Join Webcomics.com
Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 4:57PM Starting today, Webcomics.com will begin charging a $30-per-year subscription fee. That fee is going to be used to help support what this site has become -- and allow it to achieve its full potential.
Webcomics.com has established itself as a tremendous resource of practical information for webcartoonists. By joining today you will have access to:
- Frequent updates of news, advice, tutorials and strategies by webcomics veteran Brad Guigar.
- Monthly contributions by webcomics pioneer Scott Kurtz and Penny Arcade's Business Guy, Robert Khoo.
- Personalized features like a new e-mail-based organizer to help you plan for upcoming conventions.
- Feedback and guidance for your comic and the small business you'll create running it.
- A fully rounded, indexed repository of two year's worth of information that you can use to help improve your work.
- A moderated, passionate, supportive community of webcomics creators.
- Inside information on conventions, vendors and other entities that webcartoonists access to advance their businesses.
- Deals on merchandise.
For a low subscription of $30 per year, you will have access to all of this plus the entire Webcomics.com archives, one of the most helpful and supportive forums for creative people on the Web, and several members-only offers.
Webcomics.com Terms of Service.
FAQ
Most webcomics are based on the free-content model. The "How To Make Webcomics" book is built around it. Why is Webcomics.com becoming a pay site?
Simply put, Webcomics.com isn't entertainment; it's a valuable resource for webcartoonists. It would be difficult to continue offering this site for free in its current state -- and impossible, given the improvements we have planned.
Why not just run ads?
This will be very much a niche site. There will not be as much value for an advertiser as there will be for subscribers.
Why $30 per year?
It's an inexpensive buy-in that almost any webcartoonist can afford. It has an added benefit of keeping out people who may not be as serious about webcomics. It naturally weeds out comments from people who may be passing through, and results in distilling comments to those from people who are committed to improving their comics.
Reader Comments (272)
@Guy
Someone on this site by all means can go and create their own website about comics, but will it be written by some of the top successful webcartoonists? Will the information on there be correct and proven? How much will it cost you to run your own site? Buying the URL, paying the hosting fees, the massive time investment.....or you know.... you could pay thirty dollars a year and not worry about it.
PS Did you really just say that you don't need to buy books or pay for scholarly information because Wikipedia exists? Wow.
For those of us not liking this change (and I'm in that camp, to be clear), I suspect it's not that we don't want to see Brad and the gang compensated for their time and efforts. If they're not earning back from the hard work they put into this, I wouldn't be out their telling them to bleed for us. My disgruntlement is in the manner in which things have occurred. I'd point out websnark as summing up my thoughts pretty well, the highlights being the lack of notice (esp. to the "3rd party" contributors), and the $30 lump sum for a whole year rather than a monthly breakdown.
I'd also recommend, especially if you don't intend to tweak the current pricing model, that you offer a bit more free content. Perhaps a bit more info in the extracts, and maybe one free article a week. Just some thoughts..
Being a one-time contributor for webcomics.com was really rewarding. I didn't get paid for it. My content, while my own, is essentially webcomics.com's for whatever however they want to do with it.
They get to make money off of it? Awesome.
Willingness to contribute more now? Even awsomer.
Having an opted in audience, who are serious about their craft, expecting quality content at a nominal fee? Awesomest.
I see that some readers are put off by the suddenness of the subscription fee. I don't think this is sudden at all. Any changing business decision is a long process that usually involves the debate over several options until the best one remains. I suspect that this is the case here.
I think it's a smart move. I agree with their reasons but more importantly, I think it's important to emphasize the seriousness of this change.
1: webcomic artists and cartoonists alike need to take their professions seriously. Stop expecting a free education. I'm a web designer, and while I have many free resources available to me, I pay for my continued education. I attend seminars and conventions (AEA and SXSW) and purchase how-to's from other experts to better my craft. That's the price of admission!
2. webcomics.com now has to deliver some seriously excellent content. $30/yr is small, but it's something. They think they're up there with NYTimes and Salon.com? Dang! I expect to see that.. and hopefully contribute.
A good number of people have subscribed already so hopefully the forums will go back to normal soon.
Good luck to those moving on.
How many subscribers do you need to make this worthwhile, 50? 100? 1000?
What is your guys' plan if you don't get enough subscribers?
This seems like worthwhile info to know before paying for a subscription.
@Tony
I feel we already have enough subscribers to make it worthwhile. Especially considering that we haven't really hard launched this yet or promoted it with a big PR push or anything.
Thanks Scott, that's great!
Hey kids, shut your mouths and pay up.
I can't believe all the butt-hurt babies out there, you think Brad does this for his health!? Do you understand he was this close to just shutting it down? He was COMFORTABLE with that! Don't push it!
btw, I really really loved the podcast and am devastated to hear its death knell. Please say it isn't so! Even if you guys just got together quarterly. I miss Brad's laugh and Dave's voices and Scott and Kris's dual wit... I just miss you guys! You wouldn't even have to address webcomics, just go down those rat-holes, that was my favorite part anyway. "Read a book asshole!"
steady bolt,
Maybe we all don't have the lemming like quality you do.
