Evanier points out one thing that I constantly have to remind comics fans of, in discussions: DC and Marvel make the bulk of their money off licensing, not publishing. When you bemoan the state of their comics, they don't care (well, some do, a lot of the higher ups don't) because they still rake in tons of money from those toys and t-shirts at Walmart and Target, and those movies (even the bad ones) in theaters and media players, around the globe.  

Reboot time again?  "The fans aren't buying."  "How are the trash can sales?"  "Up 40%!"  "The heck with the comic fans, launch another reboot!"  "Don't change the costumes, though, we have 250,000 units at Walmart."

Quite frankly, that last paragraph, about National Lampoon, is a very strong possibility. Warner has moved in that direction, for years, starting with Mad TV. I wouldn't be surprised if they went the Cracked.com route, while using the brand name in movies and tv, as well as on-line content. The magazine hasn't sold squat in years. When I worked for B&N we stripped the bulk of what we got (also true for a lot of high profile magazines). people read them in the store; but, few bought them. And, B&N has had one of the few successful larger scale newsstands of any outlet.

Cracked is doing a very good job with their website. For what it is, it seems well-written and well-researched (and pretty substantive sometimes). But it's definitely a different style and different audience than the magazine.

For a while in the 90s or 00s, it seemed like MAD was putting out a ton of merchandise, mainly toys and books. But when I got my son a subscription, it seemed to be more deliberately aimed at teenagers--a lot of jokes based on Howard Stern references or rap rivalries. In the 60s and 70s, even though kids may have been the main audience, it wasn't written that way--a lot of jokes about things like expense accounts and commuting and getting ripped off by fancy restaurants. Part of the appeal may have been a "look behind the adult curtain." (Certainly "A Look Inside Timothy Leary's Wallet" from the first issue I bought went well over my 8-yer-old head.)

If anyone's interested, going by covers on the GCD, the first issue I remember buying was #116 (January '68). I was a pretty steady customer through about #175 (June '75).

I've spoken a number of times in this forum about how much I loved reading MAD Magazine back in the 80s, between the ages of 12 and 18, and how, the older I get, the more I realise just how much influence it has had on my worldview as an adult.

In addition to the magazine, I also loved collecting the paperback books which gathered a lot of material from the 50s and 60s; I used to pick those up from used book shops or market stalls fairly often as a teen.

As far as I'm concerned, the magazine's heyday was a roughly 20 year period from the mid-60s through to the mid-80s. Myself, I was still reading in it well into the early 90s, but it's hard not to feel that it was something of a spent force by then. In a lot of ways, The Simpsons took over the job of subverting America and the West's impressionable youth with hilarious wit, needle sharp satire and well-founded cynicism.

With that said, I'm not terribly surprised that the magazine side of things is going to be changing. It's a shame though. But, as Egon Spengler said in Ghostbusters, "print is dead."

I'd hate to see MAD fold under completely. In my youth, it was an irreverent source of humor and parody (especially loved the Star Trek ones). I think one minor reason that I wear glasses today is from squinting at all of Aragones' margin drawings and figures. 

Insert Mad Fold-In joke here.


Honestly, I've never even associated Mad with comics beyond knowing Sergio Aragones made his fame there. I'm not trying to insult the publication, mind you. It just fell off my radar once I hit pubescence. I look back on most comics with nostalgia, but what really attracts me to them as an adult is the ability to find complexity and artistry in them that I couldn't see as a child. If Mad also holds that kind of appeal (and I'm not necessarily saying it doesn't), I've yet to be made aware of it.

I LOVED Mad as a kid, but I've never looked back. I guess I'm part of the problem.

You can definitely make that argument.  It was hugely influential.  I do think that influence has probably fallen off since the late 70s-early 80s...but I also could be wrong about that.