities of long-standing. I do it myself from time to time.)
New faces that start out rude. I can handle posts from Scott Kurtz because I know he is prone to bluntness and so does everybody else. Strangers who walk in with a chip on their shoulder are not good contributors, and whining won't guarantee them a seat at the table. By contrast, Scott's made some good points here, though he's going to have to persuade me on others.
Delicate flowers. These are people who carry burning hatred because I am candid in saying that webcomics are not nearly of the same quality of comics historically, and that many people are engaging in life-of-luxury pipe dreams. Reality spoils their fantasies. How dare I?
The thin-skinned. These are people who do dodgy things and try to stay hidden. They don't respond publicly, if at all, and they bad mouth their friends in order to ingratiate themselves with you. Feeling a need to kick ass wherever it needs kicking, I pry them out. After about a year, they emerge, red-faced and furious. It's as if you could here the scream of a raw oyster.
The anonymous. It turns out this has mostly been one person, with a morbid preoccupation. The problem: they are not accountable, and the mischief wrought here by a sad case makes it impossible to honor.
Scape-goaters. Generally people with weak comics who decide they will feel better if they take me down. Like lost souls on an Outward Bound expedition, they hurl themselves forward again and again, until at last their rage begins to dissipate.

The less is at stake, the angrier people get. They provide me with lifestyle guidance: I need a hobby, I need to work on my comics (this is common from people who haven't read or understood any of my comics because they have been too busy polishing their 30-page archives over the past year), etc. Hello, we've been updating 4-6 days/week for two years, and will be updating 6 times/week in a few months. We work very hard, and we're having fun. Are you?

The smart ones have by-passed comments entirely (with some notable exceptions, whom I thank) and write me directly. I hate to lose the historical record, but I enjoy thoughtful letters.

What kind of criticism would I like? Well, anything thought-provoking is of interest, but just once I would like to hear from someone immersed in the webcomic scene who can nonetheless speak with real authority about many of the issues discussed here, with eloquence and reliability.

I would like to see someone accept my long-standing offer to explain to the world how wrong I am, how offensive, and how irrational, by taking my offer for a page of their own here, to speak to readers without interference. I would like to see an essay by someone who has read my best contributions, understands them, and finds fault nonetheless. I could probably prepare a primer to save them wading through the archives.

Obviously, I am not holding my breath.

The Sidebar That Ate Your Website?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:37:00 +0000

You've just spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours designing a great site to host your comic.

Now, suppose I come along and insert the contents of this blog, or anything else I want, directly onto your web page, as a sidebar visible to anyone with the Google Toolbar.

Or suppose I have some grudge, and I insert offensive or mocking material. The sidebar is part of your web page. Many people won't know if you meant it to be there.

Sites optimized to fit common screen sizes would be forced to surrender real estate, and unless they knew to use the toolbar to detect the sidebar, the site owner might never know it was there. People could insert links and deface the site you have paid to build, pay to host and own. Your bandwidth use may increase, and site speed may decline.

Here's what a made-up website looks like with a version of the sidebar, which is a new Google product called "Sidewiki."

Picture your full-page comic suddenly loosing a third of its space. And unless you police it or block it, you don't even realize it's visible to some visitors.

Here's a mash-up of how the popular webcomic Penny Arcade might look with Sidewiki, as before and after pictures. It's hard to predict how Sidewiki will affect the aspect ratio, so to reduce distortion, I've posted the "before" picture at slightly different dimensions than the "after" pic:

I'm not sure Sidewiki is going to be popular. Inserting barriers to usability is contrary to what web users want. It may be spammy. Not everyone has the Google Toolbar on a browser. I do, and sure enough, Sidewiki is now there. Presumably, others will want to install it not because they want the Google Toolbar, but because they want to see if anyone has installed a Sidewiki on their site, and if so, what it says.

Google includes provisions for outwitting abuse (e.g. links to X sites), but inserting unwanted content on my site isn't among them. Neither is surrendering a third of my real estate to strangers.

I'm having a really hard time finding positives for the concept.

Notice, too, the usability issue: the upper left page corner is where most eyeballs land first, which is why many of us put logos and site names there. Sidewiki shoves our stuff to the center/right.

Just when frames seemed obsolete, they are returning in new forms. Some are mellow: the new Project Wonderful browser allows you to view an ad host site and keep some PW links on the screen, and doesn't hide its origins. But I wonder where it would stop.

Here's a long blog post by someone who takes a darker view, but explains his thinking at length. He presents plenty of nuisance scenarios. For me, having one more distraction is objectionable enough, especially if it requires active intervention to block it.

This review is much calmer, presenting a patient, wait-and-see approach. It's closer to what I feel, but I like to be ahead of the curve, if only to keep abreast of new developments. The writer mentions an opt-in process, but the only one I know is for Google Analytics, so I'm researching it. Points off the original for not telling us where the opt-in is located.

I'll be interested to see if people start putting notices in their Terms of Use saying "Users are expressly prohibited from imposing third party frames on any page of this site."

Here is a form to share your opinions of Google Toolbar items with Google. I'm not rushing to judgment; the link is a courtesy.

Already, searching "Sidewiki Blocker" brings up products and developing resistance. Try it.

Do be wary of hype and fear-mongering. Simply be aware of this emerging development, stay informed, and decide at what point, if any, it crosses the line. Exploring negative outcomes doesn't mean I expect them.

And our Troll is...

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:31:00 +0000

fluffy.

Just a former friend from the early days of Twitter who started weirding us out with her erratic behavior. We cut contacts when she started getting scary.

I was able to prove it unequivocally this evening. Yeah, they're all from her: dozens of missives, ranging from polite to deranged, from various genders, stolen identities, nationalities, etc.

I commented just the other day that this blog was being bombarded with troll letters. The problem with mentioning it, in retrospect, is that it points a finger at everybody, so I figured I owe it to people to resolve it.

Yeah, we know the real name, address and all the rest, but there's no axe to grind. Now others are free to comment critically without falling under a cloud of suspicion.

The problem with these people, who often turn out to be quite bright, is that they forget their fairy tales. Trolls, you see, are stupid.

Next comes the Big Tantrum, but I'll leave that to someone else to print.

Raising Prominence of Archive Pages

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:19:00 +0000

  From a search engine's perspective, webcomics are often imbalanced. The homepage and a few supplemental pages get all the attention, but the huge archives receive low page ranks and perform poorly in search results.

  Wouldn't it be nice to place extra search attention on archive pages that are the start of stories, or story arcs? It's not everyone's highest priority, but it gives extra points of entry for new readers by spotlighting key pages.