And if you miss Brad and Dave's voices so much, may I suggest going outside every now and then?
The criticisms have been legitimate. You want to join? Go right ahead.
Let others voice their opinions.
Even though I said yesterday that visiting here eats into precious writing/drawing time, I came back to see if the tide of opinion is changing. I wonder why I would do that. Maybe it's because it seems that charging $30 for everything here has suddenly made it seem more valuable. Weird.
Anyone wondering if these guys are so brilliant at marketing that they intentionally caused all the e-drama because they knew it would spread the word like wildfire throughout the community?
I gladly pay for membership just as I gladly pay Brad and co for sketches, even when they offer them to me for free, you know why?
Because I want them to make money!
I hope Brad and Scott are rolling in a gigantic pile of our money right now, laughing with glee!
Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!
And the more money they make, the more I will make when I one-day surpass them and rule the world.
The more successful they are, the better for you when you steal their hard-earned knowledge and learn the next step they haven't though of.
The future is ours!
YOU SHOULD JOIN US!
DO IT NOW!
(this message of world domination is not necessarily endorsed by Webcomics.com)
I don't know what is worse the people who are upset or all the brown noses. Some of them remind me of the episode from Twilight Zone It's a good life."but it's a real good thing you did. A real good thing. And tomorrow....tomorrow's gonna be a... real good day!"
Brad and Scott just wished your webcomics into the cornfield. But that was good taht you did that. It was a real good thing.
shakes Magic 8 Ball: "Signs point to yes."
Let's add it up.
Despite Kurtz's annoying assertion that breaking stuff to people gently doesn't do any good, the absolutely zero consideration for the community speaks volumes. At the very least, it was a bad business move.
Even if this does end up being the worthwhile premium hub of info Brad claims it "will be", people have a right to be upset about how this switch was handled. Especially the people who submitted content under the guise of openness and community, whose work is now in the scrap bin unless they agree to have it published without compensation.
So unbelievably ironic considering how much these very "gurus" have warned people not to give their stuff away for free.
I do think some people are taking this all little too personally. After all, I think the point is clear now that these guys are not the Alpha and Omega of webcomics they purport to be. So really, there's not even that much to be upset about. Move along and you'll be better for it.
The brow nosers on the other hand are just scary. The fact the TOS just went up today and the previous posters info went up after the announcement should be evidence enough, that this transition has been the definition of "botched". Nobody's perfect, so arguing that it's a-okay for them to dump on everyone like this just make you look needy, not loyal.
Now, if these are the people you want to get your business advice from, then by all means, pony up your 30 bucks. A year from now when everyone's gotten bored, moved on, and this site is in shambles, don't say we didn't warn you.
If it's thriving, then I'll eat my hat.*
*editor's note: Tim doesn't own a hat.
Yes! Please! Listen to steady bolt! Start a rathole podcast! Don't waste that radio gold!
Brad Guiger isn't stealing or deleting anyone's content, he's obtaining permissions and taking down articles as requested.
Every group of professionals and friends has to eventually pony up if they want to swap secrets and thrive together, time is money.
I hope the Halfpixel guys make piles of it, and I'd honestly be ashamed if some of it wasn't mine after all they've contributed.
Bottom line:
These guys deserve the money.
If you're smart enough to see that, you've paid, and so there was no "abrupt transition" to whine about because you were back on the forum before you knew it.
If you don't see the value, or you can't scrape $30 together, why are you giving financial advice about "bad business decisions" to people who have proven that they can make a career selling content on the web?
That is a totally farcical statement. Their work wasn't deleted from existence. They're free to do whatever they want with it. Publish it on your own site, print it on toilet paper, what do we care.
I gotta say I was surprised by this, but not disappointed in the least.
I work as a concept artist in TV animation and games. I have a family to feed. My time has value, so does yours. I'd have been burnt out by now Brad, you are a champ.
$30 dollars is worth your time and opportunity to personally bend the ears of the HP and PA crews. KHOO? damn I would love to learn what he has to teach, I'm positive I could apply it to many facets of what I do for a living.
Perhaps. Have you read the Michaelis 'Schultz' biography? Charles Schultz worked for the Famous Artist's Course for years, and swore by it to his dying day. However, the valuable information was fed out of templates, impersonally, accurately, profitably- you could say that by entering critique 26A 'out of proportion hands, boilerplate text one of four' you were getting 'one on one interaction with the top artists' but the facts are simple.
It was a mechanism to use talented artists' skill in quickly grokking the faults of untalented artists- and then scamming the untalented ones, in a sense. The advice would be reasonable, basic, unconnected- it'd pop out of a slot. Generic information for molding generic untalented artists into workmanlike art hacks making no mistakes and no waves.
I'm not sure ANY of the truly successful webcomics- and we'll include all the Halfpixel comics- would make it through Famous Artist's School and get past the template zone- or that any of the people at such a school would spot the potentially successful, communicative artist when seen so far out of context. If this is to become like a Famous Artist's School, have fun with it but I'm not sure that's an ambitious goal.
