I have always been a huge fan of Playboy. I subscribed right after I left college and have read every issue from cover to cover since then. Playboy was a pioneer in liberation. Fighting for women's rights, first amendment rights and a host of other civil liberties that most young people take for granted today. After years of declining magazine sales, Scott Flanders (Playboy's CEO) realized that he needed to make a change. This is no longer the era of the 1950's. Flanders is right. The same innovation that helped change our views in the 1950's will have very little effect on the climate of our society today. I agree with Flanders in this aspect and that is where it ends. Let us take a look at some of the reasons that Playboy is removing nudity from the magazine and dig deep enough to realize that everyone of these decisions is completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.
Jodi Vander Woude at a Playboy casting. People can get porn anywhere!
One huge argument that Playboy has used to support their no nudity path is that people can get porn anywhere. This is probably the most infuriating response that I have heard from Playboy Enterprises. I imagine Hef hearing Flanders say this in a business meeting and his 89 year old heart just tensing up. It makes me cringe. It makes me angry. When your CEO says that you can get porn anywhere you are shitting on every photographer that you ever hired and calling them an internet porn cameraman. You are saying that your scouts that scoured the globe to find the most beautiful women to represent "the girl next door" are no talent assholes. "Oh you found this beautiful woman in northern Oklahoma and want to have Arny Freytag shoot her? Who cares, Joe fucking shmoe found a slut on Sunset Blvd, and paid her a thousand bucks to give some dude head in an alley". If people wanted to see intercourse and raunchy shit in magazines they would pick up Swank or Hustler. People wanted to see photographers and beautiful women at their best. They wanted something classy. That was what Playboy was all about; being a gentleman. Yes, people can get porn anywhere. You know what else they can get anywhere? Good looking clothed women. FHM, Maxim and every other magazine has tons of scantily clad women. I am guessing that they want to enter a market that is filled with competition instead of dominating a market that has very little. Where does one go to find nude women that aren't engaged in intercourse or in some depraved position? MetArt is the only place that I can think of. Good job Playboy. So the argument was that people can get porn anywhere but people can get pictures of scantily clad women anywhere too. They can get engaging articles anywhere. They can get interviews anywhere. How does this argument support what you are doing? If the answer to this is "Now we can hit a wider audience because we have eliminated nudity", I will show you how you are wrong once again.
One huge argument that Playboy has used to support their no nudity path is that people can get porn anywhere. This is probably the most infuriating response that I have heard from Playboy Enterprises. I imagine Hef hearing Flanders say this in a business meeting and his 89 year old heart just tensing up. It makes me cringe. It makes me angry. When your CEO says that you can get porn anywhere you are shitting on every photographer that you ever hired and calling them an internet porn cameraman. You are saying that your scouts that scoured the globe to find the most beautiful women to represent "the girl next door" are no talent assholes. "Oh you found this beautiful woman in northern Oklahoma and want to have Arny Freytag shoot her? Who cares, Joe fucking shmoe found a slut on Sunset Blvd, and paid her a thousand bucks to give some dude head in an alley". If people wanted to see intercourse and raunchy shit in magazines they would pick up Swank or Hustler. People wanted to see photographers and beautiful women at their best. They wanted something classy. That was what Playboy was all about; being a gentleman. Yes, people can get porn anywhere. You know what else they can get anywhere? Good looking clothed women. FHM, Maxim and every other magazine has tons of scantily clad women. I am guessing that they want to enter a market that is filled with competition instead of dominating a market that has very little. Where does one go to find nude women that aren't engaged in intercourse or in some depraved position? MetArt is the only place that I can think of. Good job Playboy. So the argument was that people can get porn anywhere but people can get pictures of scantily clad women anywhere too. They can get engaging articles anywhere. They can get interviews anywhere. How does this argument support what you are doing? If the answer to this is "Now we can hit a wider audience because we have eliminated nudity", I will show you how you are wrong once again.
All of the great companies innovate and change.
Yes! This may be the one point that I agree with Flanders. Many people like to look at Blockbuster Video for a comparison. They were brilliant and brought videos to your home. You didn't have to spend money to buy a movie that you were only going to watch once. You could rent it and return it. We will skip the intermediary issues and go right to Netflix and the internet. Blockbuster turned down acquiring Netflix and missed the online streaming boat. It made those little boxes that you find at grocery stores but it was too little too late. You blew it Blockbuster.
And lets not forget new companies that have become huge by being innovative. Uber took the hassle of hailing a cab and put it in the palm of your hand. You click the button, the car comes and picks you up, Travis Kalanick makes millions of dollars.
While these are great examples they do not correlate to Playboy. This would be a valuable argument if Playboy was debating whether or not to have a website. Blockbuster did not move its service to the web and it failed. Uber took an age old hassle of hailing a cab and put it online and streamlined it. Well guess what Playboy has an online presence so this comparison is moot.
