3 ms·

>Among those who lost their jobs in the latest layoff was Debra Adams Simmons, who only last September was promoted to vice president of diversity, equity and i

by Zaheer 3y ago

>Among those who lost their jobs in the latest layoff was Debra Adams Simmons, who only last September was promoted to vice president of diversity, equity and inclusion at National Geographic Media Why did they need a VP of DEI for such a small workforce (that they've now laid off entirely)? Seems like some poor decision making internally.

rideontime 3y ago
National Geographic Media is more than the magazine.
blairbeckwith 3y ago
Turns out they didn't.
whimsicalism 3y ago
They have a larger workforce than just staff writers lol
mr_toad 3y ago
A vice president in a US company can be anything from 2nd in command down to a low level manager with no real authority.
ilyt 3y ago
To check a box
woodruffw 3y ago
National Geographic has somewhere between 1400 and 1500 total employees, from a quick look online. The magazine is just one tiny sliver (unfortunately) of their media presence.
- hedora 3y ago
  So, they have 1500 people managing zero content producers now? Zero COGS == infinite margins! I’m sure they’ll figure out how to build a sustainable business put of that. /s
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I assume they still have lots of show writers; that's probably where the money is for them (i.e., Disney) now.
  - prawn 3y ago
    The 1,500 would be working in other media than the print magazine (video work, etc) and some could be managing freelance writers.
Pigo 3y ago
Everything I know and loved as a kid is disappearing. This one really hits me deep. I sincerely hope that national geographic is not disappearing on me.
- uejfiweun 3y ago
  I think this is inherent to the American experience. The DNA of this country is constant, unceasing change. It's sad that the old things are disappearing, yes, but with that is the appearance of a bunch of cool new things. For instance, Nat Geo may be dying, but you can now watch 1000000 hours of amazing nature footage from the comfort of your couch.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gagged_s_poster 3y ago
[flagged]
jessfyi 3y ago
Why does such a small detail matter in the scope of this large failure? Rather impressed that invoking the DEI boogeyman always seems to distract from the obvious, much larger dysfunction at play in the eyes of those who purportedly champion disrupting the status quo.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  At least from my perspective, it feels at least plausibly linked for two reasons. 1) They had 1.8 million subscribers when deciding to shut down. Each subscription cost around $40, so you're looking at $70 million+ in revenue, from the magazine alone. How much does a full time of editors, photographers, reporters, and more actually cost? With many failing industries it increasingly feels like the burden is not coming from operational costs themselves, but from these enormous administrative layers which essentially just drown businesses, yet are the last to see major cuts. If you can [apparently] barely afford to fund your editors, photographers, and more - where exactly should DEI rank on your list of concerns, let alone expenditures? 2) Changes in themes tend to push people away from businesses. I actually had to check the Wiki [1] to make sure I wasn't have some sort of false memory. I wasn't: National Geographic was always an overtly anti-political magazine. For instance it was able to inspire awe about the progress being made during the space race, while sidestepping the fact it was also driving mass militarization. Or give interesting and fun cultural insights across the Iron Curtain of the "enemy" during the Cold War, without at all getting involved in the political dehumanization games of the past (and especially the present). Now? [2] 'Elephants are in trouble and we're to blame.' 'These Native Americans were taken rom their families as children' 'Kosovo wants to decide its future - but will history hold it back?' 'This scientist analyzes African American's past to inform the present.' 'This ordinary woman hid Anne Frank.' And of course a super-sized serving of focus on typical concerns such as global warming. And I'm not cherry picking. These are literally the headline articles for just this month!? This is how you lose your readers. People don't want to be preached or lectured to about your values, or why they're the worst, most undeserving living 'things' on this planet. I expect the National Geographic, as many of us remember it, likely died long ago. And that probably happened when the business started being bounced from one mega-corp to another. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic#Articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic#Articles [2] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/
x3874 3y ago
[flagged]

by Zaheer 3y ago

rideontime 3y ago

National Geographic Media is more than the magazine.

blairbeckwith 3y ago

Turns out they didn't.

whimsicalism 3y ago

They have a larger workforce than just staff writers lol

mr_toad 3y ago

A vice president in a US company can be anything from 2nd in command down to a low level manager with no real authority.

ilyt 3y ago

To check a box

woodruffw 3y ago

National Geographic has somewhere between 1400 and 1500 total employees, from a quick look online. The magazine is just one tiny sliver (unfortunately) of their media presence.

hedora 3y ago
So, they have 1500 people managing zero content producers now? Zero COGS == infinite margins! I’m sure they’ll figure out how to build a sustainable business put of that. /s
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I assume they still have lots of show writers; that's probably where the money is for them (i.e., Disney) now.
- prawn 3y ago
  The 1,500 would be working in other media than the print magazine (video work, etc) and some could be managing freelance writers.

Pigo 3y ago

Everything I know and loved as a kid is disappearing. This one really hits me deep. I sincerely hope that national geographic is not disappearing on me.

uejfiweun 3y ago
I think this is inherent to the American experience. The DNA of this country is constant, unceasing change. It's sad that the old things are disappearing, yes, but with that is the appearance of a bunch of cool new things. For instance, Nat Geo may be dying, but you can now watch 1000000 hours of amazing nature footage from the comfort of your couch.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gagged_s_poster 3y ago

[flagged]

jessfyi 3y ago

Why does such a small detail matter in the scope of this large failure? Rather impressed that invoking the DEI boogeyman always seems to distract from the obvious, much larger dysfunction at play in the eyes of those who purportedly champion disrupting the status quo.

somenameforme 3y ago
At least from my perspective, it feels at least plausibly linked for two reasons. 1) They had 1.8 million subscribers when deciding to shut down. Each subscription cost around $40, so you're looking at $70 million+ in revenue, from the magazine alone. How much does a full time of editors, photographers, reporters, and more actually cost? With many failing industries it increasingly feels like the burden is not coming from operational costs themselves, but from these enormous administrative layers which essentially just drown businesses, yet are the last to see major cuts. If you can [apparently] barely afford to fund your editors, photographers, and more - where exactly should DEI rank on your list of concerns, let alone expenditures? 2) Changes in themes tend to push people away from businesses. I actually had to check the Wiki [1] to make sure I wasn't have some sort of false memory. I wasn't: National Geographic was always an overtly anti-political magazine. For instance it was able to inspire awe about the progress being made during the space race, while sidestepping the fact it was also driving mass militarization. Or give interesting and fun cultural insights across the Iron Curtain of the "enemy" during the Cold War, without at all getting involved in the political dehumanization games of the past (and especially the present). Now? [2] 'Elephants are in trouble and we're to blame.' 'These Native Americans were taken rom their families as children' 'Kosovo wants to decide its future - but will history hold it back?' 'This scientist analyzes African American's past to inform the present.' 'This ordinary woman hid Anne Frank.' And of course a super-sized serving of focus on typical concerns such as global warming. And I'm not cherry picking. These are literally the headline articles for just this month!? This is how you lose your readers. People don't want to be preached or lectured to about your values, or why they're the worst, most undeserving living 'things' on this planet. I expect the National Geographic, as many of us remember it, likely died long ago. And that probably happened when the business started being bounced from one mega-corp to another. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic#Articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic#Articles [2] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/

x3874 3y ago

[flagged]