
National Geographic Society sets biggest layoff in its history - brudgers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-society-sets-biggest-layoff-in-its-history/2015/11/03/2966e1b4-8252-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html
======
t2015_08_25
They haven't handled the transition to new media and values properly:

1\. Their magazine: Almost all magazines have been replaced with websites.
Their website dramatically undersells their content. Look at it, really. It's
basically like clickhole, but with stories of climate change. The dramatic
photography of the magazine is only coming across in about 50% of the photos
and the headlines are all clickbait format.

2\. Their television presence includes shows like "Drugs, Inc." whose
primarily job is to scare old people with re-enactments of drug crimes. Who
would pay for that "value"? (I guess people who watch police shows? but what
does that saturated market have to do with their brand?)

3\. Their youtube stream is a massive quantity of short, low-quality videos. I
subscribe and only watch about 1 in 50 of them. Another problem with their
videos is so few have narration which I feel is a key feature of travel and
wildlife shows.

4\. They haven't handled outreach to a younger generation. With all the urban
young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the world with disposable
income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling relationship with them.

5\. The global geopolitical situation is more interesting than ever with
worldwide communication, but I don't see NG addressing that. Maybe they are -
somewhere? - but their marketing isn't penetrating.

I feel like they could turn it around if they primarily address the youngest
generation - perhaps get more involved in the travel and outdoor supplies
markets.

~~~
zeveb
> With all the urban young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the
> world with disposable income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling
> relationship with them.

Given its mission to increase and diffuse geographical knowledge, it's
remarkable to me that National Geographic doesn't operate a travel-services
agency (insurance, tours, guidebooks—that kind of thing). It seems like that
_should_ be right in its wheelhouse, and could be profitable enough to fund
its research projects, if competently run.

~~~
yasth
They have a travel wing.
[http://www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com/](http://www.nationalgeographicexpeditions.com/)
Including a partnership with a cruise line. They also have a fairly extensive
travel publishing section
[http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/category/books/travel...](http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/category/books/travel/travel-
guidebooks) . (They even have a very lightly branded travel insurance
partnership
[http://www.travelinsure.com/custom/ngs/](http://www.travelinsure.com/custom/ngs/)
)

Obviously discoverability, and advertising of these is less than ideal. A lot
of it is actually verging on overextending to the brand, like "The Dog Lover's
Guide to Travel" just doesn't seem a good brand expansion.

~~~
zeveb
Wow, I never knew, despite my folks & grandparents being members my entire
life, and it's not even on their Wikipedia page, either. As you note, the
discoverability doesn't seem very good.

I guess it boils down to the 'competently run' part: if one is going to run a
profit-making enterprise, one needs to advertise!

------
danso
Before we blame Murdoch, I think it's worth remembering that NatGeo was in a
bad position when it was sold off to Murdoch...that's why it was sold off in
the first place:

> _The magazine’s domestic circulation peaked at about 12 million copies in
> the late 1980s; today, the publication reaches about 3.5 million subscribers
> in the United States and an additional 3 million subscribers abroad through
> non-English-language editions. Advertising has been in steady decline._

Just because the layoffs are happening as NatGeo becomes part of Murdoch's
empire doesn't mean that this was a greedy, self-serving move, and not one
that was a long-time due and for which Murdoch gets the recognition/blame for,
likely in exchange for a purchase price he was willing to accept. Would these
layoffs not happened if NatGeo hadn't managed to be sold off as it was in
decline?

~~~
a3n
> Before we blame Murdoch, I think it's worth remembering that NatGeo was in a
> bad position when it was sold off to Murdoch...that's why it was sold off in
> the first place

Fair point.

But I wonder why it was bought.

~~~
mattzito
It's a largely unknowable question, since it's just in the eye of the
beholder. It could be purely a "let's wring whatever value we can get out of
the brand until it's a dried-up husk and throw it aside".

Or it could be a, "Look, this isn't a very well-run business, there's a lot of
redundancy, and a lot of investment in prestige initiatives that don't bring
in a lot of revenue, so let's trim things down and focus on higher-margin
operations, and then see how we can leverage the brand across the rest of the
organization".

I mean, both of my scenarios are effectively very similar, one just assumes
malice, the other good corporate stewardship. It's hard to know.

~~~
mason240
Hopefully it is because they identified all things t2015_08_25 did in the top
post, and they see it a currently under preforming and make a killing by
implementing those changes.

------
forgetsusername
> _Several people in the channel’s fact-checking department, for example, were
> terminated on Tuesday, employees said._

What a ridiculous line. "For example". It just so happens that the example
they chose to name and print is just right to get the people up-in-arms about
Murdoch cutting the fact-checking department, while in reality people from
many departments are being cut. We've seen it in this very thread.

I'm no Fox fan, but the left-wing media plays its own games.

~~~
oxryly1
> I'm no Fox fan, but the left-wing media plays its own games.

I'm hoping this is an inadvertent straw man. Is there anyone on the left who
would dispute this? Media is it's own indignant shouty echo chamber.

