digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Real Story of JPG Magazine

powazek.com — Derek and Heather Powazek have left 8020 Publishing and JPG Magazine. Here is what Derek has to say about it.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mahke, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30The whole thing stinks. Viva la Powazek-Champ!
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -46/+20Boo ***** hoo. Thats why you retain complete ownership, and let the "CEO" work for you, with you having the final say on major decisions. That way if it doesnt go with what you want, you fire and re-hire someone else.

      Lesson learned.
    • masterofNone, on 10/11/2007, -10/+25@raynar
      you're a dick.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/11/2007, -9/+711 Startups and the guy doesn't know how to have a properly worded agreement with his partner?
    • redlantern64, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19@masterOfNone: Yes, he IS a dick, but unfortunately he's a dick w/ a good point. Be very careful of whom you trust when entering into a business arrangement.

      Still...cancelling my JPG account even as we speak.
    • raynar, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4@masterofNone

      I speak the truth. Of course I'll be labeled a dick and dugg down. This is digg.
    • roromx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Paul Cloutier profile on Flickr:
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/theorem/
      Send it your love!
  • Hirusan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17This is terrible. I can't believe a business could take this course of action. It sickens me.
  • abosio, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35Subscription canceled. Account deleted.
    • scottschiller, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The archived "About" page, for reference:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20060421173233/http://www.jpgmag.com/about/
    • misterjangles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2That page should really be called "About Derek and Heather" rather than "About JPG Magazine" I can understand why the company would want to change that if they are trying present a professional image of a company that has grown beyond the original husband/wife team. If you go to the google home page, it doesn't have the personal mantra of Larry and Sergey and how they started the site with a donated server from IBM or whatever.

      But, at the same time I don't think it's necessary to totally wipe out the history. The should have just moved that more personal info to the bio pages or something.

  • ibettinger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Account deleted. So sad for Derek and Heather.
    • roromx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Photos and account deleted
      tell the world to do that
  • sxtxixtxcxh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7i can't believe i botched heather's name.
  • ryanpc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Account deleted. So disappointing...
  • SteelChicken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Most business lessons are learned through bad decisions. Welcome to the club.
  • trekkie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Account Deleted.
  • stevievep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Enjoying that the 'Real Story of JPG Magazine' is listed in teh wikipedia entry now.
  • skaw, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Wow, Derek and Heather - I wish you guys luck in your future endeavors.
  • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Revisionist history for a magazine? What does Paul stand to gain from doing that? I just don't get it.
    • spukeesan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Looks to me like he gained a publishing company and a magazine with a quickly growing readership. I don't agree with it, but unfortunately that's business...
    • shanesemler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9"unfortunately that's business..."

      So making it in business means being a lying, manipulative sack of ***** ready to screw over you're closest friends? I think I'll stay poor.
  • rfinn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19I loved how JPG started. I hope Derek and Heather's next project is as amazing.
    • Sippi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6lets just help start a new JPG mag and this time they keep 100% control. Call it something like .PNG or .PSD.
  • dalelum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Account deleted. If you refresh JPG's photo page (http://jpgmag.com/photos/) every so often, you can see that the photo page count is dropping as people hear about this and delete their accounts. D'oh! Bad business decision!
  • eamonchaney, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13That's just ***** up. I was thinking about getting a subscription, but not now. How can you ever trust them again?
    • Shky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Agreed. Now that I finally have some money I was looking into magazines that I'd want to subscribe to. Just signed up for New Scientist yesterday, and was considering JPG. Not so much with that anymore...
  • hellogoodbye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I wonder how much business the magazine is going to lose from this.
  • atomicshed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10what a damn shame! any suggestions on sites that deserve our patronage?
  • matriculated, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wow... I guess sometimes you really don't know who your friends are.
  • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8JPG Magazine falls ... Amazon purchases DPReview.com.
    Lots of changes in the digital photography online landscape.
  • apsk121, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Account deleted.
    Reminds me of that saying: Nice guys (and gals) always finish last.

