(1 to 100 of 104 replies)
theorem PRO 2:02am, 16 May 2007
There have been a lot of questions from the community today about us rewriting history and we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine. When 8020 was created we felt a photography magazine was a perfect first title to start with. JPG Magazine existed before and was absolutely the inspiration for the new JPG magazine. Derek and the contributors behind the early issues are a critical part of who we are and the heritage of JPG magazine is not something to be erased or forgotten. The JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created will always be an inspiration to us and we are committed to the principles that they set out.
(1 to 100 of 104 replies)
e.palecek PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by e.palecek (moderator) 10 years ago
I would think a bit of elaboration is in order rather than this generic disclaimer. Hundreds upon hundreds of account and photo deletions and this is all the response the community that helped build it warrants?
GraceD PRO 10 years ago
"...we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine"

So, you're saying that Derek and Heather are lying?

Dude, you really blew it. This is going to haunt you for a long, long time.
♫ marc_l'esperance 10 years ago
important to say, or important to do? i sense some doublespeak here.
camnlo4130 PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by camnlo4130 (member) 10 years ago
how can this be the "new" JPG, when the issue on its way to the news stand is still the "old" JPG
pigeonpoo 10 years ago
This Paul guy sounds like an absolute wanker.
I wasn't a subscriber but received a lot of inspiration from the photos. I wonder if Paul attended the Ken Lay School of Successful Business Management?
beebo wallace PRO 10 years ago
This is right out of the the Karl Rove handbook on spin ...

It's funny how disconnected people can't read a community.
camnlo4130 PRO 10 years ago
and how can you call it a "new" JPG when you didn't start over at issue # 1
Mister Boboli PRO 10 years ago
Wow. Kind of disconnect between the post topic and the post contents, no? What an inspired post saying nothing. Here's a pat on the back for staying cool under fire and keeping a clear head.

I wonder what will happen when accounts and photos at jpgmag.com dwindle to nothing.
brnpttmn 10 years ago
you gotta be kidding me...
Rebecca Weeks 10 years ago
Too little. Too late.
myla kent Posted 10 years ago. Edited by myla kent (member) 10 years ago
You. have. got. to. be. kidding me.

I can hardly believe that after everything Derek and Heather have done for JPG Magazine -- the original and the new -- and for you -- that *you* would have the sheer gall to erase them from the history of the website -- to make it so that they felt they had to leave THEIR MAGAZINE -- and then have even further gall to get up and write what you wrote above -- sheer nerve.

I have never, in all 12 years I've been online, seen anyone act this despicably. And I've seen a lot.

I don't expect that this post will stay here in this thread for very long as you have a habit of deleting things, but at least I've said my peace.

If I were Derek, I would have gotten an attorney and shown YOU the door. And given you a swift kick in the behind on the way out.

What gall.

(edited for clarity)
The Silent Witness [deleted] Posted 10 years ago. Edited by The Silent Witness (member) 10 years ago
@ Theorem"...........and the heritage of JPG magazine is not something to be erased or forgotten. "

Are you f&%ckin' kidding!?!

Then what in the world is this ... www.jpgmag.com/about/ ?

Sorry, but you guys are not going to make it through this.

People are dropping like flies.
As it stands:

Team Powazek-10
Team Cloutier-0

It is a real shame that something so fabulous is now all but a memory. JPG was Mr & Mrs. Powazek and the contributors. We are in solidarity with them and look forward to their future projects.

Unfortunately your version of JPG Magazine will suffer the consequences of your unethical behavior.
Bryan.Formhals 10 years ago
i'd hire another PR firm...
John Goldsmith Posted 10 years ago. Edited by John Goldsmith (member) 10 years ago
I'd re-hire Derek and Heather . . . .
brnpttmn 10 years ago
I'd re-hire Derek and Heather . . . .

After Paul resigns of course.
John Goldsmith 10 years ago
Have you ever woken up one morning, after say, a long night of drinking, and asked yourself, "what was I thinking?"
Account moved to http://flickr.com/codooaustin Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Account moved to http://flickr.com/codooaustin (admin) 10 years ago

Cody here. As you may know I am an administrator for this group, "The Unofficial JPG Magazine Group". I just want you to know that I have not been persuaded by either party to write this. This is my opinion and how I feel.

When I first heard about JPGMag.com I was very exicted to be a part of it. I thought that it was my "gateway" for people to see my photos in a magazine, something someone could hold in their hand. I am sure many of you felt the same way; some of you getting published. Read more...

JPG Mag. IS something different, something new, and something groundbreaking. It’s gone farther than any community-based photo magazine and is just getting better, mainly because of you all, the community.

I know a lot of you are upset about the current events; it might be justifiable. I do not know anybody at JPG personally nor do I know Derek or Heather personally. What you are reading is hopefully coming over as unbiased.