  One way to do this is to design your site so that each story page links to its first page.

  WordPress users have another option, a plug-in that can be programmed to make selected keywords link to specified internal pages. Similar plug-ins exist, but this one can be over-ridden on a case-by-case basis.

  A related, general approach can help when you want to submit a page to Stumble Upon, but, being from the middle of a story, you are not sure how it will be received. You can create a duplicate of the page that features a prominent link to "jump to beginning of story" or "story arc" and leave it out of your site's table of contents. Then, submit that page to Stumble Upon or similar sites, and people who like the look of your page have easy access to jump to a good entry point.

  If you have lots of internal links pointing at specific entry point pages, it raises their PageRank and search prominence.

  It also increases the chance that they will be included with other Site Links, those internal site page links that turn up under search results for established sites.

  Help search engines understand your site, and they will help you. Internal links that flag and define your second tier pages are worth considering.

  If you want to use Oh, No, Robot! but dread the time commitment, consider just doing your key pages as a supplement to internal link-building.

Google Trends and Webcomics: Google's Response

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:11:00 +0000

Google responded to questions raised by our recent discussion of Google Trends, and the surprising results for many major webcomics. (Scroll down to read earlier posts.)

From a Google spokesperson, S. Tran, in response to a letter from me:

I received your email re: Google Analytics and Google Trends for Websites.

Regarding the difference in data, the results from Trends for Websites are estimated and may differ from Analytics data. Trends for Websites is in Google Labs, so it's still in its early stages of development and may have inaccuracies. In the future, we may consider ways to improve the accuracy of Trends for Websites by allowing owners to contribute additional data from their sites.

As for the development of Trends for Websites to vanquish click fraud to expose sites with inaccurate claims, Trends for Websites is an extension to the Google Trends set of features and we think its the next step in helping users understand how the internet is used. The goal of Trends for Websites is to show interesting trend relationships between website audiences over time.

Thoughts:

Google does not appear ready to say, for the record, what GoogleTrends will do, and how well it will do it. This is characteristic of items that are still in Google Labs: in fact, GoogleTrends for Websites may never emerge to join other Google products. I'm pleased someone took time to respond, even if the disclosures are limited;
So far, research by myself and others shows GoogleTrends doing quite well, except among many large webcomics (not all). Since I started monitoring webcomics with it a while ago, I'll continue to check from time to time to see if anything changes. It remains odd that trends should seem much more out of whack with reports for webcomics, however, so more research is needed;
Note the mention, in the letter, of opting in to include data sharing from Google Analytics with Google Trends. Should this come to pass, it might be a way for a website to demonstrate a commitment to honest traffic reporting;
We must keep in mind that from the top down, addressing click fraud is by default central to Google's planning and actions, and that GoogleTrends might provide infrastructure by which they can address it;
Or not, the last sentence suggests subdued plans, for now at least. Responding to inquires about projects under development is a tricky business, balancing privacy and honesty with great care;
The last sentence also reminds us that you can do side-by-side comparisons of about five sites at once, which is something I've only tried a few times -- worth noting;
If GoogleTrends for Websites does become yet another source of public analytic data for traffic, Google has choices to make: they can create a product that screens out false traffic click fraud, and/or attempt to become the source of record for how a site performs. Either has significant implications for anyone engaged in click fraud already. If Google does not address click fraud as part of its strategy, but creates a source of record, it is in effect addressing the click fraud issue;
Any public analytics system striving for credibility must build in resistance to traffic click fraud, or it will be in the interest of the dishonest to increase click fraud. The threat of a system appearing that already has a track record of historical performance for a site, and which, at some future data, will screen out fake traffic, is a brilliant way to blunt fraud now, and expose fakery without going case-by-case and tossing people out of the Google system;
If that is Google's goal, then people who run sites on steroids are going to be revealed publicly, as we see huge disparities between what they claim and what GoogleTrends claims. There's no need to become defensive and write denunciations with steam blowing out your ears, because you rise or fall based on your data legacy;
If Google has a system for teasing out real clicks from false that builds upon what it already does, we are left to wonder whether it has been turned on. Recall ADSDAQ's sudden retreat from webcomics last year. Cartoonists may be fine people, but the historic webcomic business model that hosts ads from major brokers is right up there with spam sites in terms of potential for abuse. All vendor-consumer interactions have a subjective aspect, but webcomics particularly so: they are free, and yet they are not; you as reader are holding up your share and yet you are not; you are from a demographic that trends left and doesn't mind clicking some insurance company's ads or you are not; you are dealing with a website where the creator will talk to you on Twitter or you are dealing with a faceless company... these all contribute to abuse potential, in various ways;
One would think that an aspiring webcomic professional who has co-written a book on the topic would be grateful when a blogger comes along and tries to reconcile conflicting public data about his performance, as part of a group. Anyone who dares discuss such data must be prepared for fits of rage, scapegoating and troll bombardments;
When I talk to webcomics people as part of doing research, I notice that they are mostly friendly, sometimes cagey and the rest "other." The cagey types do not like to discuss their methods or data, and sometimes seem to feign ignorance of their own analytics. Some get hot, and write things questioning my motives. "It's amazing how much you scare them," said one veteran observer, amused. The fact that I would put people's advice to the test and report on my progress causes upset. Historic tendencies towards relaxed ethics now conflict with the message of professionalism, and the damage is self-induced. You can't argue for a viable, professional webcomic profession while you are behaving unethically, and the protests mostly serve to flag those who know, deep down, that they lack both the guts and the decency to apologize for transgressions, past and present.
I'm convinced that under the right circumstances, webcomics can be monetized and can even make a viable career choice. But newly emerging careers often start with lax practices and end up self-regulating as people see that bad actors hold down progress. There is incredible peer pressure among some veteran cartoonists to hold the line against progressive thought, even as some candidly reveal the extent of deceptions in non-public conversations. Don't assume I take every such report seriously -- I am skeptical until convinced, regardless. An old Russian saying: доверие, но проверяй (Copy, then translate it)

Remember: I am not accusing anyone of traffic click fraud, and people who have data on Google Trends that makes them look sketchy might try being glad that someone is trying to figure out what is driving the odd results for webcomics.

Using Alexa to Rough Check GoogleTrends Graphs

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:01:00 +0000

Comparing Google Trends to Alexa is not apples-to-oranges, but it's not my idea of good science, either. Google Trends reports daily unique visits while the Alexa data is for percent of available internet audience. They should tend to follow each other pretty closely, however, so let's see how some graph comparisons work out.

