Definitive answer given to why DPR is closing

[Mackiesback]

I know this sounds like an absurd question when you think about it, but has there actually been a definitive answer given to why DPR is closing? Maybe I missed it? Did anyone or any new media actually say they are closing DPR for "this reason" ?

It doesn't matter in the long run but it would be nice to have that for closure.

What is surprising is that they have 11 employees as far as I know..

Have they really studied alternative ? Fewer employees, sell dpreview (nobody was aware...)

My guess is that they had a large plan to cut costs, they can not study each case and they just decide quickly without worrying about the consequences.

Shame to them.

I am kind of guessing here, but I would think that the majority of the employees that they had, the paid ones anyway, contributed to the heavy lifting of the site, as in all the features that were not the forum. This site could run a lot cheaper if you got rid of ten of those people, but that would probably eliminate all of these features.

Getting rid of the features and articles and staff and stripping it down to just being a forum may have been financially feasible, but far from the kind of product Amazon values. Hosting arguments and little else makes no business sense. Just thinking out loud here....

 

[Rock and Rollei]

Some things are worth paying for even if they lose money.

DPR built good will for Amazon -- at least for some of us who knew that Amazon was paying for it.

Yeah, but almost certainly not in proportion to the cost. I suspect many of us that did know were always suspicious of Amazon's motives, because many of us have somewhat cynical minds. I always wondered where they found the value to make it worthwhile - lets be honest, goodwill is really only of value if you can actually monetise it - in a business sale sense, the word really means "satisfied repeat customers", and it's a stretch to say that this site really provided that.

On the other side, there was a lot of questionable criticism of Amazon on the forums -- rather poor manners, I thought.

 

[JohnSil]

Here is the published Amazon management speak guff:

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/update-from-ceo-andy-jassy-on-role-eliminations

I have my doubts that DPR closing has anything to do with their layoffs of warehouse workers.

They are closing an entire enterprise (DPR) not laying off staff from DPR, which would be an expected cost-cutting action if they valued DPR and didn't want to close it down.

I don't think it matters at all what we think. IF dpr was making tons of money and supporting the entire Amazon selling enterprise there's zero doubt that it would ever be in danger.

The most likely scenario is that it's being either subsidized or breaking even. Even if it's breaking even it cost resource and man hours to oversee it for no gains or almost no gains, For managers it's much easier to take something off their plate that gives no gains and make the same amount of money with less effort!

When the government bailed out Chrysler it made them sell off the only very profitable company it had which was it's military tank division. So go figure. The Government probably saw it as a distraction and would be one less thing to manage as Chrysler tried to get back into the black at what it's main business was which was making cars!!!

DPR is probably a similar situation.

John

 

[Ellis Vener]

The Aging population:

I think that changing demographics and an aging population have much to do with the decision. I might be wrong in believing that most people (not all, but most) participants -as opposed to occasional readers who do not create an account, but possibly those too - are over 40, with a fair chunk of that group older than 60, but that is my impression. As people get older, they tend to spend less on aspirational toys. That means the market for dedicated photographic equipment is shrinking. Shrinking markets do attract advertisers. It doesn't matter how much money Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Adobe, Sony, etc., spend on advertising if fewer people are interested in buying dedicated photographic products.

Infrastructure demands and business:

I know the DPreview staff is small, but continually maintaining the site must cost something.

Finally, does Amazon have any other businesses similar to dpreview.com? None that can think of. How many discussions have you participated in that led you to purchase equipment from Amazon instead of B&H, Adorama, etc.?

And maybe no one in the C level at Amazon or on the BoD was willing to fight for it.

Technology.

For most people, the latest iPhones and the like satisfy their photographic needs. In the hands of a skilled photographer, they produce terrific results with a minimum of fuss. It's like what happened to Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa when both "good enough" (digital point and shoots) and high-quality digital cameras(like the Nikon D1X) and powerful laptop and desktop computers started becoming became both available and affordable.

We have reached the point where photography, the most democratic visual art form, is both ubiquitous and a victim of its own success. I will miss these forums and many of the people I have met here. It's always good learning from my peers, and I've enjoyed sharing what knowledge I have to share. The question for me is, what will I now do with the time I was spending here?
Ars longa, vita brevis.
--

 

[Keit ll]

I know this sounds like an absurd question when you think about it, but has there actually been a definitive answer given to why DPR is closing?

