Discussions (547)

Clarifications

view profile

theorem says:

I want to apologize to everyone for not being more transparent about what is going on right now, but this has been difficult because when I write I am not just writing as myself, I also have to represent the company and the team. Departures among friends and startups are usually really messy, and my desire not to get into a big fight in public with Derek over something I view as best kept private has led me to try to avoid getting into personal attacks. However I realize that this is not just a personal matter between Derek and I, in fact Derek and I should have nothing to do with this. Instead of worrying about airing dirty laundry, I should have been more clear and told you all what is going on with JPG.

When Derek and I started 8020 Publishing we wanted to create great magazines, and to really reinvent the publishing business. There were a lot of opportunities for what we could start with but ultimately we decided to start with photography because it was is such a great example of the power of people to create. It was much more manageable first project than some other options and we had some great experience with JPG before that. But the difficulty of starting with something that already had a lot of personal history ended up being too hard to overcome. The disagreement with Derek was never really about JPG or the history or rewriting anything, it was that a company tied so wholly to the identities of two people was not what we set out to do with 8020 Publishing.

I believe in JPG, in everything that Derek and Heather conceived of in the original JPG. That photography should at it's heart be about the inspiration and joy of taking pictures. That everyone should have the right to participate in photography whether they are a "professional" or an "amateur". JPG Magazine is and always will be about giving a voice to the people that love taking pictures and want to find a way to do more with their passion. JPG Magazine is not going to change.

The early issues of JPG being removed from the site for so long was a mistake. We never intended them to be erased from the history of JPG and everyone that contributed to them has a right to be angry about that. The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now. I know that many of you don't care about that distinction but from a business standpoint we have to talk about the magazines we are making now. We make magazines that are 100% reader created, 100% community vetted, offset printed, nationally distributed with subscriptions. The older issues of JPG were reader created but still completely decided by two editors and were a non commercial project. Since the old issues were the only ones you could buy at this point (we haven't finished the tools to let us sell back issues of the new magazines) we were uncomfortable having them positioned the same as the new ones. Ultimately the page came down and then things blew up with Derek and us and fixing the page just got put as something to fix as soon as we could and then was left for too long. Contributors to the early issues will be a part of the site and we will find a way to bring the issues back, but we are still working on the best way to do that. Please be patient, it will happen soon.

This is a sucky situation for everyone especially the team at 8020 and everyone in the community that is caught in the middle of this. For my part in not coming to you guys sooner to explain what is going on, I am sorry. JPG can't function without the participation and communication of the community and I have to be a part of that even if it is hard. All I ask from you guys though is that you respect that this is an enormously difficult time for everyone involved and to please give us the chance to prove that we are all rational and capable people who want nothing more than to make JPG continue to be great.

-Paul
12:46AM, 17 May 2007 PDT (permalink)

view photostream

Half full heart says:

Thanks, Paul, for your explanation. I'm sure you can see that in lieu of the plan on what would happen with the old issues, and with an emotional change happening for everyone, it was hard to know what to think. I myself didn't know what assumptions to make, so I tried not to make any. I appreciate your honesty, and I sympathize with the rough times you and the folks at 8020 are going through now.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to continue to be transparent as these changes are implemented. I'm sure the community would love to know your thoughts, and the thoughts of others working on JPG regarding what exactly this terminology of a "new JPG" means.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

JPG was sold to 8020 when the company was founded .. that is when the "new" JPG began. Paul , Derek, Jason D and Devin P began at square one planning and building a "new" magazine (JPG 2.0? heh.) from scratch with JPG 1.0 as the model concept.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Mister Boboli says:

I think we're getting closer to a resolution. I got to admit that while I've been a member of this flickr group for over a year, I had only just started submitting to the jpg site recently. When the story of this falling out broke I was a bit shocked and uncertain about what to do.

Alls I can really say is hopefully Derek&Heather go on to be successful in their future endeavors and hopefully jpg can eventually restore itself to be a publication that is the pride and joy of a beautiful community of photo-takers. Good luck.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

DodgeMedlin says:

This is helpful, Paul. After reading and stewing about this for a couple of days, I'd concluded that the sticking point for me was that of the back issues, not what were essentially personnel matters involving you and Derek.

I have to balance this post against your corporatespeak for the past couple of days, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I'll be among the many watching to make sure you follow through on what you've said here ("soon" can mean many things), but I'm breathing more easily about JPG now that you've said it. Thanks.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

1RoyalPain says:

Ok Paul that was a bit of information. I found this a bit telling.

"The disagreement with Derek was never really about JPG or the history or rewriting anything, it was that a company tied so wholly to the identities of two people was not what we set out to do with 8020 Publishing."

Do you remember when a Cupertino California company forced one of its founders to leave? I hope this is not a repeat of that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.

Ego? did too many big heads keep bumping into each other?
97 months ago (permalink)

JasonDeFillippo [deleted] says:

Hey guys,

I work at JPG Mag too and have worked there since it was just the two founders. I'm the old guy in the room here. I just want to toss my hat in and say I stand behind what Paul said 100% and that we're totally dedicated to you guys. Don't begrudge us our faults but judge us on how we deliver on our promise to keep this dream alive. The things that have happened in the past 3 days are just words. Let us do what we do and make issue 11 something we all can be proud of ok?

I've made my personal feelings open for debate on my personal blog but I don't believe this is an appropriate forum for linking to them. Please follow the links in my profile if you feel the need to discuss it personally.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
JasonDeFillippo edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

antijenx says:

Thanks, Paul.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

rutty says:

Some interesting discussion here. There's definitely more to this than meets the eye. Thanks for the further clarification Paul, although I suspect you've still got a long way to go to regain respect with some people. Such is the nature of public spats - so messy.

Jason, good to read your point of view too. I hope it all works out so that old friendships can be regained.

Best of luck! Remember - look after the community and it'll look after you. Piss them off, and....
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
rutty edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

myla kent says:

Paul, that's all well and good, but the bottom line is that without the heart and soul of JPG Magazine (heart + soul = Derek + Heather), this means nothing to me.

I'm sure I won't be the only one.

What you're forgetting to mention here (or seem to realize) is that without Derek and Heather, you would not have this job. You would not be writing this post. There would be no JPG Magazine. That's the thing that just gets me.

Maybe if Derek and Heather were back at JPG Magazine/8020 I'd feel differently about this. Maybe if you publicly and properly apologized to Derek and Heather, I'd feel differently about this whole thing.

Until that happens, you can count me out.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

Myla,
Just to clarify, Heather did not work at 8020, she was offered an editor position which was turned down. JPG was sold to 8020 at it's inception, meaning Derek and Heather relinquished their interest in JPG for a sum of money. JPG is part of 8020, not the other way around.

The story of JPG 1.0 still is what it is, no one is contradicting that. JPG 2.0 is brand new from the ground up, built by a whole new group of people at 8020.