Yes! This may be the one point that I agree with Flanders. Many people like to look at Blockbuster Video for a comparison. They were brilliant and brought videos to your home. You didn't have to spend money to buy a movie that you were only going to watch once. You could rent it and return it. We will skip the intermediary issues and go right to Netflix and the internet. Blockbuster turned down acquiring Netflix and missed the online streaming boat. It made those little boxes that you find at grocery stores but it was too little too late. You blew it Blockbuster.
And lets not forget new companies that have become huge by being innovative. Uber took the hassle of hailing a cab and put it in the palm of your hand. You click the button, the car comes and picks you up, Travis Kalanick makes millions of dollars.
While these are great examples they do not correlate to Playboy. This would be a valuable argument if Playboy was debating whether or not to have a website. Blockbuster did not move its service to the web and it failed. Uber took an age old hassle of hailing a cab and put it online and streamlined it. Well guess what Playboy has an online presence so this comparison is moot.
We changed our website and look how successful it was!
At this point Playboy likes to tell us that they changed their website to a "work safe" site and look at results. Once again, I agree with you Mr. Flanders. When Playboy removed nudity from their website they saw a dramatic increase in viewership. Why? Mostly due to where web traffic comes from today; social media. A huge portion of web traffic no longer comes from searches, it comes from social media sites. Everyone that shares an article with their friends is helping spread the Playboy brand. They are doing the advertising for them. The fact that the majority of these social media platforms do not allow nudity really hampers Playboy's impact in the online market. They changed. They innovated. And they succeeded because of it.
If you are confused at this point and think that I just flip-flopped on my stance then you are mistaken. I am arguing that Playboy's "magazine" should not have dropped their nudity. The reason there is no nudity on this website is for that same reason. I would like people to read my work and my traffic comes from social media. If I was a publishing company though and could put bare boobs in my work (which seems essential for a venture called BOOBS and Gaming) I would totally do it. There is nothing wrong with Playboy having a PG-13 version of the magazine online. But to make the whole company PG-13 goes against the essence of Playboy.
At this point Playboy likes to tell us that they changed their website to a "work safe" site and look at results. Once again, I agree with you Mr. Flanders. When Playboy removed nudity from their website they saw a dramatic increase in viewership. Why? Mostly due to where web traffic comes from today; social media. A huge portion of web traffic no longer comes from searches, it comes from social media sites. Everyone that shares an article with their friends is helping spread the Playboy brand. They are doing the advertising for them. The fact that the majority of these social media platforms do not allow nudity really hampers Playboy's impact in the online market. They changed. They innovated. And they succeeded because of it.
If you are confused at this point and think that I just flip-flopped on my stance then you are mistaken. I am arguing that Playboy's "magazine" should not have dropped their nudity. The reason there is no nudity on this website is for that same reason. I would like people to read my work and my traffic comes from social media. If I was a publishing company though and could put bare boobs in my work (which seems essential for a venture called BOOBS and Gaming) I would totally do it. There is nothing wrong with Playboy having a PG-13 version of the magazine online. But to make the whole company PG-13 goes against the essence of Playboy.
Sex actually doesn't sell anymore.
Really? Sex doesn't sell anymore? They claim that by having nudity they will offend just as many people that they will bring in. Without the nudity, they can attract more followers and advertisers. We will discuss advertisers later. As for turning people away because of nudity ... well you are an idiot Flanders. A little over a year ago I remember a famous woman named Kim Kardashian posing nude for Paper Magazine. They sold out of that issue and they even printed an additional 35.000 copies. Their website saw 5 million unique visitors in the first 30 hours and their Google analytics crashed because Kim "broke the internet". The nude cover which only went to subscribers was selling for $50 an issue on eBay. This issue that sold out was also double the cost because it was a double issue and that didn't stop anyone. Speaking of Kim Kardashian, while not a record setting news stand sales issue of Playboy, the December 2007 issue of Playboy broke all advertising sales records. Within the issue in which our famous celebrity posed nude in their magazine, they added 20 more pages (a 66% increase) of advertisements. Every company wanted to be in that issue. The public loves nude celebrities so much that they go on a craze when a fuzzy, up-skirt phone shot catches a celeb's taint. Celebrity photos are huge and the only thing better than a blurry shot of a naked celeb on the beach (from like 8 fucking miles away) is an artistically done photo shoot where the photographer and the celebrity find the best way to bring out what makes that celebrity so mesmerizing. Almost all of Playboy's top selling issues involved some of the biggest celebrities at the time.