I thought it was obvious to anyone with a reasonable understanding of business economics.

I will not explain because if it isn't obvious to you, you are most unlikely to understand my explanation.

Come on, if it was that simple then why not state it? If your explanation cannot be easily understood then it can't be simple.

It's snarky remarks like yours that have not helped, this is a community where the majority try to advise & help thank goodness.

 

[OpticsEngineer]

Most normal people think normal things like if you have 11 people working based out of Seatle and the money they bring in in more than they cost to keep as employees, that is a good business to keep going.

But big businesses don't think that way. Periodically they ask themselves, what business are we really in? Does this small group fit into a bigger strategy? Is it a growing field or a shrinking field? Is this activity benefiting us, or is it actually benefiting our competitors?

There is a distraction cost of maintaining lots of little things and every few years or so there is a push to get rid of small things. There are only a few really talented or politically-connected managers in a company and you don't want them wasting their time on lots of small things when their attention could be better spent on big things that could make a lot of money.

I have worked in big companies for 30 years and have seen this over and over. I could tell lots of stories, but just as one example, one of my colleagues set up a million dollar contract for engineering services to the government only to have the corporate accounting department refuse to process any paperwork because it was less than ten million. They said the amount of paperwork to process that small contract was the same as a big contract, with the problem being that then the staff would make mistakes on big contracts due to distraction.

 

[KENTGA]

After having about a week mull this over, I do think cellphones, perhaps some losing some interest in photography, etc. Also look at how many photo mags have either ceased production or you can almost read a newspaper thru them because they're so thin.

Hoping for an alternative.

Kent

 

[PhotoMac503]

My goodness, a lot of posts from people who don't understand capitalism. I don't have any insight about the why of this site's shutdown but a couple of observations:

- if you live in a capitalistic society the things that don't turn a profit are always at risk. If you want a more benevolent society you have to vote for that.

- it's interesting to read "the sky is falling" posts from people who have an unhealthy strong attachment to this website, and then to see the Amazon message which doesn't even specifically mention DPR.

- this website has always been about getting its visitors to buy things through Amazon. It appeared unbiased. Forum users were constantly promoting the need to buy stuff, but seldom spoke highly of Amazon.

- users who were motivated to buy usually took their money off this site/corporation to the website owner's competition.

- I don't think this will affect the camera market much. If anything, I hope it will encourage people to do more photography and less buying.

- This site exists in a bubble. It was a community to many, perhaps some who have trouble forming relationships IRL. But it didn't reflect real life- most photographers I associate with never heard of it or had high regards for it Others have posted similar comments.

- as an Amazon shareholder I'm glad to see the company tightening its belt.

- As a DPR customer, it saddens me to see the lost jobs and grief that others feel.

- Otherwise I don't have an emotional reaction because this relationship with DPR was transactional and not 100% pleasant.

- this website shutdown could lead to better outcomes for many.

 

[tatanan]

Probably I'm wrong, but I compare this website to something like Wikipedia, in a more generic way.

These type of websites, provide people with focused useful information, biased or not, which is necessary, but also are educational and somehow necessary to keep the photography business in general ( not only Amazon), in good health.

They provide news, education and guidance to many persons, more likely non-professionals that purchase day after day, photo related products in Amazon, why killing this site? I don't understand. If the concern is only greed, they are dumb or don't understand they are getting revenue for operating this site, so what more they want?

 

[Tom Axford]

... If the concern is only greed, they are dumb or don't understand they are getting revenue for operating this site, so what more they want?

Please enlighten us! Exactly what revenue do you think comes from operating this site?

The few ads on the site must bring in a very small income. What else is producing income?

 

[OpticsEngineer]

I believe I have read Jeff Bezos is really big into what can be directly measured.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Some things are worth paying for even if they lose money.

DPR built good will for Amazon -- at least for some of us who knew that Amazon was paying for it. On the other side, there was a lot of questionable criticism of Amazon on the forums -- rather poor manners, I thought.

How were most of the comments sections good will for Amazon. Or for that matter, helping the overall Camera Industry. If anything, it was more likely, negative.

Well, I did write "good will" and "questionable criticism".