The only thing that I would like to say is please continue supporting JPG Mag. As Derek said in his personal post “I still own a percentage of the company, so I hope to see JPG continue to grow and prosper.” If Derek and Heather did not believe in the future of JPG Mag. they would have taken their money and run. Keeping your money in a “stock” that you do not believe in or think will “crash” is not good business sense and I have noticed many of your posts reference bad business decisions.

I have already deleted my account from JPGMag.com but will be recreating it soon. I also said something to Paul out of line and in public, which is something I regret. I want to sincerely and publicly apologize. I believe in JPG Mag., so do Derek and Heather and so should you. I want to be part of a great magazine.

Derek and Heather are two great people, two great minds and two great photographers. JPG Mag. will not be the last of their creations. I'm sure there is more ahead from Team Powazek-Champ. Probably something totally different than you have already seen.

But like Derek said please continue to support Paul and the rest of the gang at www.jpgmag.com
Zen Cat PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Zen Cat (member) 10 years ago
Save the spin austin, Thanks but no thanks... I think I will save my money and support Heather and Derek's new adventure. And I'm sure there will be one.
fallsroad PRO 10 years ago
(Cody: They may not be able to sell their stock at the moment if there is some sort of legal barrier to that. Depends upon how the deal was structured.)

I removed my photos from this pool (I know, no great loss to art nor to humanity) and will not be creating a JPG account, nor reading future issues, and so forth.

My father had a term for the sort of behavior the "new" JPG has exhibited.

He called it "bush league".

Benny Vision 10 years ago
i agree with GraceD
"...we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine"

So, you're saying that Derek and Heather are lying?

what the heck is going on?
undomestic PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by undomestic (member) 10 years ago
come ON guys...at least Paul is a "Snappy Dresser".
Account moved to http://flickr.com/codooaustin Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Account moved to http://flickr.com/codooaustin (admin) 10 years ago
I hate Paul's avatar, it's like Anderson Cooper dressed like a pirate from the neck up. Bugs the bajesus out of me.
Brenda Anderson PRO 10 years ago
I assumed that's what he looks like. Gee, we may disagree with his actions in this whole thing, but people can't help what they look like.
joeypfeifer 10 years ago
"we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine"

But you did.
Brenda Anderson PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Brenda Anderson (member) 10 years ago
But it looks like they've written it back:


But for me, that doesn't really change my mind.
Jim O'Connell 10 years ago
Just came here from the other thread:

codooaustin says:

This topic will be locked please refer to www.flickr.com/groups/jpgmag/discuss/72157600219677218/ for comments.
Posted 25 minutes ago. ( permalink )

Why shuffle everyone into one discussion started by Paul? This is, after all, the "Unofficial" group, so any sort of topic should be fine to discuss, whether or not it is critical of the publisher.

Codeoaustin, please go re-open this discussion. Closing it was rude—people were still using it.
troycochrane PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by troycochrane (member) 10 years ago
What has happened at JPG Mag is, frankly, about more than Derek and Heather. Obviously they are the most clearly and drastically affected. However, as they say, it was meant to be a community. The roots of a community are of vital importance as are a community's growth. I cannot for the life of me see how denying ones roots and alienating ones community makes good business sense.

To claim that the "first six issues of JPG Magazine served as inspiration for the new JPG Magazine" rather than acknowledging how the magazine grew into what it now is seems petty and ignorant. It didn't 'inspire' this new magazine. The building blocks for what the magazine is began with those issues.

Yes, Derek asked people to continue supporting the magazine. However, I think it makes sense to try and make it hurt so that this ridiculous decision will be rethought. While I imagine D&H will likely never be back (probably hard to put that genie back in the bottle), JPG Magazine should stop denying its own history.
Jim O'Connell: It was basically talking about the same things here. But since you asked nicely.
ninjapoodles 10 years ago
You can't get the toothpaste back into the tube, Paul. This is ripping and tearing through the internet at breakneck speed. Like someone above said, "Too little, too late." By acting like you've created something original and better, you've effectively destroyed was there in the first place, along with any hope of keeping it going in its former splendor, or building it back to anything comparable.
tabrandt PRO 10 years ago
Shameful, very shameful.
Wow. This is nuts!
sfelisaw Posted 10 years ago. Edited by sfelisaw (member) 10 years ago
I love the magazine and I'm looking forward to submitting photos.
Eric Hauser 10 years ago
@ theorem: are you kidding? i second beebo wallace - this is right out of karl rove's playbook. i canceled my account and subscription.
optovox [deleted] 10 years ago
Update: There have been a lot of questions from the community today about us rewriting history and we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine. When 8020 was created we felt a photography magazine was a perfect first title to start with. JPG Magazine existed before and was absolutely the inspiration for the new JPG magazine. Derek and the contributors behind the early issues are a critical part of who we are and the heritage of JPG magazine is not something to be erased or forgotten. The JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created will always be an inspiration to us and we are committed to the principles that they set out.

Hm, okay. So you're not erasing the history of JPG Magazine; you're just creating a new JPG Magazine and getting rid of the original JPG Magazine. Just like New Coke!

