|
|
Post by philobeddoe on Feb 15, 2016 10:59:47 GMT -5
I have had a subscription to Playboy since I was a freshman in college, that makes it 23 years and counting. First it was for the boobs, later it was for the articles...and the boobs. About four months ago Playboy announced that the February 2016 issue would be the last with nudity, that since magazine sales were down and apparently millennials get their boobs free from the Internet, that the format was past its sell by date. So, in an attempt to keep the magazine afloat and onto more newsstands, they have removed the nudity. Well, the March 2016 issue just reached my mailbox and...they changed everything, I mean everything, about Playboy. They essentially took the Hugh Hefners' essence completely out of it. I thought that they would try to compete with Esquire and GQ, but no, it's more like a low rent New Yorker that is aimed squarely at hipster millennials, with a little bit of no so risqué pics of women. I'm not bashing hipsters, it's just that this is now the new target audience that Playboy is apparently going after, the only problem with this new format is that millennials by a large do not buy paper magazines, at least not in the quantities that previous generations do, they tend to get their information, entertainment etc. largely off of the Internet. I always enjoyed the point of view of Playboy, it was aimed at men who admired the voluptuous shape of the female form and made no apologies for it; without being lascivious, like Penthouse or Hustler. If this new format sticks, and this issue is truly a taste of what the magazine has become, I will not be renewing my subscription, I really did not mind that they were taking out the nudity, what really bothers me is the they took out the Hef!
|
|
|
|
Post by Baboo on Feb 15, 2016 11:59:08 GMT -5
I have had a subscription to Playboy since I was a freshman in college, that makes it 23 years and counting. First it was for the boobs, later it was for the articles...and the boobs. About four months ago Playboy announced that the February 2016 issue would be the last with nudity, that since magazine sales were down and apparently millennials get their boobs free from the Internet, that the format was past its sell by date. So, in an attempt to keep the magazine afloat and onto more newsstands, they have removed the nudity. Well, the March 2016 issue just reached my mailbox and...they changed everything, I mean everything, about Playboy. They essentially took the Hugh Hefners' essence completely out of it. I thought that they would try to compete with Esquire and GQ, but no, it's more like a low rent New Yorker that is aimed squarely at hipster millennials, with a little bit of no so risqué pics of women. I'm not bashing hipsters, it's just that this is now the new target audience that Playboy is apparently going after, the only problem with this new format is that millennials by a large do not buy paper magazines, at least not in the quantities that previous generations do, they tend to get their information, entertainment etc. largely off of the Internet. I always enjoyed the point of view of Playboy, it was aimed at men who admired the voluptuous shape of the female form and made no apologies for it; without being lascivious, like Penthouse or Hustler. If this new format sticks, and this issue is truly a taste of what the magazine has become, I will not be renewing my subscription, I really did not mind that they were taking out the nudity, what really bothers me is the they took out the Hef! It is quite likely that you have expressed what many would also, and I would expect that, if the new Playboy editorial staff allows, reader comments will write of their own similar disappointment, while others (shills among them, perhaps) will extol the new incarnation. |
|
Clinthulhu
New Member
The Scoundrel
Posts: 38 
Location:
|
Post by Clinthulhu on Feb 15, 2016 13:08:29 GMT -5
Having worked in magazine publishing for a number of years as a pre-press editor I would be willing to guess that over the next several months or even a year you will see the magazine transition several more times. They will launch something like this right out of the gate and do a complete 180 from what you are used to seeing as a long time reader in the hopes that it will attract a "new" crowd of people. Unfortunately in doing so they will get a knee jerk reaction from long time subscribers and probably alienate many of them in the process. My advice would be to hang in there for a few months and see how it goes. I've worked with many publishers that try to reinvent the wheel and just end up with a flat tire. You might see some of the old style mix with the new and create a better product. I think the biggest hurdle for a publication like Playboy is going to be breaking the stigma that it's a soft-porn magazine to the general public. This could be a re-birth or a death rattle it's hard to say.
|
|
ladybriarpipes
Junior Member
Which way is up?
Posts: 167 
First Name: Scottie
Favorite Tobacco: McCranie's 1983 Red Ribbon/Flake
Location:
|
Post by ladybriarpipes on Feb 15, 2016 13:17:38 GMT -5
But it IS soft porn....and there's not a damned thing wrong with that! I really liked the way the magazine was. There was just enough content to offset all the awesome boobieness of it all. That made it a really good read...even for a girl. I really think Hef messed up here. My husband thinks it's a HUGE HUGE mistake that won't last.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Feb 15, 2016 13:31:17 GMT -5
It's funny, I had a HS professor whose family, though not wealthy, was very comfortable. They were WASPy and would probably qualify as upper middle class. Playboy was a fixture on their coffee table while he was growing up.
