How would you save Playboy? - Page 7

mr_tibbs · October 28th, 2009, 06:37 PM

PB needs to get creative w/ their product(s) and/or expand into other markets. Hefner pulled in more money in the 90's w/ video sales and Larry Flynt/Hustler increased profits by publishing mainstream magazines in addition to porn titles.

Soft Pillow · October 29th, 2009, 02:54 AM

Playboy's numerous problems are a reflection of a variety of issues. Hef did create an empire along with a flamboyant lifestyle but as society changes so do people because his dream always demanded a certain adolescent faith which was sustained by ingenuity. I loved Playboy in its glory days but I also knew that many gifted people who worked very hard for the magazine were in fact replaced by ruthless newcomers. The girl next door in Playboy often seemed much like a mannequin as a result of the constant airbrushing. Playboy can be salvaged but its survival in the current economy would still not be stable. I prefer to simply remember this very fine magazine as it was decades ago since its entire contents were a true symbol of what a dedicated individual could accomplish with both skill & vision in publishing.

**buttsie** · October 29th, 2009, 03:47 AM

Change the title on the web...the playboy label to me at least online is a dead weight
its says to todays generation thats what my dad reads.Keywords & tags can easily do the same job of leading someone searching for playboy from yesteryear to the site

The older generation are always going to be the mainstay of the magazine but the idea of offering website access as already mentioned with the magazine is a way of luring in the youngsters

Not having been on the playboy site for eons my only thoughts would be to break the website
up...that way you can keep all the different aspects which people do/dont like apart hardcore/softcore...i can think of a few photographers that havedone this so it obviously has benefits

Would I be right in thinking playboy does or doesnt have any individual sites for playmates?
you want fans coming back time & time again a single site for 1 playmate like petra verkaik has done would seem to be the way rather than the conglomeration of one site for everything

**lameneshma** · October 29th, 2009, 05:39 AM

Another part of the problem is that Playboy's websites are just very disappointing.

For example:
- you got very few pictures of every girls: I mean, you got like 40 pics max as others websites can offer you between 100 and 200.

- pictures are low resolution: most of the time, you got 860*600 pics as others sites can go up to 8MB pics. I could understand that for old photoshoots but its just unacceptable for the new ones.

**bawjaws** · October 29th, 2009, 06:31 PM

TBh I think the Mag is past saving,but I hope we never lose Hefs' finest creation .. the Bunny costume .. never did the female form look as sexy

Ellie · October 29th, 2009, 06:59 PM

^ Couldn't agree more. I love the original bunny suit!

I made a new thread where you can post any Bunny photos you have, bawjaws ( teehee, funny name). I'm going to update it soon:

http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...Bunny+pictures

It's ashame that PB keep the official patterns for the Bunny suit so secret, although at the same time I'm glad they do. Otherwise, people would just copy it all the time... myself included

I think it would be a cool thing if PB opened it's Chicago club again and brought back the Bunnies. They've opened one new club, why not bring the Bunny back to it's native Chicago?

I'm not sophisticated enough in regards to finances to know if this would be a good decision, though. With some good marketing, maybe it could work...

**frenolle** · October 31st, 2009, 01:50 AM

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and here are my observations:

-The Playboy brand, as it's known to most who remember it from its glory days, has been dead for over 20 years.

-In today's adult entertainment environment, there's no way to revive the "Playboy Magazine" part of that. A print magazine that delivers excerpts from an unfinished Nabokov novel alongside a few photos of naked chicks is a quaint artifact of the past.

-Yeah, the Christie regime wrecked the mag in the 90's when they unsuccessfully tried to make it relevant to what they reckoned was a new audience raised on video-not print. The people who read PB at the time wanted a magazine printed on paper, not a paper facsimile of a porn video, a video game, or a website. Even before photoshop, their photographers of that era could not shoot a girl without using lighting effects that made them all look like orange popsicles.

-In the 2000's they went on to try to compete with the Maxim, FHM, etc. of the time, which was also disastrous. Even more unrealistic photo effects-though now all digital. Have you seen an image during the last 15 years in Playboy, (or Maxim, FHM, etc) where it looked like the model's flesh is composed of real skin? I haven't...