If anything, I feel we are all owed an apology, but not by Paul. It's 5:30am and for some reason, stating what "should" be obvious and common knowledge seems to be taking priority over sleep.

I hope you'll reconsider your position.. though, I understand the difficulty in seperating an emotional attachment to the earlier incarnations of JPG.

I hope this comes out okay.. i can count the last 3 days of sleep on 2 hands.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
deyes (a group admin) edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

myla kent says:

Devin,

Derek said it best of all:

In one evening, Paul removed issues 1-6 from the JPG website, removed Heather from the About page, and deleted the “Letter from the Editors” that had lived on the site since day one. Paul informed me that we were inventing a new story about how JPG came to be that was all about 8020. He told me not to speak of that walk in Buena Vista, my wife, or anything that came before 8020.

Here’s where the whole “not lying” thing comes in. I just could not agree to this new story. It didn’t, and still doesn’t, make any business sense to me. Good publishing companies embrace their founding editors and community, not erase them. Besides, we’d published six issues with participation from thousands of people. There’s no good reason to be anything but proud of that.

We had a long meeting with Ron. 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.


Source: powazek.com/posts/534

Good publishing companies embrace their founding editors and community, not erase them.

Noone's contradicting that? If there was no contradiction, this thread would not exist. My thoughts above still stand.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

It's not my place to justify or debate the validity of a conversation between Derek and Paul, but I don't feel that to be an accurate representation of occurances.

we've never had any intentions of scrapping JPG's history (issues 1-6), it wouldn't make much sense to have a title that started with issue 7. We just needed to seperate the histories and draw a distinction between the origins of each.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

myla kent says:

I don't feel that to be an accurate representation of occurances.

So what are you saying? That Derek just made all that up? You've got some nerve. :(
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

I said I didn't feel it was accurate, though I could be wrong, neither you nor I "really" know what took place in that conversation. it doesn't make sense to debate it.

g'night.. I still hope you'll reconsider.. maybe someone else will better explain things..
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

shoothead says:

Paul,

I don't know you. I don't know Derek or Heather either. I could care less about this e-battle going on and the people who jumped from jpg. I have read very little about this and I stopped reading this thread when something caught my eye.

You said - "The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now.

As a business owner myself I can't believe this. If jpg were failing maybe change the brand a little and make a distinction. But what you've done is alienate your most important asset - your customers. People were obviously sticking with the new magazine without this distinction, so why draw a line??? I'm baffled.

Good luck. I will continue to submit my average photos and hopefully eventually get published. I am not deleting my account because it's a good magazine. I'm sure it was then, and I do really believe it is now. You should have had better business sense than this though.

-lee
97 months ago (permalink)

_gone [deleted] says:

I rejoined the group to say, I completely agree with myla.

I have nothing against JPG, it continues to be one of the more awesome projects in recent times. But I cannot also agree with what has happened.

If you erase Derek's blog post from all of this, what do you have left? A "new" JPG magazine without its founders or early issues. However you spin it, it's unfair and downright stupid.
97 months ago (permalink)

_gone [deleted] says:

especially, since JPG was always about us, the users, the community.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

myla kent says:

Jason, I'm not choosing to believe what I believe based on just that. I'm a little more savvy than that, believe it or not. I just read your latest blog post. Shame on you.

Derek deserves nothing less than the best from all of you. :(
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

catscape says:

it wouldn't make much sense to have a title that started with issue 7

And yet, you do.
97 months ago (permalink)

_gone [deleted] says:

People were obviously sticking with the new magazine without this distinction, so why draw a line?

Exactly, I really didn't care that JPG was sold to 8020. it was the same old JPG. But now, it's all new again and 8020 feels the need to differentiate the new JPG from the old.

Yes, okay, it tells the world that 8020 did something, they've built something, they're successful and they're awesome because of it. But why risk losing your community, the very people who made you successful, by this differentiation?

Can you not.. like, start a different magazine and say that its yours and in that case, would be completely true? I'm sure you all have had wonderful ideas for other magazines.

Regardless who owns JPG magazine, it will always be known as a project that Heather and Derek started.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have stuck around with flickr if Yahoo were to differentiate the "new" flickr from the old and say it was "inspired" by random stuff that Caterina and Stewart did while trying to make a computer game.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
_gone edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

viscerality says:

Why are people forgetting the fact that JPG magazine was "bought" by 8020? Plus, I truly believe the community and contributors has more impact on the magazine than Heather and Derek ever will at this point. Yes, they were the visionaries that started the whole thing, and we all admire them for it. However that doesn't mean that someone else can't take the helm once the idea is realized. Let's face it, the future of JPG mag is in the hands of the community
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

_arif, I don't know about a blog post.. but, JPG is still about you.

catscape: temporarily true, we're still unable to sell issues 1-6..
97 months ago (permalink)

JRSlaterPhoto [deleted] says:

I've not wanted to comment on this whole thing, don't know why I am now as it's really not gonna add anything to the discussion. I just wanted to say I regret not being a part of JPG from when I first found out about it and I also regret not thouroughly investigating how it worked.

I have recently joined this group and JPGMAG.com and I truly hope the magazine can preservere through this and continue. I think the concept behind it is brilliant, irregardless who is putting it to press, though I must say I really love history and would like the history of the magazine to remain, even if at some point in the future the magazine changes again, and I'm sure it will.

I look forward to future issues of JPG and to 8020 publishing's other ideas and publications.

To all who made it the magazine that it is, both past and present, thank you.

Jeff
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

S.D. says:

Paul, I sincerely wish this was released several days ago. What I'm about to write may sound like a bash, but it isn't meant to be.

I don't agree with your reasoning for your initial silence, since this is a community based business, IMO, this situation is comparable, again IMO, to letting shareholders know what's going on. Just writing "Derek no longer works here" did nothing but fuel angst in light that JPG Magazine was his and Heathers creation.

From my POV, JPG magazine isn't at all new, but rather evolving. To say that it's a "New JPG", seems false.

Right or wrong, when you made the decision to pull all reference of Derek and Heather from the website, the appearance, again to me, wasn't of someone who wanted to delineate the new from the old, but rather someone who wanted to take over and pretend that it is something it isn't. IMHO, it isn't new and your insistence that it is is way off. JPG Magazine isn't Version 2.0, is it? If it's something entirely new (I don't think it is) you should rebrand it.

While you co founded 8020, did you help invent JPG Magazine from the beginning?

I may be completely wrong, but I didn't think so. Removing all past reference seems like an poor attempt re-write history by someone wishing to grab the coat tails of someone else's past accomplishments. Just putting a blurb called "The Early Issues" completely ignores the work done in that times.

Simply asked, Did you force Derek out?
Did you invent a new story about how JPG came to be that was all about 8020?
Did you tell people not to speak of that walk in Buena Vista, Heather, or anything that came before 8020?

