1980's

Saturday Review, October 1981


satrev1081.JPG

Never could figure out why The Saturday Review (of Literature) bought this "blind umpire" sports cartoon, but was very glad that they did.






National Business Employment Weekly, December 25, 1988


nbew122588.jpg

Note the date of publication -- Christmas Day, 1988. The quote, of course, is from "A Visit From Saint Nicholas". Because of its literary merit, I was hoping to sell this gag to the New Yorker, but many months before Christmas, I casually included it in a batch to NBEW -- and to my dismay the editor snapped it up. So Cartoonist/Editor Lee Lorenz at The New Yorker never had a crack at it. My advice to cartoonists: don't send it out if you don't want it sold!






Boardroom Lists, November 1983


bdrm1183.jpg This was published by Brian Kurtz in his Boardroom Lists newsletter in November 1983. You can see my original posting about Boardroom Lists here. The interesting thing about this particular cartoon is that Brian told me he liked it so much that he wanted to make a poster out of it. I told him it sounded like a great idea. The next thing I knew he published this 17" x 22" poster . . . drawn by the renowned New Yorker cartoonist Charles Barsotti! bdrmbarsottiposter.jpg I was quite taken aback and I never got a good explanation from Brian as to why he chose to ask Barsotti to re-draw my gag, instead of just blowing up my cartoon (which he had already published months before). I guess I can't fault Brian for going with a famous New Yorker cartoonist (Barsotti), instead of an almost no-name cartoonist (me). Anyway, I did eventually get my chance at a poster, too. For the opening of the 1986 baseball season, I drew a special cartoon for Boardroom Lists, and it was published (size 17" x 22", on beige poster stock paper) in May 1986. You can see it directly below.






Boardroom Lists, May 1986


bdrmbaseballposter.jpg This was published as a 17" x 22" poster (see story directly above).






Boardroom Lists, July 1983


bdrm0783.jpg In July 1983 I started an interesting relationship with Boardroom Reports, Inc., and in particular with one of its divisions, Boardroom Lists. At that time, Boardroom Reports, based in New York City, was publishing a line of very popular personal and business newsletters, with titles like "Boardroom Reports", "Bottom Line" and "Tax Hotline". (Update: according to Google, Boardroom is now headquartered in Stamford, Conn., and is still apparently doing quite well in the newsletter publishing business.)

To get back to my story, in 1983 the Boardroom editors were occasionally using cartoons in their various newsletters, so I sent in a batch of my cartoons, on speculation. The batch was rejected, but along with the rejection was a letter from Brian Kurtz, "List Manager" at Boardroom. He said that he saw my cartoons and was interested in buying and printing at least one of them for his "Boardroom Lists" newsletter, which was targeted for users and purchasers of mailing lists for direct mail promotions. The cartoon posted above was the one that he wanted.

Brian also asked to see any other cartoons I might have relating to his particular field, and wanted to know if I'd be interested in doing any special cartoon projects that he had in mind. Of course I was interested. My relationship with Brian lasted about three years, and in all that time I never met him -- all our discussions were by mail or phone. (Another update: again according to Google, Brian Kurtz is now Executive Vice-President of Boardroom, Inc., in Connecticut, and I have to assume he is also doing quite well.)

Getting back to my story again, Brian began using my cartoons in his newsletter and in other promotional material. He also volunteered his expertise in creating some of the gags, and whenever I felt that his contribution was important enough, I signed the cartoon STEIN + KURTZ (the only times I ever shared a by-line with anyone).

In a burst of inspiration, Brian even based an award-winning print advertising campaign around my cartoons. I'll be posting all the cartoons and the ads in the future, under the publication category of "Boardroom Lists" (even though the ads appeared in other trade publications, such as "Direct Marketing", "Zip Target Marketing" and "D.M.News"). I received a royalty payment each time an ad appeared in a publication. What was the award that the ad campaign garnered? It was the coveted ECHO award from the Direct Marketing Association. Brian was nice enough to send me this Certificate of Creative Recognition: bdrmcertificate.jpg And he also sent along this note: bdrmbriannote.jpg For all these years the certificate has been languishing in a folder in one of my file cabinets. But now I plan to frame it and give it its rightful place on my studio wall. Okay, it isn't an OSCAR or even a CLIO, but it's an ECHO!






Case & Comment, 1988


case1988.jpg

Case & Comment was a well-respected, old-line publication for lawyers. Its first issue was in 1894 and its last was in 1990 -- almost 100 years! And best of all, in my opinion, it used cartoons to accompany and lighten up all that legal material.