Recall this study that showed very close matches between Google Trends and Google Analytics for significant anonymous sites. It showed a very close match -- almost startling -- between the subject's analytics and trends reports.

This was unexpected, because graphs from both sources for major webcomics are showing big disparities. Google Trends shows sharp declines in readership for many comics. Only a few people who create the comics -- and see the private analytics -- have said anything, with one writing to say that Trends disagreed with his analytics and another writing an indignant blog post. I realize many cartoonists truck in public esteem and income, as opposed to data, but I know from an upcoming publication that data has a place.

Google gives you five more months of history than Alexa, so you have to lop off the left side of the Google graph to match them up, right where it says "October." Remember, we're looking to see if the graphs are similar, not so much, or quite different. I'll explain the reason after we view the graphs.

I chose to search for the Alexa 500, then used 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500. It seemed like a random way to pick some big sites, but 500 was mature content, so I picked a nearby one to replace it.

Subject 1: Mozilla.com, Alexa Rank 100

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 2: Torrentz.com, Alexa Rank 200

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 3: In.com, Alexa Rank 300

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 4: so-net.ne.jp, Alexa Rank 400

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subject 5: Joomla.org, Alexa Rank 496 (used instead of 500, which had adult images)

Alexa:

Google Trends:

Subjective Impressions

(Remember to delete left end of GT graphs, as advised above):

Pair #1: A stretch to much similarity, if any

Pair #2: Somewhat similar but no distinguishing features

Pair #3: Quite similar

Pair #4: Verging on only general similarity

Pair #5: Quite similar

From this small experiment, we see a tendency for Google Trends for assorted large sites to resemble Alexa results from almost resembling to fairly well.

I said earlier we'd be looking to see if the graphs turned out similar, not so much, or quite different. Given that a line graph can follow any track, two graphs that are fairly similar have more in common than chance suggests. The fact that we continue to see a majority of samples where similarity is visible to the naked eyes despite the differences in data expressed by Google Trends and Alexa is a further suggestion that Google Trends information is often valid. The ramifications of this preliminary observation are unclear.

Large sites are one thing; what about webcomics?

I inserted Alexa data and subjective resemblances into the data chart sent earlier by AMRothery. View it: Augmented Webcomics Chart

You'll see that results tend to overlap about half the time, be in adjacent categories most of the rest of the time, and are rarely contradictory. Results are somewhat subjective.

What can we learn? A rough comparison gets us rough results, but if there was no validity it should get near zero results. Alexa and Google Trends have some overlap, but not as much as Google Trends and Google Analytics for sites, especially those outside of webcomics.

Guigar Response

Yes, I did read Brad Guigar's response to this series, and you can too: Guigar, September 25 blog entry. (Scroll down to it.) You'll see that quoting and discussing data from Google is sufficient to nudge the gentleman into accusations of libel, though he'd rather not risk that you read it. Why not just say your data disagrees, and help solve the puzzle?

A clarification about click fraud

Someone suggested I point out the different types of click fraud, since I brought it up for discussion. One type is clicking on ads hosted on your site, so you get more ad sales (and money). That type is particularly likely to rile an ad broker like ADSDAQ.

There is also traffic fraud, which is arranged with inexpensive cheating devices. The more elaborate ones allow one computer to send hit after hit to a wide array of participating websites, dramatically inflating their traffic and obscuring its activity. The skeptical researcher considers this possibility when a comic that has been growing sluggishly at best suddenly has a huge spike in traffic that doesn't recede, especially if there is no major change to explain it.

There are a number of ways that people get caught doing this, and I won't be publicizing them, but not all of them require action by Google: some can be done by anyone with internet access, though without illegally entering accounts, the evidence would be circumstantial -- suitable for ratting them out perhaps, but not for publicly accusing them.

I'll state again, for those with frazzled nerves, that I am not accusing anybody of click fraud.

Next: Google's Response

Google Trends Weirdness: A Click Fraud Hypothesis?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:01:00 +0000

I'm still mulling the weird webcomics data from Google Trends. Here's another hypothesis to consider.

You''ll recall my latest rundown of comic audience size based on data from Google Trends.

I am puzzled that many major titles show big audience declines over the past two years, and wonder what is the cause. Confounding the mystery, I found a small study that looked at sites outside of webcomics. It found that data from Google Trends and data from the same sites' Google Analytics matched closely.

Meanwhile, Google Trends reports famous webcomic sites losing 50% of their readers or more.

I asked, is Google Trends wrong? Or is the data untrustworthy? What can be learned from the phenomenon, or perhaps guessed?

People wrote in with some thoughts, and there was a record amount of kook mail, all from the same Google account but using different names, genders and nationalities. (The kook mail, mostly from one email account, was resolved by eliminating anonymous comments.) And, of course, some people complained about me spotlighting the data, even if it is public.

I like the notion that the most obvious answer is often the most likely. But having waved this post in the air for several days, and not having received answers that lay it to rest for my satisfaction, I wonder if we might finally be seeing something that I have been anticipating for some time.

If you follow the news, you know that click fraud has risen dramatically every year and passed 25% a while back.

Click fraud is Google's Achilles Heel, because they are a pay-per-click advertising company, first and foremost. The problem is so rampant that only a major solution will vanquish it.

Enter Google Trends, in which Google releases public audience data for sites above a certain audience threshold. The graphs are released quietly as a project of Google Labs, but what we aren't told is that this data is Google's click-fraud H-bomb. Google moves in steady, deliberate steps, giving users time to adjust to change. One day perhaps Trends will emerge from Labs as a featured Google offering.

Then, it's only a matter of time before a modest adjustment of the accompanying FAQ adds, "These graphs have been screened for click fraud, with 99% of false results removed." Or something similar.

At that point things might become awkward, because of my tendency to store vast amounts of data for possible future use. That includes redundant storage of graphs going back as long as four years for most major pure-play webcomics. If anyone's site has been on steroids, it will be Google's word against theirs.

Consider: people are either reliably honest or not. Many of the creators that have the worst record for reliability fall into one or more of these types:

They're "squishy," meaning they'll contradict themselves to suit their audience, or lie by omission, or refuse to own up to errors
They're indifferent: while they may play the role of the charming cartoonist at conventions, many people know them as selfish thugs
They're egotists, who commence axe-grinding at the first sign of dissent, and are not gracious to critics
They're lazy and therefore sloppy, meaning they are more transparent than they realize
They are defensive by nature
They often rely on enablers

I notice that when you see one form of deceptive conduct, you tend to see other forms.

Let's be clear. I am not accusing *anyone* of click-fraud. It's Google's job to sort that out.