-PB could have created a significant new business by making hi-res downloads of their archives available, along with those of their long time photographers. All their most widely-known images, along with what must be an incredible catalog. I've always wondered why this isn't a no-brainer for them. I guess because it didn't fit with their business model of trying to reach the next generation of customer.

-If you look at the MetArt-type sites, their style of shooting models completely naked in normal settings with natural lighting owes alot to the classic PB style, (which PB didn't originate-just popularized)

**smutwerx** · December 12th, 2009, 09:47 PM

Resurrecting this question for a moment, I can now answer it perfectly. What they lost, and can never regain, is represented in the most poignant fashion by this photo posted by chuckschick in the Jill de Vries thread. A picture is worth a thousand words.

snape · December 13th, 2009, 01:30 AM

The 25-45 sexually active hetrosexual was the market.
Ideally they were office bound:- executive bound:- high earners. Playboy magazine's catchement area was this middle class, sexually repressed, predominantly white target.
Their advertising reflected this. Up market, not sleazy and classified. They were not a Danish hand job monthly, but a serious magazine that compared intellectually with Esquire and even the Weekly magazines pumped out of New York.

Whereas Esquire, for the US market had a few risque pics each issue being of "male interest", Playboy had more. Much more.

Whether this alleged, cool, "rat-pack", white collared, single sexual swingers, section of society actually existed in the US in the late 1950s is debatable, because subsequent analysis has shown that the bulk of the buyers of Playboy - 1950s - 1970s ....were blue collar (industrail and manual workers) -people who didn't wear hats indoors and thought a martini was communistic.

Like us in the UK they bought it for the pictures. Because the intellectual "clout" excused us and distributors from blame and shame.

The original and mythical (imo) target base may have been aspirational, but the upmarket advertising, whilst being lost on a European market, didn't sell more sportscars and "swinger's cruises" than the media which those markets were more attuned.

So, what did Playboy do ?

Look at the mags from the 50s to the 90s. Look at the advertising.

They realised that aspirational truck drivers were more likely to buy chewing gum than a sportscar, a HD TV more than a "swinger's cruise"....and truck drivers and sheet metal workers fantasised about fat women, or women with large breasts and huge hips and no waists.

So Margot Kidder was old hat when compared to slob of the month somewhere in the mid 70s.

Natural women began to disappear, because the advertising agencies had better feedback from the purchasers than Playboy.

Playboy relies upon advertising, so it now realises that it plays to the lowest common dnominator. The people that like big breasts (and it probably took 10 years for implants to be understood by the majority of their "viewers"), huge hips and backsides, and no waist.

That's their market.

And as us in the European zone have had a loyalty to Playboy for their vanguard, we find it hard to differentiate between that loyalty and less commercial driven media.

Playboy TV seems to have production values that are serious. But their marketing of old programmes and first run hits is abysmal. They must have a lot of non-silicone product that is bursting to be marketed...but nothing.

So, thats my argument. Advertsising driven from the start and then advertising influenced later on and as a result losing their integrity.Going for the lowest common denominator rather than reaching a compromise between intellect and appreciation of the feminine.

invasivenorman · December 13th, 2009, 01:40 AM

I think a Playboy-themed collaboway between Lotus & Banksy, p'raps with a good-sized mound of pubic hair on the boot, would save the company outright. No foolin'.

October 29th, 2009, 06:59 PM	#66
Ellie Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: All over the place! Posts: 198 Thanks: 4,558 Thanked 7,874 Times in 181 Posts	^ Couldn't agree more. I love the original bunny suit! I made a new thread where you can post any Bunny photos you have, bawjaws ( teehee, funny name). I'm going to update it soon: http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...Bunny+pictures It's ashame that PB keep the official patterns for the Bunny suit so secret, although at the same time I'm glad they do. Otherwise, people would just copy it all the time... myself included I think it would be a cool thing if PB opened it's Chicago club again and brought back the Bunnies. They've opened one new club, why not bring the Bunny back to it's native Chicago? I'm not sophisticated enough in regards to finances to know if this would be a good decision, though. With some good marketing, maybe it could work... __________________ ll WHO KILLED THE GIRL NEXT DOOR? ll “Outward beauty is not enough; to be attractive a woman must use words, wit, playfulness, sweet-talk, and laughter to transcend the gifts of Nature” Last edited by Ellie; October 29th, 2009 at 07:07 PM..

