9 ms·

The Business of XKCD

34 points by arn 18y ago

non advertising income

arn 18y ago
I found it interesting for a few reasons - makes money on merchandising rather than ads - generates a lot of traffic (80 million pages views/mo) - he thinks only a couple of dozen web comic authors actually make a living off of it. - believes this sort of niche comic is only successful because of the internet. in that he never could have gotten published traditionally. (that being said "tech/geek" isn't really a small niche for internet audiences)
- rms 18y ago
  >He said they sell thousands of T-shirts a month Not bad at all...
- hugh 18y ago
  What irks me: he's supposedly doing xkcd full time now, and he can't manage five comics a week instead of only three? I mean, it's not like they take a long time to draw.
  - jcl 18y ago
    This reminds me of a letter-to-the-editor I saw in a computer magazine years ago, asking why computer books cost so much when the materials that go into them only cost a couple dollars. In the case of XKCD, the limiting factor is not how fast he can do the artwork but how frequently he has good ideas. That frequency may not increase with free time... In fact, it may even decrease, since he might have less experiences from which to draw inspiration.
timr 18y ago
dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199967 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199967
- sc 18y ago
  Even Reddit tolerates dupes, for the most part, when separated by some time. If it's old to you, don't vote it up. If it's new to you, great.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Whether they are tolerated or not, encouraging them lowers the signal to noise. I come to HN for tightly focused stuff--and I come here often, so repeated old stories are just noise. Purely selfish, but I'd rather folks do a quick search to be sure older stories haven't already been submitted. This one was on the front page here and at Reddit. It's a good story, but it's been covered.
    - timr 18y ago
      Even if you're not willing to do a search, it's a pretty safe assumption that a month-old New York Times article on XKCD will have been well-covered on a hacker news site.
      - sc 18y ago
        And yet, a good 20 voters thought otherwise. Bottom line is: voting me into oblivion isn't going to make searching this site any easier, or change the way HN deals with dupes.
        SwellJoe 18y ago
        voting me into oblivion isn't going to make searching this site any easier I didn't vote you down. Things that are worth commenting on (whether to agree or disagree) are not eligible for downvotes, as far as I'm concerned.
  - BrandonM 18y ago
    "Even Reddit tolerates..."? You do realize that Hacker News is aiming to be better than Reddit, at least in terms of topics this audience is interested in?
maurycy 18y ago
I've never really enjoyed xkcd. The title says "This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix". I think that actually this is funny because you know Unix. Barrier to entry and understand the strips is low, yet gives an unique feeling of being special because you know others do not understand the joke.
- jrockway 18y ago
  So you're saying that he should just aim for the "lowest common denominator" instead? That market is already saturated. (Ever watch TV?)
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  http://mattmaroon.com/?p=329 http://mattmaroon.com/?p=329
  - thaumaturgy 18y ago
    Ah, I see you devoted some space on your blog to a thinly veiled ride on the xkcd hate-wagon (and filed it under "pointless words of wisdom", natch). As soon as I realized that you were seriously citing Scott Adams as an authority on Funny, I knew we wouldn't find the same comics entertaining. You read a whole "5 or 10" of the xkcd comics, and you are a self-professed member of the target audience, so you afford yourself the expertise to declare it "not funny at all". And, you know what? You're absolutely right. xkcd isn't always funny. Sometimes -- some might say, often times -- it isn't funny at all. It certainly doesn't strive to deliver the same tired punch lines that so many other comics have. Aside from being something that I can often identify with, xkcd is charming. In that sense, it strikes me in much the same way that Calvin and Hobbes did, or Pogo. Sometimes, the best comic isn't that one that leaves me laughing, it's the one that leaves a smile on my face, or a temporary reminder of a more innocent way of seeing things, or a peculiar wistfulness. Those aren't effects that I've ever been able to credit to Scott Adams, and I don't think he could pull any of 'em off if he tried. If you can't see past your hunger for one more punch line, then I don't think you really "get" xkcd, either. I like xkcd when it's thoughtful instead of cheap, and I'm even amused by yet another spin on 'Twas The Night Before Christmas, as are many other literate nerds. (P.S.: When you put those "marks" around a word, those are quotes, not parentheses.)
zandorg 18y ago
I found on XKCD cartoon glorifying some event in 20th century history - but showing a lack of education in that it was basically wrong. As if reading books is a crime against being a geek, and cartoons are somehow okay to be illiterate.
- smanek 18y ago
  Which one? I don't remember anything like that ... And, I'll bet you dollars to dimes that most math/science geeks know more about the soft sciences (Economics, Psychology, History, Philosophy, Literature, etc.) than the other way around. Most math/science people I know have read a fair amount of Dostovesky, Freud, Jung, Friedman, Wittgenstein, Derrida, and uncountably many other authors and social scientists. I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. It isn't polite to say, but not all academic disciplines are created equal. Some fields are just harder than others and tend to attract smarter people than others. Math, physics, and other hard sciences are simply more difficult than literature or history. I would feel comfortable saying that anyone who understands Einstein's field equations is capable of understanding deconstructionism with relative ease. I don't think anyone would seriously make the opposite claim.
  - walterk 18y ago
    > I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. The thing is, advanced works of mathematics and computer science are almost completely irrelevant for people not working in these disciplines, whereas the humanities and social science arguably have applicability for anyone who considers him or herself a citizen. And in fact, these "English or History majors" are very likely to be versed in, not the works, but the insights of many mathematicians whose contributions are taught in high school and college mathematics courses, albeit without attribution. Some people wind up majoring in the humanities and social sciences because they can't cut it in highly mathematical disciplines, sure. But it's also true that many of the mathematically adept are also weak in the humanities and social sciences. As for Einstein's field equations and deconstruction, I can't claim to have studied the former (nor am I aware of why I should have), but I suspect you're overlooking the extent to which understanding them requires a considerable background of non-intuitive knowledge and an understanding of symbolic conventions in a way that understanding deconstruction doesn't. So pointing out that the set of folks who understand deconstruction that could understand Einstein's field equations with relative ease is likely to be much smaller, at least in proportion, than the other way around, doesn't imply much about how smart the two sets are on average. Incidentally, the number of sci/math types who cling to the Sokal Affair as an excuse for believing much of contemporary humanities theory is gibberish suggests that an understanding of things like deconstruction probably don't come as easily to them as you might think. At the end of the day, I really don't understand what disciplinary elitism gets you, other than an inflated sense of self-importance. What matters isn't what one is capable of understanding (except to college admissions staff), but rather what one does.