This cartoon was purchased by the editors for a specific purpose. It was featured in a June 1988 promotional letter sent to their extensive mailing list of lawyers. I was paid a $100 bonus for that use.

Unfortunately, they must have sent it to the law firm that represented the "Toys R Us" merchandising group. As the editors later informed me, it resulted in a "cease and desist" letter and Case & Comment was forced to discontinue the promotion.

Aside: Four years later, The National Law Journal (another one of my markets, by the way) published essentially the same cartoon, but drawn by another cartoonist. The other cartoonist had the chutzpah to use the reverse "R" (Torts "R" Us), which I had been too chicken to use. I figured it was trademarked and would just be asking for trouble. I often wondered whether The National Law Journal received a similar "cease and desist" letter from the Toys "R" Us lawyers.






Advertising Age, September 12, 1983


adage091283.jpg

Explanation: The word "collateral" has a special meaning in the advertising agency world. To quote from a source on Google: "Collateral is the collection of media used to support sales of a product or service. It differs from advertising in that it is used later in the sales cycle. Common examples include: sales brochures and other printed product information, posters and signs, visual aids in sales presentations, web content, sales scripts and demonstration scripts."

So this adman, or as we would call him today, Madman, is looking for a loan and he has brought along his "collateral". Yes, I agree it's an awful pun, but I thought it worked as a gag, and apparently so did the editors at Advertising Age back in 1983.

End of Lesson Number 1 in today's Advertising 101 class.






National Review, February 14, 1986


natrev021486.jpg A few days ago I posted another National Review cartoon and made some remarks about the untimely death of its founder, William Buckley, Jr. I also mentioned his sister Priscilla, who was an editor at NR and for many years had the responsibility of selecting the cartoons to be published there.

Ms Buckley would often comment on my submissions, and today I'd like to recall one particular comment of hers, from about twenty years ago.

In my batch of cartoons at that time was a kind of silly one in which I had an 18th century King of France watching television. The caption, coming from the TV set, was "It's ten P.M. -- do you know where your Dauphins are?". This, of course, was a take-off on the familiar and oft-repeated TV phrase "It's ten P.M. -- do you know where your children are?".

When I received the batch back, there was a note from Ms Buckley. She said, "I liked the 'Dauphins' but by definition there can be only one Dauphin at a time, like the Prince of Wales."

I scratched my head for a while, then looked it up and realized that she was perfectly right. The Dauphin was the heir apparent to the throne of France, and there couldn't possibly be more than one at a time.

I tried re-writing my caption, but somehow " . . . do you know where your Dauphin is?" didn't work at all. I finally gave up and relegated the cartoon to my vast "Unsold" folders.






The Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1982


wsj020882.JPG As I mentioned before, there was a short period of time when The Wall Street Journal was reproducing cartoons very poorly and a lot of drawing detail was being lost. This is one of those cartoons. That's a Universal Product Code (UPC) emblem on the gentleman's party tag.

(Update, posted October 22, 2016) I just discovered the original of this cartoon -- this is the way it should have looked in print:






Stock Market, March 1981


stkmkt0381.JPG Am I the only person who saw any humor in the name of the securities firm "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Beane"? And then, many years ago, they abruptly changed the name to "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith", which really raised my gag antennae. The firm is now called simply "Merrill Lynch" -- a ho-hum name if I ever heard one.

Anyhow, I came up with this "OUT TO LYNCH" gag and Stock Market magazine was good enough to print it. Please don't go looking for any deep-South racial undertones in the cartoon -- this was simply a take-off on the countless "Out to Lunch" door sign cartoons that every cartoonist liked to draw, probably because they were so easy. Eventually it became such a hackneyed subject that no cartoonist would touch it anymore (also, for some reason, business people no longer seemed inclined to hang "Out to Lunch" signs on their doorknobs).

So these three partners, with their darkened offices, were simply out to visit with good ol' Merrill Lynch, whose office is still lit up.

One more historical note, for the sake of honesty in cartooning: there is no such person as Merrill Lynch, and there never has been. The firm was started as a partnership of Charles Merrill and Edmund Lynch, and the comma between the names was dropped in 1938 when Mr. Lynch passed away. Now you sticklers for the truth won't have to Google it.

The real question is, why in the world did I think this simple cartoon needed such a long explanation?






Pages

Subscribe to RSS - 1980's