Playboy did what it did rather well. I never considered them to be "smutty", but I guess everyone's sensibilities are different. I'm not sure how moving away from a few melons scattered among the pages is going to help them.
|
|
Clinthulhu
New Member
The Scoundrel
Posts: 38
Location:
|
Post by Clinthulhu on Feb 15, 2016 13:36:23 GMT -5
But it IS soft porn....and there's not a damned thing wrong with that! I really liked the way the magazine was. There was just enough content to offset all the awesome boobieness of it all. That made it a really good read...even for a girl. I really think Hef messed up here. My husband thinks it's a HUGE HUGE mistake that won't last. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it is bad... Also if I remember correctly (I could be wrong) I believe Hef's daughter is now running the show I don't know how much input HH has anymore or if he has totally let her take the wheel. If so I wonder how much of this is her input. |
|
ladybriarpipes
Junior Member
Which way is up?
Posts: 167
First Name: Scottie
Favorite Tobacco: McCranie's 1983 Red Ribbon/Flake
Location:
|
Post by ladybriarpipes on Feb 15, 2016 13:46:33 GMT -5
If she is running the show someone needs to remind her that you don't mess with 40 odd years of success. I get maybe shifting the focus of the content or maybe cutting back on the boobies. But, to take them out completely AND shift the focus of the content is a really really dumb move. They are basically saying "screw you" to their older demographic......the subscribers who got Playboy to where they are today.
|
|
Clinthulhu
New Member
The Scoundrel
Posts: 38
Location:
|
Post by Clinthulhu on Feb 15, 2016 14:36:28 GMT -5
That and the fact that they are removing the one thing that separates them from any other "Mens" interest magazine like GQ or Maxim... I think the idea has always been that boobies are in there with good articles and interviews. Honestly I think some of the most interesting interviews I've read in recent years have been from Playboy... But like you said to completely overhaul it and drive away the current reader base isn't a good idea. I've seen it happen to a lot of publications and they ether get wise and go back to the things that made them successful or they sink. I would hate to see a classic like Playboy go under but if they abandon their following and everything that makes them unique they aren't going to be long for this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by stvalentine on Feb 15, 2016 14:45:39 GMT -5
Like so many printed magazines are. Sooner or later the "magazine" as we know it will be gone and a thing of the past no matter what content they might sell. Ads are increasingly expensive and only the big players can afford them. But without ads all magazines are doomed. So boobs or no boobs, this is just the last rearing of something that will soon be history.
|
|
psycholime
New Member
Posts: 99
First Name: Sean
Favorite Pipe: Stanwell #2 oval bowl
Favorite Tobacco: Three Noggins
Location:
|
Post by psycholime on Feb 15, 2016 15:08:05 GMT -5
At one time the writing was good enough to sustain the magazine . Playboy showed us what to drink , drive ,smoke , wear and how to decorate our homes . Playboy was a lifestyle not just a nudie magazine like Hustler . Writers like Joseph Heller ,Ian Fleming ,Norman Mailer , Ray Bradbury ,Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S Thompson and so many more graced the pages every month . IT is hard not to like a guy who wears pajamas to work and lives a lifestyle beyond most men's dreams . I will miss Hef and the Ta Ta's .
|
|
yazamitaz
New Member
Posts: 28
First Name: Dan
Location:
|
Post by yazamitaz on Feb 15, 2016 15:36:12 GMT -5
At one time the writing was good enough to sustain the magazine . Playboy showed us what to drink , drive ,smoke , wear and how to decorate our homes . Playboy was a lifestyle not just a nudie magazine like Hustler. This right here is why I started my subscription in 1994. As the great cigar and whiskey articles, men's fashion advice, and other lifestyle parts started falling off, so did my interest. I stopped my subscription sometime around 2010 and don't think I have missed much. |
|
|
|
Post by Baboo on Feb 15, 2016 17:52:01 GMT -5
Playboy may be squandering the best opportunity they ever had to be better than ever... with high class informative articles and trend-setting breast exposures that can teach the present generation a thing or two about how one can appreciate a Dionysian perspective with class and grace, while also exercising an intellectually rich Apollonian mindset. An overindulgence in either makes Jack a dull boy, but a good balance of each benefits both Jack AND Jill, and society, and elevates to a higher plane...
|
|
|
|
Post by papipeguy on Feb 15, 2016 18:48:38 GMT -5
Playboy's articles got me through a psychology course that required we submit magazine articles every month, Plus the cartoons were first rate. I have not read it in many years but I always thought that it was a class magazine at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by HunterTRW on Feb 16, 2016 15:34:21 GMT -5
"...it's more like a low rent New Yorker that is aimed squarely at hipster millennials..." Here's an image of the February 2016 Centerfold model:  |
|
|
|
Post by JimInks on Feb 17, 2016 17:03:14 GMT -5
And the dirty so-and  took out the cartoons, too! Some of my fellow cartoonists just lost their biggest account. |
|
|
|
Post by simnettpratt on Feb 17, 2016 21:13:53 GMT -5
Scottie said 'awesome boobieness'. The ten year old in me thought that was pretty damn funny.