  • groovylab, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Stunning.

    I have deleted my account.
  • villageatheist, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13"People are too smart and well-connected to believe a lie anymore."

    No. You just didn't repeat it enough.
  • Nantel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I am certainly seeing some similarities between what is happening with 8020 Publishing and the Digg revolt from a couple of weeks ago.

    You can achieve great things with a community-based business model...as long as you piss off the very people who brought you there.

    Somebody is about to learn a very valuable lesson.
    • Nantel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I meant "don't piss off".

      God I'm such a moron!
  • scribeoflight, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Account deleted.
  • MaXPL, on 10/11/2007, -18/+4signed up for new account.
  • mstoneburner, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5Hahaha how full of yourself can you get? "Derek Powazek is a thinker, designer, and writer in San Francisco." Earth Derek: except for those people who are brain dead, we're all thinkers. You're not as special as you'd like to think you are.
    • mrmcbastard, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5@mstoneburner:

      "Earth Derek: except for those people who are brain dead, we're all thinkers."

      Unfortunately, this isn't true. I think the 80/20 ratio also applies to sheeple/thinkers. Too many people just accept what they're told and follow the leader. Only a few actually analyze information they're presented and make decisions based on reason and logic.
  • DiggzDE, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I think it would be a great show of support from the community if people continued to cancel subscriptions.

    Similar to Digg, JPG's content consists of stuff from it's users. Sure there will always be part of the community who is not concerned about the origins of the current company or magazine but I wouldn't be suprised if a large portion of people have been some sort of influence with JPG from toward the beginning.

    Leaving now, although possibly destroying a good magazine, would certainly show just how important the userbase is and just how powerful they are in letting company "big wigs" know that they can't just go and do things like this.

    Restaffing is one thing. Rewriting History is another.
  • think4aminute, on 10/11/2007, -22/+3As a member of the JPG community I appreciate the work Derek and Heather put into the magazine, however I could really care less about the history of the it. I'm interested in the issue coming out and the ones after that. The posts both of them have put up make it painfully obvious that they are more interested in getting credit and accolades from being the founders of the magazine than they are with the heath and vitality of the JPG community. I have only been a member since the magazine was apart of 8020, but it does seem to be an entirely different product now, and I always wondered exactly what Heather did at the magazine - does anyone know? While I understand this must be a difficult situation for the two of them, their response seems somewhat undignified, and without hearing the other side of the story, I cannot make a judgment on it. In response to something Heather said on her site about JPG now being a naughty child or something to that affect, I say, parents should never badmouth their children, especially in public, no matter how much they disagree.
    • dalelum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22What they did at JPG was delete more than half their product line (issues #1-6 are gone) in order to rewrite history. How does that contribute to the health of the publication?
    • derlin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6amen.
    • mrmcbastard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13If they hadn't created it you wouldn't be enjoying it now. That's what they did.
    • drgreenberg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The history of the magazine is connected to its revenues. They wouldn't go through the trouble of rewriting it otherwise. Lying to get someone's money is fraud. I don't think the details are as important as this central point.
    • jcheng, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6think4aminute, the only story you've digged so far is entitled "Derek Powazek: Talented and difficult" and the only comment you've left is this one. If you're not astroturfing for 8020, you're doing an awfully good job of making it look like you are.
    • think4aminute, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I thought I replied to you but I guess I didn't. So I'm not sure what astroturfing is (sounds somewhat painful) anyway I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it. Everyone has just got their pitchforks in hand and is shouting for a lynching and that makes me want to pause and take a minute to look at other possible opinions even to offer them up. All I am saying is I am for the magazine and all the other ***** is really meaningless. They started the magazine and that's great and I appreciate that, but the magazine is now bigger than any two people, and to work against the magazine or 8020 is to work against the community, and in the end is a very selfish thing to do.
  • jkizzle, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1This kinda stuff happens alot with smaller startups it seems like. The brains of it gets comfy just in time for the money of it so screw em.
  • zclip, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I remember reading about the jpg magazine a little while ago and meant to sign up but I could never find the time. Now, obviously, I won't be signing up, but that is not the purpose of my comment here. I want to give props to all your diggers who have been deleting your accounts (and I'm sure are doing what you can to spread word about this) because that is where we as consumers — and contributors in the web 2.0 world — have the power and influence. It's so refreshing when compared to the average person who may say "yeah, I hate how walmart [or some other place] treats their employees [or has bad products]" but they shop there anyway because it's close, convenient and little bit cheaper.

