I’m reminded of how people laughed at the Ipad when it was announced - what does it do I can’t do already?! It sounds like a sanitary product! Dumb old Apple.
That argument could have been made against internet porn. It seems scrambled cable porn was not in fact what people wanted :)
No, but it was free. And the fee option was good enough.
Now porn is everywhere on the Internet for free.
The new non-nude Playboy.
Maybe slightly NSFW depending on your work environment: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/04/465557254/playboy-begins-anew-as-a-never-nude-magazine
Francofile may be the best reason to not read the magazine. James is the Hewie Lewis of the 10s.
It’ll be really interesting to see what happens to their sub numbers.
I doubt that removing nudes is removing the barrier to new subscribers. I also think some subscribers will miss the nudes and perhaps value the magazine less.
James Franco conducting interviews is not a draw for me. Is he still popular? He seems more like a caricature at this point.
You might be surprised. If I recall correctly from previously in the thread, the whole move is based on data collected once their website went non-nude and the resulting avalanche of new and more regular hits.
Did they charge for access to the website?
You’re right, I may be surprised. And even with a 800,000 subscriber base, that’s pretty healthy for a magazine these days.
People still subscribe to magazines?
I don’t doubt their data, but I sure don’t understand it. Proxies don’t care if Playboy isn’t showing nudes anymore, it will always be blacklisted.
I know, it’s almost as if people are exercising individual judgment about which sites they visit. Crazy, right?
It’s weird to me that people would be uncomfortable enough with bare nipples and pubes not to subscribe/visit the site but a-okay with naked poses that carefully conceal those couple of key areas and other not-completely-nude-but-extremely-suggestive images that are still apparently all over the new Playboy. Like, there’s a difference but it’s a couple of degrees at most.
I’m not familiar with these types of magazines, but is there any advantage to distribution with this move? Can they now display it in newstands/etc. in a more prominent place? Can they now have copies for sale at the local airport / family friendly venue / church? Are people of a younger age now legally allowed to purchase it?
Pretty much yes to all of those. Content-wise, I think it it pretty much competing with the likes of FHM and Maxim now (though technically the written content always was). So wherever you are used to seeing those titles, now it will be OK for Playboy to be there too.
Back to nudes!
[quote]
“I’ll be the first to admit the way in which the magazine portrayed nudity was dated, but removing it entirely was a mistake,” Cooper Hefner tweeted Monday. “Nudity was never the problem, because nudity isn’t a problem. Today, we’re taking our identity back and rediscovering who we are.”
The new issue displays breasts and butts, but not full frontal nudity that had typified the earlier incarnation before the switch with the March issue a full year earlier. While the “no nudes” permitted greater ability to display the magazine on newsstands, the rise in newsstand sales apparently did not offset the plunge in subscription sales.[/quote]