Significant Layoffs At National Geographic Magazine

**jatrax** · 11-04-2015, 11:32 AM - **1 Like**

I used to have tremendous respect for Nat Geo but they changed direction a while back, not sure of the year but they made a big fanfair about hiring a new CEO. From that point the content became IMHO more about making a political statement than showing the wonders of the world. It seemed to me they just chased whichever 'cause' was in vogue at the time rather than showing the amazing things they were previously known for. I dumped my subscription in disgust and said then it was only a matter of time before they went down the drain. Not sure what Murdoch will do with it but the decline started long before him.

Nass · 11-04-2015, 12:00 PM

Shame about the layoffs. We've had a NG subscription for years and it seems as interesting as ever. Great for casual browsing and amazing photography.

**PKMike** · 11-04-2015, 01:10 PM

Here is a theory of evolution. It is called evolution of the market place. If you don't perform you may be swallowed by a larger fish. Then metamorphosis is likely to take place.

pathdoc · 11-04-2015, 03:17 PM

Fish that are eaten generally metamorphose into fish sh**, IIRC.

micromacro · 11-05-2015, 06:54 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by PKMike

Here is a theory of evolution. It is called evolution of the market place. If you don't perform you may be swallowed by a larger fish. .

Well, educational non profit organizations are not initially created for a profit, so a free market is not the rule to measure the performance.

alamo5000 · 11-05-2015, 10:32 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/life/national-geographic-chief-says-layo...tid=kindle-app

VisualDarkness · 11-05-2015, 11:41 AM - **1 Like**

Of course they were struggling way before the acquisition. Part of it was most likely due to them trying to transfer into the regular market sector without being organised to hunt for profits. That is kind of a lost race before it even started and if they would have continued to focus on educational and building a good reputation as a good source for telling stories and facts in a professional way they wouldn't have been caught in the same spiral.

The thing with the latest happenings is that now there isn't really a way to turn back, the commercialization is fulfilled and it is transformed completely into just another big "cheap" regular media unit.This is the backside of free market economy, as soon as you go after the money you have to conform with the market values and form. That kills off a lot of good ideas, products and services that would have been beneficiary to society.

In short NG felt the winds of the market, ran with them and ended up in a storm they couldn't cope with. Now the storm ripped the tree with the roots and the tree will no longer become the same.

TedW · 11-05-2015, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

The worst isnt even the layoffs, it is the fact that he took away the "non-profit" status of NG. That in combination with the touch of Murdoch completely shattered the credibility the organisation built up over 100+ years.

Being "non-profit" make you credible? I'm surprised how many people think that non-profits don't make money. Being non-profit mean you fit business activities into a category that allows you to be tax exempt. One of the restrictions is that you can't distribute profits to shareholders like a corporation. But you can spend lavishly on almost anything as long as it marginally serves the goals of the stated organization. I used to work at a non-profit where our employee bonuses could, and did, equal two months salary. We made profits on what were basically banking activities; loaning money to manufacturing businesses.

VisualDarkness · 11-05-2015, 03:15 PM

Non-profit might mean a different thing for Americans then, then for Swedes. Here non-profit for sure is more credible in many cases, it isnt just about tax. There is a big difference in how you can run a non-profit organization compared to a regular business.

It has less to do with not "make money" and rather the fact that a regular business has to hunt for profits and with that always look for expansion, while a non-profit one can live in a status quo and even a narrowing role. This makes the regular business more inclined to neglect ethics and lessen quality in the hunt for profit while a non-profit one don´t have to take that route. Of course a non-profit organization is affected by lack of resources the same way as a regular business but there is no ownership and shareholder payout pressure on top of that.

In your case that is some questionable ethics involved in the business that goes against the spirit of non-profit.

**clackers** · 11-05-2015, 03:32 PM

Unfortunate where mismanagement makes it possible to get to the point where an organisation is bought by its enemy. The result could be like McDonalds buying The Food Network or the Saudi government purchasing Al Jazeera.

slip · 11-05-2015, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

https://nppa.org/node/72817

$Billions are the new $millions!

Just plain old greed.

**interested_observer** · 11-05-2015, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by clackers

Unfortunate where mismanagement makes it possible to get to the point where an organisation is bought by its enemy. The result could be like McDonalds buying The Food Network or the Saudi government purchasing Al Jazeera.

Hoya buying Pentax....

**clackers** · 11-05-2015, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by interested_observer

Hoya buying Pentax....

Yes, that was putting the drunk in charge of the bar, wasn't it? :-)

**monochrome** · 11-05-2015, 08:39 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TedW

non-profits don't make money

For-Profits report Profit. They share Profit with government in the form of tax, then share what's left with owners in one form or another.

Non-profits report Revenue In Excess Of Expenses.They share Excess Revenue with no one.

Non-Profit sharing was intended to be 'accomplishing the social mission' they've declared.

Nat Geo forgot about the social mission part.

**PKMike** · 11-06-2015, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

Well, educational non profit organizations are not initially created for a profit, so a free market is not the rule to measure the performance.

NG was (fiscally) responsible for their own actions. Obviously their financial performance wasn't good enough to keep them afloat (in the market place).

11-05-2015, 06:37 PM	#26
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by interested_observer https://nppa.org/node/72817 $Billions are the new $millions! Just plain old greed.