Again, I can't stress this enough, this is not a bash, I'm just giving my point of view in what must be a painful situation for all directly involved.

You have my sympathies as you have some tough decisions to make. What you do going forward will have a direct impact on whether or not JPG Magazine and 8020 succeeds or fails.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this: Good Luck.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

camnlo4130 says:

I don't think people have any problem with JPG changing hands or poeple leaving or told to leave as much as they have a problem with the attempt to rewrite the history and delete the work of the community. This may have been corrected now, but only after the realization that they were not going to get away with it.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

*phototristan says:

Exactly. When Paul realized it was a stupid move and bad business to try to erase Derek and Heather and the early issues of the mag from existence, he back peddled and put them back.

But it didn't work. He's not transparent, any amount of trying to put lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

squarerootofnine is a group moderator squarerootofnine says:

some people are damned if they do and damned if they don't, i guess. if you weren't willing to give the guy a fair shake, if you started reading with your mind made up on the whole mess, why BEG him for any response at all?

why does it matter?

and why weren't any of you this critical of Derek's original post?
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

he's acknowledged it, repaired it, explained it and apologized. We're all open to suggestions of how we can make amends.. if you have any suggestions, please let us know.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

@shoothead & S.D.: noted. thx.

devinp, paul or maybe laura would be more qualified to answer you both.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mihow says:

I have a question for Jason: How did Derek lie?

You wrote:

"He’s trying to salvage what he can by showing us how mighty and powerful he is by flat out lying about what happened at the end of his stay and turning people against us because he can."

I'm not saying you're lying because (and so many folks have said this before) I am not privy to the actual conversations that took place. But I went back and reread Derek's post and I fail to see how any of what he wrote can be called lies.

I agree with something S.D. wrote, this was and still is a community driven Web site (even the founders continue to say so) if that's the case, then we the community had every right to know what is changing and why. Sure, JPG Magazine is not publicly traded; we don't own stock in 8020 Publishing, which I do believe Paul’s wife wrote about in another post, but it was built by the community and grows because of said community, not entirely unlike when a business goes public.

So, yeah, maybe someone could answer the questions S.D. addresses above especially in light of Jason calling Derek a liar. If JPG is unable to do so for business purposes, I guess I can understand that. And, sure, everyone knows that JPG will continue to flourish no matter how many people leave because of this mess, but the folks who feel jilted or upset over what took place are decent people, people willing to forgive if presented with an honest explanation.

edited for grammar
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
mihow edited this topic 97 months ago.

JRSlaterPhoto [deleted] says:

Maybe a special edition to honor past contributors? Something along the lines of a special collectors edition where the best of the past can be chosen and re-published? Would something like this be a good starting point?
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

mihow, that may be better explained on his blog.

*then we the community had every right to know what is changing and why.
To what extent? I don't think I want the community to know if I do or don't ever get a raise.. or if (god forbid) i'm ever asked to leave, I certainly don't want that publicized. It's an interesting opinion, but I couldn't agree to the extent of parading my professional life in public view.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

jrslater, very much so.. there are a lot of options on the table how best to highlight/celebrate the earlier issues.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mihow says:

Thanks, Devin. I'll leave my comment there maybe.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

S.D. says:

"and why weren't any of you this critical of Derek's original post? "
Well, in my case, I agreed with it.

Devin, your getting a raise (Hey, you have my vote ;) ) isn't quite as comparable to Derek and Heather apparently being forced out.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
S.D. edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

base10 says:

@squarerootofnine: Simply put, Derek and Heather have never acted in any fashion that would cause me to question their trustworthiness. Derek's post got a very favorable reading because of that trust.

Yes, there are two sides to every story, and I'm glad that Paul has made part of his known. I doubt we'll see all of everything, but it still isn't right and will take a lot to make it right. It may never be right like it was.

Paul, for whatever his qualities and faults may be, was not the public face of JPG. When the public face was gone and erased, the people who grew into the community with that face were bound to have significant concerns, objections, reactions, etc. Questions _were_ being asked and Derek answered. Paul, initially, didn't.

I'm leaving some 'benefit of the doubt' room for this, but thus far, it seems like 8020's response is "we goofed, some. Now please help us get Issue 11 out."

There's a lot more damage done that needs a lot of care and feeding to fix before people will head back. And yes, aside from the issue deletion (a very large problem) i feel comfortable saying folks are going to be loyal to the people who communicate with them and engage them. That was Derek and Heather.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mihow says:

i feel comfortable saying folks are going to be loyal to the people who communicate with them and engage them. That was Derek and Heather.

Well and simply put, base10. Perfect.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
mihow edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

*steve_gobeil* says:

I never understood why they wouldn't take pictures with borders.

That always bothered me.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

SuzanneK says:

Paul, you need to go back and read your post. First you say,

"JPG Magazine is & always will be about giving a voice to people that love taking pictures & to find a way to do more with their passion. JPG Magazine is not going to change."

...and then you say,
The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now.

So, you're different...but you're not changing? You've contradicted yourself.

You also state that you never intended to remove Issues 1-6 but in fact you did just that. Your words are betrayed by your actions.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

base10, we've all agreed to be more vocal.. yes, there's damage, it's severely dissapointing, but, we love what we do, so I'm confident we'll get where we want to be.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

steve_gobeil, we've been a lot more lenient on the border issue.. as it pertains to scans, polaroids and the like.. but the dimensions, without borders, are a publishing requirement.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
deyes (a group admin) edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

*Devin, your getting a raise (Hey, you have my vote ;) ) isn't quite as comparable to Derek and Heather apparently being forced out.
S.D., no you're right, but I did follow it with another example of being "asked to leave".. which is a much nicer way of saying "forced out" :) .. Just for clarity, Heather was not employed by 8020..
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

cm001 says:

If I was a cop, and Paul was in one holding pen and Derek in the other, I would say that these stories don't mesh. Derek says: "I suggested we add text to the website, explaining the difference between issues 1-6 and the new issues....Compromse could not be reached." Paul says: "The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now." Both parties say they wanted the same thing, but the founders quit? Something's missing.

As for the question of why JPG's CEO owes us any kind of explanation at all, let me tell you about my business plan.

I want you to give me your artwork. No, not that artwork, your best artwork. Give it to me, and I'll put it on my website. I know that your art may be a very personal thing, that it may express certain things about yourself, and how you look at the world, and maybe you think that it's not very good, and people will not like it. But give it to me anyway. I'll ask others to do the same. Very soon, thousands of people will have uploaded tens of thousands of pieces of their personal artwork to my site. That huge repository of art will draw even more people to the site, and they will upload their art too.

I'm sorry that the vast majority won't get paid anything at all, and those few that do will get paid very little. But a few people will get printed in a magazine, which is pretty cool. It'll all be a huge success, and eventually I hope to build on that success to launch other publishing ventures, and make me famous. Thanks again for your art.