A friend's grandad liked me and gave me something like twelve years worth of Playboys. I found that they really did have some good articles. And that no centerfold has ever been completely naked. That is, she's always wearing socks, or a hat, or some string, or something.
Old buddy Tim was coming over once to play chess and computer games, so I spent the time to remove every single centerfold and put them on the walls. He made me take them down because he couldn't concentrate. It was pretty funny. Took about two hours to put all of those up.
|
|
|
|
Post by philobeddoe on Feb 17, 2016 21:49:59 GMT -5
You posted 12 years worth of centerfolds....that's 288 boobs, how could any man concentrate, well played sir!
|
|
|
|
Post by simnettpratt on Feb 17, 2016 22:48:29 GMT -5
Yeah, it was pretty funny to see his reaction. He'd try to make a move, then look around all googly eyed, and eventually made me take them down. Jerk. I liked 'em! 288 awesome boobienesses! Why would I EVER take them down?
|
|
|
|
Post by HunterTRW on Feb 18, 2016 10:47:53 GMT -5
"And the dirty so-and took out the cartoons, too! Some of my fellow cartoonists just lost their biggest account."  |
|
ladybriarpipes
Junior Member
Which way is up?
Posts: 167
First Name: Scottie
Favorite Tobacco: McCranie's 1983 Red Ribbon/Flake
Location:
|
Post by ladybriarpipes on Feb 18, 2016 11:52:57 GMT -5
Scottie said 'awesome boobieness'. The ten year old in me thought that was pretty damn funny. I'm going to trademark that and then get some merch to sell to the 10 year old in all of you! |
|
b4man
New Member
Posts: 50
Location:
|
Post by b4man on Feb 18, 2016 13:13:52 GMT -5
Hustler had the funniest cartoons.
I had a free Playboy subscription for a couple years when I was around 13. My mom had two of those stamps where you select the two free magazines you want and mail it back in with the proper stamps attached. I chose Motortrend and Playboy, the Playboy being a bit of a joke. My mom let me get it. Pretty cool.
I'd seen worse at my cousins', magazine-wise, by that point, so it wasn't all that shocking or anything too special. But none of those other magazines showed me how to wire and setup a high-fidelity receiver and speakers.
|
|
ckr
New Member
Posts: 9
Location:
|
Post by ckr on Feb 18, 2016 14:55:09 GMT -5
We all mourn the loss of a good P&T magazine but face it Playboy isn't competing well against today's technology. Maybe this new generation running the show deserves more credit than we are giving them. Before changing the format of America's iconic zine they did a dry hump ... err run on the website. After dropping nudity the demographics of the audience changed to a younger crowd with a fourfold increase in unique users. Maybe they're on to something more relevant today than cleavage. This reminds me of another similar event. I'm sure you all remember the great disappointment the night when Scheherazade ran out of stories. She didn't lose her head so I'll keep mine and see how it goes.
I won't miss the staples but I'll sure miss the centerfolds. Damn! What could be more relevant than cleavage?
|
|
sablebrush52
Full Member
Posts: 903
Favorite Pipe: Barling
Favorite Tobacco: whatever is in it
Location:
|
Post by sablebrush52 on Feb 18, 2016 23:00:00 GMT -5
I'm not surprised that they are foundering and trying to reinvent. In a way, they're the victim of their own effectiveness. They made eroticism mainstream without becoming sleazy and linked it to style and grace in living. Then eroticism kept being pushed until it went beyond sleazy and Playboy began to be viewed as old fashioned, like granny pants vs boy shorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by HunterTRW on Feb 20, 2016 22:18:00 GMT -5
"...awesome boobiness...":  |
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Feb 20, 2016 22:42:16 GMT -5
lol
|
|
tastail
New Member
Posts: 46
First Name: Colin
Location:
|
Post by tastail on Feb 21, 2016 13:12:37 GMT -5
Boobiness. I like it.
Shame about playboy. Messing with what works seems to be a bad habit some publications have. Hope it works for them but I think they will be in for a rude awakening.
|
|
|
|
Post by simnettpratt on Feb 24, 2016 2:17:22 GMT -5
Scottie, when you're rich from all the boobieness merchandise you sell, will you still hang out with us?
|
|
ladybriarpipes
Junior Member
Which way is up?
Posts: 167
First Name: Scottie
Favorite Tobacco: McCranie's 1983 Red Ribbon/Flake
Location:
|
Post by ladybriarpipes on Feb 24, 2016 20:53:52 GMT -5
Scottie, when you're rich from all the boobieness merchandise you sell, will you still hang out with us? Of course I will!!!!!!! I'm not one to forget the people who get me where I'm going |
|
|
|
Post by HunterTRW on Feb 25, 2016 19:19:28 GMT -5
"...awesome boobiness..." (Old Playboy Format):  |
|
tastail
New Member
Posts: 46
First Name: Colin
Location:
|
Post by tastail on Feb 26, 2016 7:40:11 GMT -5
That's some boobiness for sure.
|
|
took out the cartoons, too! Some of my fellow cartoonists just lost their biggest account. 
