I do believe you are also on to something about syndicates being affected by the same paradigm shifts as papers … it would make sense that their customers’ problems are also thier problems. I wouldn’t discount Daryl’s argument on the value of it though. If he has no market for it (and it is time-consuming and more expensive work that straight cartooning), then it might be worse to spend time developing it than sitting around. If he’s not reading the market correctly, then the market will develop for it and he could adjust accordingly. I think syndicates could have an advantage by staying flexible while concentrating on what they do best to stay productive. There is always tention between making the best buggy-whip and keeping an eye on the train (or auto) market. Leaders can be bleeders, but they can also reap the reward of pioneering new markets … although, nothing keeps the cautious from accessing those same markets later and winning it back.

Oh well, I blather too long on this. Thanks for the interesting discussion and insights into the market. I honestly don’t put much value in these awards anyway … I like who/what I like and most are too conservative to win one anyway (animation or not). ;)

Nice, Daryl…I’m happy to provide you with such amusement. The ad revenues I’ve heard around here are significantly beyond 2%.

And while they don’t grow as quickly as circulation declines would require, better to recapture some of than none of it.

There isn’t the same sense of panic and gloom around here regarding the internet that there is at other papers, but then, they are far ahead of many of them in adapting to it. What other papers are doing now, the Chronicle has been doping for a couple of years.

While other papers are slashing staff, the Chronicle has hired 30 people in the last year. The newsroom recruiter sits across the hall from me and she seems consistently busy.

Perhaps your condescending take that everyone is aimlessly hopping on the “internet bandwagon and no one is steering” or they are just “wandering blindly” isn’t universally true.

At any rate, I’ll take wandering blindly over sitting still in this journalistic environment any day. Whether or not you could sell animations is irrelevant. The syndication paradigm may be just as vulnerable to disruptive technology as print journalism.

Brian, no offense taken. I’ve heard the same rumors and I prefer to address it out in the open than to just have people whispering about it.

Rich, personally, I don’t think animation should be a separate category right now. There just aren’t enough people doing it. There will be plenty of people winning without it in future years.

Nick

However, I erred in speculating on how you created your animations based on what someone else told me without getting if from you first. The source claimed they read it in an interview you gave which was obviously incorrect.

Apologies.

Nick’s comment that: ” I do hear that the share of internet advertising as a percentage of revenues is growing rapidly.” made me laugh.

A typical newspaper would get 1% of revenue from their web site and see that grow to 2%, then tout that: “online revenue has jumped 100%!”

Online revenue is not growing anywhere near the rate necessary to make up for declining revenue from print advertising at newspapers nationwide – although the big drops in print ads make meager online revenue an increasing percentage of overall revenue at most papers.

Well, that is a nice job on that animation (a hoot to boot). It’s memorable because it’s catchy and cute. It should be very disturbing, that trunk is damning, but it virtually ignored by mainline media. Making it catchy tends to minimize just how disturbing it is. If that’s based on one of your editorial cartoons, I bet the editorial cartoon has a much starker and daunting impact than the animiation.

My contention though is that there should be two categories one for editorial cartooning and one for editorial animation. They are different although related. I agree with Alan on the impact of the single-panel cartoon vs. an animation. It does not make sense to me that editorial cartoonists even should submit their animations for the award. I think there must be confusion due to the name “cartoon” since cartoons can be animations or comics. I alway think of editorial cartoons as editorial comics. Editorial animations start to get into more of the area of editorials (writen editorials) than a quick-impact comic (or interviewing the cartoonists on what their cartoon meant … which generally kills the impact). But perhaps that’s just me.

Do you think editorial cartoonists’ jobs are more in jeopardy if they don’t win awards (than say the downsizing happening due to newspapers lack of ability to connect with their audiences)?

Food for thought.

Nick

I think Daryl made some valid points, but people at my paper who are smarter than I disagree with him. Fortunately I only need to concern myself content, not the business model. I do hear that the share of internet advertising as a percentage of revenues is growing rapidly.

At any rate, for a variety of reasons,I still think the daily still cartoon will remain the backbone of editorial cartooning for many years to come, if not for good. That’s why I’m only willing to experiment with animation on a limited basis. I’m kind of getting to have it both ways. I only had to move my family half way across the country to get that, but that’s no small thing.
Nick

But we didn’t start this to win awards. We started it because we think animation can be an important supplement (but NOT replacement) to the daily cartoons in the digital age and we’re trying to develop a sustainable model for it.

I’m baffled by the move to animation. The power of the editorial cartoon is its simplicity – one picture says it all. I haven’t seen any animations that have quite matched the impact/power of a good single cartoon. I think Cagle’s right when he writes that, “Cartoonists want … keep their jobs, and according to the Pulitzer jury, the way to do that is to jump on an internet bandwagon that no one is steering.”

The aimless charge to the internet extends to the Pulitzer Prizes. This is the second year the Pulitzers accepted entries that were not printed, but were posted on the Web sites of paid circulation, daily print newspapers. The winner and nominees this year were all employees of print newspapers who submitted portfolios of animated Web cartoons that could not be printed in their newspapers–a first for the Pulitzers. The editorial cartoonist community is in a tizzy. Cartoonists want to win prizes and keep their jobs, and according to the Pulitzer jury, the way to do that is to jump on an internet bandwagon that no one is steering.