~~~
ferongr
I have no horse in this race (I don't even live in the USA) but I've seen
people use "Reality has a liberal bias" on HN unironically so I guess this
could answer your question.

------
Loughla
>In addition to the layoffs and buyouts, the National Geographic Society said
it would freeze its pension plan for eligible employees, eliminate medical
coverage for future retirees and change its contributions to an employee
401(k) plan so that all employees receive the same percentage contribution.

Of all of it, this pisses me off the most. Because who needs a retirement?
Thanks for your years of hard work, here's a 401(k) fucking income supplement.
Oh, and no medical coverage for you. Have fun working until you die.

~~~
Agustus
What is the role of the employer to provide any of these items, these are all
archaic fringe benefits that obfuscate a wage and greatly enable large
corporations to keep talent from moving to a new start-up.

* The pension based retirement defined benefit plan is a bonus item that originated because the government encouraged it in the 1921 Revenue Act [1] by exempting pensions from being taxed as income. Then when the National Labor Relations Board "interpreted" the law 27 years later to include it as a benefit that was inclusive of employment did it become a larger liability. Large companies were able to absorb the costs of pensions being paid into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [2] after the 1974 setting of requirements, hurting the ability of small companies to set up comparable benefits. The slow death march of private based pensions follows the incentive curve and the movement to defined contribution for companies enables smaller companies to be more competitive with the big companies [3].

* The medical coverage one vexes me financially, as I do not know how guaranteed this is, of all the things that would be eliminated in a bankruptcy, this is most probable and would save the receiving company a lot of money.

My point here is that the 401k and retirement program free of the company
means you create an employee who has more worries about retirement, but is not
locked into an employer's retirement pension contribution system.

[1]
[http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0398afac...](http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0398afact)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation)

[3] [http://20somethingfinance.com/defined-benefit-vs-defined-
con...](http://20somethingfinance.com/defined-benefit-vs-defined-contribution-
retirement-plans/)

~~~
dredmorbius
Accident of history or not, retirement and health benefits offered through
employers have been how such systems are funded in the US.

The total value of the system is on the order of $18 trillion dollars,
slightly more than the ~$15 trillion annual GDP.
[https://www.ici.org/pressroom/news/ret_10_q4](https://www.ici.org/pressroom/news/ret_10_q4)

Too, employees have far more at stake, and far less negotiating power, than
employees, a fact quite openly recognised in Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_
(Book 1, Chapter 8:
[https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8))

There's further a great deal of _other_ infrastructure which reinforces the
existing system, from tax and other laws based on employer-provided benefits
(including substantial advantages to both employers and employees
participating in such plans), and of the services industries built around
these (it's far more economical, and actuarially defensible, to deal with
_groups_ of people, particularly _large_ aggregates, than one-on-one).

Which means that:

1\. You cannot simply turn this ship on a dime. It's quite literally larger
than the economy.

2\. Changes _to present employee benefits_ represents a material change in
compensation and risk profile to those employees, for which they're poorly
equipped to either address or organise against.

~~~
Agustus
Yes. The change in pension to defined contribution should be something that is
phased in as those making decisions in the system were making them under
existing conditions. However, once the change has been made, those not
grandfathered in should expect the new infrastructure.

That is why the social security system needs to start being changed for longer
lifespans, not for those who operated under the current system, but so it can
remain solvent for those entering the program now.

------
andyjohnson0
_" Please watch your inbox for important information about your employment
status tomorrow. [...] Looking ahead, I am confident National Geographic’s
mission will be fulfilled in powerful, new and impactful ways, as we continue
to change the world through science, exploration, education and
storytelling."_

Why do CEO-types feel the need to write these bad-news emails like they were
some kind of press-release?

~~~
Loughla
It lets the employees know it isn't personal. Something, something, consoling,
something, something, moving onto new horizons.

It's neutral speak to avoid a lawsuit, let people know it isn't personal, and
to sound professional if (when) it is sent to the press.

~~~
eli
"Please watch your inbox tomorrow" is a terrible way to officially tell
someone they may be laid off.

~~~
comrh
Certainly a good way to stop all work at a company until those emails go out.

------
nsxwolf
I am a long time subscriber. We jokingly call it "Earth is Dying Magazine" in
our house because more often than not these days the cover is trumpeting some
very dire environmental issue.

Will be sad to see it go, if that's where this is headed.

------
subpixel
As a kid I was surrounded by my dad's massive National Geographic collection,
so I've always been nostalgic about it. Some of those photo essays are
permanently seared in my brain (ultralights!).

A few years ago I picked up a copy at the doctor's office and had time to read
an article or two. The photos were nice as ever, but the writing was
depressingly shallow and facile.

Maybe they figured out long ago that most of their subscribers, like my dad,
never actually read the thing.

------
celticninja
The company was purchased by Rupert Murdoch (or one of his subsidiaries) and
the first layoffs were to the fact-checking department.

Of course they were. I think that kind of sets the tone for what NatGeo will
become going forward. For an idea of what will happen just look at the History
Channel.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _For an idea of what will happen just look at the History Channel._

The History Channel did what most media does and started to appeal to the
masses to make money. They're literally producing what people want to watch.