Now, why the heck would anybody participate in something that? I did because I've seen Derek and Heather's work on the web, and from what they've done before I could trust that they wouldn't take everyone's art and use it in an exploitative corporate venture. Maybe in real life Derek kicks puppies and Paul is a saint, but when Derek left, and all we got from Paul was silence, and then corporate-speak, I think that a lot of people feared that Paul was going to turn JPG into a passionless money-making machine. And as I said above, some of this story is still missing.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Eric Hauser says:

too little, too late. now that hundreds of people have canceled their accounts, he's realizing what a huge blunder he made. don't believe any of it.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

cm001, well put.. though, I imagine it's much easier to see the playing field from the sidelines in regards to the blow out.. First time in the middle of this sort mess for many of us (which is probably a good thing, though they are common in intarweb startups.).. being attacked by thousands is no one's definition of a good time..

* think that a lot of people feared that Paul was going to turn JPG into a passionless money-making machine.
the mention of Paul's name combined with the words "corporate", "greed", "passionless", "heartless" etc.. is probably going to be a great source of ribbing for a while.. it's SO extremely out of character.. like calling a 95lb weakling a "prize fighter".. but completely different.. haha :)

*some of this story is still missing.
..there's quite a bit in between the lines.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
deyes (a group admin) edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

*now that hundreds of people have canceled their accounts, he's realizing what a huge blunder he made.
nomad73, it has nothing to do with numbers, our registrations and subscriptions were/are still in the black.. the damage is in perception.. how we, as a company, not just Paul, were made to appear. It's okay to not believe "any" of it.. hope you'll reconsider joining us in the future though.

edit: added "joining us"
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
deyes (a group admin) edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

Hi there. Laura from JPG/8020.

I am reluctant to take this path, but there are so many fractures details of the story out there that I wanted to answer some of them:

-Many people are upset by the "re-writing of history" bit. I should point out that when Derek spoke of JPG magazine, he usually only spoke of he and Heather. You can see how that would be damaging to the other seven people making great effort to launch this publishing company. No mention of 8020 or the rest of us in conference presentations, most of our press exposure, etc. So when Derek says that Paul told him not to speak of that walk with his wife in BV park, it's a twisting of a conversation.

-Heather never worked for 8020's JPG, because she chose a job at flickr instead. I have never seen her in our office. I was told she came in once. I know that she offered a lot of input to Derek in evenings and weekends, and appreciate that contribution.

-Derek's name wasn't taken off the about page at the same time Heather's was. Derek's was taken off on his last day at 8020, Monday April 30, his last day, a sad day for all of us. Heather's was taken off temporarily when Derek changed her from "Editor Emeritus" to "Curator" because it wasn't a change that had been discussed.

-Folks at 8020 have been trying to reach Derek for the last few weeks in order to come to consensus on details like how to handle the about page and what to say to the community. He did not return the phone calls.

-Heather and Derek did publish 6 magazines based on a pool of contributions and a previous iteration of this very flickr group. I know this first hand because I submitted photos to this group in 2005. I think it's awesome that they did that, and I was part of that community.

-Paul received funding for a publishing company based on community submissions. He brought Derek on as his partner, and later chose to re-publish JPG as the first project. Derek and Heather were paid by 8020 for the rights. Derek brought along a fantastic community and a lot of energy and talent. We totally appreciate that.

-The team at 8020 eventually grew to 7 (+/- a contractor or two) of us working with jpgmag.com and all the awesome tools that Jason DeFillippo/Devin Hayes/Jason Schupp put together. This concept that the community gets to vote photos up for submission and have a say in the final magazine is revolutionary in so many ways, and so awesome. To me this is a really important distinction. You may have noticed that while there were issue pages for 1 - 6 on jpgmag.com the photos were never in published photos, the stories were never in published stories, there were no pdfs or previews. Is this because we thought the contributions or design of those issues was in any way inferior? Absolutely not. It just pre-dated our system and our company, and in fact was an entirely different animal.

-Many of you are upset because you consider Derek to be the voice of JPG you were familiar with. We are all really excited about being more involved with the community moving forward. We just weren't really given the opportunity before.

-So many of your names and photos are so familiar to me from my years on flickr and my months working on JPG everyday. I feel like I know so many of you and it is sad to me and all of us when some of your choose to leave.

The past few days have been really awful for everyone. I'm really disappointed that we had to part with Derek this way, as I respect him as a person and a professional. But he had to know that with that blog post he was starting a battle in which none of us would come out clean.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

S.D. says:

Laura B, this is exactly the sort of info that would really have been appreciated a few days ago.

I really hope some compromise can be reached to properly acknowledged the past while looking towards the future.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

Thanks S.D.

Even better would have been a situation where Derek and 8020 spoke privately and came to a consensus about how we would handle all of this. :) All part of life, I suppose.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

*steve_gobeil* says:

The first thing to remember is that there is no "truth" here.

Each person who was involved and who writes about it will slant their words in some way.

That is just the nature of the debate.

Somebody got screwed.

Everyone thinks it is them.

I am not sure that we will ever know who it actually was.

Until then I think (if it was I) I would change the name and start fresh without all this baggage.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

Well, Steve I think you are right, except about one thing:

"I am not sure that we will ever know who it actually was [who got screwed]."

It's not one person that got screwed. It's never one person's fault. Human interaction is complicated and difficult, and often ends in heartache.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

FlyButtafly says:

I have a couple things to say, after reading a lot more on this.

First, Paul, thanks for the apology. It's a step, however small, but important.

However - I have to say this: Perception is extremely important, especially when there are so many outsiders involved and invested in the community. A few people have likened this issue to a divorce; but I think that analogy is flawed. There is a big difference between a divorce in a family, and this. To me, Derek and Heather were the parents, not Derek and Paul. However much of a role Paul played in the early issues, it was a behind-the-scenes one from the perspective of the community. This didn't seem like two parents splitting up - this was more like an uncle taking custody of the kids and telling them "Hey, you're gonna have a new family now. Just don't tell your old friends, ok? They're not really that important anyway. You'll make plenty of new ones; and when you do, just let them think I'm your daddy."

I don't care about the business backend stuff - but on the forefront, it seemed like an attempt was made to rewrite history, and that is unacceptable. A lot of us were with JPG from the beginning, and we continued to support it and created accounts on the new website when it launched, because we believed in it. We might not have invested our money, but we invested our time and our work and our hearts. And to have that thrown in our faces, basically telling us our contribution amounted to nothing - we were the past and to be forgotten - and now to turn around and say the opposite; well, actions speak louder than words, as they say. Trust has been broken, and it's going to take a whole heckuva lot more to restore that trust.

I appreciate hearing the different viewpoints from people in the company - it helps balance things out some. And I understand and appreciate what Laura is saying. I just don't understand the reasoning behind trying to make this seem like an entirely new magazine (which is what initially happened before the community uproar) - and Paul's responses have been terribly inadequate IMO.

