Sign of the times: No more nudes in Playboy magazine

[jtbell]

In March, Playboy magazine will roll out a new design which lacks the fully-nude photos that have been a signature feature since its beginning in 1953. Hef himself agreed to the change.

Nudes Are Old News at Playboy (New York Times)

 

[Borg]

I can't see that happening.

 

[wolram]

Hugh hefner wants shooting, i am not a dirty old man wearing a mackintosh i am an appreciator of art, come to think of it i hardly ever buy this type of magazine so why should i worry

 

[edward]

All of the nudes are now on cable television.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe the rationale is that
a] no way it can compete with what you can find on the Interwebz, and
b] removing the element of nudity opens up a huge market, here (it can be put on newsstands), but more importantly, abroad. Many countries forbid magazine nudity outright. Playboy simply cannot be distributed there with nudity. This change will allow it into many countries around the world who could not otherwise sell it.

 

[Hornbein]

I believe the rationale is that
a] no way it can compete with what you can find on the Interwebz, and
b] removing the element of nudity opens up a huge market, here (it can be put on newsstands), but more importantly, abroad. Many countries forbid magazine nudity outright. Playboy simply cannot be distributed there with nudity. This change will allow it into many countries around the world who could not otherwise sell it.

Right. Playboy gets its money via licensing the logo, largely in China. The magazine just hangs around to lend the logo credibility.

 

[gfd43tg]

Right. Playboy gets its money via licensing the logo, largely in China. The magazine just hangs around to lend the logo credibility.

Interesting. When I was in China I noticed a lot of women wear shoes, shirts, purses, etc. with the Playboy logo on it. I wasn't sure if Playboy went into the clothing industry, but I guess this explains it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I believe the rationale is that
a] no way it can compete with what you can find on the Interwebz, and
b] removing the element of nudity opens up a huge market, here (it can be put on newsstands), but more importantly, abroad. Many countries forbid magazine nudity outright. Playboy simply cannot be distributed there with nudity. This change will allow it into many countries around the world who could not otherwise sell it.

But then by doing this, Playboy will be competing with the likes of Maxim and other similar magazines of that ilk both in newsstands and in foreign markets. But given that Playboy is still primarily associated with open expression of sexuality in a way that Maxim and other magazines don't quite embrace, it does make me wonder about the future of the magazine. The Playboy corporation itself may survive through the licensing of its logo and through the Playboy channel and online web businesses, however.

At any rate, I consider Playboy itself to be largely obsolete as a magazine. The whole idea of Playboy was to embrace the sexual revolution, which has largely run its course in society. With the widespread availability of porn online, and where swinging, open relationships, friends-with-benefits arrangements, and casual hookups all considered options for the current generation (if not fully mainstream), is there really even a reason for Playboy to exist?

 

[D.Gray3]

I bet there is also an economics standpoint of not having to pay celebrities to show their "talent." I don't know anyone who buys nudie magazines when you can stream it for free, so merch income is pretty much carrying the burden, I imagine.

 

[JorisL]

Fun story, a friend of mine sometimes winds up in the newspaper shop after a night out. (No really, a friend. No shop on my way home)
Depending on his level of intoxication he takes home a nudie magazine. So if the shops would stay open until 2-3 am they'd see a rise in sales I would bet.