Nice corporate doublespeak, Paul! Have you considered a career with the Bush Administration?
Elinesca 10 years ago
Hey, try letting Theorem know how you feel by commenting on his stream - he'll block you....
lunitide PRO 10 years ago
When I met Derek, Paul, Devin, and Jason, I thought JPG was the greatest startup ever. Now it feels like someone has died. I don't know what actually happened, but this is genuinely saddening to me.
Steve Rhodes PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Steve Rhodes (member) 10 years ago

After a many posts, comments & cancellations, you changed the about page (though the issues page still begins with issue seven jpgmag.com/issues/ and doesn't include links to the pages on earlier issues or to be able to buy them on Lulu), but you haven't addressed what Heather and Derek wrote (or the many things we've written).

I could quote specific points, but I imagine you've read them.

Or why it took you so long to post here (and why you didn't stick around to actually have a discussion. If for some reason you couldn't you should have just waited until Wednesday). As well as why you posted over at the 8020 blog and not here or at jpg.

I see you've updated the post with the exact same corporatespeak you began this topic with


(Cody, I'm not going to support Paul. I agree JPG is a good idea, but they are losing much of the community that could have made it better. There will be other magazines and sites like it which do deserve out support.)
FlyButtafly PRO 10 years ago
Brenda - This is what Paul looks like. :)
Bagryan 10 years ago
"JPG Magazine existed before and was absolutely the inspiration for the new JPG magazine."
How was measured that the old magazine was unsuccessful? What forced the change? The six issues "old" magazine worked well, why should it be modified?
Usually such modification is needed when something is going wrong - loosing readers, loosing subscribers, loosing submitters, etc. Obviously these are not the reasons.
The rationale for the change is missing in Paul's post. Just a bad taste left in my mouth.
wilsonminer Posted 10 years ago. Edited by wilsonminer (member) 10 years ago
I'm really sad to see yet another thread of people piling on Paul and the rest of the staff of JPG. It's not my place to defend anybody or tell anybody's side of the story and I'm probably embarrassing a lot of people and stepping out of line by posting this here, but but I've seen enough hurtful words thrown around today. I'm going to say what I can and leave it behind.

Full disclosure: my wife (still) works at JPG and I consider Paul a personal friend. He's not incompetent or dishonest, as much as I feel like Derek drew lines around those conclusions for people to fill in the blanks. It's an unfortunate situation for everybody involved, made only more so by the fact that a lot of things that should have been private between friends are out in public for everybody to weigh in on instead. And as with most things where personal relationships are involved, it's messy and complicated.

Derek's a great designer and a brilliant guy - I have the utmost respect for what he's accomplished, but he doesn't have to be a liar for his story to be one-sided. Before you shout me down for trading attacks on Paul for attacks on Derek, I don't fault him for that. I don't personally admire the fact that he chose to air it all publicly, but of course it's an emotional and loaded issue for him, it better be. He had to leave something he started and loved because a personal and business relationship that he once had faith in didn't work out. If he weren't upset about that, I'd be worried about him. Of course it's sad, not just for him, but for the community he helped build.

But none of that means that Paul and everyone else who works for JPG are corrupt, or deserving of any of the things that have been said about them over the past 24 hours. Is it possible that they might be struggling to deal appropriately with a difficult and messy situation? If they really were idiots or stooges, could even Derek himself have held off such unbridled evil and incompetency to publish a successful magazine and build and maintain a high-traffic community website all by himself for so long? Stories have heroes and villains, but real life is messier than that, and people (all of us, no matter how talented or creative) tend to cast themselves as the heros of their own stories. Think about your own life, your own relationships. When is it ever that simple? Why do we want it to be that simple? Why do we need an enemy to channel our sadness and frustration into anger?

These are people you're talking about. Smart, passionate, imperfect people like you and me who worked really hard on something that you appreciated. Say what you want about the "new JPG", it took a lot of work to transform a print-on-demand labor of love into a real live newsstand magazine and grow a thriving community and build a successful business, all in an impressively short space of time. I wouldn't fault the people who worked hard to make that happen if they didn't want the world to see the product of their effort as just the inevitable evolution of two peoples' side project, however dear to all our hearts. Obviously, the original JPG is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't demean the original or the sequel (or anyone's contributions to either one) to say that they are really two fundamentally different things.

I keep saying this, but it strikes me like a bad divorce where your ex tells all the friends you used to share how you're a total jerk and you've always been a total jerk and if they'd only been able to see what a scumbag you were they'd never have married you in the first place. All the things we all feel when we're hurt. Except it's on the Internet, and hundreds of people you've never met pile on to tell you how much they hate your guts and hope you fail. Whatever people take away from reading Derek's story, relationships (personal or business) are (at least) two-sided, and when things go wrong it's almost always true that the mistakes and the blame fall on both sides. The one who chooses to cast that blame in public doesn't "win" by default. Choosing not to speak publicly about a personal relationship doesn't show weakness, it shows discretion.