October 31st, 2009, 01:50 AM	#67
frenolle Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 728 Thanks: 4,598 Thanked 66,806 Times in 727 Posts	I've enjoyed reading this thread, and here are my observations: -The Playboy brand, as it's known to most who remember it from its glory days, has been dead for over 20 years. -In today's adult entertainment environment, there's no way to revive the "Playboy Magazine" part of that. A print magazine that delivers excerpts from an unfinished Nabokov novel alongside a few photos of naked chicks is a quaint artifact of the past. -Yeah, the Christie regime wrecked the mag in the 90's when they unsuccessfully tried to make it relevant to what they reckoned was a new audience raised on video-not print. The people who read PB at the time wanted a magazine printed on paper, not a paper facsimile of a porn video, a video game, or a website. Even before photoshop, their photographers of that era could not shoot a girl without using lighting effects that made them all look like orange popsicles. -In the 2000's they went on to try to compete with the Maxim, FHM, etc. of the time, which was also disastrous. Even more unrealistic photo effects-though now all digital. Have you seen an image during the last 15 years in Playboy, (or Maxim, FHM, etc) where it looked like the model's flesh is composed of real skin? I haven't... -PB could have created a significant new business by making hi-res downloads of their archives available, along with those of their long time photographers. All their most widely-known images, along with what must be an incredible catalog. I've always wondered why this isn't a no-brainer for them. I guess because it didn't fit with their business model of trying to reach the next generation of customer. -If you look at the MetArt-type sites, their style of shooting models completely naked in normal settings with natural lighting owes alot to the classic PB style, (which PB didn't originate-just popularized) Last edited by frenolle; October 31st, 2009 at 01:57 AM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 28th, 2009, 06:37 PM	#61
mr_tibbs Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: mississippi Posts: 54 Thanks: 979 Thanked 484 Times in 52 Posts	PB needs to get creative w/ their product(s) and/or expand into other markets. Hefner pulled in more money in the 90's w/ video sales and Larry Flynt/Hustler increased profits by publishing mainstream magazines in addition to porn titles.

October 29th, 2009, 02:54 AM	#62
Soft Pillow Blocked! Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 124 Thanks: 279 Thanked 460 Times in 119 Posts	Playboy's numerous problems are a reflection of a variety of issues. Hef did create an empire along with a flamboyant lifestyle but as society changes so do people because his dream always demanded a certain adolescent faith which was sustained by ingenuity. I loved Playboy in its glory days but I also knew that many gifted people who worked very hard for the magazine were in fact replaced by ruthless newcomers. The girl next door in Playboy often seemed much like a mannequin as a result of the constant airbrushing. Playboy can be salvaged but its survival in the current economy would still not be stable. I prefer to simply remember this very fine magazine as it was decades ago since its entire contents were a true symbol of what a dedicated individual could accomplish with both skill & vision in publishing.

October 29th, 2009, 03:47 AM	#63
buttsie Porn Archeologist Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: earth Posts: 12,714 Thanks: 92,252 Thanked 241,293 Times in 12,746 Posts	Change the title on the web...the playboy label to me at least online is a dead weight its says to todays generation thats what my dad reads.Keywords & tags can easily do the same job of leading someone searching for playboy from yesteryear to the site The older generation are always going to be the mainstay of the magazine but the idea of offering website access as already mentioned with the magazine is a way of luring in the youngsters Not having been on the playboy site for eons my only thoughts would be to break the website up...that way you can keep all the different aspects which people do/dont like apart hardcore/softcore...i can think of a few photographers that havedone this so it obviously has benefits Would I be right in thinking playboy does or doesnt have any individual sites for playmates? you want fans coming back time & time again a single site for 1 playmate like petra verkaik has done would seem to be the way rather than the conglomeration of one site for everything