No. It's not helping in the least and not implying any change from previous attempts to do this... I'm going to say, if you get a chance to do so, how about you ask Khoo if this handling of the situation was a great marketing idea? I'm going to tell you what he'll say. He'll say it was a terrible idea, not insurmountable because almost nothing is insurmountable, but a very significant setback in the area of establishing trust among prospective buyers. He'll say it was cart before the horse, that you had to establish suspense with suggestions of new stuff coming, get a buzz going, perhaps hints that he, Khoo, might be writing blog posts- maybe lean on the existing demand for any and all WW podcast content, Khoo's often had to squeeze content out of Gabe and Tycho and has said that's the toughest part of his job- that you had to build up a head of steam, check carefully what your liabilities were regarding existing content to be placed behind the paywall- and THEN bam, go fully pay-wall in majestic silence with all your ducks in a row, and nobody to make legitimate complaints about their freely given content to which now there are conditions attached.
Khoo had NOTHING to do with this apart from agreeing- I assume he's not just finding out about it from reading Scott Kurtz's post? to write an occasional blogpost. I've not seen that in his words, either- I trust him to stick to his word because he wouldn't have been able to get his stuff done any other way. I enjoy Scott Kurtz's words immensely and read his comic but I don't trust him to stick to his word, and it's he who's relaying Khoo's promise to do monthly content. And I trust Dave Kellett's word as much as Khoo's, but Dave is not involved in this and has said he's just another reader w.r.t this site.
No, this is not actually a brilliant move. It's a faceplant that has to be addressed with substance and humility. Brad's come through with the latter but should have known better in the first place- and I'm not going to be in a position to know if the substance is forthcoming, I'm just not hearing the voices I would trust here. Brad overcommits in good faith, Scott builds up a head of steam and bluster, and I wish 'em luck but I am not going to sit clapping in hopes Tinkerbell won't die.
Do what Dave does, guys- put your comics first, because this is not a good place to spend your time and the love of your hearts. ROI isn't going to be as good here as it is doing your REAL work, making your comics...
Awesome. I see a Terms of Service. Nice!
Only, Points 5, 7, & 10 are missing from the Terms of Service.
See for yourself:
http://www.webcomics.com/tos
Also, nice job using JAMS for arbitration.
This is going to end in fail for the people of this website. The runners of this website should have only done this move IF they have a TON of quality material lined up (and people like the idiot Kurtz agreeing to contribute regularly as far as SACRIFICING THEIR TIME AND WORK ON THEIR OWN SITES to provide GOOD content for this website, to justify the move to pay only to prove they are TRULY committed to the goals of this website) AS WELL AS PREVIEWS FOR THIS TWO-THREE MONTHS of quality material lined up the MOMENT that the pay-curtain went up on the website (since asking people to take a blind leap will only discourage casual viewers who would soon as just buy the book and not bother with the website).
@Baker's Dozen
Dude, more than one sentence. I got winded READING that sentence.
No, all the points seem to be there, but #6 is potentially nasty. I pulled out of mp3.com back in the day over just such a clause. Legal contracts where one party can change the wording and the other automatically consents to the new wording (silence = consent) are troubling, though convenient for the website. If nothing serious is going to happen to that wording, why wouldn't it be acceptable to roll out changes with a javascript clickthrough agreement in case of new wording?
Even Zuda's TOS states they will post notices of material changes. Heck, Zingerding saw no need to establish a mechanism for changing the agreement out from under participants at all. I work with Kagi- no mechanism for changing the agreement, and legal proceedings go to California courts or federal court, not arbitration.
Come on... At least give people parity with Zuda and add a bit where you state you post notices of material changes. Do you suggest that, since every contract is negotiable, that each user should negotiate a more mutual approach to clause #6? I don't think that's practical at $30 a pop. I think you're proposing a 'take it or leave it' maybe without fully examining the implications of your own TOS, and your own advice on that situation is pretty clear.
Go carefully- or how about get sympathetic help? It looks like someone yelled to a lawyer, 'Give us a TOS, stat!' and put it up without comparing it to other contracts out there. It's actually going to help your side of the contract be more enforcable if it's less one-sided and takes on responsibility about (for instance) informing users of any changes being made.
It's much like noncompete agreements (see Harvey Mackay) where wildly one-sided noncompete agreements are at risk of being struck down as unreasonable, but if you set up something like "these are your initial accounts- if you leave you cannot take these accounts, or any new accounts you got during the time of your employ _within_ a ten mile radius of this city, for a period of one year after your departure", that's way more solid in a court because it doesn't over-reach.
Spell out what webcomics.com can be expected to do to publicise any TOS changes, in the TOS. I don't think you even need to reserve the right to change stuff under the users' noses- what exactly do you think you will need? but if you do, you don't need to be able to change stuff without the users' awareness. Not even Zuda is holding out for that.
>> No, all the points seem to be there >>
They weren't when I was reading over it the first time, but they are there now. They look good.
[Apologies all around if I sounded terse before. It's been a long day.]
I think Brad might have posted a bad copy, realized it and changed it right away but not before you landed on it and saw it, David. No worries.