Corruption is bad for commerce. If there is cheating in webcomics, anyone who is a stakeholder in a webcomic business has a right to raise questions. If there is no cheating, there is no need for concern, and no need for people from the core of webcomics to react with circle-the-wagons hostility.

Yes, I get the same letters over and over: that I am a bitter failure, that I tried the HalfPixel plan and it "didn't work," that I am a conspiracy theorist, etc. If you fall for that, you deserve what you get.

Until the riddle of contradicting data for webcomics audiences is resolved, I think we owe it to ourselves to find out what we can, and discuss each hypothesis with an open mind until it is fully evaluated.

We've covered, to some degree, RSS feed traffic, javascript, cookies, algorithms, Google as a vindictive competitor, changes in user habits, and various other ideas. They're not off the table and may indeed be part of the answer, but I wouldn't say anyone has resolved the question.

A final note: a year ago when I began to notice oddities in analytics from a bunch of closely affiliated webcomics sites, another odd thing happened: ADSDAQ, a major supplier of ads to host sites, abruptly and without comment dropped many webcomics from their portfolio. Perhaps this can be attributed to other causes, but it was notable to actually see most of a category of customers purged without notice.

It would be gratifying to resolve it quickly with an explanation that does not rely on a culture of click fraud as a major component.

____

Update: Reader AMRothery has been developing a useful spreadsheet of pertinent data, which you can view now.

Seen a confusingly titled post?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:50:00 +0000

Feed subscribers may have gotten a rough draft of a post featuring reader Q&A about ComicRank.

If you did, I'm sorry. I hit the wrong key or somethin.'

A cleaned up version will come out soon.

You would recognize it by the incomprehensible post title.

Webcomic Readership Trends: Grim, or Misleading?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:26:00 +0000

It's interesting to see what webcomics are gaining daily unique visitors and what ones are losing. This data is from Google Trends.

Feeds may reduce the count for some titles. I don't know where Google gets their data, and it may vary from other analytics systems. Some comics take breaks which may affect their numbers: this is why Dresden Codak has been omitted.

I've tried to add some new titles since my last report, but data is not available for all comics. Also, a disproportionate number of older comics seem to have declined lately, making it harder to locate strong performers. Feel free to identify some and share them below.

Our own comics are too small for Google Trends. Most webcomics are. The recent decision to move our titles away from the "webcomics scene" toward a more independent path stills feels right. I've found that I get more respect from established cartoonists outside webcomics than from within, though there are many fine people in webcomics. By respect, I don't mean patting my head, I mean they engage in serious, professional discussions without going to pieces.

One wonders if the recent recession has played a roll in what is a rather gloomy summary. Have hand held devices usurped surfers from comics, which are bandwidth intensive?

I try to avoid including comics with multiple sites, since I am not sure how this will affect results. If you see any, let me know.

What do you think is causing the slide? Do you blame the data, or do you see other explanations?

If one of these comics is yours, does your own analytics data agree? If not, what analytics system do you use, and how do you account for the difference?

On the Rise:

SMBC
xkcd
Amazing Super Powers

Holding Steady:

Cyanide and Happiness
A Softer World
Book of Biff
Buttersafe
Gunnerkrigg Court

Wondermark
Octopus Pie

Weregeek

No Need for Bushido

MSPaintAdventures

Savage Chickens

Slipping:

Overcompensating
Dinosaur Comics
Looking for Group
PhD Comics
Adventures of Dr. McNinja
Sheldon
Irregular Webcomic

Unshelved

Lost at least 50% of daily unique visitors in last two years:

Achewood
Girl Genius

Sinfest

Misfile

Goats

Comics that did even worse:

Penny Arcade
PvP
Ctrl+Alt+Del
Diesel Sweeties
Something Positive

Evil, Inc.

Domic Deegan: Oracle for Hire
Shortpacked
Flipside

Sluggy Freelance

Three Panel Soul

VGCats

Starslip

8-Bit Theater

For the record, there are comics here I like and comics that don't interest me. I'm not here to hurt anyone's feelings; I just want to understand what this data is telling us, if anything. All these titles have reasons to be proud of their accomplishments.

Comics people seem to hate anything that reeks of bad news. My own experiences tell me that pretending it will go away is not effective. I'm very interested in what the experts have to say.

I also wonder, given that many of these comics appear on the outdated Wikipedia list of "self-sufficient webcomics," how medium-sized comics that have undergone 70% drops in audience are surviving, if indeed they have.

I'd like to end on an optimistic note: I did think of one possibility that would not conflict with this data, but would offer a possible explanation for it: Perhaps webcomics readers are visiting their favorite comics less often, but reading many pages per visit.

Perhaps a volunteer would like to step forward and comment on whether their own data supports that interpretation. My data for my comics is supportive, but again, my comics are still very small compared to most of these.

________

Thinking about commenting? Go ahead. I got a note from someone saying I am known for not printing dissenting comments.

Not so. I generally follow a loose version of the Daily Cartoonist's approach: Real names, please; don't bury me with a comment every single day that requires a long response, go easy on the hate mail. I bend the rules often and print stuff that is intended to irritate, just so people can see what else arrives.

I have saved most unprinted comments: most are from about 4-5 people who simply went overboard, some are simply insults, some are so-so letters mixed with insults that arrived on days when I didn't have time for them, and some are nonsensical or spam.

I know full well that most of you can write a fine letter and contribute to our collective knowledge without resorting to rudeness. Many of the comments here have been excellent. If you feel I have missed a well-crafted comment, forward me a copy to my email just in case something went wrong.

Let's also not forget that I have offered this forum in the past for anyone who wants to compose a full-length counterpoint or wants me to attempt to argue their side to see how well I do. No one has ever taken me up on the offer. Kris Straub came the closest, writing a long and thoughtful piece as a series of comments, and while we are not in agreement on various issues, at least he stood up for what he believes. I respect him more for making his case, in public, without fear. Not to mention, some of his comics lately have been pretty funny.

Though I find the accusation of censorship unfounded (not to mention, it is my blog), I will take extra care not to muzzle people who are trying to make a point, and to practice my best manners. Fair enough?

Do Readers Really Lie?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:01:00 +0000

Check out this article, "The Lies Readers Tell," from Webcomics.com.

  Perhaps you are among those who have attempted to poll readers on various things, and been disappointed by the results. The article above talks specifically about readers saying they would buy a proposed t-shirt design, only for the creator to discover that it sells poorly.

  "It's one, immutable fact of webcomics: Readers lie about what they'd be willing to buy," says the author.

