Slashdot Mirror
Playboy Drops Nudity As Internet Fills Demand
HughPickens.com writes: Ravi Somaiya reports in the NY Times that as part of a redesign that will be unveiled next March, the print edition of Playboy Magazine will still feature women in provocative poses but they will no longer be fully nude. "That battle has been fought and won," says CEO Scott Flanders. "You're now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it's just passé at this juncture." According to Somaiya, for a generation of American men, reading Playboy was a cultural rite, an illicit thrill consumed by flashlight. Now every teenage boy has an Internet-connected phone instead. Pornographic magazines, even those as storied as Playboy, have lost their shock value, their commercial value and their cultural relevance. The magazine will adopt a cleaner, more modern style. There will still be a Playmate of the Month, but the pictures will be "PG-13" and less produced — more like the racier sections of Instagram. "A little more accessible, a little more intimate," says Flancers. It is not yet decided whether there will still be a centerfold.
It's not really about the magazine anymore, nowadays they're trying to manage it as a lifestyle/luxury brand. They have branded merchandise that's highly profitable and expanding in China, for example. They're also trying to get bigger into the "online content" thing, which was being harmed by the nudity... not having nudity makes it easier for people to share stuff on Facebook or email articles to people and whatever.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
They always stated that it was about the women, but really it was the fantasies they sold it. The one thing they have missed out on for years is the lingerie.
This is an opportunity for them to work with lingerie companies. At least this way "reader" will know what each model/actress is wearing and by that for their partners.
The I read it for the articles joke was actually not so much of a joke for many. Tities notwithstanding, there were some good material in that magazine, including famous writers participations. Asimov being one of the many.
But without the pink, there will be little left in there that can't be gotten online anyhow.
Playboy in Brazil is mostly models, sub-celebrities and even tv stars to its pages, so at least it has that incentive to keep selling magazines. Sure there is tons of porn and nudes on the internet, but not from these women we fantasize.
So, you make the magazine more attractive for advertisers, while making it less attractive to the people who would buy it ... therefore reducing the value of the advertising.
If you try to make Playboy PC, there's pretty much little left of value in Playboy.
This just seems like it's shooting themselves in the foot.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Esquire was more racey pre Playboy. In response to Playboy, Esquire tuned down it prurient appeal and survived. Nothing new here just the usual course of the revolutionary becoming established and being displaced by the new revolution. Playboy may or may not survive but it is wise to try to adapt.
Hugh Hefner based Playboy on the idea of revealing the sexy side of "the girl next door." It was an innocent notion, part fantasy, part reality, presented with taste and class over several interesting decades of changing social values.
Well done, Hef. The internet has made you obsolete, but will never replace you.
People who use porn can get it for free anywhere. They need to reinvent themselves or go out of business.
Yes, but what Playboy offered was Quality nudity. The models were good looking and clean, and the photography was well done. Sure, you can get all kinds of porn online but frankly speaking there's a large portion of the Naked Population who I, and many others, really do not care to see in the nude. Or even partially nude.
And as digital cameras become so pervasive, so does the amount of porn. But the quality just keeps dropping overall.
I think the bigger problem Playboy had was an over obsession with one particular body type. In particular, they seem to always have had a fetish for big tits and big hips. And while that's nice, it's not everyone's "thing". (And no, I'm not suggesting they go get a bunch of those ugly fucking landwhale "Fat Pride" cunts, if I want to see naked rolls of backfat and unwashed asscrack I can just go to Wal-Mart)
The solution is not to go ultra-soft core and put clothing on the models. We already have Maxim and other similar "PG-13 Porn" magazines out there. The solution is to increase variety, put more girls in the issues, and concentrate on getting really high-quality models. And I mean bitches that are just flat out good-looking naturally, without the need for plastic surgery or heavy photoshopping, just a little light makeup for the camera.
As a former Playboy photographer, I can attest to the change in Playboy in the past 20 years. It went from being a magazine that provided some of the most stunning figure photography of the most stunning females to average photography of mostly average females. I was once told by a snot nosed twenty-something photo editor that the image editing department could make a Polaroid photo look like it was shot by Pompeo Posar. So much for the hours spent getting perfect lighting, flawless makeup, and just the right poses. A bevy of Mac computers and Photoshop were the end of it. I can remember one centerfold that mysteriously lacked a navel, and another that had five fingers and a thumb, thanks to the Photoshop geniuses.
I can honestly say that I have never looked at an issue since quitting Playboy more than twenty years ago.