This whole situation - along with some other similar public uproars recently - have made me think a lot about the Internet as a megaphone for personal communication. I love personal "authentic" writing on the web. It can be very rewarding to be very open and personal with this huge, ultimately impersonal medium, but it's tempting to say things about other people online that we would never say in person, even to our closest friends - especially to our friends, because they hold us accountable when we go too far.

A friend of mine compared it today to driving in our cars, flipping each other off and cussing and cutting people off. Things we'd be ashamed to do in person, in a grocery store or at work. And as hard as it is for me to say about someone I've looked up to for a long time, I think Derek's recasting of his friend and partner as an incompetent, power-hungry villain - while it makes a good story - falls into the same category.

Edited for punctuation.
dartar PRO 10 years ago
wilsonminer, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don't want to comment on this, but I find very disappointing that no one at JpgMag felt the need of addressing the issue that is perceived as outrageous by most of us here, i.e. the plain removal of the history of JpgMag's first series. Although partly amended (?) with the new version of the about page, this not only does little justice to JpgMag's founders (and is probably quite naive in terms of marketing), but also discredits all those people (i.e. JpgMag members) who contributed with their work to those issues.

Something like "ok we got it wrong" would be so simple to say, but apparently JpgMag prefers to defend its business rather than addressing the disappointment of its (former) member community.
rutty 10 years ago
Props for the post. Something for everyone to think about there - shame it didn't come from Paul, who's own response up there is pretty inadequate, everything considered.

Thanks for adding some much-needed balance
humanparallax 10 years ago

It's nice of you to add some balance. In terms of the divorce argument...this is more a particular party (e.g. Paul) calling for the divorce and then taking the kids, the house, the cars, and the dog from the other party who happened to have done nothing wrong (as far as we understand).

Most of us are not taking a side because we know D&H. I can admit that I do not know either of them. We're taking their side because they were cheated by being torn from their creation. Most of us can relate to having something stolen from us for someone else's benefit.

It's an awful feeling and the possesing party has NOT said anything on their behalf and that is just shady. All we get is the vague language that is supposed to address our concerns. I don't know about anyone else, but what I read at the top here is a steaming pile of lies. That speaks volumes about how genuine Paul is about this issue.

I noticed the addendum to the about page at the jpgmag.com site. As one commenter already said, "too little, too late".

JPG was built on a community that it's new owners betrayed. If Paul had actually made a human attempt at addressing our concerns I might have heard him out and reconsidered...but, he didn't. After seeing the backstabbing of D&H, I'm not surprised by the BS he pasted at the top.

Paul, you don't deserve a community like this. I can guarantee that most of us would support D&H's new projects over JPG in a heartbeat.

Good luck.
Mute* PRO 10 years ago
This response really is inadequate, it doesn't address the community's concerns nor Derek's statement that Paul deliberately set out to manipulate and deceive us.

Paul's statement is empty and meaningless.
danguyf 10 years ago
I've been a fan of Derek's online work for over a decade. Our interaction (all online) has been minimal. Several years ago he apparently chose to believe another person's slander and screwed me out of something that I love.

Never the less, I find it hard to construct a scenario in which Paul is not a complete dildo. His statement above is empty, meaningless, and self-contradictory. I would like him to directly address the assertion that he -- basically a contractor brought in to help -- badgered Derek into letting him be CEO and then fired the founders.

"JPG Magazine existed before and was absolutely the inspiration for the new JPG magazine."

You guys are all missing the important distinction made above. See, the old version was JPG Magazine. The all-new version has a lowercase m -- it's so web 2.0!
troycochrane PRO 10 years ago
Except its not a private issue, its a community issue. Derek realized that there was a vast community of people whose contribution to JPG made it was it was. Paul seems to have ignored this fact. This does not mean he's a horrible person. We all disappoint our communities at one time or another.

The enormous response of that community denouncing what was done is incredibly appropriate. I don't think it is impossible for the current JPG editorial staff to rehabilitate the community, but they need to turn to the members of that community for input on how to affect this recovery.
1RoyalPain Posted 10 years ago. Edited by 1RoyalPain (member) 10 years ago
I don't know if I am off the ball here, but it is my opinion that things were definately handled wrong. I have subscriptions to other magazines where founders and editors left the magazine for one reason or another, and as all were sad to see them go, I have never seen anything like this. Derek got screwed as he is still invested in JPG/8020 I will continue my subscription until its term is up, I will renew it only if I think this was blown all out, and they publish the TRUTH in the print version. Just my opinion, take it at that.
artelisa PRO 10 years ago
for me it's not about 'finding a balance' ... if you make your bow to all sides you will end to show your back to everybody ...
i think it's a good and neccessary thing if a community is reacting fast and strong with all kind of personal boldness and creativity.
that's what i see these last days. it's impressing and gives back some hope for an extensively self-determined future of the media-world.

i read the jpg-mag 'about-side' and can only repeat what
myla kent said somewhere: "a little too little a lot to late" i agree totally !!
Photos by Julio 10 years ago
Sounds to me like Derek was just too trusting! Maybe there's a lesson in all of this for anyone who ever gets into any business with "friends" as partners.
Sherriatric PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Sherriatric (member) 10 years ago
theorem: If you don't plan to re-write the history of JPG, then why DID you? It's a very simple question, one which you can't seem to answer truthfully.