  Actually, the problem is usually in the polling. I call it the Applause Effect. When you are in a theater, you have an investment in being there. The entertainers lead the audience along, prompting reactions. An event starts people clapping. You find yourself clapping too.

Observation #1: It's a lot easier to go with the idea than to scrutinize it for flaws and be critical.

  Another problem lies in t-shirt design. There is a huge glut of fair-to-good shirts out there, but great shirts are less common. First glance at a decent concept may lead to a positive reaction, but setting it aside for review later, before opening your wallet, may reveal it's not as great as you thought.

Observation #2: Good seems good because it is an improvement over average.

  I haven't done exhaustive research, but I hear from people that most shirts sell best when they are first introduced. Unveiling a proposed work eliminates the grand unveiling, when impulse buys are more likely. By the time a proposed shirt hits your store, everyone has had their laugh.
You can observe this with certain popular comics that play fast and loose with the truth: they do pre-orders on a shirt at a tremendous mark-up (often $20/shirt), brag about how they are selling like crazy, but quickly drop them from their line. If this formula worked as anything more than a once-in-a-while grift, people would be doing it all the time.

Observation #3: It's better to surprise than to ask.

  T-shirts are a different kind of art than comics, though some comic art translates well onto shirts with little alteration. T-shirts are graphic design, and most comics art is cartooning, not graphic design, though skills often overlap.
Some t-shirt producers never seem to throw away a single idea, and trudge from show to show with bags of boring shirts. This suggests that t-shirt conceptualizers are another skill set. I like to discard 20-30 ideas for every final design we make. I get the impression that some people produce every design they conceive, especially if it works in bacon or coffee.

Observation #4: The majority of cartoonists would greatly benefit from the help of a graphic designer before finalizing a shirt design.

  There are a lot of people out there who identify themselves as graphic designers. Having the degree is not the same as having talent and experience.

Observation #5: Examine their portfolio before hiring.

  Graphic design work requires a lot of messing around with aspects of the design until it either clicks or is abandoned. Most of this work takes place out of view, so you might think a good graphic designer isn't being productive.

Observation #6: Ask the graphic designer if they think your design ideas have legs before you pay them to refine them. Let them be a creative partner, as long as they are respectful of your vision.

  The graphic designer should be able to give you camera-ready art separations for the printer. If not, something is wrong. Find out what.

Observation #7: It's just a matter of having the right kind of printer, and they should have one or have access to one. I like Canons.

  A printer who doesn't take their time with you and hold your hand doesn't think you are going to make it. They are reading you as an amateur who doesn't do your homework and lacks perseverance to develop an online shirt business. Either they mostly make shirts for athletic teams, in which case you are in the wrong store, or they are sending you a message about your project.

Observation #8: A designer and a printer can tell you much more than your readers about the prospects for a design, but smart ones will avoid predictions because that's a fool's game.

  There is a tendency for people who take a poll, even a short one, to only take it if they are supporting something they believe in. People who feel less passionate usually skip the poll.

Observation #9: Readers don't "lie." They just get over-enthusiastic and are the wrong people to ask anyway. Poorly designed polls, however, lie like crazy.

  I don't enjoy contesting someone's conclusion, especially if they feel they are trying to be helpful. But once again, over-simplification of complex issues makes it seem that the webcomics business is more within grasp than it really is. It's a slander against readers, who are justified at feeling miffed for being classified as liars.

  It's also hypocritical, hauling ass all over the country to kiss ass and "hail the fans" while blaming them for your own failings.

Website Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:53:00 +0000

Here's a short list of 50 questions to ask yourself about your website. It's not comics-specific, but it's thoughtful and thought-provoking:

http://blog.frivolousmotion.com/2007/12/critical-questions-about-your-website.html

It might make a good reference for when you want to upgrade and are not sure what to do next.

Readers Vs. Visitors

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:08:00 +0000

Here are the pros and cons of comic visitors versus comic readers. The difference, of course, is readers are dedicated to reading your strip and return frequently, while visitors come for a variety of reasons and may never return:

Pros of Visitors:

More visitors pumps up your ranking in places like Alexa and when approaching potential advertisers
Some visitors become readers
Some visitors don't become readers, but they may study your strip and discuss it with others, or review it, or reference it
It's the most commonly understood metric, so people are used to it
Most people are familiar with Google Analytics, which is centered around visitor counts

Cons of Visitors:

There really is no "con" to a visitor, but as measurement tools "visitors" and "unique visitors" have some downsides. Let's take a look:

The number can be distorted by various innocent activities, like running an ad campaign, receiving a prominent review, or being linked on the home page of a major comic
Such distortion can cause over-estimates when ordering merchandise or developing a business plan
Visitor count can be easily swollen by click fraud, fooling you into thinking some comics are more popular than they are, and making you alter a sound approach based on fake information
Many visitor measuring tools are not adjusted for known errors
Some visitor measuring tools do not report their methodology, or use sources that are redundant with other tools, calling their value into question for comparative purposes
Many visitor-measuring tools do not become accurate until a site reaches significant size
People often use "visitors" and "unique visitors" interchangeably, diminishing their clarity

Pros of Readers:

Readers are your loyalists. You are part of their life, and some become part of yours by sharing insightful comments about your strip
Readers share valuable data, like favorite characters and story lines, that might often come as unexpected
Readers send you caring emails when you are stricken ill or have an accident
Readers can be measured much more accurately than visitors (see my post on ComicRank)
Trends in reader quantity are often more meaningful than trends in visitor quantity. It's the difference between hitting the broad side of the barn, or the target.)
Using readership measurement tools grants you access to developing new tools that I, as a cartoonist, think are pretty neat -- though not all of them are ready yet. Still, the pipeline contains some innovative services.
Services like ComicRank, which are purely devoted to readers, are much easier to sift through than Google Analytics, to name one -- and I'm pretty skilled with GA. I am not aware of other dedicated Reader Measurement services, so I keep mentioning CR, but if I locate any I will report them. Please don't mistake my excitement about what CR offers for bias just because they have been open with me and I use their product myself. I have an open mind about anyone else who comes along.
As a measurement, readers is much more resistant to click fraud than visitors.
You can choose to display your reader count publicly, or keep it private if you wish. Most people elect to go public, glomming a juicy link and some promo for their site.
The specifics are a bit challenging for me, so I won't try to sum them up, but at least in the case of CR the site has been smartly designed so that you need not fear impact on page-loading speed or server failure. The site has had years of development and testing and investment in problem prevention.
Readers help squelch SEO disinformation loudmouths, like the prominent webcartoonist who recently gave an interview and declared them "bullshit." Obviously, anything that has been hard-wired into the construction of websites by the people who run the internet has a purpose. From there, it descends from useful techniques to nonsense. Having your own data puts these people's opinions in perspective, leaving only the foolish to plan a comics business around such pseudo-advice.