But yes, as you pointed out, negativity is a hard sell. If that's what tipped the balance, then we can say that bad manners do have consequences.

 

[Bob A L]

Could be one of a million reasons I suppose. But one I wonder about is that most things that need a rating of some sort or another look for indicators that indicate growth, not decline. It seems to me that there is likely a decline in traffic to dpr site over the recent years which could be partially tied to the decline in camera sales. But by the same token there are millions more hobby photographers today than there were 10 years ago, but the traffic on dpr has certainly not grown by that much.

That points to something being wrong. A hobby with millions more participants taking thousands of times more photos than were taken even 10 years ago, vs a photographic hobby web site that is declining in participants. It seems that we here at dpr are really good at running off any new folk that try and communicate with us by telling them how many thousands of dollars worth of equipment they must have, many times how stupid they must be, and being very thorough in explaining in huge intricate detail just how things must be done to make photos exactly like we do it. And by no means should they try to make a photograph with a cell phone. We also make sure that these beginners know how stupid the manufacturers are and how they lie to the public about their equipment.

And we also make it clear that if anyone is serious about making photography a hobby they can only get satisfactory results with the highest line equipment as the lesser cameras and lenses cannot compare with the results from the $5,000+ camera bodies and $5,000 to $10,000 lenses.

This may not be any part of the reason for closing the site down, but I can't help but wonder if things could have been different if membership and traffic here had increased in portion to the increased number of people taking photographs for fun and enjoyment has increased in the last few years.

I never had very many people to share photos with and discuss photos and techniques with through the years like I do now. Instead of not knowing but a handful of people that took photos for fun, now almost everybody I know is enjoying taking photos and asking questions and sharing photos. It's just that they are using phones now, but many are already expressing interest in my dedicated cameras and asking lots of questions.

I imagine that it is quite easy to track the number of participants in any particular web site, and to also detect how many hang around for any specific amount of time vs those who just disappear after initial contact is established. And number of individuals passing through any website each day is the number one criteria for owners wishing to make a profit and advertisers willing to pay to advertise there.

Just wondering if this could be a factor.

 

[Tony Bologna]

No text

 

[mfinley]

I believe I have read Jeff Bezos is really big into what can be directly measured.

I believe you're probably on the right track. I would suspect DPR never added more to the Amazon bottom line much more than a rounding error when it came to income if it was actually profitable which it just as likely could have been as could not have been.

Just a flyspeck on the behemoth of Amazon. Probably a red-headed-step child that never fit in with Amazon, mostly unknown to anyone there and had no champion to protect it. Probably never fit with the culture and possibly when cost-cutting became a corporate issue it was politically expedient at this time to finally just gut it. Makes sense when you consider they have made no attempt to respond to purchase offers. The value of DPR just isn't even on the radar, just a fly speck on their windshield to get wiped off.

If it had value I would think they would approach it with cost cutting to keep it alive, instead just pull the plug on it and move on.

 

[tobyfrank]

I know this sounds like an absurd question when you think about it, but has there actually been a definitive answer given to why DPR is closing?

I thought it was obvious to anyone with a reasonable understanding of business economics.

I will not explain because if it isn't obvious to you, you are most unlikely to understand my explanation.

Then please give it in laymans terms.

 

[Johann Kruger]

it's because of the drop in camera sales due to smart phones, Ai, massive internet image aggregators, etc. the same is closing down many photography business now. it's a new age.

 

[PhilipFromCanberra]

Bob I think you have hit the nail right on the head there. I'm a long time reader of dpreview forums. Very often, not all the time but often enough when I read posts from various DP forums, I cringed, chuckled, and refrained from contributing, I just didn't feel encouraged to after having seen/read the tones of some of the messages being posted, especially from those who claimed to have a lot of experience in the field and are super gear centric- and that, for me was the disappointing part. The community feel just wasn't there and I can see it is really hard for newcomers to stick around and discuss their photographic hobby without the risk of being put down.

In a way it is just a matter of time before the plug is pulled.

 

[Rascati]

I've heard that Amazon uses the acronym "CRAP" internally for products/services that are not profitable.

Can't Realize A Profit

Note: This is not meant to be a humorous comment. This is how they refer to items that do not return a profit.

 

[Bob A L]

But those thousands of photographers using cell phones are just as real as the ones using dedicated cameras.