Who would want to be a part of any community with you at the helm? You've insulted every single one of us by assuming that we're all too stupid to remember how JPG actually started, and you've further insulted all of the talend contributers to the first 6 issues by pretending like those issues simply never happened. What a shame that you're rapidly running a great magazine into the ground. I bet they'll be using you as an example at business schools around the country in a year or two as a prime example of how NOT to conduct business.

Too little, too late? What an understatement.

(edited for typos)
Bill Vaccaro PRO 10 years ago
"There have been a lot of questions from the community today about us rewriting history and we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine."

No, just deleting it. And that's the ultimate rewrite.
Planet Vicster PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Planet Vicster (member) 10 years ago
wilsonminer, I appreciate you bringing an alternate viewpoint to the discussion. However, I am still wholly unsatisfied with Paul's response. To come in here at 7:00p.m. last night and tell us that he had "no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine", AFTER Derek and Heather had been removed from the About page and AFTER the first six issues had been removed from the site, was, quite honestly, an insult to my intelligence.

Are we expected to believe that, through some bizarre series of events, the About Page file was opened, specific information was deleted, the file was saved, uploaded to the server(s) and caches cleared and it was all JUST ONE BIG OOPSIE-DAISY? Sorry, but web pages just don't accidentally change: That it did shows a very clear intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine.

I see that Derek and Heather have been acknowledged and the first six issues are once more to be found on the About page, but, Paul, you can't un-ring a bell.

*shakes head sadly

(edited for clarity)
S.D. 10 years ago
I'm not going to comment on Paul's intentions as I don't know them.

I will comment on what I see. It looks to me that he's trying to change History to make it seem like JPG was his Baby from the beginning.

I'm not disparaging his work , just pointing out that he's attempting to eliminate the past. IMO, That's just dumb. Even the really lame nonsense on the about page:

"The Early Issues

The first version of JPG Magazine was created by the husband and wife team of Derek Powazek and Heather Powazek Champ. It was a quarterly printed publication devoted to brave new photography that took submissions over the internet and printed on good old fashioned paper. It was edited by Derek and Heather, printed in digest format, and sold through Lulu.com.

These first six issues of JPG Magazine served as inspiration for the new JPG Magazine, and they are available exclusively through Lulu.com.

This is way too little, too late.

Last week, I asked my brother to get me a two year subscription to JPG Mag for our Bday. I've since told him not too.

Paul, you screwed up big time and seriously damaged the reputation of JPG magazine. Good luck recovering.
mclgreenville / memorymotel Posted 10 years ago. Edited by mclgreenville / memorymotel (member) 10 years ago
Can't un-ring that bell.
radiann 10 years ago
I suspect the people who need to hear what is being said here have not been back to read these comments. If one can commit to writing the things that have been quoted in this forum one can no doubt ignore what amounts to background noise about those very actions. I suggest that if you feel strongly about this issue to contact jpg Magazine directly as a subscriber. It is what I did and for me seems to be the most impactful action I can take. My message is that I will continue to support the effort with my dollars for the sake of Derek and Heather but until I see change in the editorial philosphy my work will not be forthcoming. Without the creative submissions of thousands of independant photographers it is a no go, and will stay that way until such a time as the powers that be can be transparent with the community. Communities are like that!
andertho PRO 10 years ago
Is JPG magazine:

a. A labor of love built by a community?

b. A business enterprise relying on (some might say "exploiting") the passion of a community to generate profits for the owners?


It may once have been "a", but it is now clearly "b". As soon as the element of financial profit was introduced into this effort, the die was cast for "b". While I admire Derek and Heather's passion for creating it in the first place, I am neither surprised nor sympathetic over what has transpired.

My 2c, but I believe that the altruistic idea that "community" and "profit' can co-exist inside Web 2.0 is simply a pipe dream.
James Jordan PRO 10 years ago
PR tip to Paul - lose the "corporate pirate" buddy icon. Yar!
zenmasterlauren 10 years ago
who starts "new" in a business that was already working and still growing???? you start "new" with crap that you have to fix and make kickass. so I take this as paul saying jpg was crap.
Steve Rhodes PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Steve Rhodes (member) 10 years ago
wilsonminor, I understand this is painful for you. And we understand this is not the fault of the staff of jpg.

Derek wrote, "We hired an amazing team...And to the people I hired at 8020, I miss you terribly. This was not your fault."

