Wednesday, October 28, 2015

They Have Articles?

Playboy magazine recently announced that in 2016, they will stop publishing images of naked women in their magazine. The March issue will be the first without nudes since the magazine was created in 1953.

In their announcement, however, they also mentioned that they stopped running nudes online last year.

"Last year we re-launched Playboy.com as a safe-for-work site and discovered something about our readers and our identity: The Bunny transcends nudity. Tens of millions of readers come to our non-nude website and app every month for, yes, photos of beautiful women, but also for articles and videos from our humor, sex and culture, style, nightlife, entertainment and video game sections. We are, and always have been, 'entertainment for men' – with award-winning journalism and fiction to boot is a cultural arbiter of beauty, taste, opinion, humor and style."

Is it a smart move to change the direction of the magazine? Is this a recognition of the changing media landscape

Or are they opening themselves up to greater competition as they now will reside in the same category as all the other male-oriented magazines (and websites)?

Does this sound like a publicity stunt?

12 comments:

Aiah Alkhars said...

It is a smart move, it is much easier to look at boobies online than it is to go to a newsstand and pay for exclusive boobies. cause they aren't that exclusive.
Also snapchat exists, and you can get more booby for your eyes instantly. Playboy is doing the smart thing.

Hannah Amadio said...

I think that this was a dumb move for Playboy. Nudes are the only reason why they retain most of their subscribers. It is easy for people to get their porn on the internet. But why does that mean that Playboy should drop the one thing that sets them apart from other magazines. I think all that this did was take the edge away from their product, and they will start to lose a lot of business.

Thomas Beck said...

It is a smart move to change the direction of Playboy. Though I concede that I don't fully understand the reason for the format change, I do believe it is wrong to exploit women merely for the sake of male entertainment. This is good news. However, Playboy may lose subscribers due to the fact that the format to which they are changing is already so prevalent.

Anonymous said...

This is a smart move. Playboy has not been the main medium to witness naked women like it was decades ago. If people really want to see naked women, the internet has made that virtually free. There is not a big demand for a magazine for the sole purpose of having naked women because it's so easily accessible in the modern day. For anyone who still subscribes to Playboy, it would make sense for them to actually read the articles. Also, if this is their way of 'cleaning themselves up' enough to compete with other entertainment men's magazines, then I think it's an educated move because the most popular men's magazines don't have nude women. This might even lead them to have a higher circulation.
However, Playboy already has it's reputation for having nude women so I have no idea if it can even be changed after it's decades-long history. For them to taken seriously as a strictly entertainment-based magazine, I think they would need to re-brand themselves for anyone to take them seriously.


-Taylor Allen

Anonymous said...

Bridget Cigler
I don't believe Playboy removed nudity from it's magazine and site to create "safe-for-work" material, because the reputation Playboy has created for itself is one of "entertainment-for-men", to be explored privately rather than discussed casually over coffee in the break room. I believe they made this change in response to changing media, but for their own gain, not the consumers. In a generation where any form of nudity or pornography is available to all persons for free in some way, Playboy is no different than the others. So, by shifting their focus closer to the social aspects of their magazines, they still upkeep their former reputation, but also, provide more than the nudity of the internet does. Playboy made a smart financial move. This was not to stop exploitation of women, or for publicity, but rather to keep the business ahead of it's competitors.

Maggie Labutis said...

I think this was a really smart move for Playboy. They are correct in saying that the "bunny symbol" transcends nudity. Playboy is basically a household name, and I don't think their decision to stop publishing nudity will change that. By changing the direction of the magazine and focusing more on humor, sex and culture, style, nightlife and entertainment of course they will be opening themselves up to new and greater competition. However, I don't think there is a better suited brand than Playboy to go up against other male-oriented magazines as they are already the most well known.

Robert Wurtenberg said...

I think that this is a nice movie for playboy, only because they are going out on a limb and trying something different. It is very easy to find nude photos and all I think this does for Playboy is hurt their subscription sales.

Ashley Paskill said...

While Playboy will lose subscribers by removing nude women, it is a good move on their part. They will attract men who might have never read the magazine due to the nudity. These men will now be able to get the articles with subjects they want to know about without having to see nude women.
This also shows a progression in how the world views women. Playboy's nude photos of women was exploiting women for men's entertainment, and I personally am happy to see this end. Women are not on this earth for male entertainment, and Playboy set high standards for how women should look. Playboy now has a chance to prove that their magazine has more depth than just nude photos.

Carolanne Patrylak said...

Personally, I think this act is a publicity stunt. The fact that Playboy is no longer publishing nude photos is huge because that is what they are best known for. I hardly ever hear anything happening with Playboy and now all of a sudden I have been hearing tons of stuff about the magazine. In my opinion, I feel like this is going to backfire on the magazine. I believe the biggest reason that people look at Playboy magazine is for the nude photos. How many popular magazines do you hear about that publish nude photos? Not many. I feel like this will make the magazine just like any other male-interest based magazines. Although this whole stunt has definitely gotten the magazine publicity and tons of chatter, I think the whole idea will eventually end up back firing on them.

Jensen Toussaint said...

I can understand why Playboy may want to change their image, however I think after over 60 years worth of issues, this should have been done much earlier or not at all. At this point, I think even with the change, the name "Playboy" will always be associated with the concept of nude women to most people. However, the change can become a good measure of just how popular the magazine really is. The people working at Playboy will be able to find out what loyalty exists with their consumers. Were people buying Playboy magazines to see nude women or were they buying them because they enjoy the magazine?

Anonymous said...

Adriana Vela

I do like the idea that Playboy is going towards a new and different direction. I think that people will still enjoy reading Playboy magazine since its so popular and has been around for a while. Having naked women can be degrading. I think its a smart move...change is always good.

James Dougherty said...

I think it is very interesting that Playboy is trying something new. With Playboy being such a recognizable and popular company this new direction will help them try to bring in new customers, along with keeping the old ones. This change could help sales or it could hurt sales, the only way they can figure it out is if they actually make the change, which they are. If sales drop and worse comes to worse, they could always go back to their old ways.