National Geographic has changed their printing process! (Page 4): Simple math: When subscription rates go down advertisers pay less. The vast majority of print media is on it's way to...

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

nealbralley wrote:

Their advertisers pay their freight! You really don't pay their production costs with your subscription fees.

Simple math: When subscription rates go down advertisers pay less. The vast majority of print media is on it's way to oblivion and advertisers are acutely aware of that.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

LFingar wrote:

Simple math: When subscription rates go down advertisers pay less. The vast majority of print media is on it's way to oblivion and advertisers are acutely aware of that.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Jack 13088 wrote:

You may have hit upon something. Luxurious is in the eye of the beholder. I am more of a flannel shirt, blue jeans and sneakers kind of a guy. Not usually considered luxurious. Oh, well. The NGS doesn’t know their audience.

What they do know is their bottom line, it is undoubtedly a cost saving measure.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

bamfordr wrote:

Of course in 2015 National Geographic Sociery sold their media to 20th century Fox, Rupert Murdoch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-magazine-shifts-to-for-profit-status-with-fox-partnership/2015/09/09/7c9f034e-56f0-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

In Dec of 2017 20th Century Fox was sold to Disney.

Beenthere

azted wrote:

Just another example of the lowering of standards that is supposed to bring a better standard quality of living for all the world. What a load of crap! Someone has to stand up and shout "stop this degradation of of our lifestyle!" It is happening in slow steps everywhere, and often comes under the guise of "This is better for you because.................." Lets all agree to cut the bullshit and call it what it is!

The decision was easy for me.., I just unsubscribed after noticing that the quality of photos had degenerated. I also noticed that the, so called, "gold standard" wasn't so "Gold" anymore.., and I'm talking about composition, as well as print quality. Like some of you, I was addicted to NG from my boyhood, back east, when I worked in our town public Library. I could barely wait for the next issue where I marveled at those images wondering, all the time, where these places were.., and were they real?

plumbbob1

I think it sad. But, I don't know of any outfit that isn't gouging for profit. Maybe they are seeing the end approaching.

But, I would think that they wouldn't compromise their foundation.

But then, check out MacDonalds.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Beenthere wrote:

The decision was easy for me.., I just unsubscribe... (show quote)

I work with kids almost every day. Very few of them even know what Nat Geo is. They access the same info immediately if the interest arises. And they have no interest in building their own personal archive.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Jack 13088 wrote:

Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…

They're trying to put their money where their mouths are and kill fewer trees.

They used to print on heavy coated glossy paper. Now it's almost chipboard by comparison. If I hadn't just renewed a day before I got the latest issue, I might not have!

At some point, we all just share PDFs, I guess.

RichinSeattle

Disney bought NatGeo a while back, mostly because they wanted the film/video library. I doubt if they gave more than a couple minutes' thought to the mag, except to find ways to reduce the cost of publication.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

FL Streetrodder wrote:

It seems to me that this may very well be the first step toward going totally digital with what we traditionally expected to be in printed form!

First step? Most people under 50 don't bother with hard copy magazine and newspaper subscriptions, they much prefer digital subscriptions which they can view on their digital tablets and phones.

RWeisz

As a graphic designer I can tell you there is a huge paper shortage on printing paper. I suspect they are trying to put a good spin on a decision they may have been forced to make. I am a magazine deigned and we are having a horrible time getting paper. I need to get my hands on a new issue to see the new design.

srg

Jack 13088 wrote:

Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…

Hey, it could be worse. In 1962 they switched from (ugh) Black and White to color and never looked back.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

Jack 13088 wrote:

Good Golly Miss Molly!!! The gold standard of photography done right has changed, at least, the paper has a different weight and finish! I noticed it a bit slowly probably consistent with my age but… As with any change I don’t like it. At least not yet. Is nothing sacred? I pawed through the magazine looking for an explanation or apology but found nothing. Is there therapy if me? I have a BIG bookcase with every issue from January 1940 to present. This new magazine is a lot lighter. Sigh…

They've done the same thing with "Birds and Blooms" magazine. It used to be a beautiful magazine with wonderful, very clear photos of... birds and blooms! Now the paper is thinner and dull looking. The color is a bit faded looking. Just not the same. I'm guessing the price of good paper now has caused them to have to cut quality.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

RWeisz wrote:

As a graphic designer I can tell you there is a huge paper shortage on printing paper. I suspect they are trying to put a good spin on a decision they may have been forced to make. I am a magazine deigned and we are having a horrible time getting paper. I need to get my hands on a new issue to see the new design.

I would be interested in your thoughts about the paper. It doesn’t seem cheap it just seems awful. It has a slight texture like faux linen or whatever. Gag me with a spoon.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

It used to be RR Donnelley had installed a line of special presses for the quality NGS required. Of course, they were also major printers of telephone books! Remember them? Opposite ends of the quality scale.