But it is clear that the way this has been handled is incompetent with no understanding of community. And the lack of any more response this morning addressing what the community is writing (and doing) and the gap between:

It became increasingly evident that long-standing, significant differences of opinion regarding the direction of 8020 Publishing were preventing us from moving forward. We really had hoped to resolve these issues with Derek and work together as a team.


"I tried to compromise. I suggested we add text to the website, explaining the difference between issues 1-6 and the new issues. I wanted to embrace the truth: Tell people how we started, how we grew, and what we were now. It’s the story of how a successful, organic community begins. It’s the story of how authentic media gets made. And it has the addded benefit of being true. Compromse could not be reached."

particularly since that is what now has happened (though in a way that was not well cobbled together or implemented).

Derek explained why he wrote about this. He did owe it to us. And it was better directly from him than some other way (the story would have come out eventually).
cm001 10 years ago
It's very clear what happened here. JPG takes off like crazy, and it pumps up Paul's ego, he starts to think that he's the one making it happen. It's that CEO title that he grabbed for himself, you see. It gets to his head. Of course, it's really all Heather and Derek, and the audience they've built up from doing this for a decade. Deep down Paul knows this, but doesn't want to believe it, wants to believe his own hype instead, that he's the man, that he can do it without them. Envy and power. Classic ego behaviour in a startup. Very rookie, very amateur hour.

What's amazing here is the VCs. Let's see... on one side, you have Heather and Derek, each of who have their own large and loyal audiences from a decade of building community websites. On the other side... Paul. And they went with Paul! They must have done so because he speaks in their language, that obfuscating corporate bullcrap. Unbelievable.
Michael Czeiszperger 10 years ago
"he JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created will always be an inspiration to us and we are committed to the principles that they set out."

From the point of view of a JPG contributor, I assumed it was always the same magazine, and was happy to see JPG prosper. All this language about new and old and inspiration is bizarre and confusing.

Having been involved in a couple of startups, this has all of the markings of the classic turf battle, with the new business boss cementing his authority by kicking the founders to the curb.

The only problem is, this isn't a normal startup since it depends on a community to not only buy the product, but to help create it!

From a strictly business point of view, the JPG management team needs to decide if the bad press is worth whatever gain they were looking for by getting rid of Derek & Heather.

From my experience, though, this doesn't bode well for the future of the company. The main part of being in charge of a small company like this is setting up an environment where people can work together. There are two sides to every argument, but if Paul wants have the authority to get rid of the founders, then he also needs to take responsibility for the PR nightmare this has become.
S.D. 10 years ago
Michael Czeiszperger, best summary yet.

Me, I didn't know it was a "New" Magazine, I thought it was an evolving one.
Shari DeAngelo Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Shari DeAngelo (member) 10 years ago
Ah, the power of the web.

A community of individuals who feel passionately about anything can move mountains it seems.

We were proud of JPG and many of us knew that Derek and Heather championed what we came to love and long to be a part of.

I admit to wanting to delete my account immediately when I first read this news yesterday. How dare they burn the people we come to love and respect?!?!

Well, I didn't. And I won't. At least not yet. I'll judge JPG on it's own merits and respect that not all business decisions are easy ones. So, Paul, et al., you have a lot to prove to me and others, who I suspect, feel as I do.

BUT... Please remember that all of these very passionate people above this comment deserve your respect. They built your business for you. They have a lot invested here and there as well.

(Derek and Heather: Whatever you two may do in the future, you have a long list of people who support you. Me included.)
fervus Posted 10 years ago. Edited by fervus (member) 10 years ago
Well for me it comes to this: I'm sharing my art, which has a lot of emotional attachment for me.

The excitement resulting from being published by such a cool magazine was a worthy investment. Surely I don't obsessively vote and go out of my way to tell everyone about the magazine for the money; I'm investing my art in the future of the magazine and the company, and thus in my own future as well.

But if you take away the promise of the future, or cast any shadow or doubt over the integrity of the magazine (like kicking it's founders to the curb,) you've taken away the excitement, and what's left? I'd rather invest my time and energy in my own personal photography shows, where it's definitely not for the money either, but at least I can still get excited about it.

[edit: photography shows ]
fallsroad PRO 10 years ago

I would say the very few words I posted above directly to Paul had I the opportunity, and not flinch.

I chose them carefully.
wilsonminer Posted 10 years ago. Edited by wilsonminer (member) 10 years ago
I hope everyone who read Derek's story will take the time to read this personal response from Paul's wife.

I don't expect anyone who's already made up their mind will change it, but it's there and it's worth reading.