It's like when people complain about shows like American idol, or Honey-Boo-
Boo, all the while the shows are crushing the viewership ratings.

~~~
arca_vorago
That's such a self-fulfilling prophecy and dangerously close to circular logic
and victim blaming. The people want this crap, that's why we give them more
crap! The people are getting stupider because of this crap, so that's why they
want more, so lets give it to them! Before you know it if nothing stops the
spiral it's going to be fucking idiocracy controlled by the oligarchy!

Is it just me or does this mentality totally forget that the airwaves were
public and we gave the companies access to them in exchange for a public
service (which started out as nightly prime-time news.)

The airwaves belong to us, and if the corporations are so enamoured by pure
monetary/viewership gains, and have forgotten the original edict and goals,
not to mention potential uses for good of such widespread communications, we
need to remove their right to the airwaves and bring them back under the
public sphere.

Our population is being dumbed down by the media, while it could be doing the
opposite.

I'll say it again, the airwaves should belong to the public.

~~~
madebylaw
Reminds me of a favorite Steve Jobs quote:

“When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy.
The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older,
you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people
exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is
optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the
networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the
truth.”

~~~
arca_vorago
I would say Operation Mockingbird never went away and the conspiratorial view
is the correct one. Media was never just about giving the people what they
wanted, it was about telling them what they wanted in the first place, with a
side effect of mass control.

------
brwnll
"Several people in the channel’s fact-checking department, for example, were
terminated on Tuesday, employees said."

Rough, talk about a job sector in decline.. Maybe Buzzfeed is hiring? ;)

------
g8oz
After for subscribing for 20 years I fell out with NG after repeated attempts
to renew with a credit card simply failed. They wouldn't even let me send them
a check. I found it to be a curious indicator of decline.

A year later when I was considering trying again I came across a racist
historical re-enactment video of theirs depicting medieval Malian sultan Mansa
Musa as a grunting savage. Just not feeling them any more.

------
newman314
So on a somewhat unrelated note, this is what I fear Dell will do to EMC &
VMware.

Dell's background is cheap computers. EMC service is pricy but top-notch. The
engineers there have been nothing but fantastic to work with and I fear with
this acquisition that this is all going to go away because Dell can't get the
value proposition out of their DNA.

------
thefastlane
how does a nonprofit 'sell itself' to a for-profit entity? my understanding of
how nonprofit charters work is that when a charitable organization decides its
operations are no longer sustainable, it must be 'taken over' by another
nonprofit or else simply dissolved altogether. (edited for concision)

~~~
gorner
Some of the nuance has been lost in the media coverage. The National
Geographic Society will still exist as a non-profit, but it is selling control
of its media assets to Fox (and presumably would use the proceeds to fund its
remaining charitable work).

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Does the IRS look into sales like this to ensure that the assets were sold for
a reasonable price? It seems like that would be a pretty big loophole if not.

~~~
hugh4
I'm missing why it's a loophole. Under what circumstances would both parties
agree to a sale at an unreasonable price?

------
tmaly
reminds me of the Secret Life of Walter Mitty where traditional film and paper
were being replaced by digital media

------
sjg007
Google should've bought them.

------
krambs
"Nationalize it." \- Peter Tosh

------
malkia
National Idiocracy

------
willvarfar
Terribly depressing. I've been buying NG for a decade and now have a whole row
in my bookshelf of yellow spines. It is very disheartening to think that
something as political as Fox and Murdoch can have 73% control of it and
presumably influence it editorially, as well as using it to uplift and give
weight to the Fox brand :(

~~~
wtbob
> It is very disheartening to think that something as political as Fox and
> Murdoch can have 73% control of it and presumably influence it editorially

Have you been reading NatGeo this past decade? It's already become as
political as one can imagine, just in the other direction.

~~~
willvarfar
> Have you been reading NatGeo this past decade?

I have read it cover-to-cover every time. I've thought it getting more pro-oil
pro-banking, actually, so that just shows how subjective these things are.

I'm a brit abroad and I wish it had a more science, nature, anthropology and
everything else slant. Last months article on the new missing link finds was
really interesting, but I won't miss all the American-centric stories one
iota.

------
SandB0x
Here are the emails in full. Shocking stuff.

[http://jimromenesko.com/2015/11/03/layoffs-begin-at-
national...](http://jimromenesko.com/2015/11/03/layoffs-begin-at-national-
geographic/)

"We will evolve. We will create impact. We will change the world."

Just fuck off.

------
deepvibrations
Would be nice to have an up-to-date, in-depth list of all arms of the Murdoch
media empire... Here's a starting point:
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSngE68UcAA1mn5.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSngE68UcAA1mn5.png)

#BoycottMurdochMedia !

~~~
toxican
idk if you're aware, but this isn't twitter.

~~~
deepvibrations
Yes, apologies if unnecessary... But you tend to build up a certain dislike
for someone like murdoch after seeing the same old fear-mongering crap in all
his newspapers for years. I like to boycott people who take a lot and give
very little back from society.