Cons of Readers:

There aren't really any cons of readers, but as a measurement tool, there are a few things worth noting:

Because counts of actual readers weed out random visitors, robots, and people who clicked on an ad but don't return, the total number is lower. You are trading quantity for quality. Some people might not like seeing their accustomed metric decline, even though it's hardly an either-or choice. Both can be used.
Trends take a few weeks to fully emerge. If you do something to annoy your readers, you won't see immediate reactions from a tool like ComicRank.
Creators have varying attitudes about readers. For many, readers are valued and respected. For some, readers are saps to be conned out of their spending money via up-selling, hype and outright lies about being associated with a popular comic. Sometimes you see discussion of the so-called "super-fan," who spends a lot of money on your merchandise. Comics businesses I respect distinguish between such people, who are often hoping to trade money for access to a creator they admire, and customers who respect the comic creator's heavy work schedule and refrain from emotional blackmail.
You should still track your visitors, of course

A list like this could go on and on, and I have probably left out some good ideas, but I hope some people find it helpful.

It bothers me that a lot of people are caught up in the webcomic dream bubble, in which they enjoy all the plums of being a "webcomics creator" without subjecting themselves to critical analyses, including business plans and self-measurement. There's an awful lot of strutting going on, and meanwhile a lot of people are really profoundly ignorant and even express their ignorance in angry print tirades. People fight over stupid stuff, and supposed role models dish out threats and insults like buckets of ziti.

After I wrote that I wasn't going to be active in the webcomics "scene" it was amazing how quickly my email shifted from all sorts of people to people who are serious, often currently unknown, but likely to become well-known tomorrow. You should know that there is a loose community of mature, professional-minded people out there, that we speak constantly, and that others like us are welcome to join in, at least as far as I am concerned.

Just get yourself through basic training, don't go slack-jawed over braggarts and phonies, and don't automatically expect there to be chemistry or a group to join. Pay close attention to what the people who think are doing. Listen to criticism, and don't request it if what you really want is to be told you are the next superstar. Be a top writer and artist, or team up. Have fun. Don't believe the hype. Improve. Remember that access to good business secrets is typically earned, not shared. And so on.

Most Essential New Tool for Webcomics?

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:02:00 +0000

This post is directed at creators of mid-range comics -- titles with daily audiences of 500 to 2,500 unique readers/day, or thereabouts. You are mostly uncorrupted and in a good position to exploit this tip.

Take a fresh look at ComicRank. Here's why:

It provides critical data that is difficult to collect from other sources
It tells you a count of your dedicated readers, as opposed to visitors. This makes it a great addition to the other tools you use
Data about trends is better than snapshots, and ComicRank gives you trend data
I've gotten to know the owner via email over the past 16 months, and he strikes me as one of the most ethical and steady people running a measuring service
Here's a big one: you can list a comic so that it is visible only to you but not to other visitors. You can see your readers without anyone else knowing. Want to test it? My comic, Lil Nyet, is now set on private. Try to find evidence that it is even present, let alone any data about it
It's free
There are plans to offer enhanced services which I think will make it even more appealing

Consider: a common way of measuring potential t-shirt sales is to count on .5-1% of your monthly uniques.* (This assumes your shirts are appealing, aren't over-priced, and are sold from your own store on your own site.)

Ordering one box of shirts (72 count) can quickly turn into a $350 - 500 order.

Instead of relying on the shaky and controversial unique visitor number, why not use both Comic Rank readers and unique visitors to form your purchase planning?

Another thing that has come to my attention as I have researched webcomics is that some people are not honest, or spin their data to give false impressions. There are, for example, people who claim to make a living from their webcomic, but who actually run so far in the red they need massive subsidies from family. They also make a lot of noise about their professional status, even though they are essentially clueless about how to build a business. They reek of entitlement.

When you do various math models of their performance, you see that their claims do not add up. This can distort your expectations. What you really want is hard data that pertains to you, not bragging.

Another way a comic's "popularity" (visitor count) is distorted is by advertising, which pushes up unique visitors. If you have a pal with a popular comic and they link to you, that will also pump your count. So will trading wallpaper for votes at sites like Top Webcomics, or joining a vote-trading group. There is tremendous value in discovering whether visitors from such sources become readers, and at what rate. False loyalists are like troops that desert at the first shot -- useful only for parades.

Using your own, private data, you can greatly sharpen the development of your comic as a business. By tossing out hype and false claims, you will not be deceived into making a poor decision.

For the record, I am not compensated in any way by ComicRank. I also do not discuss data with the owner, who has enough sense to keep it secure. I am a ComicRank enthusiast because it helps my comic, and because it reveals half-truths and fictions that undermine online comics, especially since many ComicRank members choose the public option to show their progress to the world. I am for anything that outs dishonesty and provides reliable data.

A final note: it takes a few weeks to acquire enough data to present a realistic visitor count on ComicRank. Starting now gets you the data you want sooner. You might consider setting your strip to private for the first few weeks so that if you go public it will have a decent count. I happened to visit on the day Book of Biff joined, and it showed one reader, because he started as public and it had just started counting. To some, it looks like an error. Starting private and jumping to public after a few weeks (as most do) might be a good way to start. Plus, going public provides a nice link to your site. Most people choose to go public to add to their visibility.

If you join ComicRank and you want to talk privately (or publicly) about whether you find it useful, drop me a line. Just because I think it's a great toll doesn't mean everyone will agree, and I am interested in other people's views.

As for highly visible, major titles: there are plenty I would encourage to join, probably in direct conversation where I could offer my specific reasoning. Others must decide for themselves, as they carry baggage and may have higher priorities to sort out before they tackle trying to run like serious businesses. Either way, I'm sure you'll be well-treated. Don't impose. :)

Note: It seems I had comments disabled for a few days. If you care to comment on a post, have another try.

Addendum: Steve from ComicRank read this piece and suggested I add this point, which I have re-worded a bit: Dramatic changes, such as doing something to annoy your readers, don't show up instantly, just as setting up your comic on CR takes a few weeks to compile meaningful data. Again, it comes down to reader trends over time, rather than a snapshot at a given instant.

Check Out Hey! Look! Webcomics!

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:40:00 +0000

I removed the last post because I made a big mistake. I misread a sarcastic article for sincere, and completely misinterpreted it.

  This is my apology and correction. First, thank you to two friends who kindly pointed out my confusion.

