Instead they brought back Beetle and Hagar and dropped Judge Parker and Gil Thorp.

Can says it all doesn’t it? I think my fellow Northlanders up here have their brains permanently frozen.

And I remember back in the 90′s when syndicates were first developing web sites (as were newspapers). Back then, the syndicates posted the comics on a delayed basis, two weeks or more, so that they wouldn’t compete with newspapers and undermine their own sales. This made a lot of sense to me.

In addition, I seem to recall that newspapers made their content available only to paid subscribers at the beginning. This, too, made sense. What doesn’t make sense is why it all changed and everyone gave away their product on the web.

Alan, Darryl’s right. I see how you got mixed up (does the Mercury News own the Sentinel?), but the comics changes in that article are in the Sentinel, not the M-N. Big difference in circulation there.

Wiley, it seems to me that your carefully and correctly explained point about comics existing to sell newspapers is one that eludes most editors, readers, and even syndicates and cartoonists these days. I have mixed feelings about that: on one hand, I think that misunderstanding leads to some fundamental errors that hurt the business, such as syndicates giving comics away free online. That has never made any sense to me at all. On the other hand, as an appreciator of comics as an artform, I kind of like the idea that they’re worthy creative products in their own right, able to stand on their own and support themselves. Except that most of them can’t, which is your point about standalone webcomics representing not just another business model, but almost a different product.

Guesses? Anyone?

So the San Francisco Examiner and the Santa Rosa papers in the Bay Area might carry 1962 and 1996 Classic Peanuts strips still…