34 points by arn 18y ago

non advertising income

arn 18y ago

I found it interesting for a few reasons - makes money on merchandising rather than ads - generates a lot of traffic (80 million pages views/mo) - he thinks only a couple of dozen web comic authors actually make a living off of it. - believes this sort of niche comic is only successful because of the internet. in that he never could have gotten published traditionally. (that being said "tech/geek" isn't really a small niche for internet audiences)

rms 18y ago
>He said they sell thousands of T-shirts a month Not bad at all...
hugh 18y ago
What irks me: he's supposedly doing xkcd full time now, and he can't manage five comics a week instead of only three? I mean, it's not like they take a long time to draw.
- jcl 18y ago
  This reminds me of a letter-to-the-editor I saw in a computer magazine years ago, asking why computer books cost so much when the materials that go into them only cost a couple dollars. In the case of XKCD, the limiting factor is not how fast he can do the artwork but how frequently he has good ideas. That frequency may not increase with free time... In fact, it may even decrease, since he might have less experiences from which to draw inspiration.

timr 18y ago

dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199967 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199967

sc 18y ago
Even Reddit tolerates dupes, for the most part, when separated by some time. If it's old to you, don't vote it up. If it's new to you, great.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Whether they are tolerated or not, encouraging them lowers the signal to noise. I come to HN for tightly focused stuff--and I come here often, so repeated old stories are just noise. Purely selfish, but I'd rather folks do a quick search to be sure older stories haven't already been submitted. This one was on the front page here and at Reddit. It's a good story, but it's been covered.
  - timr 18y ago
    Even if you're not willing to do a search, it's a pretty safe assumption that a month-old New York Times article on XKCD will have been well-covered on a hacker news site.
    - sc 18y ago
      And yet, a good 20 voters thought otherwise. Bottom line is: voting me into oblivion isn't going to make searching this site any easier, or change the way HN deals with dupes.
      - SwellJoe 18y ago
        voting me into oblivion isn't going to make searching this site any easier I didn't vote you down. Things that are worth commenting on (whether to agree or disagree) are not eligible for downvotes, as far as I'm concerned.
- BrandonM 18y ago
  "Even Reddit tolerates..."? You do realize that Hacker News is aiming to be better than Reddit, at least in terms of topics this audience is interested in?