October 29th, 2009, 05:39 AM	#64
lameneshma Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 8,926 Thanks: 21,685 Thanked 379,656 Times in 8,879 Posts	Another part of the problem is that Playboy's websites are just very disappointing. For example: - you got very few pictures of every girls: I mean, you got like 40 pics max as others websites can offer you between 100 and 200. - pictures are low resolution: most of the time, you got 860*600 pics as others sites can go up to 8MB pics. I could understand that for old photoshoots but its just unacceptable for the new ones.

October 29th, 2009, 06:31 PM	#65
bawjaws Vintage Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 971 Thanks: 13,806 Thanked 12,957 Times in 957 Posts	TBh I think the Mag is past saving,but I hope we never lose Hefs' finest creation .. the Bunny costume .. never did the female form look as sexy

December 12th, 2009, 09:47 PM	#68
smutwerx Vintage Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 619 Thanks: 2,859 Thanked 21,614 Times in 621 Posts	Resurrecting this question for a moment, I can now answer it perfectly. What they lost, and can never regain, is represented in the most poignant fashion by this photo posted by chuckschick in the Jill de Vries thread. A picture is worth a thousand words.

December 13th, 2009, 01:30 AM	#69
snape Blocked! Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 155 Thanks: 177 Thanked 461 Times in 102 Posts	The 25-45 sexually active hetrosexual was the market. Ideally they were office bound:- executive bound:- high earners. Playboy magazine's catchement area was this middle class, sexually repressed, predominantly white target. Their advertising reflected this. Up market, not sleazy and classified. They were not a Danish hand job monthly, but a serious magazine that compared intellectually with Esquire and even the Weekly magazines pumped out of New York. Whereas Esquire, for the US market had a few risque pics each issue being of "male interest", Playboy had more. Much more. Whether this alleged, cool, "rat-pack", white collared, single sexual swingers, section of society actually existed in the US in the late 1950s is debatable, because subsequent analysis has shown that the bulk of the buyers of Playboy - 1950s - 1970s ....were blue collar (industrail and manual workers) -people who didn't wear hats indoors and thought a martini was communistic. Like us in the UK they bought it for the pictures. Because the intellectual "clout" excused us and distributors from blame and shame. The original and mythical (imo) target base may have been aspirational, but the upmarket advertising, whilst being lost on a European market, didn't sell more sportscars and "swinger's cruises" than the media which those markets were more attuned. So, what did Playboy do ? Look at the mags from the 50s to the 90s. Look at the advertising. They realised that aspirational truck drivers were more likely to buy chewing gum than a sportscar, a HD TV more than a "swinger's cruise"....and truck drivers and sheet metal workers fantasised about fat women, or women with large breasts and huge hips and no waists. So Margot Kidder was old hat when compared to slob of the month somewhere in the mid 70s. Natural women began to disappear, because the advertising agencies had better feedback from the purchasers than Playboy. Playboy relies upon advertising, so it now realises that it plays to the lowest common dnominator. The people that like big breasts (and it probably took 10 years for implants to be understood by the majority of their "viewers"), huge hips and backsides, and no waist. That's their market. And as us in the European zone have had a loyalty to Playboy for their vanguard, we find it hard to differentiate between that loyalty and less commercial driven media. Playboy TV seems to have production values that are serious. But their marketing of old programmes and first run hits is abysmal. They must have a lot of non-silicone product that is bursting to be marketed...but nothing. So, thats my argument. Advertsising driven from the start and then advertising influenced later on and as a result losing their integrity.Going for the lowest common denominator rather than reaching a compromise between intellect and appreciation of the feminine.

December 13th, 2009, 01:40 AM	#70
invasivenorman Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6 Thanks: 183 Thanked 39 Times in 5 Posts	I think a Playboy-themed collaboway between Lotus & Banksy, p'raps with a good-sized mound of pubic hair on the boot, would save the company outright. No foolin'.