It would have been awesome if they could have come to a consensus, and get this all hashed out in private, and implemented in a way that recognized the community that built JPG up to a marketable commodity. But if that had been possible, would Derek have left in the first place?

edit: typo (and a partial sentence)
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

Just to clarify one more thing:

When Paul or any of us refer to an old JPG or new JPG, we are referring to the difference between issues 1 - 6 and 7 - 10. Derek too made a distinction between these two, calling 8020's JPG "JPG 2.0." This crossover happened last fall.

We're not considering a new JPG to have been born now. We still have an amazing community and a fantastic team and we're going to keep making this magazine.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

In no way to trivialize this important discussion, I just want to interject a quick serotonin boost:

icanhascheezburger.com/
www.cuteoverload.com

Take a minute and come back. We're all pretty beat down.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

mihow says:

I don't understand how things became this messy so fast.

I have seen people "let go" by businesses before for whatever the reason: differences in how things are run, a disagreement with where the company is headed, a change of heart regarding one's career path. I’ve seen partners leave, employees, etc. This happens all the time. And it happens amicably. Usually, the two parties deal with whatever (for lack of a better term) “dirty laundry” there may be before word gets out. They discuss things, come to an agreement, and work things out together. That's what it means to be a good businessperson, no? That's what it means to avoid messy situations much like the one we see here.

In this case, it doesn't appear that was done. Even if Derek felt jilted and wrote a post about it, why did it have to come to that? What happened or didn’t happen that drove him to leave in the manner in which he left? Why wasn't whatever needed to be “worked out”, worked out before getting to that point? We the community shouldn’t have had to see it that way at all. Something went very wrong here, something that could probably have been avoided. Something drove Derek to write what he wrote. One can only assume he wasn't treated with the respect he felt he deserved. (These are all rhetorical questions, of course. I don’t really want or expect an answer.)

Now, I don't presume to know crap about business. I like staying out of that entirely because I know I'm too emotional of a person to get involved with all the legal stuff, red tape, etc. (I leave that to my husband who does it very well). It just doesn't seem like this unraveling/parting/business fumble - whatever it was - was handled well at all. Had it been handled the way business “break ups” are meant to be handled, I think the community at large would have an entirely different outlook, an outlook potentially fueled by petty rumors instead of exclusive employee (or ex-employee) accounts.

I only hope that the folks involved can personally remain friends when everything is said and done. Business is business and comes and goes, but lasting friendships are key to making a life worth a damn.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
mihow edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

squarerootofnine is a group moderator squarerootofnine says:

S.D. - Well, in my case, I agreed with it.

my gut reaction was to agree with it too. thankfully, my brain and logic - and personal experience with internet communities having completely misdirected good intentions - stopped me from doing or saying anything rash.

when we, as a community of people, base our arguments on our own perception, there are going to be problems. our perceptions are not very trustworthy. i can see myself getting roasted for saying this, but it's true. that's why we ask journalists to stick to facts.

i chose to reserve judgment until i'd had a chance to mull things over and hear some other points of view. and in the end, the waiting proved my gut to be misinformed - it turned out that things were a lot more gray, on both sides, than people first thought. but that was me.

i must say, there are a few people here who seem to still be engaged in the debate - and you're one of them. and i hope you stay. both here and at jpgmag.com. no community can be truly great without differing points of view. without opposing perspectives, we'd suffer a wicked case of groupthink. and who wants that?


cm001 - Now, why the heck would anybody participate in something that?

I'm not sure you'd totally understand, unless you use flickr regularly and contributed here under a pseudonym, but people do it all the time. willingly. gladly. here at flickr, musicians do it on myspace, there are other sites, like smugmug; this seems to be the way people are choosing to make community in the 21st century. for better or worse, it's the way we're headed.

JPG, as has been pointed out several times, is a unique community, unique because our work eventually becomes a magazine. our participation helps put the magazine together. a magazine that, on the newsstand, really stands out. what's not attractive about being involved in that?

few people come up with a brilliant idea that can attract thousands of people, willingly and without payment to itself. fewer still can actually bring it to fruition and even fewer have the brain to make it work, day in and day out. those few that do deserve to reap all the financial rewards they can for their effort. at the end of the day, for all our participation, we can turn off the computer and go home, the good people at JPG can't. they should be paid, and paid well, for what they invest of themselves, their passion, energy, creativity and time.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

FlyButtafly says:

SQ9 - did you read cm's post at all? It was obviously a rhetorical question.
97 months ago (permalink)

[this] [account] [has] [been] [deleted] says:

did somebody win yet? what's the score?
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Enlightened Fellow says:

The score is:

JPG: 5 billion orange
Community: platypus

I win by default.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Enlightened Fellow edited this topic 97 months ago.

JRSlaterPhoto [deleted] says:

Damn! I had JPG 5 Billion purple. I was so close!
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

cm001 says:

Zero-zero in the third period.

I was being rhetorical. I get the whole free sharing aspect of web communities. My point was that how those communities are run is important. Let's say for instance that 8020 was bought out by, oh, let's see... HALLIBURTON. Halliburton buys 8020 for a billion dollars. Would it change how you feel about JPG then? Would you still want to participate, or not? I'm not saying that PAUL = HALLIBURTON, of course (but it might be funny on a bumper sticker).
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

S.D. says:

squarerootofnine, I appreciate differing opinions.

I honestly don't know if I'll stick with JPG Magazine. I've already stated what I think was done wrong so I won't go into again.

As i mentioned, I hope this gets worked out as I think JPG has potential. Laura B's input clarifies a lot, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth regarding the initial lack of info.

This isn't about one side "winning" or "losing". Ideally, Derek and Paul work this out and we see a mass rejoining of people.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

*but I still have a bad taste in my mouth regarding the initial lack of info.
completely understandable.. no one (here) wanted to turn this into a public spitting match. it was also apparent that civil discourse could not be realized at that time.

..i think the further people step back, the more things will come into perspective.
97 months ago (permalink)

Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] says:

I am going to throw my useless 2 cents into this...it probably won't get read, but Flickr is therapy, confessions, desires, fantasies, wants, hatreds.... (ok so I just described most on-lime communities)....here is the problem as I see it..from the extremely new newcomer, who knows noone, has no connections to anything and has only been published in very obscure magazines (not in jpg).

Artists, whether they be photographers, painters, sculpters, what have you, typically don't make much money, hence the starving artist thing. We especially don't like it when we or anyone gets screwed or percieved to be screwed, especially when the original 'vision' is involved. Messing with this 'vision' is a nono. In JPG's case the vision has been messed with, for what ever reason...it is not understood or comprehended by us starving artists.

Unfortunately, JPG chose to take the 'Catholic' route, and not really address the problem quickly, or handled it just plain badly, until it festered into an all out membership/web frenzy.

