I'd say the most common reason we reject a comic submission is because it's not funny enough. Hardly scientific and possibly too subjective, but I don't think we've ever said, "this comic is too funny to be syndicated."
And I understand how frustrating it is for people on the receiving end of that message. If someone asks the question, "how can I be more funny?" It's a tough question to answer.
I usually suggest studying successful properties or comics ... watch how they setup their jokes ... watch how they use timing and delivery to get the most out of the writing.
There was an article in the NY Times yesterday about a documentary premiering on PBS Wednesday night called, "Make 'Em Laugh" and there was a quote from the producer -- "comedy is all about surprise." I happen to agree. The reason something strikes one as funny is because it's not what you expected.
So when we read a submission and every joke finishes exactly like we think it will, there's really no reason to read it, much less invest in its syndication. If a submission makes us feel like we here at UPS could write the very same line given the inclination, we have to ask ourself why would we bother syndicating it if we could do it ourselves.
One of our litmus tests here when we are on the fence about a submission is: can you read it a second, third or fourth time and laugh? Even when you know the joke already ... even when the element of surprise is gone. That's when we know we have something.
I agree with the "surprise" element in gag writing. But how do you explain those strips that are picked up that end up being duds?
Alcohol?
Not that it would be a surprise.
Posted by: Rick | 01/12/2009 at 12:35 PM
Which "duds" are you referring to?
Posted by: John Glynn | 01/12/2009 at 02:35 PM
Anything that only last less than 5 years in syndication.
Posted by: Rick | 01/12/2009 at 02:40 PM
First, I reject your term "duds" ... we've had some terrific strips that didn't last five years.
Second, there's an individual story to the success and failure of each property. So to generalize as to the failure of every strip that hasn't lasted five years is an arrogant position. (and I know you're thinking that that hasn't stopped me before)
Third, we syndicate properties we think we can sell. The market does not always agree with us. Editors are not traditional buyers and the merit of a strip, which sometimes seems apparent to us, can go over their head, doesn't resonate strongly enough, or goes to committee -- where good things rarely happen. Or more likely, they don't want the bother.
Editors are in survival mode, changing comics is not on the top of their priority list. I often wonder what the reaction to Doonesbury would be if we launched it today. I'd like to think the quality would be recognized ... but I also know there would be a bunch of editors thinking the status quo is easier to manage than a compelling comics page.
Or maybe even we (GASP!) misjudged the property ... we do make the wrong call occasionally. But I, as you might expect, would put our roster up against anyone's.
Posted by: John Glynn | 01/12/2009 at 03:21 PM
What about "Frog Applause"?
Posted by: Rick | 01/12/2009 at 03:33 PM
By the way, I think Universal does have a pretty strong lineup. I just wonder about the anomalies and how they slip through.
Posted by: Rick | 01/12/2009 at 03:53 PM
I think we're defining syndication differently.
With deference to "Frog Applause" -- which incidentally has been consistently funny and bizarre for the last few months -- we don't "syndicate" it. It's a Web-only strip that I think could do well in alternatives and possibly in books/cards.
Posted by: John Glynn | 01/12/2009 at 04:21 PM
So you're saying the key to success is being funny?
Dammit.
Seriously though -- interesting analysis, John.
Thank you.
Posted by: Lucas -- Imagine THIS | 01/12/2009 at 04:26 PM
I think funny is so subjective. Case in point: I always think John's wardrobe is funny, but then I don't have to work around him on a day-to-day basis. I can see how that could be depressing.
Posted by: MTatulli | 01/13/2009 at 08:46 AM
Mark, it's called being "ahead of the curve." You'll see. In a few years, giant sombreros will be 'all the rage' and you'll be saying: "I've been wearing them for years, Rob. They're fabulous."
I do have another formula for comedy that I'd like to share:
tragedy + distance + cilantro = comedy.
Posted by: John Glynn | 01/13/2009 at 10:59 AM
LMAO!
Posted by: Lucas -- Imagine THIS | 01/13/2009 at 10:59 AM
John, your brand of comedy sounds like it might be good on a restuarant-style white corn chip
Posted by: MTatulli | 01/13/2009 at 11:23 AM
You missed one, John:
tragedy + distance + cilantro + Yakov Smirnoff = comedy GOLD.
Posted by: Lucas -- Imagine THIS | 01/13/2009 at 01:48 PM