The perils of shafting your community
Suck it from Lord Jakeington
One of Flickr's newest groups is ideletedmyjpgaccount. It contains threads such as "How did you discover JPG mag?." and a stream of screenshots of JPG Magazine cancellations and account closures. I myself can't bring myself to do it yet. I guess I'm holding out hope 8020 Publishing will say something more than what they've said. There's slightly more on Flickr from the CEO, but not much. A lot of folks are reading it as spin. I think I can charitably call it tone deaf.
There have been a lot of questions from the community today about us rewriting history and we think it is important to say that we have no intention of rewriting the history of JPG Magazine. When 8020 was created we felt a photography magazine was a perfect first title to start with. JPG Magazine existed before and was absolutely the inspiration for the new JPG magazine. Derek and the contributors behind the early issues are a critical part of who we are and the heritage of JPG magazine is not something to be erased or forgotten. The JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created will always be an inspiration to us and we are committed to the principles that they set out.
Except, it wasn't an inspiration. It was a continuation and reinvention. As was pointed out elsewhere, the name and logo were kept the same. The format changed at Issue 7, not Issue 1, take 2. A lot of people bought into what it was because Derek Powazek and Heather Champ put heart and fucking soul into it. A lot of people bought into it because they weren't corporate about it. It was a party they started and invited all of us to come along to. And it seems, just as the party got really hot, they got booted. There is no way that is a class move.
Some of my coworkers have said Derek is full of himself (as has Valleywag), was stupid to let someone else be CEO, should have known better. Derek's been open about the process of why he left. Heather's been a little more circuitous.
I can't speak to the first point, but I've no reason to believe Derek's being anything but honest to his perspective on events. Moreover, I don't believe he's being an ass. He's not asking anyone to torpedo JPG, he explained why he left. And having been involved in creating something, I can testify that someone rewriting / erasing history is insulting and I'd be trying to correct the record, too. Sometimes that means being forceful in asserting what you've done. Acknowledging your accomplishments != being full of yourself. It's being honest.
As for the not taking on the CEO role and "stupidity." I'd call it more trusting a business partner and learning from the experience. Humans have several inclinations. One is to trust that other people are going to by and large do the right thing. Society stops functioning if that's not largely true. And certainly, you don't go into a start-up thinking your partner is going to give you the shaft.
Hindsight is 20/20. As someone told me recently about their startup, their CEO had a completely different vision and it wasn't until the business was completely messed they were able to see that. If people are being duplicitous, they're going to hide that fact. Again, as a general rule, one doesn't establish companies with those sorts of people.
My guess, however, is if Derek starts another business, he'll be a lot more careful about how he sets it up.
Flickr's case is also interesting. What happens if any large company or the Feds go to Flickr and demand removal of a photo? Or... publication of "private" photos of things like demonstrations and such?
Yahoo already had an image problem with a very vocal population of Flickr users and this incident damaged it further. Who wants to place trust in someone you feel will knife you out of expediency? The counterpoint is that Rebekka's post could be considered libelous. Perhaps, but then the right answer is not to put the post down the memory hole, but to ask the contributer to edit or better, verify the information behind the claims made. At least in the United States [1], it's not libel, if it's true. Yahoo ought to back users on that basis or note what violates a terms of service agreement with specificity. But, here's the rub, Rebekka got an apology.
No one person, group or company is going to get this right 100 percent of the time, but here's the thing with community building: Do not screw your users. Ever. They will remember, they will scream and they will punish you. Flickr/Yahoo and JPG Magazine both need to make a very public apology and explain themselves to their respective communities. Not "here are the relevant points from the TOS" or "differences of opinion/pursuing other opportunities" but contrition. As Powazek (I think) put it, community isn't owned, it's rented.
Flickr recognized this and has apologized. Stewart Butterfield explains how it happened, some of the rationale behind it, but makes very clear the wrong decision was made and that yes, they're going to take some well deserved lumps. Heather, coincidentally Flickr's community manager [2], mentions transparency as one of the overriding concerns and values of Flickr. I've had Heather's help in the past with a copyright infringement issue and would give her the benefit of the doubt if she said something was so for a reason I couldn't immediately see. First and foremost, because I'd expect there to be an honest, forthcoming explanation, even if it didn't leave everyone with the warm fuzzies.
It's that very transparency that appears to be missing at 8020 Publishing right now and why JPG looks to be running the very real risk of dying at the very time it ought to could be cementing itself. That's a big warning to anyone or company that wants to build a community.
- There is an international component here. Rebekka is in Iceland, the infringer is in England with different law at play.
- Being involved in big things at both Flickr and JPG cannot have been much fun. At all.