[Grizzly]

Playboy says it will drop their nudes, claiming that they are pointless in a society where porn is just one click away - Furthermore, their redesign of their website to be SFW ensured that it's unique visitor numbers quadrupled - they hope the same will be true for their magazine, which has been dwindling in sales for a long time now.

There's also a lot of interesting history about Playboy in there.

[AtomicClucker]

Guess it really is about the articles, though to be honest, it's got a pretty big online pr0n empire.

They'd be kinda stupid to cull that aspect.

As for the magazine? Meh.

[headdie]

It's a drop in the ocean in the listings of nudity, iirc Playboy has always been the lads mag with a tongue in cheek refined veneer, when Playboy started it was one of the few naked/pornographic publications out there but now we live in a society where thinly veiled nudity and strategic eroticism is part of routine advertising in sectors like gaming and fashion meaning there is nothing special about it, so if Playboy wants to stand out they actually need to move away from that ironically enough.

[Black Wolf]

I kind of disagree. There's already a tonne of competitors in the shrinking market space for mens magazines, most of which have scantily clad women, some articles, reviews etc. Playboy always had the best articles and naked women. Take away the naked women, and they have one less point of differentiation. But hey, I'm not in their game - if they think it'll work, good luck to them.

[Scotty]

When they take away the naked women, they can also be sold to people below 18, and can be taken off the top shelf that's normally deliberately hidden behind other magazines.

This increases their audience by quite a bit simply by suddenly no longer having to ask someone else to get them.

[Black Wolf]

But it opens them up to competition without that titillation factor that makes people under 18 want to buy them in the first place. And besides, are those really the consumers they're trying to reach? Under 18s can't buy booze, which the article mentions as a key advertiser, and they don't have the kind of disposable income that avertisers want. There's a reason "Males 18-35" has been a key demographic for decades.

Like I said, I'm not in publishing. But I feel like this is bad for their brand long term. Like they say in the article, the magazine is advertising for their brand, not a profit making entity in and of itself. Take away the nudes, and that brand loses what made it significant in the first place.

[Grizzly]

Guess it really is about the articles, though to be honest, it's got a pretty big online pr0n empire.

They'd be kinda stupid to cull that aspect.

Well, nothing is preventing them from diving headfirst into the topics of birth control and start selling condoms (if they aren't already), as an example.

[The E]

Guess it really is about the articles, though to be honest, it's got a pretty big online pr0n empire.

They'd be kinda stupid to cull that aspect.

As for the magazine? Meh.

Point of interest: After the Playboy site got a makeover to be safe for work, its traffic quadrupled.

[Mika]

I don't even consider Facebook work safe, so it boggles the mind Playboy could possibly be!

Yes, some of my colleagues use Facebook during work time, but in R&D world, I personally consider that a symptom of not having challenging enough work.

Then again, the boys at mechanics department plastered their office walls with centerfold nudes (of women if somebody wondered), which proved to be slightly distracting on the occasions you had to go there to complain something. Clever strategy. The difference between that and browsing Playboy online is that the plastering is done once, while online Playboy is likely done all the time.