Basically, you are screwed. Oh sure, folks will come submit images because who doesn't want to have the chance of their images published, but there is that 'question' or maybe its legitmacy that has been tainted/violated.

Can it be 'fixed'? Sure...come to the confessional....everyone, all sides, if this isn't possible, then say so. Say 'hey Derek wanted one thing, Paul wanted another, the ladies wanted something else...what ever...but fish or cut bait.....because the piddly stuff will just sink the ship very fast..

...perhaps divide the magazine in half...print one one way and the other half the other (one side upsidedown to the other so readers can start at the front of either magazine)....both visions in one!....gasp!!!!!!...incorporate both visions!!!!!!!!!!! it can't be?!

Yes, I deleted my account until the children behave (I have 3 sons and a daughter...I shouldn't have to deal with this 'outside' my home). Get you're acts together, drop the egos (very hard for artists I know), and stand back up....everyone! Sit down, have some wine, say wow we had a great thing...lets keep it going with both (all, monthly, whatever) visions.

Sheeesh...its like lecturing my kids.

-T
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Old Man Under the Sea edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

squarerootofnine is a group moderator squarerootofnine says:

fly -

yes. i read it. turns out, i just read it poorly. i somehow missed the "i did" right after the question. which, in my head seperated the question from the bit that followed.

cm - appologies for the misunderstanding. you get bonus points with me for handing out a hockey score. greatest sport ever. let's just hope this whole thing doesn't go to the extra period.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

S.D. says:

Maybe they just need to sit down anew, list what each want and try to work it out. Preferably with an impartial referee.

I don't know either of them, but both have stated that they want JPG Magazine to succeed. Even if they must part ways, I'm betting neither want it in this fashion.

Hopefully, they both sit down and come to an accord.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

benjaminreece says:

I caught wind of this through TechCrunch or some other blog- but I just wanted to throw my two cents in.

I do not intend to ever purchase, or participate (in) any 8020 efforts because of this reason:

JPG is a "community" effort. Ha. It seems as money hungry people (whoever) have usurped this from it's users and made this into something ugly and commercial.

In the end, I think all of us outside bloggers are hoping JPG goes down with its sinking ship to portray the "real" power of the community.

Update:https://www.flickr.com/groups/jpgmag/discuss/72157600226436543/
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
benjaminreece edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Laura Brunow Miner says:

Separatethis:

Did you read anything here on this forum or just pop in to state an uninformed opinion?
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Rebecca Weeks says:

In the end, I think all of us outside bloggers are hoping JPG goes down with its sinking ship to portray the "real" power of the community.
Nooooooo. I hope not. Because that's not what I want at all. I do hope that something good comes out of this mess, in that the remaining JPG team and other such community-based sites realise (and don't forget in a hurry) that community is important.

I think JPG should demote Paul to coffee-boy and put Laura B in charge. She sounds nice, clearly has some communication skills, and takes some nice photos too :)

Right. I think I might leave the computer now and go and play with my camera for a bit. Anyone care to join me?
97 months ago (permalink)

Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] says:

I'm in total agreement marinegirl!....the RZ67 needs some lov'n
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

squarerootofnine is a group moderator squarerootofnine says:

I think JPG should demote Paul to coffee-boy and put Laura B in charge.

Laura B is nice. Very, very nice.... but I have a feeling, that flickring like mad and running 8020 are mutually exclusive activities. It seems Laura & Devin H. have taken up the charge of community blah blahing so Paul can do the CEO thing.

...and, for the record, he's no slouch behind the camera.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
squarerootofnine edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

benjaminreece says:

Laura B-

Don't make this personal by attacking me- I am wayyy too rash of a person for that to be a good thing. You have a good way of adding fuel to a fire your organization needs to squelch.

But, yes- I read every comment on this thread and I am monitoring this issue like a hawk.

If my opinion was uninformed, so be it.
97 months ago (permalink)

Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] says:

No disagreement...his IR images are magnificent, but this isn't about photographic skill...this is a management...a vision issue. The vision has been good...obviously....but cutting out the originating visonaries typically doen't sit well with the crowd following the vision.

Its sort of like telling Christians they need to follow John the Baptist even though Christ is pissed at him....great guy, but he isn't the man (no I'm not saying Derek is Christ...just trying to make an example). It would be much better if Christ said ...follow John the Baptist...instead of John the Baptist is ate up.

Basically it comes down to, all sides probably want the same thing, but to get there different ways. I think people are having a hard time understanding the course that was suddenly taken (or so it seems very sudden based on greed...(never goes down well with artists).

-T
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Old Man Under the Sea edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

*or so it seems very sudden based on greed
..or so it was meant to seem. whichever.
97 months ago (permalink)

Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] says:

I personally think Paul and Derek should jello wrestle to solve the problem......I feel a convention coming on......
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

seperatethis, that story is 2 days old.. that's like 12 dog years on the internet. considering that we were never contacted for statement, it doesn't hold much water.

lol foggy.. and ew. :)
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

squarerootofnine is a group moderator squarerootofnine says:

Don't make this personal by attacking me- I am wayyy too rash of a person for that to be a good thing.

nice spin separatethis. maybe it would be best if you kept quiet until a time when you can put the rash response aside. there were about 70 posts ahead of yours that were on either side of the fence and none seemed a more blatant attempt to put "fuel on the fire" than yours.

in light of the fact that for two days you haven't been involved in the discussion and then you chime in with a pretty aggressive tone, i don't think Laura's question was out of line.

I really don't think you guys will "go down in flames"- it's just an entertaining and justified thought.

in what way is that a justified line of thought?
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Magnus. says:

Truth=Trust

Paul,

I think you have underestimated the influence of the JPGmag community and forgot that trust is the important ingredient in a sense of community.

Unfortunately staying quiet was a mis-step and the community is the influencer in JPGmag's business model of user-generated content. I suggest that you keep being transparent in all communication on this subject. Ultimately the JPGmag brand belongs to your customers. If you want to rectify this sour situation why don't you write about the whole/truthful history of how JPG got started and publish it the next issue of the magazine. Derek & Heather should co-author it with you. Plus It will be cleansing too.

Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Magnus. edited this topic 97 months ago.

Old Man Under the Sea [deleted] says:

Magnus....most excellent suggestion.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

benjaminreece says:

Squareroot- Good point :)

It was a rash comment, but LauraB was wrong- it was not uninformed.

I promise I've read more about this issue than half of the people that have posted here. The fact that I am not an established JPG community member does not negate my voice.

Caedmon's Call- cool points for you man.....of course, I have not listened since their self-titled release- it kind of got too poppy after that.

back to the point. When you start fu**ing with people's passions or hard work, expect an uproar and some bitterness. I am just pissed off, and I don't even know the guy.

I just hate this type of injustice.....and by the look of the response, others agree.

