It spawned a few thoughts of my own, reposted below. It seems to me that discussions of new vs. old (such as print vs. digital, and crowd-sourced vs. edited) often becomes so polarized, and for the sake of the argument this form of discourse is effective (and usually results in a lot of comments!). However, I like both print and digital and think JPG Mag is a great mix of the two. Here’s what I commented on the post: 

From a purely tech standpoint (such as yours) I agree with all that is said about advertising and the dynamics of ‘translating’ any content type into whatever advertisers think is worth paying to advertise in.

However, from a publishing standpoint, consider this: Anyone who has ever been rejected by a publishing company, once thought of the internet as the big savior. But putting online your writings (or photos etc.) just doesn’t make you recognized as a writer or photographer. And that’s essentially what publishing companies can offer today: Putting their name and brand on a few select packages of high quality content that’s worth paying for. Selfpublishing something is one thing – publishing with Routledge is something completely different, even though the text and author is the same.

It may be that all the photos in JPGMag are on Flickr. But how do I find them? (and please don’t tell me that the socalled ‘interesting’ photos on Flickr are half as good as what is shown in JPGmag). This all relates to the role and value of editing – the expert’s choice and his take on a contingent world suffering from information overload. It may be that crowdsourcing everything will be the big answer to almost anything, but – let’s face it – the Internet generally deals a lot better with quantity than quality.

If I were a photographer, I would be SO proud seeing my shots in print in JPG mag, selected from thousands of candidates. Just as I would be proud of seeing my photo digged onto the frontpage of digg.com – but don’t tell me those two sensations are the same. And that’s why the concept of JPG Mag (run by professional photographers) has value. And that’s why (I guess) you published a dead-tree book once, Scoble

Print is great. Digital is great. I think of JPG Mag as a splendid mix of the two. And it seems like I may not be alone: http://jpgmag.com/blog/

P.S.: After I read the post, I researched into the the 2007 breakup of the original founders of JPG Mag and 8020 Publishing. It’s a great read, and a cardinal example of how things can get blown out of proportion in our hyperlinked digital age (looking back on it now, at least). Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. Thinking now, in retrospect, I an wondering if this could have been avoided; if it should have been and what positive thing came out of it for the parties involved, if any. Is this crisis communication 2.0: Let it all hang out?

Did you like this post?

Sharing is a great way to say thanks!