> 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?
But I wonder why it was bought.
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.
Comparative analysis of human + domesticated animal terrestrial vertebrate biomass vs. that of wildlife is truly staggering.
I find it far easier to believe that News Corp, as a publicly traded company, wants to increase its own equity value by allocating capital well. And that the executives who work there have shown skill at identifying big-brand media companies who have been mismanaged and are in terminal decline, and purchasing them for a price which makes it easy to streamline the operation, cut dead wood and make a profit on the transaction.
The alternative is that the name and brand dissappears below the waterline forever and becomes something that people used to talk about.
The department that obviously didn't help you craft your question...
a) you didn't make an observation, you asked a question
b) it was a snarky question
c) they're laying off folks from, according to the article, 'almost every department of the nonprofit organization'
> I mention vote manipulation because it was very apparent that is what igotspam had done.
Or, y'know, thousands of people read HN and some large number of them think that you're off-base.
In this case it seems unlikely that you've been downvoted by one person with two accounts. Downvotes are sometimes accidental; and incorrect or unfair downvotes are often corrected. But accusing people of bad faith downvotes is a sure way to attract more downvotes.
How so? Maybe it's "stability" in the sense that NatGeo will continue to be a going concern for the foreseeable future? What sense would it make to buy a struggling business and make no changes?