Antijenx-
I totally disagree- squareroot was not attacking me personally. laurab did that.
I was expecting a thread lock at some point-I was impressed how you guys let the community express themselves so freely. Of course, given recent events (Digg HD) there may be no choice.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
benjaminreece edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Magnus. says:

foggy -- I liked your ideas and post as well.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

cabbit says:

Paul,

You wrote quite a bit there. You said very little, though.

In the interests of not going a negative rant, I'm going to keep this short:

I'm disappointed in the current handling of JPG Magazine. I'm disappointed in its current status of a for-profit venture that I feel takes advantage of a somewhat naive new generation of photographers. And I'm disappointed your response to this whole situation.

Even in this 'big truth' post, you're dancing around any of the actual issues while talking about how awesome you are. If I was interested in that, I'd be attending a corporate retreat somewhere.

And yes, I'm disappointed in you.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

cabbit:
www.flickr.com/groups/jpgmag/discuss/72157600223571831/#c...

we've gone over all of this and have accepted the fact that we're not going to please everyone.. we would love for you to stay with us and continue to contribute to the JPG community, but it's been an EXHAUSING couple of days and it's time for us to get back to work..

thanks for your input.
97 months ago (permalink)

~ Julian [deleted] says:

we've never had any intentions of scrapping JPG's history (issues 1-6), it wouldn't make much sense to have a title that started with issue 7. We just needed to seperate the histories and draw a distinction between the origins of each.

Maybe it's not my place to say, as I am relatively new to JPG, but how does one separate histories? How do two things that DO come from the same origin, and ARE the same in many ways, suddenly have distinct differences in their origin? As I see it, JPG Magazine has a beginning that it can be proud of, a path of success that it can be proud of, a foundation that was born of humble beginnings yet has blossomed as a result of the founders dreams and passions, and the support of a community that supported those dreams and passions! How does one close the book on that? In my mind it would be foolish to do so! If Paul and the 8020 have a different dream, then stand up and admit that and begin something new, that is clearly defined! I am a huge fan of the Beatles, but if Ringo Starr went out and hired on three new musicians and started a band called The Beatles... imagine the outcry! I for one would boycot the band!

Those are my thoughts... for what they are worth!!
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Kris Kendrick says:

While I applaud Paul for admitting that yanking the foundation issues of JPG from the web site was "a mistake" (FWIW - they weren't really yanked.. they are still there - as someone else pointed out - you just have to have them bookmarked) - I really don't get why this community has to "be patient" regarding how JPG intends to reconcile the past with their present. The people who contributed to this magazine aren't fans who are going to relax while JPG's management goes into rehab. I'm not trying to be rude or judgemental, Paul - I'm just telling you like it is - purely from a business perspective: you should have had all of this figured out (and, indeed should have been able to forsee this particular backlash, for God's sake) before the sh&t hit the fan.

edited for spellng
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Kris Kendrick edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

benjaminreece says:

prosediva- well said.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

rod murrow says:

I've been reading all these posts now for what seems an eternity, just got the first issue (#10) of my new subscription yesterday and haven't had time to open the package yet, but thoroughly enjoyed an earlier issue that was sent to me as 'bait' ...

I think it's time to start getting over the whole thing. Not much more can be said that hasn't already been said. If the 'old crowd' wants to get pissed off and pout about it, then do it. If you want to keep the magazine going and get published and enjoy quality work, then do it.

But as one my own children's childhood friends once said to her mother,' Just shut up about it.' (She got spanked for that...but that's my feeling right now).

I'm staying in the group and keeping my JPG subscription -- but I'm not going to follow these discussions any longer. It's not healthy.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

*steve_gobeil* says:

I have watched a couple of these "Days of our lives" drama's here on flickr and like all of them this one is now starting to get nasty.

If this was an attempt to "spin" this for something positive I might suggest that you close it off now.

Hey, just a thought.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

*steve_gobeil* says:

As far as my spin goes I haven't like much about the mag since you all told me that my prints looked like they had borders because I print (in the darkroom) full frame.

That was whne you lost me.

But i don't think you care anyway.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Findo says:

"I am a huge fan of the Beatles, but if Ringo Starr went out and hired on three new musicians and started a band called The Beatles... imagine the outcry! I for one would boycot the band!"
JPG had a significant change in the way it was published, the company that owns JPG now and publishes it now obviously wants to focus on the current format and pubishing method.. presumably. Making some sort of distinction between the issues they publish and the issues they didn't publish is reasonable. It certainly doesn't look they are trying to deny that issues 1-6 exist..
97 months ago (permalink)

~ Julian [deleted] says:

Findo... not sure why you're quoting me there, but whatever... I'm not saying anyone is denying the existence of issues 1-6, I'm trying to understand how this statement can even make sense: We just needed to seperate the histories and draw a distinction between the origins of each.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
~ Julian edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Findo says:


sorry.. I was gonna say something about record labels.. if band X changes record labels, that new label is going to want to promote the new albums rather the old albums... I think that's a closer analogy than say the lineup changing.

I don't see that they're trying to say that the new issues have come from a different place.. but there is a significant new way of going about it that is not part of the old issues...
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Findo edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

FlyButtafly says:

(typed this in response to ~Julian's post. Findo posted while I was typing)

Exactly. You can't have a rebirth without a first birth. JPG 2.0 or whatever you call it, came from JPG the original. There could not have been the second without the first. To deny that is disingenuous at best. If anything (and I know, it's too late now, hindsight is 20/20, whatever) they should have made some kind of obvious distinction that this was a "different" JPG. That this was like JPG's "child", rather than a "grown-up" JPG, which is what I took it for.

It certainly doesn't look they are trying to deny that issues 1-6 exist..

Well, not now it doesn't.

edited to add a couple sentences - and to add:

I just wanted to address those couple things. I've really said all I've needed to now. I will be watching to see what happens over the next couple days and weeks - how JPG deals with this whole thing, and whether or not trust can be built back up. Right now, it seems only baby steps are being taken, but at least there's some communication going on, and the fact that we've been allowed to post so freely here says something to me. I appreciate it a lot. I can't say I will ever open up a JPG account again, but I just want to express my thanks for being able to say my piece.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Findo says:



If they had renamed issue 7 "issue 1" that would be denying it... if there's an issue 7 then there must be an issue 6.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

FlyButtafly says:

"...if there's an issue 7 then there must be an issue 6."

Yes, which is why people didn't have any clue why any reference to those first 6 issues disappeared completely from the site, and why people are confused about whether this is considered a completely new magazine, or a new incarnation of the old magazine, or what. The communication is still kinda sketchy in that regard. IMO.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

pigeonpoo says:

Good point Fly. And you know what? Your handle reminds me of an old African saying. This whole situation makes me feel like I'm a fly trapped in a mist of a fart. I mean, it's just like so bizarre!
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
pigeonpoo edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Findo says:

I'm assuming there would come a time when the older issues started coming down anyway.. as is the nature of magazine websites - tend to only have the most recent issues on there
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

dawn m. armfield says:

I've been watching all of the drama unfold, as well. I choose to pick my battles and not jump into the "fray" (heh) until I am more well-informed. Even then, I don't typically jump in because these types of miscommunications go on all of the time on the Internet.