maurycy 18y ago

I've never really enjoyed xkcd. The title says "This Is Funny Only if You Know Unix". I think that actually this is funny because you know Unix. Barrier to entry and understand the strips is low, yet gives an unique feeling of being special because you know others do not understand the joke.

jrockway 18y ago
So you're saying that he should just aim for the "lowest common denominator" instead? That market is already saturated. (Ever watch TV?)
mattmaroon 18y ago
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=329 http://mattmaroon.com/?p=329
- thaumaturgy 18y ago
  Ah, I see you devoted some space on your blog to a thinly veiled ride on the xkcd hate-wagon (and filed it under "pointless words of wisdom", natch). As soon as I realized that you were seriously citing Scott Adams as an authority on Funny, I knew we wouldn't find the same comics entertaining. You read a whole "5 or 10" of the xkcd comics, and you are a self-professed member of the target audience, so you afford yourself the expertise to declare it "not funny at all". And, you know what? You're absolutely right. xkcd isn't always funny. Sometimes -- some might say, often times -- it isn't funny at all. It certainly doesn't strive to deliver the same tired punch lines that so many other comics have. Aside from being something that I can often identify with, xkcd is charming. In that sense, it strikes me in much the same way that Calvin and Hobbes did, or Pogo. Sometimes, the best comic isn't that one that leaves me laughing, it's the one that leaves a smile on my face, or a temporary reminder of a more innocent way of seeing things, or a peculiar wistfulness. Those aren't effects that I've ever been able to credit to Scott Adams, and I don't think he could pull any of 'em off if he tried. If you can't see past your hunger for one more punch line, then I don't think you really "get" xkcd, either. I like xkcd when it's thoughtful instead of cheap, and I'm even amused by yet another spin on 'Twas The Night Before Christmas, as are many other literate nerds. (P.S.: When you put those "marks" around a word, those are quotes, not parentheses.)

zandorg 18y ago

I found on XKCD cartoon glorifying some event in 20th century history - but showing a lack of education in that it was basically wrong. As if reading books is a crime against being a geek, and cartoons are somehow okay to be illiterate.

smanek 18y ago
Which one? I don't remember anything like that ... And, I'll bet you dollars to dimes that most math/science geeks know more about the soft sciences (Economics, Psychology, History, Philosophy, Literature, etc.) than the other way around. Most math/science people I know have read a fair amount of Dostovesky, Freud, Jung, Friedman, Wittgenstein, Derrida, and uncountably many other authors and social scientists. I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. It isn't polite to say, but not all academic disciplines are created equal. Some fields are just harder than others and tend to attract smarter people than others. Math, physics, and other hard sciences are simply more difficult than literature or history. I would feel comfortable saying that anyone who understands Einstein's field equations is capable of understanding deconstructionism with relative ease. I don't think anyone would seriously make the opposite claim.
- walterk 18y ago
  > I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. The thing is, advanced works of mathematics and computer science are almost completely irrelevant for people not working in these disciplines, whereas the humanities and social science arguably have applicability for anyone who considers him or herself a citizen. And in fact, these "English or History majors" are very likely to be versed in, not the works, but the insights of many mathematicians whose contributions are taught in high school and college mathematics courses, albeit without attribution. Some people wind up majoring in the humanities and social sciences because they can't cut it in highly mathematical disciplines, sure. But it's also true that many of the mathematically adept are also weak in the humanities and social sciences. As for Einstein's field equations and deconstruction, I can't claim to have studied the former (nor am I aware of why I should have), but I suspect you're overlooking the extent to which understanding them requires a considerable background of non-intuitive knowledge and an understanding of symbolic conventions in a way that understanding deconstruction doesn't. So pointing out that the set of folks who understand deconstruction that could understand Einstein's field equations with relative ease is likely to be much smaller, at least in proportion, than the other way around, doesn't imply much about how smart the two sets are on average. Incidentally, the number of sci/math types who cling to the Sokal Affair as an excuse for believing much of contemporary humanities theory is gibberish suggests that an understanding of things like deconstruction probably don't come as easily to them as you might think. At the end of the day, I really don't understand what disciplinary elitism gets you, other than an inflated sense of self-importance. What matters isn't what one is capable of understanding (except to college admissions staff), but rather what one does.