  The article is "Twenty Tips for Webcomic Beginners," by Jason Carvarel. It's amazingly thorough at nailing many criticisms of contemporary webcomics. It may even pack more punch than the "serious" articles I write from time to time.

  I think you will find some laughs and rueful pleasure reading it. This Jason Carvarel fellow is pretty sharp, and I like him.

Robert Crumb Versus Junk, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:50:00 +0000

  I'm not going to dig them out, but among Robert Crumb's collected works are a couple of autobiographical items of note.

  One is his written account of preparing for his relocation to France about 20 years ago. He describes the years of accumulated "junk" that he and his wife, Aline, had to discard, and marveled at how it built up within their lives.

  Another is a comic, another autobiographical piece, in which he describes his fascination with historical documents and ephemera from the past. One panel shows him hovering over a photo with a magnifying glass. He remarks that there is enough material from the past for a lifetime of inquiry. You may recall it as the one where he says, "People's faces were different then, but how?"

  I don't envision Crumb as a computer and internet enthusiast, though his kids may be. I don't know if he is aware of "webcomics," that there are over 10,000 of them, that they are mostly of disappointing quality, and that some of the blame traces to him. It's not his fault that people have been inspired to go free-form with comic art since the first issues of Zap, and that the internet makes (in theory) an attractive distribution platform. (Certainly, the internet is more to blame than Crumb.)

  Of course, I'm not here to hang this particular crime on old Robert C. It's really the law of unintended consequences at work.

  We are now flooded with inferior comics, of which webcomics has a reputation as being the most degraded. In fact, we are flooded with everything: there is no longer material for a lifetime of inquiry, but an eternity. We no longer have accomplished Royal Smart Persons because it has become increasingly challenging to be masters of any domain with breadth.

  I have an advantage over many peers. I have been reading comics of all types since I was a boy, and I have a couple of decades of experience on the average webcomic creator today. I have read and re-read, studied, copied and traced, to better my skills.

  I would not publish anything I produced before I was about 28. It was around then that some of my work began to achieve acceptable levels of quality, and was well-received by some readers.

  Some creators have blossomed earlier, and have performed better work at a younger age. So much the better for them, and for the audience.

  With so much humdrum work being cranked out every day, one wonders why the bother. I do wonder what makes people do comics, especially ones that are time-consuming to write and draw regardless of whether they are good.

  I have my own ideas, and may write them down here at some point, but perhaps if there are any readers left they would like to comment. It would help if you mention your comic, with no need for apologies. This is a question for discussion, not judgment.

Bad Webcomics Wiki

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:27:00 +0000

I've been reading the Bad Webcomics Wiki.

  The usual problem with trying to study failure is that there is always failure at the left side of the bell curve, just as there is usually genius on the right side. It doesn't matter what group or what quality you study. Even if you remove the worst two percent, they are instantly replaced by the next ones on the list.

  Another problem is that you have to read the bad webcomics. Anything that is so bad it doesn't merit a second reading for thoroughness is probably too trifling to bother with, compounding the problem.

  I don't even want to read webcomics that many people think are good, as I do not find them good, and have no interest, when there are good comics to be found elsewhere.

  The Bad Webcomics Wiki isn't bad, however. It's got typos, errors and a lot of swearing, but you generally come away with a sense of what you will encounter with certain comics, and it clarifies matters regarding comics that are both bad and popular.

  The contributors are aware of their predecessors, and the numerous false claims on the Wikipedia list of "self-sufficient" webcomics. If there work carried enough weight to disqualify some over-rated people from receiving naive awards, it might be worth it, but as far as I'm concerned, rewards are for chumps, and that includes Chris Ware and other people I otherwise admire. (I would gladly trade every door prize and trophy I ever received, pre-boycott, for one truly insightful, thorough review.)

  The critiques cover the usual terrain, from art to writing, but also take a look at creators who are popularly regarded as real jerks. This presents a bit of a problem: how to reconcile such critiques with webcomic embarrassments like Scott Kurtz and false claimants of self-sufficiency like Meredith Gran? (I obviously haven't done an analysis for every claimant, but Gran's comic is a strong contender for the most heavily subsidized money loser in webcomics land.) Can a comic be better than "bad" but still be included because its creators are repellent?

  Perhaps this should be a separate category. I nominate myself for inclusion for my work popping the webcomics fantasy that webcomics offer a viable business strategy that hasn't been co-opted by early arrivals and lucky ducks. "Webcomic Bastard" is a title I would graciously accept, for spoiling so many dreams of work-at-home scribbling by spending a year analyzing numbers and finding they mostly don't add up, or require that you do soulless "crowd-pleasers" and haul your ass to cons.

  When webcomics overall are so bad that I try very hard to distance myself from them and cut way back on talking about them, it's nice to know that some people who aren't obvious axe-grinders are trying to present coherent criticism of what makes them sick, and why.

  Their efforts enhance my faith in humanity. I am so tired of the webcomic circle jerk that it is refreshing to see people coming together to offer an alternate take. Yeah, some of the people mentioned are in my opinion decent folks and I am sorry to see them get reamed, but they are young and will recover, especially if they recognize that criticism is of great value.

R. Crumb on Art Grants and Funding

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:25:00 +0000

"...These guys who judge stuff for grants and "best of class" don't know shit. I'm probably considered a right-wing conservative when it comes to doling out money to artists. Judges are so lame and half-assed..."

From a conversation with Harvey Pekar, taped and turned into a comic strip.

This is why I have argued for boycotting contests and grants in the past: you are enabling committees of people who don't get it, and giving a stamp of approval to work that usually doesn't deserve it.

For us, cutting most ties to the webcomic scene and recognizing it as an abattoir for bottom feeders has been the smartest move we have made.

I've gotten a few letters from people with a similar point of view, and what's notable is that their comics are generally much more interesting than the rest of the stuff you see on the web.

Webcomics are primarily a social phenomenon. Online comics that are not webcomics are primarily an artistic phenomenon. The two have some overlap but are not really compatible. People doing webcomics have no comprehension of how little they understand and how shallow their knowledge is, not to mention how much they have been deluded by people who claim to make a living at the trade, but don't.

Oddly enough, this piece isn't really addressed to anyone. If you are dumb enough to play at the "professional webcomic artist" ruse, you are too dumb for me to help you. Anyone who "gets it" gets out.

Yes, a small number of webcomics make money, but not to an extent that I would consider satisfactory. Some claim self-sufficiency, but are so heavily subsidized, many of us could live well on the amount of personal funds that are spent in a desperate attempt to achieve a success that will never come.

