What are Syndicated Comic Artists Paid, etc.-?
BuZzY
What sort of income does an average, established comic strip
artist/writer have-? On what basis is he / she paid--by number of
newspapers in which the strip appears, or by a fixed amount-? What sort
of arrangements are typically made for "spinoffs" or merchandise sales-?
I realize this can vary with different artists.
Furthermore, what sort of relationship does a syndicate usually have
with the creator of a strip-? Who has creative control-? Is the
ownership of a character or strip shared-?
I have often read accounts of newspaper "entertainment section" editors
choosing not to run a daily strip / panel, for any number of reasons.
How does this usually play with the syndicate / creator-?
**I apologize if these topics are already covered--perhaps there's a
FAQ-?**
Thanks in advance.
BuZzy the Inquisitive
Joseph Nebus
>What sort of income does an average, established comic strip
>artist/writer have-?
Well, there's whatever the cartoonist's spouse earns, and
there's the money that falls out of visitor's pockets... plus there's
the fortune to be made in selling plasma...
>On what basis is he / she paid--by number of
>newspapers in which the strip appears, or by a fixed amount-? What sort
>of arrangements are typically made for "spinoffs" or merchandise sales-?
>I realize this can vary with different artists.
I believe the payment scheme is typically based on the number
of papers that carry the strip, with the note that the price a paper is
charged may be dependent on the size of the audience, and the type of
reader, that the paper has. In the early 90s, for instance, the small
campus newspaper I was at was charged about $10 per week for Bizarro.
What share goes to the syndicate and what goes to the cartoonist, I
don't know. Merchandising deals, no human has ever understood, so it's
probably safe to say the cartoonist isn't getting enough.
>Furthermore, what sort of relationship does a syndicate usually have
>with the creator of a strip-? Who has creative control-? Is the
>ownership of a character or strip shared-?
From what I gather, there's a modest amount of antagonism,
perhaps blunted by the fact that both parties are dependent on the
other -- so while the syndicate may nominally have absolute control
over the characters, beyond normal editorial oversight (which is pretty
necessary and accepted by everybody but the Liberty Meadows guy), they
don't *use* it to boss the cartoonist around lightly. After all, you
*might* be able to find somebody else to draw "Calvin and Hobbes," but
doing that would destroy the public appetite for the strip.
This of course depends heavily on the personalities involved;
a contract that's fair and harmonious with one editor/cartoonist pair
might become a neverending source of hostility with a different set.
It's somewhat of a trend for the more popular cartoonists to
be able to, somewhere around a contract negotiation, reclaim ownership
of the characters and the strip itself, and the syndicates become more
partners than anything else. This is a little bit odd -- since if a
strip fails, it means the syndicate has total power over the presumably
worthless strip, but if it succeeds, the syndicate loses out on a
strip it may well have nurtured -- but if it's encouraging people to
do something foolish like try to come up with a great new comic strip,
it's fine by me.
And note this also depends on the personalities involved;
Charles Schulz, who by all accounts was the archetype for the amiable
colleague, never reclaimed ownership over his characters, but the
syndicate never dared do anything without his OK. (Admittedly, this
was written into his contract, as I recall, in the mid 1970s.)
>I have often read accounts of newspaper "entertainment section" editors
>choosing not to run a daily strip / panel, for any number of reasons.
>How does this usually play with the syndicate / creator-?
From what I can tell, the syndicate is usually happy as long as
it gets paid on time. The cartoonists seem to find it pretty funny that
their silly gags are viewed as a Threat to the Republic.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kieras
: It's somewhat of a trend for the more popular cartoonists to
: of the characters and the strip itself, and the syndicates become more
: partners than anything else. This is a little bit odd -- since if a
: strip fails, it means the syndicate has total power over the presumably
: worthless strip, but if it succeeds, the syndicate loses out on a
: strip it may well have nurtured -- but if it's encouraging people to
: do something foolish like try to come up with a great new comic strip,
: it's fine by me.
Maybe they think that someone else could make the property profitable
maybe somewhere down the line (e.g. Watterson the later Meddick being
offered Robotman), so they don't want to write it completely off?
On the other end, if they're having a good, successful relationship,
becoming partners keeps the creator happy, and happy generally equals
productive.
-- Michael Kieras -------------------------------------------------
mic...@oit.umass.edu http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~michael/
Michael Kieras
: It's somewhat of a trend for the more popular cartoonists to
: be able to, somewhere around a contract negotiation, reclaim ownership
: of the characters and the strip itself, and the syndicates become more
: partners than anything else. This is a little bit odd -- since if a
: strip fails, it means the syndicate has total power over the presumably
: worthless strip, but if it succeeds, the syndicate loses out on a
: strip it may well have nurtured -- but if it's encouraging people to
: do something foolish like try to come up with a great new comic strip,
: it's fine by me.
Maybe they think that someone else could make the property profitable
somewhere down the line (e.g. Watterson and then later Meddick being
offered Robotman), so they don't want to write it completely off?
On the other end, if they're having a good, successful relationship,
becoming partners keeps the creator happy, and happy generally equals
productive (and unless someone else is offering a lot more, probably
more willing to stay).
Just guessing, though.
Michael Kieras
: Maybe they think that someone else could make the property profitable
: somewhere down the line (e.g. Watterson and then later Meddick being
: offered Robotman), so they don't want to write it completely off?
I just want to clarify that I wasn't implying that Robotman was a
failed property that was later offered to other artists; I was just
citing it as a property that got offered to different artists. I
don't know how they came to own the property in the first place.
Anyone?