    Way to go diggers!
    • think4aminute, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Doesn't this feel a little like a mob mentality.
    • Maarek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Yes... perhaps they will think of that next time they try to pull one over on a mob.

      MOB SMASH!!!!!!

      *sigh*
    • zclip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Perhaps it is mob mentality in a way, but so was the Boston Tea Party and look what came of that. The only power people have comes in the form of a mob. If a large company like walmart made some bad decisions and saw it's customers drop throughout the country by an average of like 20%, would you call that a mob mentality? The term mob mentality has such a negative connotation because most think of it an opinion forced on the mob or at least blindly accepted by the mob. What if 50,000 random people come to the same educated, well-researched conclusion regarding an issue? Are they a mob simply because they all have the same opinion? I think it feels like mob-mentality because so many people are sharing their thoughts and actions here. To me it's simply using the only point of leverage you have as a user and consumer to make statement as opposed to an empty threat.
    • think4aminute, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0How can it be an educated, well researched conclusion if you are basing it on one side of the story. I just think people are being overly emotional and irrational. A little common sense is needed here.
  • zakangelle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Further proof that, when given the opportunity, people can be selfish assholes.
  • itsrainin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9deleted my account as well.

    the image count is dropping steadily.
  • Qpalzm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"I still own a percentage of the company, so I hope to see JPG continue to grow and prosper. Unfortunately, it will be without its founding editors."

    This was his labor of love and he still wants to see what he worked on grow - despite without him.
    I'd wait until I saw the quality of issue 11 before I deleted my account outright.
  • ScottY07, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Apple fired their CEO, fire yours!

    It really sucks that things like this happen though. What i don't understand is previous issues only goes to 7, people will always wonder what happened to the first 6?
    • cphuntington97, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was going to ask - why couldn't they just fire the CEO?
    • felch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't think they were public.
    • masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Probably because the CEO has a larger share.
  • theconnollykid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2account deleted... viva la revolucion
  • bstolzberg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2never heard of the mag or the 2 people. however i hope they do something similar. best of luck to derek and his wife.

    TIFFmag? PNGmag? PSDmag? somethings gotta be doable.
  • oferrer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2My account has been deleted as well. That was way messed up. Good luck to Heather and Derek.
  • jstem1994, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Damn. I had never heard of them, this would have been cool...
  • shanesemler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This reminds me all too much of what happened at deviantart a couple years ago when the CEO fired Jark.
  • hellogoodbye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I would not want to be Paul right now. Knowing he is losing money, users, and subscribers. And knowing that his story is being spread to thousands.
  • platte, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Remember when you had that bad breakup and your ex told all the friends you used to share how you're a total jerk? Now imagine they wrote a column about it in your local newspaper. There's more than one side to every story, and people (no matter how talented and creative) tend to make themselves the heros of their own stories.
  • tsundae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I wonder how many of these people read the article. Read the bottom - he still has stake in the company. He's an idiot because now how many people are unsubscribing and, whatever your personal feelings may be, its a bad business decision to air this kind of stuff to people when you have financial stake in it.
  • farksucksmasack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1account deleted. wish there was an email address to this contractor that hijacked the company. would love to send him a nice "F*CK YOU" email.
  • yorkie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Account deleted.
  • riondotnu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I'm very proud to say that one of my photographs was in the inaugural issue of JPG magazine (Origin), and that I was one of the two the featured photographers in issue 6 (Oops!).