(Sorry for the cross-post.)
myrte voogt 10 years ago
good god
thats a lot of ranting..
myrte voogt 10 years ago
I agree with andertho

won't say any more, the rest has already been said,

thanks for sharing a bit of the other side with us wilsonminer.
viscerality 10 years ago
This is ultimately a private feud, that we really shouldn't concern ourselves with. As long as JPG mag continues with stellar content, the community wins. I actually just subscribed to JPG today (unbeknownst of this feud), out of fear for low quality content in the future, I don't know if I should keep it now.
Extra Medium PRO 10 years ago
ummm buh bye.
squarerootofnine 10 years ago
Viscerality -

I don't know that the quality will suffer. Flickr members make up only a fraction of the JPG community.
viscerality 10 years ago
square: It seems that many artists featured in JPG magazine have a flickr account. Or is that statement not accurate?
bshort 10 years ago
Paul - You've handled this episode very poorly. I've deleted my JPG account and I hope everyone else does the same.

In the future you might try writing an explanation that doesn't make you sound like a corporate tool.
squarerootofnine Posted 10 years ago. Edited by squarerootofnine (moderator) 10 years ago
vis - sure, yes. many do. i wouldn't not say most, nor would i say the majority, do.

bs - he runs a company, man. where would businesses in America be if the people who run them had to address every individual complaint lobbied against them on the internet?

people, please stop asking for that. it's the most assanine request imaginable. if anything, Paul made a mistake in answering anything on here at all. as did Derek for blogging about it to begin with.

see my rant on that here.
mclgreenville / memorymotel Posted 10 years ago. Edited by mclgreenville / memorymotel (member) 10 years ago
He should answer to the community but not necessarily to individual rants.
Are you saying CEO's should not respond to customer complaints?
Respond with facts...
[spelling edit]
squarerootofnine 10 years ago

In short. Yes. That's what I'm saying. They owe noone anything but a great product at a fair price. Until a company goes public and has public investment, a CEO's decisions are his to make.

I doubt you'd want to find yourself in the position to have to make the kind of difficult business decsions that the CEOs of small businesses in this country have to make. And if you ever found yourself there, I doubt you'd think you should have to explain your actions to a bunch of people who wouldn't understand anyway.
jentober 10 years ago
Does this really need to continue? For the last two days, the majority of posts have been about how pissed off everyone is at Paul. The fact is we don't know exactly what happened and we never will, because we weren't there. Paul is right to have made a brief statement and stayed out of this. What happened between him and Derek is between them. Yes, I asked for his side of things, because I read Derek's. And I agree with Squareroot that Derek should never have posted anything in the first place, because he had to know what kind of reaction it would get. It seems just a wee bit underhanded at this point.

But I'm pretty sure that it's time to give the flogging a rest.
S.D. Posted 10 years ago. Edited by S.D. (member) 10 years ago
squarerootofnine, your opinion is valid, but several people were wondering what was going on with Derek's departure.

Derek has the right to give his side of it. IMO, his expression of it was professional and to the point. I hardly think it's a mistake to express his opinion especially in light that references to him were completely pulled from the site.

Paul's explanation, IMO, is lacking and didn't seem to address the issue of scrubbing the references of Derek and Heather.

From my POV (and apparently others), it seems that the creators of JPG magazine had their creation pulled from them. Whail that may be "Just Business", it's not one I'm personally willing to support.

Also, since he's no longer working there, Why would anyone think he'd be bound to not tell his side of this? Just ignore that he worked on 6 issues and be gone?

I'm not doubting that being a CEO is a difficult job. I just find it hard to believe that as a CEO he made those decisions without some type of explanation or context for his customers. Because, that's kind of his business...keeping customers.

I deleted my account but will keep getting the mag. But, I suspect another JPG like community will sprout up and I will support them with my involvement.

And..if an explanation had been given, if the facts were laid out people would have been pissed but the backlash would have been far less and much shorter.
squarerootofnine 10 years ago
...he worked on 10 issues. And it's details like this that end up getting confused and only hadding heat to the fire. A fire that didn't need to be started in public.

Derek did have the right to give his side of things, but as we all learned in Comm 1010, communication happens between two participants and in online communication, where the non-verbal aspects of a conversation (which leads to about 90% of the meaning) aren't seen or known, it's irresponsible for anyone to fill in the blanks left by Derek's side of things.

The reactionary attitude of many members of this group is what I'm taking exception to.
S.D. Posted 10 years ago. Edited by S.D. (member) 10 years ago
squarerootofnine, you've given it thought and decided what you should do. I've thought about it too and have stated that part of the appeal was a start up originally created by 2 people.

Since I've given it thought, do you really think I'm merely being reactionary? I can't speak for anyone else, and I've listed my reasons for not getting a subscription as I planned last week, but my decision was hardly "Reactionary".