Remember the rule: the more the noise about success, the less likely they are succeeding. The less you know about a comic, the more likely something is happening, assuming it is being run as a serious business. Finally, for every webcomic that is gaining ground, there are three or more in decline.

ComicRank Reviewed

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Last year, I spent time joining a variety of webcomics-related sites to see which ones I liked and didn't like.

One was ComicRank.com. ComicRank is a free service started by a fellow named Steve from the U.K. It is a readership tracking service, as opposed to the visitor-tracking services most of us use every day.

Before writing a piece about my impressions, I signed up a few of my sites. We all know tracking visitors and tracking readers are two different goals, but long-time followers of this blog know I have offered some ways to estimate readers based on visitors and other techniques.

This created a problem: my techniques and the ComicRank techniques gave different results. I couldn't proceed with a post if I could not reconcile my findings.

ComicRank's creator, Steve H., spent hours with me outlining his system, listening to my theories and trying to figure out why we weren't matching up. In the end, we were defeated. One of us was wrong, and while both of us wanted to find and fix the problem, we were stumped. We finally agreed to set it aside.

This spring, the answer revealed itself. There is a phenomenon on the internet called the Google Canonical Problem, which results in two URLs, such as LilNyet.com and www.LilNyet.com, being considered different sites unless Google is told otherwise. There has long been a fix on the server side, but if it isn't implemented, the problem persists. Recently, there have been strides to resolve the problem comprehensively, but we needn't discuss that today. Unfixed, it has implications for the accuracy of Google Analytics.

When I discovered and remedied a Canonical-type problem with the host I was then using (by switching hosts), the discrepancy between my data and ComicRank's data went away.

I don't know much about Steve personally, but I can say he wracked his brains over the issue and was careful not to jump to his conclusions. He is a sound thinker and a smart guy. When I was able to write him and tell him I had reconciled our data (not perfectly, since mine is rougher, but close enough), he was pleased.

Now ComicRank.com has undergone a big upgrade, and I heartily recommend you take a look.

I am currently testing it in the new "private" mode, which keeps your results out of public view, since I tried the public mode last year.

The site is simple to operate, and Steve is eager for constructive comments to help him improve anything that is confusing.

Like some other data-gathering sites, ComicRank requires a code button on any page you want counted. It's quite unobtrusive: you can view mine on Lil Nyet, bottom right of the page.

If your web site is statically generated, you'll probably want to put the ComicRank code tag on every page, starting with recent pages. This, of course, is a chore. If your site is dynamically generated, you can order the tag to appear on your entire archive quite easily. If you need help and are not sure where to turn, drop me a line and I'll suggest some people. (I just need to check on their availability first.)

A really neat feature is that you can also add a code button for your RSS feed if you have one. It's a separate code, which you generate at the ComicRank.com site. Installation instructions are at the site.

Other improvements of note:

The user panel has been re-designed and is much easier to operate
You can also track your comic on mirror sites, if you have any
The statistics system has been overhauled, based on observations from version one, and should be even more accurate and stable

When we were exchanging frequent letters last year, Steve explained a lot of the ways the site works, kindly trusting me to be discrete. (I'm sure you understand.) This knowledge allowed me to bring my own thoughts to the table, and I came away impressed. He has given the service plenty of thought.

Remember, should you choose to try ComicRank, it counts READERS while analytics counts VISITORS. It does this by using a proprietary algorithm to measure visitors who act like readers, as compared to visitors who wander in and don't come back. It's quite sophisticated, and while wrinkles like people who use high security settings on their browsers can distort the results a bit, it gives you the potential of a reliable trend, for free.

Should you choose private or public settings? I suggest you start with private so that the system can start counting your readers before you consider switching to public. That way it has time to get an accurate count (allow 3-4 weeks for it to get rolling). Switching to public exposes your data to the world, but it also gives you some publicity and a link to your site. All public titles now get to display their banner.

I originally wanted to write about ComicRank last year, but I'm glad I waited. It appears to be one of the most practical, helpful and original online comics sites to appear in ages. If you like it, you might want to pass on your thanks to Steve, as he deserves it.

Remember, it takes at least 3-4 weeks for your reader count to start getting quite accurate. I am interested in your impressions, so please consider bookmarking this page and returning with comments next month. I hope you find the site useful.

John Campbell Talks About Convention People

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:39:00 +0000

Here's an excerpt from an interview with John Campbell, who does Pictures for Sad Children. It contains insightful comments that you will spot without any bolding or underlining by me. You'd never expect it, but it seems like cons are a good place to discern whether an artist has a soul or not.

Scene Point Blank: You were at the Toronto Comicbook Festival over the weekend. Can you tell me a little about that experience?

John Campbell: It was a public library full of tables and people behind the tables "selling" comic books, or else possibly "trying to make back half the money they spent making all these comics." Some of the people were visibly furtive and uncomfortable with "selling themselves" while others were, I would say "too comfortable" or I guess "so comfortable as to make me uncomfortable." While a few were "just right" i.e. "somewhat uncomfortable but resigned to the spiraling cognitive dissonance required for the situation..."

Scene Point Blank: I had a chance to watch you interact with some of your fans over the weekend. How has it been to get to meet some of them in person? How have the conversations been?

John Campbell: It is good to meet readers, it is easy to lose my bearings on the internet and no longer be able to imagine that anyone online is a real actual human being with blood and eyeballs. I would give the conversations a C+, a little too much stammering on both sides, see me after class.

Two Interesting Comics

noreply@blogger.com (Bengo) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:33:00 +0000

Because I've had this blog for a while, people still send me stuff to look at, or write to me about another matter and I subsequently discover their work.

Here are two recent arrivals I find noteworthy:

Hard Graft is a realistically drawn black and white with suspenseful writing. Don't dismiss it just because it's black and white, even if you are a color die-hard.

Scrap Paper Comics is about a dog's adventures in Western Civilization, vaguely in the Commander McBragg tradition. It demonstrates that cultural references scattered over decades are more enjoyable and stimulating than comics that focus on yesterday's buzz.

Early episodes, drawn with traditional art supplies, date back to the 90s, and the author, Patrick William Bobillo, has now gone digital and brings new episodes on line weekly.

Hard Graft is written by UK's Peter Vine and illustrated by Argentina's Germán Erramouspe. It's a Sage Collective member.

I think people who make everybody feel grand by gushing about all the wonderful things happening in webcomics are overstating the case. This is probably due to underexposure to really, really good comics (about which most webcomics people are functionally illiterate) and a dose of the hype-1 virus.

When I find comics that are quietly and modestly doing interesting, distinctive work, it's worth cranking up the blog machine and passing them along.