    ...I find it strange that my contributions, and the contributions of my friends and colleagues in those first six issues, have been wiped aside as if those contributions weren't worth acknowledging as a part of the magazine's accomplishments. I'm more confused as to why those who run JPG now didn't see the value of Derek and Heather's vision, passion, and (hello?) well-known and highly-regarded reputations as founders of the magazine. And I'm completely perplexed as to what this new administration was thinking when they thought they could rewrite history in an environment where everything you post online is out there permanently in some form. Maybe they think any stir-up will blow over, and thousands of new users will join with no understanding of how JPG started, making Cloutier and company "successful" in the long run? It's a damn shame.

    JPG was always about community, about the movement of photoblogging (and how it might evolve), and about photography... as Heather and Derek stated in their now-deleted About page: "a magazine for us – the in-between folks who shoot for love, not money."

    It looks like the current JPG administration does not share those values.

    Account deleted.
    • hellogoodbye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Perfectly said.
    • benb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ditto.

      I picked up JPG for the first time in a local bookstore three issues ago and have each one since. It is a lot of fun to see the work of photographers you follow online on the printed page. I was about to subscribe, and even submit some work, but that motivation has passed.

      I don't know why anyone would want to re-write that history. It is an inspiring story of taking a passion and building a community and business around that.

      I look forward to seeing what Derek and Heather do next.
  • BarneyXP, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Account Deleted
    http://jpgmag.com/about/contact.html
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Never signed up before, and now I never will.
  • nicktripp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Shame. I just subscribed a few weeks ago. Looks like I'll be canceling that subscription.
  • MentatJack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0http://web.archive.org/web/20060421173233/http://www.jpgmag.com/about/
  • tigerbeat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0This is Paul Cloutier's ***** corporatespeak response (notice it was posted on the 8020 blog, not the JPG magazine blog or flickr JPG magazine group)

    http://www.8020publishing.com/blog/2007/05/dereks_departur.html

    "Derek's Departure

    Posted by Paul Cloutier on 15 May 2007

    The last few weeks at 8020 Publishing have been difficult for us all.

    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. Despite our best efforts, we couldn’t come to an agreement and parted ways though Derek remains a shareholder in 8020 Publishing.

    We recognize Derek’s contributions to JPG Magazine, past and present, and wish him well in his future endeavors."

    -----

    Ironically the previous post was "The Future of Magazines Has Never Looked Better" - the future of his magazine company has never looked worse.
    • alabut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6OH SNAP! I think I may have caught Paul in a flat out lie. He says he never tried to rewrite history, but JPG's current about page and Google's cached one are markedly different and I took a screenshot just now:

      http://flickr.com/photos/alabut/500272346/

      Summary: there wasn't a word about Derek, Heather or the early issues on May 9th, now there's mysteriously a paragraph about that stuff reintroduced. I think this lame attempt at damage control might blow up in his face.
    • riondotnu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty darn sure that paragraph at the bottom of the About page re: The Early Issues ***was not there*** as late as (yesterday eve, Paris time) when I posted my comment above. Unfortunately, this addition looks like nothing but spin and damage control.

      They've also added an update to the 8020 post: "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." ( --- "...we have no intention..." Current tense, "have".) The problem is that 8020 did have the intention previously before everyone found out and responded with solidarity...

      In his post, Derek clearly states that he was told they "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." In addition, Derek writes, "I suggested we add text to the website, explaining the difference between issues 1-6 and the new issues..." but that, "Compromise could not be reached." I trust Derek's account of this because he is a forthright person, and because I can't imagine why else he would feel the need to leave his and his wife's own magazine.

      8020 adding text to the website explaining the differences now --- after the damage of their original intent has been done --- is an inadequate band-aid.
  • jrgeoffrion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Account deleted. We are down to 9917 pages.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.