Whatever, we’re beginning to get glimpses of what the future might look like and, as Alan said of the multi-touch tablet, it is VERY exciting.

Maybe my choice of the word ‘channels’ was wrong. A device is a device, not a channel. Sports Illustrated is a channel that is now operating on the internet platform. The channel pre-existed the device, but the device offers a new way for the content to be consumed. So, maybe it’s a ‘consumption route’ that has been added?

It’s both good and bad that there are more cartoonists getting access to the public. It’s good because it makes the profession more vibrant and gives readers more comics to choose from. It’s bad because it’s harder for the good ones to stand out and to earn a living wage–thus discouraging them from staying in the field.

Unfortunately, total revenues can’t increase as fast as the number of pipes for distribution. So average revenues are falling precipitously.

We’ve seen this effect in other fields. In music (which may be a bad example since total revenues are way down since CDs began being replaces by iTunes) we know the day of the multimillionaire superstars like Michael Jackson and the Beatles is past. More importantly, the ability of a mid-level band to earn a living has been greatly reduced.

On TV, hundreds of cable channels divvy up revenues once shared by three super-rich networks. Total TV income is up, but no one makes very much. And of course the big three networks have shrunk a lot.

And in our field, of course, there are now thousands of cartoonists splitting income once reserved for hundreds.

Why? How could a large expansion of the distribution channels -not- create more opportunities for revenue?

Because, until now, the expansion of distribution channels has had the opposite effect.

It really is a pisser: these new devices are incredibly cool. And they’re ruining things that are very important.

As far as the possibilities for cartoonists earning more money from digital advances:

“The possibilities are:
End.
Less.”

Why? How could a large expansion of the distribution channels -not- create more opportunities for revenue?

From the article:

The good news from the focus group is that they like the product and they seem eager to support the business models. One interactive ad was so attractive McDonell recalls hearing a tester say something he had never heard in a focus group before – ‘’Can we go back to that ad?’” But perhaps more to the point for a beleaguered print industry struggling for new models, the test audience said the magic words. “When we asked them if they would pay for this, they said ‘absolutely.’” In fact, most testers said they would want both the print and Tablet versions.

So there’s ad income and subscription income. They will have to pay -something- for quality content.

Why would this work for journalists but not for cartoonists?

“The possibilities are:
End.
Less.”