Just to avoid any confusion: The words are Bill Watterson's. The artwork is Gavin Aung Than's, although clearly a homage to Calvin and Hobbes. What a beautiful combination!
This is an excellent read entitled, The Cheapening of the Comics. It was a speech given in 1989 by Bill Watterson. In it, he discusses his thoughts on merchandising, the business aspects and details of licensing, etc.
The above speech provides a lot of insight as to why he answered the following interview question the way that he did [1]:
Q: What led you to resist merchandising Calvin and Hobbes?
A: For starters, I clearly miscalculated how popular it would be to show Calvin urinating on a Ford logo... Actually, I wasn't against all merchandising when I started the strip, but each product I considered seemed to violate the spirit of the strip, contradict its message, and take me away from the work I loved. If my syndicate had let it go at that, the decision would have taken maybe 30 seconds of my life.
Personally, this message speaks to me. I wish I could stay at home, write great software and be more active in the raising of my daughters. But when you're the primary breadwinner and benefits provider, it gets a lot more difficult.
I saw this posted by some artist friends of mine. I think it makes sense in that context. I'm not sure what this has to do with startups in the Paul Graham sense though, except to say that you shouldn't do one, because the entire goal of a startup is to kill yourself working and sell out for megabucks. What matters is the exit, the IPO, the aquihire, the valuation, and the traction.
If anything, it's an argument for lifestyle businesses over startups.
I love Calvin and Hobbes, and respect Bill Watterson but the following just is not true: "Watterson sacrificed millions (probably hundreds of millions) of dollars by never licensing and merchandising Calvin and Hobbes."
Sure, you cannot buy a licensed mug with Hobbes on it like you can with Garfield or Snoopy, but Watterson has surely made millions on the many book collections of his work. And book volumes are certainly merchandising.
Absolutely, he has given up the lucrative money that other cartoonists like Jim Davis have achieved by licensing/merchandising anything/anyhow, and still more by ending the comic after 'only' 10 years, but it's probably an easier decision to forgo the tackiness when the books have done as well as they have.
[+] [-] aculver|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jianshen|12 years ago|reply
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2013/03/26/is_garfield_supp...
[+] [-] Arjuna|12 years ago|reply
http://web.archive.org/web/20060210115506/http://hobbes.ncsa...
The above speech provides a lot of insight as to why he answered the following interview question the way that he did [1]:
Q: What led you to resist merchandising Calvin and Hobbes?
A: For starters, I clearly miscalculated how popular it would be to show Calvin urinating on a Ford logo... Actually, I wasn't against all merchandising when I started the strip, but each product I considered seemed to violate the spirit of the strip, contradict its message, and take me away from the work I loved. If my syndicate had let it go at that, the decision would have taken maybe 30 seconds of my life.
[1] http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/calvinandhobbes/index.html/pw_w...
[+] [-] Delmania|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarbazqux|12 years ago|reply
If anything, it's an argument for lifestyle businesses over startups.
[+] [-] billnguyen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DizzyDoo|12 years ago|reply
Sure, you cannot buy a licensed mug with Hobbes on it like you can with Garfield or Snoopy, but Watterson has surely made millions on the many book collections of his work. And book volumes are certainly merchandising.
Absolutely, he has given up the lucrative money that other cartoonists like Jim Davis have achieved by licensing/merchandising anything/anyhow, and still more by ending the comic after 'only' 10 years, but it's probably an easier decision to forgo the tackiness when the books have done as well as they have.