How would you save Playboy?

[Ellie]

^^ Fantastic post, cqnew1648. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. It's just trying to think how PB could rise up again against the smutty backdrop that is the internet. My opinion is, like you're saying, by using OUTSTANDINGLY BEAUTIFUL models, so that people go, " Okay, I can look at this ugly amature porn chick with freaky surgery... or I can look at that amazingly, naturally gorgeous woman in Playboy naked, looking happy and sexy."

What's interesting about this thread is reading everyone's opinions about how PB could survive with a new stategy. The current one is clearly not working! lol! Maybe it's doomed, but I don't think it has to be.

Lol @ tamsmith. I would make one and take pictures, but the damn Bunny costume pattern is apparently top secret, damn them! Lol!

[scoundrel]

I was never a huge PB afficionado: M*yf**r was more my line, but there are similarities in the way each of the two titles gradually lost their way. Both of them had a unique and distinctive identity, and today PB is missing its vital spark and M*yf**r is just like any other title in the Raymond stable, far more explicit and far less erotic (IMHO) than when it was independent. I remember the Raymond takeover of M*yf**r being likened to seeing a vintage Bugatti being used for ram-raiding, a bit unkind because the rot didn't all set in at once, but the Raymond takeover was a milestone of major change. Like M*yf**r, I suspect that the problem at PB is editorial. The people responsible for the editorial decisions have no connection with what their magazine was once really about: they are killing their market while fondly imagining that they are savvy cynics, maximising sales and profits.

I would say that PB would benefit from a clean sweep at boardroom level and the appointment of editorial staff who know something about the history of their magazine and have a sense of future and purpose beyond turning a quick buck.

[blondifan]

What scoundel just said!.
Then get Sir Richard Branson involved, at a boardroom level.
Imagine the prestige of having a Ploybay credit card and the standard of the hostesses on the airline.

[John C. Holmes]

I mentioned Branson because he was rumoured to be very interested in buying the Bunny off of Hef and because he has a tendency to LIVE his investments to the fullest. Rich would be a far better choice than Christy, Kimberly, Hef's 19 year old son or Larry Flynt, (who has also expressed interest in buying Hef out.) Faceless shareholders can't save this mess either so a Branson or Mark Cuban type would be the empire's best chance of returning to relevance without going totally into porn.

[doyle]

I remember, years ago, P'boy had an article with photos they'd decided not to run at the time they were taken. Girls bursting out laughing (breaking character), sticking out their tongues at the camera, etc.
It was a hell of a lot more interesting than the usual weirdly lifeless, doctored photos of women who looked like they glowed in the dark - which was, all too apparently, Hef's feminine ideal.
Perhaps they could ease up on the artificiality and do this again. After all, Guccione's Punterhouse was the first to light women so their body hair showed - and not just "down there".

[blondifan]

Sorry John. I missed your post.
(I'll wager not many have stated that about big John)

While I've been lurking around this thread for a while, the thought of Rich at the helm occured to me more than once, partly because of the delicious irony involved, due to his early "geekiness' factor.
Has he really expressed an interest? They should give the man a discount!

[Bynx]

When Playboy started, it was the creation of a guy like any of us. Living a lifestyle most of us only dreamed about. The Centerfold was just the icing on the cake. The magazine was to show what men needed to be "playboys". Architectural designs for housing, the latest electrical gyzmos and gadgets, the ultimate in sound and video systems, the best restaurants, the shiekest autos and the most beautiful "women" -- real women, not silicone bobble heads, were the bill of fare. If Playboy was like that magazine today it would be considered a dinosaur frozen in time. It wouldnt be appealing to those that fit its demographics. If it returned to its original format, it would be interesting to me, allowing me to relive my young years with dreams to be fulfilled. But like Hef, Im older now with Centerfolds that could be my granddaughters. They are still as appealing (minus the tattoos, piercings and silicone) as they were in the 60s, but the idea of oggling them is silly now. As silly as the idea of Hef being with those bimbos who live with him. The magazine was an expression of one man's concept of what life could be lived like. And while we dreamed it, Hef lived it. Well his time is winding down now and the pazzaz is gone. Ive got every issue of Playboy since 1958 when I used to steal it each month from the local drug store because I was too young, poor and embarassed to buy it over the counter. Does anyone remember when you could get a lifetime subscription for $150. And your first issue would be delivered by a centerfold. Now how great was that? Things have sure changed since those days and the magazine had to change along with it. I dont feel it ever got sleazy like Penthouse which was its closest rival. Hustler is in a category all its own. Playboy is Hef. When Hef is gone Playboy will go with him. I cant see anyone else in silk pyjamas and having a round rotating bed that could ever take his place. Thanks for this thread, on the best bloody site on the Internet.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by Ellie

Could people please stop posting just to say " it's pointless"? All opinions are valid, of course, and I'm in no place to censor, but this is just supposed to be for fun and for PB fans to let their imaginations go.

I actually agree that the magazine doesn't have a good future as it is,
Sorry to be a nazi about this! I just don't want this thread to turn into a total bummer! Lol!

xx

So you really want us to post what you want to hear - not our genuine opinions ?

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Ellie

Also, as someone who's probably of your nephews generation, I can say I've noticed a huge number of my peers are going back to buying " hard copies" of things, such as CDs, books, magazines, etc.

I think my generation is quickly realising that, for example, having 3000 songs saved on you comp isn't the same as owning 30 CDs. Owning the 30 CDs might be more of a hassle, but it feels better. Plus, we're all aware that technology cannot keep up with the current growth of the internet and that it's likely to breakdown in 10 or so years... or so my friends at the Imperial Collage of London tell me

I suspect that has more to do with the "You haven't actually bought this, just rented it until we feel like yanking it or go out of business" over-the-top "copy protection" on downloadable books, music, etc. Its a least a little bit harder to take away someone's hard copy than it is to remotely delete their digital copy.

(A recent example is because of a licensing issue Amazon not too long ago deleted from the Kindles of their clients all the copies of 1984 they had "bought". And yes, the irony was not lost on me and many, many others.)

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

So you really want us to post what you want to hear - not our genuine opinions ?

I know fleeters, that as a man who loves his dog and his cat, if you really feel you need to tell Ellie something you know she will not want to hear, you will break it to her as kindly and gently as you can. Would you ever do anything else?