It's a constant battle to make ourselves understood through the written word and then try to convey the subtle innuendos behind those to people who weren't involved in the first place. All of us -- that means you and me, too -- write and speak in a way that will, hopefully, make us look good in the eyes of others. We all do this. It's a part of human nature. The important thing is that we also are able to take a step back, realize our mistakes when we make them, and make amends.

And, in regards to JPG Mag -- I got issue 10 last night and couldn't put it down. Kudos to the staff, the editors, the publishers, and not least of all, the photographers and writers. You guys put out some class work.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
dawn m. armfield edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Alt.Frames says:

Pigeonpoo: "This whole situation makes me feel like I'm a fly trapped in a mist of a fart. It's just like so bizarre! "

People's reactions is what is bizarre to me.
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
Alt.Frames edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

Morven says:

What all this implies to me is that internal differences in 8020 became so distracting that nobody left after Derek's departure had really thought through what should be done afterward. Anyone with experience in online communities should have expected the reaction that happened, even without Derek's blog postings about it.

If you're running a business that's all about connecting with a community, you can't operate like business always operates. 'No comment' doesn't work, even if you genuinely think that a matter is private. It's not private, if you're running that kind of company. If you don't tell your community, they're going to speculate, rumors are going to fly thick and fast, and before long, you look worse - much worse - than being more open.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

colin j. says:

I can't count the number of times I've seen community based organizations go through something like this. Some of them more than once. I'm not at all surprised that this happened to JPG, it was bound to happen at some point. And, if this is like any of the other times I've seen this happen, it's likely that JPG will emerge from all of this a bit different but still going strong.

I've been following JPG magazine since issue 7. Until today I'd never heard the names of any of the people involved in the publishing of the magazine.

Just to keep rambling on about this here's what I've learned in my 40 years on this planet.

1. Change is inevitable.
2. People hate change.
3. When change happens (see 1) people get upset (see 2).
4. wash, rinse, repeat.

As near as I can figure all of the disagreement has taken place over the last few weeks. That's hardly any time at all for anyone to really sit and think about what has happened and come up with a reasoned response. I'm surprised and impressed that the folks at 8020 have been able to come up with such good, clear and concise explanations for all of this.

I know that folks just love everything related to something on-line to happen at light speed and want every iota of information instantly. The problem is that a big part of what is playing out here seems to be human emotions. And emotions don't move at light speed. Oh, they may go fast at times but they can also take ages to take even the smallest step.

Frankly, I think too much was said too soon by too many.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

sheryl stephen / WaveOfModulation says:

Paul,
I'm just seeing your response now, so I am late to the party.

I loved the output of JPG MAG and if the quality and heart remain, I expect I will still be compelled to see them.

(This is going to sound off topic but it isn't)
One of the issues I always had with JPG MAG was the sense of the black box and how pictures were chosen was mysterious. There were not enough obvious and immediate indicators of views and responses, and that is still the case. The reason I am saying that is not because I wanted especially to be published. It is because I sat and pored through pictures and voted for (and against) thousands of photos over a few months, and had no indication if that effort had any effect.

So, if part of this whole thing is to make it clear that how JPG MAG works is now different than how it used to work - - when is JPG MAG going to be completely "reader created and community vetted" as you said it was in your post above?

Maybe you prematurely used the present tense?

You said:
"The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now. I know that many of you don't care about that distinction but from a business standpoint we have to talk about the magazines we are making now. We make magazines that are 100% reader created, 100% community vetted , offset printed, nationally distributed with subscriptions. The older issues of JPG were reader created but still completely decided by two editors and were a non commercial project. "

But this is what it still says on the site today, on the "How It Works" page:

www.jpgmag.com/about/howitworks.html

" 5. Final Selection
The JPG editors make the final selections and put together the issue. This takes a few weeks, so please be patient. You will be notified by email on the status of your submission. "

Because if you've changed the way the site works and the publishing process, that is not clear. If you're saying this struggle happened because you had to make way for those changes, it sounds a bit disingenuous to say that the way it works has been changed when maybe it hasn't.
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

deyes is a group administrator deyes says:

* It is because I sat and pored through pictures and voted for (and against) thousands of photos over a few months, and had no indication if that effort had any effect.
..absolutely does.. i've logged around 3,000 votes for the themes for issue 11

*So, if part of this whole thing is to make it clear that how JPG MAG works is now different than how it used to work - - when is JPG MAG going to be completely "reader created and community vetted" as you said it was in your post above?
..it already is.. of course not all of the "hot" images/stories make it in, but all of the photos and the stories now come from user contribution.

hope i answered well enough..

-devin
@8020
97 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

FlyButtafly says:

ihazmoniker - IMO you didn't really answer the questions at all. What it seems to me that WaveOfModulation is asking, is whether or not the community truly chooses what is put in the magazine or not. That's what "vetted" seems to imply. Before, yeah - users had no input. But now that they do, what effect does it have? There was a discussion in here not long ago about voting and how much of an effect it had on images being chosen, and lots of people talked about how images with not that many yeahs got chosen while some with over a hundred were not - for whatever reason. That seems to me to be contrary to "community vetted" and can give an impression that basically, it doesn't matter if we vote or not, the editors are still going to choose what they want in the mag. That is perfectly within their rights, but to state it as otherwise (i.e. 100% community vetted) smacks of dishonesty. How many votes you personally have cast is irrelevant here, IMO.

...all of the photos and the stories now come from user contribution.

How is that different than before? I mean, I know "stories" is something new that they only started with 8020 - but afaik all the photos in earlier issues were solely "user contributed".

edited to delete a stray vowel
Originally posted 97 months ago. (permalink)
FlyButtafly edited this topic 97 months ago.

view photostream

elnfortinbras says:

@colinj - I think you hit the nail on the head...
Those boys and girls could use the Pritchett & Pound book "A Survival Guide to the Stress of Organizational Change"

I keep a few copies of that book at my desk for the new kids when we have a re-org. (I'm 11 years at a 12 year old Internet company. I've seen a lot in this space. And been through a number of re-orgs.)

I'd send copies of the book to Derek and Paul, if I thought they would 1. read it 2. didn't have the cash to get it for themselves; and 3. I'd highlight the following chapters:
"Basic Mistake #3" Act Like a Victim,
"Basic Mistake #6" Try to Control the Uncontrollable,
"Basic Mistake #11" Pick the Wrong Battles.

As Stephen Wright said, "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?"
97 months ago (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).