11-05-2015, 08:39 PM - 1 Like	#29
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by TedW non-profits don't make money For-Profits report Profit. They share Profit with government in the form of tax, then share what's left with owners in one form or another. Non-profits report Revenue In Excess Of Expenses.They share Excess Revenue with no one. Non-Profit sharing was intended to be 'accomplishing the social mission' they've declared. Nat Geo forgot about the social mission part. Last edited by monochrome; 11-05-2015 at 08:45 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Travel National Geographic Photo of the Day - April 26, 2014	richard balonglong	Post Your Photos!	3	07-23-2018 01:42 PM
National Geographic sold to Rupert Murdoch	interested_observer	General Photography	33	10-21-2015 05:55 AM
National Geographic: The Last Roll of Kodachrome	interested_observer	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	12	06-25-2015 07:27 AM
National Geographic sends K-01 into space	Tanzer	Pentax K-01	16	02-08-2014 10:42 PM
National Geographic - Photo Contest	interested_observer	General Talk	3	11-11-2013 10:26 AM

11-04-2015, 11:32 AM - 1 Like	#16
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	I used to have tremendous respect for Nat Geo but they changed direction a while back, not sure of the year but they made a big fanfair about hiring a new CEO. From that point the content became IMHO more about making a political statement than showing the wonders of the world. It seemed to me they just chased whichever 'cause' was in vogue at the time rather than showing the amazing things they were previously known for. I dumped my subscription in disgust and said then it was only a matter of time before they went down the drain. Not sure what Murdoch will do with it but the decline started long before him.

11-04-2015, 12:00 PM	#17
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Shame about the layoffs. We've had a NG subscription for years and it seems as interesting as ever. Great for casual browsing and amazing photography.

11-04-2015, 01:10 PM	#18
PKMike Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 628	Here is a theory of evolution. It is called evolution of the market place. If you don't perform you may be swallowed by a larger fish. Then metamorphosis is likely to take place.

11-04-2015, 03:17 PM	#19
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Fish that are eaten generally metamorphose into fish sh**, IIRC.

11-05-2015, 06:54 AM - 2 Likes	#20
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722	Originally posted by PKMike Here is a theory of evolution. It is called evolution of the market place. If you don't perform you may be swallowed by a larger fish. . Well, educational non profit organizations are not initially created for a profit, so a free market is not the rule to measure the performance.

11-05-2015, 10:32 AM	#21
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	https://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/life/national-geographic-chief-says-layo...tid=kindle-app

11-05-2015, 11:41 AM - 1 Like	#22
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Of course they were struggling way before the acquisition. Part of it was most likely due to them trying to transfer into the regular market sector without being organised to hunt for profits. That is kind of a lost race before it even started and if they would have continued to focus on educational and building a good reputation as a good source for telling stories and facts in a professional way they wouldn't have been caught in the same spiral. The thing with the latest happenings is that now there isn't really a way to turn back, the commercialization is fulfilled and it is transformed completely into just another big "cheap" regular media unit.This is the backside of free market economy, as soon as you go after the money you have to conform with the market values and form. That kills off a lot of good ideas, products and services that would have been beneficiary to society. In short NG felt the winds of the market, ran with them and ended up in a storm they couldn't cope with. Now the storm ripped the tree with the roots and the tree will no longer become the same.

11-05-2015, 02:51 PM	#23
TedW Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 241	Originally posted by VisualDarkness The worst isnt even the layoffs, it is the fact that he took away the "non-profit" status of NG. That in combination with the touch of Murdoch completely shattered the credibility the organisation built up over 100+ years. Being "non-profit" make you credible? I'm surprised how many people think that non-profits don't make money. Being non-profit mean you fit business activities into a category that allows you to be tax exempt. One of the restrictions is that you can't distribute profits to shareholders like a corporation. But you can spend lavishly on almost anything as long as it marginally serves the goals of the stated organization. I used to work at a non-profit where our employee bonuses could, and did, equal two months salary. We made profits on what were basically banking activities; loaning money to manufacturing businesses.

11-05-2015, 03:15 PM	#24
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Non-profit might mean a different thing for Americans then, then for Swedes. Here non-profit for sure is more credible in many cases, it isnt just about tax. There is a big difference in how you can run a non-profit organization compared to a regular business. It has less to do with not "make money" and rather the fact that a regular business has to hunt for profits and with that always look for expansion, while a non-profit one can live in a status quo and even a narrowing role. This makes the regular business more inclined to neglect ethics and lessen quality in the hunt for profit while a non-profit one don´t have to take that route. Of course a non-profit organization is affected by lack of resources the same way as a regular business but there is no ownership and shareholder payout pressure on top of that. In your case that is some questionable ethics involved in the business that goes against the spirit of non-profit.

11-05-2015, 03:32 PM	#25
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Unfortunate where mismanagement makes it possible to get to the point where an organisation is bought by its enemy. The result could be like McDonalds buying The Food Network or the Saudi government purchasing Al Jazeera.

11-05-2015, 07:50 PM	#27
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers Unfortunate where mismanagement makes it possible to get to the point where an organisation is bought by its enemy. The result could be like McDonalds buying The Food Network or the Saudi government purchasing Al Jazeera. Hoya buying Pentax....

11-05-2015, 07:58 PM	#28
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by interested_observer Hoya buying Pentax.... Yes, that was putting the drunk in charge of the bar, wasn't it? :-)

11-06-2015, 12:28 AM	#30
PKMike Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Idaho Posts: 628	Originally posted by micromacro Well, educational non profit organizations are not initially created for a profit, so a free market is not the rule to measure the performance. NG was (fiscally) responsible for their own actions. Obviously their financial performance wasn't good enough to keep them afloat (in the market place).