Oh, and in the spirit of "Comm 1010", feel free to Flickr mail me.
mclgreenville / memorymotel Posted 10 years ago. Edited by mclgreenville / memorymotel (member) 10 years ago
And I take exception to the silence...just me though. I wish some facts were given to the community...that's all. Paul's decision to stay silent is the wrong course of action to take. IMHO
[ drat..grammer fix ]
Computer Science Geek PRO 10 years ago
@squarerootofnine: I think the lesson is that CEO's of Web 2.0 companies have to realize that they can't do business as usual with communities. In other words, your prime directive as a Web 2.0 company is not to alienate your community. One of the properties of Web 2.0 is user/community involvement. Screw that up and your business is toast. Sure, it's gonna cost you a lot of money and effort upfront, but that's the price of you pay for developing a community. 8020 has to realize they're not a normal startup.
viscerality 10 years ago
Check out this linke to the old About JPG magazine:


To be honest, if the goal is to take JPG magazine to the next level (more mainstream? more $$?) the content here isn't really reflective a magazine of that level. This reads more like the about section of an indie publication. Nevertheless, references to Derek and Heather should not have been erased altogether without their consent.
@ Brenda Anderson: But it looks like they've written it back:

Too little, too late.

There's no good way to present this. To take a product based on/built by a community around a shared interest, then remove references to the founders who built that community, and expect that community to accept it is delusional. The only people who could have pulled that off are Derek and Heather and since they are emphatic that it's not their choice, who can believe anyone else?
squarerootofnine Posted 10 years ago. Edited by squarerootofnine (moderator) 10 years ago
Computer -

8020 has to realize they're not a normal startup.

...or maybe we need to realize they are. but what do I know? web 2.0 is a new concept to me. and start ups aren't my bag. i'm making my argument based on the logical assumption that this entire thing was a difference in opinion on the direction 8020, and specifically JPG, was going to take. Derek did what he had to do and Paul did what he had to do.

rarely are business decisions easy. just be glad that the tough decisions you have to make in your daily life aren't broken down ad nauseum on the internet by a bunch of people who don't have the details, the context or the backstory. nor do they merit (i realize a very unpopular lens through which to view this deal) those things.

S.D. -

i think you'll agree when i say a "non-emotional" response to this thing has been very few and far between. that's why i said "many members of this group" - as in, not every member of the group.
S.D. 10 years ago
squarerootofnine , I stand corrected.

Even though I disagree with Paul's actions, the name calling is uncalled for.

Ina any case, this is an example of why I personally don't get into business with friends or family. It can get complicated.
deyes 10 years ago
*To take a product based on/built by a community around a shared interest, then remove references to the founders who built that community, and expect that community to accept it is delusional.
On the other side of that coin: to take a business involving hundreds and hundred of hours of love/energy/time of 7 employees and then fail to reference those employees..

that would suck. especially if it continued against the will of everyone involved.
Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Old Man Under the Sea (member) 10 years ago
Agreed oh el cuckracho (heck if I know that is correct spanish), but when said publication involves thousands of folks whom submitted their most beloved images (come on you know how us artists are (in my case wanna be artist)) we expect this sort of silly spat not to happen. Yes, the other employees (I assume includes you) are being dragged through said mud with no care...this should have you looking angrily at both sides of this issue and telling them both to knock it off. I suspect you all carry more weight than you realize. It is a shame to see such a fine idea get shit, clog the loo, get plunged and flushed.

Time for the 7 Samurai to step up and influence the situation. Waiting too long will sink the ship....word is spreading very fast.

cobalt123 PRO 10 years ago
Agreed with foggy (above), word IS spreading very fast, and such PR at the beginning of a "new" venture is enough to sink it even if the product is good. Bad feelings are very hard to dispell, given the serious nature of the way things were handled so poorly. Reputation in a community is incredibly important and the community memory is long-lasting.
deyes 10 years ago
one more time, it's a very centralized vocal few.. we stayed in the black through the whole episode, more subscriptions came in than were cancelled and people continued to register and share.

Again, it's not about that.. we're interested only in repairing damage to our image and restore the confidence of those within the community.
[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] 10 years ago
new score coming in, just a partial......red team, 80
deyes 10 years ago
Blue team: Pencil?
Enlightened Fellow PRO Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Enlightened Fellow (member) 10 years ago
It comes down to this. The community wants Derek's vision for JPG, not Paul and company's.

The question is, what is JPG going to do about that?
Findo PRO 10 years ago
How do you know what that vision is, or what the community wants?
Enlightened Fellow PRO 10 years ago
One could start by reading this thread, and then progress to other threads on the same topic, and then if one wished, he/she could proceed to other groups with similar threads, all stating basically the same things. In true Socratic fashion, that would at least give one an idea of what the community doesn't want, and a picture of what the community does want would start to form.
squarerootofnine 10 years ago
How do you know what that vision is, or what the community wants?

Findo... he's enlightened. see, it's right there in his name!
andrew_bisset PRO 10 years ago
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Every story has two sides, and every personal quarrel has shades of grey. It is impossible to know over the internet just who is right and who is wrong in this situation. In its current form, JPG is a solid publication. I will continue to contribute, and I hope that the management at 8020 does acknowledge the community that makes JPG what it is.

Though, I will admit, I think it would be beneficial to the community and this discussion if Mr. Cloutier would defend himself rather than delivering responses that seem canned.
(1 to 100 of 104 replies)
Groups Beta