National Geographic Society sets biggest layoff in its history
They haven't handled the transition to new media and values properly:<p>1. Their magazine:  Almost all magazines have been replaced with websites.  Their website dramatically undersells their content.  Look at it, really.  It's basically like clickhole, but with stories of climate change.  The dramatic photography of the magazine is only coming across in about 50% of the photos and the headlines are all clickbait format.<p>2. Their television presence includes shows like "Drugs, Inc." whose primarily job is to scare old people with re-enactments of drug crimes.  Who would pay for that "value"?  (I guess people who watch police shows?  but what does that saturated market have to do with their brand?)<p>3. Their youtube stream is a massive quantity of short, low-quality videos.  I subscribe and only watch about 1 in 50 of them.  Another problem with their videos is so few have narration which I feel is a key feature of travel and wildlife shows.<p>4. They haven't handled outreach to a younger generation.  With all the urban young people (esp. women IMO) who love to travel the world with disposable income (no families, marrying late), NG has no selling relationship with them.<p>5. The global geopolitical situation is more interesting than ever with worldwide communication, but I don't see NG addressing that.  Maybe they are - somewhere? - but their marketing isn't penetrating.<p>I feel like they could turn it around if they primarily address the youngest generation - perhaps get more involved in the travel and outdoor supplies markets.