Really? Sex doesn't sell anymore? They claim that by having nudity they will offend just as many people that they will bring in. Without the nudity, they can attract more followers and advertisers. We will discuss advertisers later. As for turning people away because of nudity ... well you are an idiot Flanders. A little over a year ago I remember a famous woman named Kim Kardashian posing nude for Paper Magazine. They sold out of that issue and they even printed an additional 35.000 copies. Their website saw 5 million unique visitors in the first 30 hours and their Google analytics crashed because Kim "broke the internet". The nude cover which only went to subscribers was selling for $50 an issue on eBay. This issue that sold out was also double the cost because it was a double issue and that didn't stop anyone. Speaking of Kim Kardashian, while not a record setting news stand sales issue of Playboy, the December 2007 issue of Playboy broke all advertising sales records. Within the issue in which our famous celebrity posed nude in their magazine, they added 20 more pages (a 66% increase) of advertisements. Every company wanted to be in that issue. The public loves nude celebrities so much that they go on a craze when a fuzzy, up-skirt phone shot catches a celeb's taint. Celebrity photos are huge and the only thing better than a blurry shot of a naked celeb on the beach (from like 8 fucking miles away) is an artistically done photo shoot where the photographer and the celebrity find the best way to bring out what makes that celebrity so mesmerizing. Almost all of Playboy's top selling issues involved some of the biggest celebrities at the time.
Your change is incongruous with your brand.
I believe that Playboy will see a surge in advertising with this new move and maybe even a surge in sales. The novelty of being able to finally buy Playboy is enticing. Owning the first edition of the new format will have a certain luster to it. Being able to read in public without getting weird looks may offer some comfort, but all in all the fact that you have now made a gentleman's magazine for children will erode any headway that you have made and your brand will have no power.
C'mon Boobs and Gaming! They aren't making a magazine for children! They will still have the same great articles, the same great short fiction, the same great photographers taking pictures of beautiful women.
But it won't make sense. If I am writing articles about the best bars or how to make certain cocktails, my audience is over 21. My magazine can only be purchased by 18 and older. That makes sense. If I write about those same things but allow 14 year old kids to read my article, am I going to improve my circulation? Do kids that watch fucking Pokemon really care about how to make a Manhattan or how to get their suit tailored? No. They will buy one or two issues because it will be cool to own a Playboy, but they will grow bored with articles that are not geared towards them. And will they pull in more advertisers? Probably. They will have those advertisers for as long as it takes for all the new readers to realize that the reason that they didn't read Playboy before is the same reason that they don't like it now. Does Playboy really think people aren't reading their magazine because there are boobs in it. "OOooohh I totally wanted to read that phenomenal interview with Stanley Kubrick but I hear that there are boobs on page 45 so now I don't want to." The advertisers that they have now are marketing to adults AND (this is the big difference) there are no restrictions for them. It is not like the social media ban on nudity. These advertisers are marketing to adults. They know that Playboy has adult followers so they advertise in Playboy. I think that the idea of having the magazine be an adult version and the online iteration being a "work friendly" version would be a brilliant idea but what do I know.
Also the large majority of Playboy's income comes from the brand. Selling the brand and the logo. Using it for merchandising. That brand stood for everything that Hef created. Being a PG family friendly magazine that somehow attracts women and men, yet is described as entertainment for men and has adult themes that they need to be able to sell to everyone is about as convoluted and confusing for me as this ridiculously long run-on sentence. Playboy, you now stand out from the crowd in absolutely no way. Congratulations it was fun while it lasted.
I believe that Playboy will see a surge in advertising with this new move and maybe even a surge in sales. The novelty of being able to finally buy Playboy is enticing. Owning the first edition of the new format will have a certain luster to it. Being able to read in public without getting weird looks may offer some comfort, but all in all the fact that you have now made a gentleman's magazine for children will erode any headway that you have made and your brand will have no power.
C'mon Boobs and Gaming! They aren't making a magazine for children! They will still have the same great articles, the same great short fiction, the same great photographers taking pictures of beautiful women.
But it won't make sense. If I am writing articles about the best bars or how to make certain cocktails, my audience is over 21. My magazine can only be purchased by 18 and older. That makes sense. If I write about those same things but allow 14 year old kids to read my article, am I going to improve my circulation? Do kids that watch fucking Pokemon really care about how to make a Manhattan or how to get their suit tailored? No. They will buy one or two issues because it will be cool to own a Playboy, but they will grow bored with articles that are not geared towards them. And will they pull in more advertisers? Probably. They will have those advertisers for as long as it takes for all the new readers to realize that the reason that they didn't read Playboy before is the same reason that they don't like it now. Does Playboy really think people aren't reading their magazine because there are boobs in it. "OOooohh I totally wanted to read that phenomenal interview with Stanley Kubrick but I hear that there are boobs on page 45 so now I don't want to." The advertisers that they have now are marketing to adults AND (this is the big difference) there are no restrictions for them. It is not like the social media ban on nudity. These advertisers are marketing to adults. They know that Playboy has adult followers so they advertise in Playboy. I think that the idea of having the magazine be an adult version and the online iteration being a "work friendly" version would be a brilliant idea but what do I know.
Also the large majority of Playboy's income comes from the brand. Selling the brand and the logo. Using it for merchandising. That brand stood for everything that Hef created. Being a PG family friendly magazine that somehow attracts women and men, yet is described as entertainment for men and has adult themes that they need to be able to sell to everyone is about as convoluted and confusing for me as this ridiculously long run-on sentence. Playboy, you now stand out from the crowd in absolutely no way. Congratulations it was fun while it lasted.
RSS Feed
