Nudity! -- redux.

[Valjean]

Playboy Magazine reversing it's no nudity policy, introduced last year.
Playboy brings back nudity, claiming #NakedIsNormal - BBC News

Good? Bad? A mere business decision?

 

[siti]

I think they're just struggling with the more general problem of print media viability - highly publicized changes of editorial policy are probably cheaper than other forms of advertising.

 

[Milton Platt]

Playboy Magazine reversing it's no nudity policy, introduced last year.
Playboy brings back nudity, claiming #NakedIsNormal - BBC News

Good? Bad? A mere business decision?

Always a business decision....and good or bad is in they eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't care one way or the other.

 

[McBell]

Playboy Magazine reversing it's no nudity policy, introduced last year.
Playboy brings back nudity, claiming #NakedIsNormal - BBC News

Good? Bad? A mere business decision?

I suspect it is a decision based on their bottom line.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect it is a decision based on their bottom line.

The bottom tan lines, you mean?

 

[McBell]

The bottom tan lines, you mean?

There shouldn't be any tan lines.
At all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Playboy Magazine reversing it's no nudity policy, introduced last year.
Playboy brings back nudity, claiming #NakedIsNormal - BBC News

Good? Bad? A mere business decision?

Fanfruballingtastic!

 

[Sunstone]

I'm glad to see Playboy is making the world safe for plastic looking, photoshopped nudity again.

 

[Father Heathen]

Playboy Magazine reversing it's no nudity policy, introduced last year.
Playboy brings back nudity, claiming #NakedIsNormal - BBC News

Good? Bad? A mere business decision?

A waste of trees either way.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

I think they're just struggling with the more general problem of print media viability - highly publicized changes of editorial policy are probably cheaper than other forms of advertising.

Nothing wrong with nudity.

 

[siti]

For the record - I have no problem with pictures of nude trees...but I don't think the earlier decision not publish nude pictures or the later decision to start publishing them again has anything to do with morality, or public taste, but everything to do with publicity...apparently Playboy makes more from sales of merchandise with the bunny logo on it than it does from sales of the magazine...

 

[Skwim]

Of course I haven't looked at a Playboy magazine in twenty years---wasn't even aware they had nixed the nudity.


.

 

[columbus]

Of course I haven't looked at a Playboy magazine in twenty years---wasn't even aware they had nixed the nudity.


.

I am a little surprised that Playboy magazine isn't road kill by the side of the information highway already. What do they offer that isn't available faster and free on the internet? I'm not just talking about hot pics, but the edgy articles and upscale products. What are they gonna do when the geezer demographic kicks the bucket?
Tom

 

[Valjean]

I thought most people subscribed for the articles.

 

[suncowiam]

Playboy is just a gateway porn to more hardcore porn.

 

[siti]

I have no objection to pictures of nude gateways either...

 

[Sunstone]

Playboy is just a gateway porn to more hardcore porn.

It's true! I read a Playboy once and the very next thing you knew, I had come down with an insatiable lust for photos of Balinese donkey action! Curse you, Hugh Hefner!

 

[siti]

Or nude donkeys...

 

[Skwim]

I am a little surprised that Playboy magazine isn't road kill by the side of the information highway already. What do they offer that isn't available faster and free on the internet? I'm not just talking about hot pics, but the edgy articles and upscale products. What are they gonna do when the geezer demographic kicks the bucket?
Tom

They're having the same problem just about all magazines are having: lack of sales. I happened to renew my subscription to Discover magazine last year after letting it lapse about ten years ago. WOW! the advertisements are like watching the info channel. No more ads for cars, or other big name national products, but full page ads for "NASA Manned Space Missions Commemorative Pin Collection," "Advanced Hearing Aid. for less than $300, " 4 Carat DiamondAura rings for only $79 + S&P," "Desktop 1936 Mercedes-Benz Roadster: Your choice of Pearl White or Ruby Red finish: $99 +S&P," "Genuine U.S. Mint $2 Lincoln Monument Bill $24.95--send no money now; just mail the attached coupon."


.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For the record - I have no problem with pictures of nude trees...but I don't think the earlier decision not publish nude pictures or the later decision to start publishing them again has anything to do with morality, or public taste, but everything to do with publicity...apparently Playboy makes more from sales of merchandise with the bunny logo on it than it does from sales of the magazine...

You may be onto something. Physical print will probably never fully go away, but by 2050 I'll be surprised if we aren't down to small batch/custom prints for physical copies of books, magazines, and probably even newspapers. It's dying, and this may be an attempt for Playboy to somehow gain some shred of relevancy beyond bunny merchandise sales.

Of course I haven't looked at a Playboy magazine in twenty years---wasn't even aware they had nixed the nudity.


.

They few I have seen over the last decade or so were like maybe a couple nude pics and lots of crudely drawn cartoon porn, and enough articles that you actually can read them for the articles (I even happen to have copy of some edition that was cited in a book I had to read for one of my classes. The overall quality of this article though was very alarmist and worse than Rolling Stones when they venture outside of music).