Playboy is Dead

[Tequila Zaire]

Lets be honest...that magazine has lost it's edge and influence on a variety of levels. While it tries to cash in on it's glory days the last few years have shows how out of date it really is. The girls look too like clones at this point and lack that vibe they had even in the 90's...does anyone remember Playmates of the Year anymore? The Playboy Look is undeniable in it's influence and effect on pop culture but I can take out issues from the last 6 years and you'd swear it's the the SAME issue...it has not grown at all. It was great to see the revival of a bit back...but it needs to gorw and change cause all the girls people want to see nude...are NOT in Playboy anymore. Maxim and the clones it leads really stole the show with their ability to get the hottest women on the planet to pretty much cock tease the world...it's nice...but ultimately kind of annoying that they always appear clothed.

Plus once you get people like Avril and Hilary Duff on covers it goes into creepy PR pandering that's so see through the fun of it dies.

Anyone think this will change? Or are mags like Maxim safety nets where the high profile hotties of the day can play the sultry sex kitten and not lose cache's as "real" entertainers for posing nude? Cause to be honest the celebs Playboy gets these days seem to be ones in needs of a career boost...like tha La Femme Nikita chick...damned show has been off the air and her popularity long dead so NOW she decides to do playboy? Sad.

[ForrestBlack]

They own a lot of current properties that they don't like to cop to though, so they may not be as dead as you think. Sure, the swinging lifestyle they celebrated is nostalgia at this point, but I wouldn't say they are down for the count.

[Tequila Zaire]

They own a lot of current properties that they don't like to cop to though, so they may not be as dead as you think. Sure, the swinging lifestyle they celebrated is nostalgia at this point, but I wouldn't say they are down for the count.

True enough, I wouldn't say they are dead as a company but their core image seems to be in need of reinvention and rebirth.

[ForrestBlack]

True enough, I wouldn't say they are dead as a company but their core image seems to be in need of reinvention and rebirth.

Maybe it's just time for someone else.

[ForrestBlack]

But, honestly, Amelia and I have done a number of interviews with the Playboy XFM Radio girls, and they have always been nice to us. Also, Amelia and I were able to give a lot of cool folks exposure when we were writing and shooting for Playboy as well.

[Tequila Zaire]

But, honestly, Amelia and I have done a number of interviews with the Playboy XFM Radio girls, and they have always been nice to us. Also, Amelia and I were able to give a lot of cool folks exposure when we were writing and shooting for Playboy as well.

That's kinda the thing...it seems to fight itself. Playboy's TV , Radio, Video and website divisions seem to do the more interesting stuff. The magazine however seems to always fall back into it's old habits...almost like a hardline formula. For evey interesting thing their are five to six horrible elements. Be it showing and interviewing has been celebrities, articles by interchangable authors, jokes that are funny to old men long since dead, and a view of sexuality that may have been revolutionary in the 60's and 70's but now out of date.

I'm not saying the magazine needs to go all Suicide Girls...gotta keep Playboy...well Playboy...but it'd be nice for it to gorw and reflect the age it is in...not the age of how it wishes things where. It needs some new blood and ideas...cause it's one of the few that can really afford to do so...even if it's in small ways like theme pictorals, new writers for some articles, and updated layouts...that's the 1 thing the magazine needs...a new layout...it looks pretty much as it did since the 80's...and that was not exactly their high point.

[Scott]

I wouldn't say they are dead. Certainly not as great as they used to be..
But a lot of magazines are not doing so well these days.

their website though is doing great
i think playboy d0t com grossed something like $25 million last year.

[ForrestBlack]

I wouldn't say they are dead. Certainly not as great as they used to be..
But a lot of magazines are not doing so well these days.

their website though is doing great
i think playboy d0t com grossed something like $25 million last year.

And they have ownership in sites that you might not know about. The culture clash between the old readership and the new demographics they are going after make it difficult to carry the old branding into the newer projects.

[Tequila Zaire]

And they have ownership in sites that you might not know about. The culture clash between the old readership and the new demographics they are going after make it difficult to carry the old branding into the newer projects.

What else do they have their hand in at the moment?

[ForrestBlack]

What else do they have their hand in at the moment?

I don't think it really matters. Essentially, magazine publishing is dying a slow death, and there were lots of cool magazines, but their sun is setting. Playboy has a loyal readership on the web now, and that is respectable.

[Tequila Zaire]

Well true enough...may not really matter all things given. Magazines are indeed fading away slowly...though the prospects of everything becoming a pay site is not all that fun either...granted it's made some sites better but others seem to mainly generate the same stuff from the same sorce only with a new coat of paint.

[ForrestBlack]

Well true enough...may not really matter all things given. Magazines are indeed fading away slowly...though the prospects of everything becoming a pay site is not all that fun either...granted it's made some sites better but others seem to mainly generate the same stuff from the same sorce only with a new coat of paint.

Well, it's a new medium. People are still getting the hang of it.

[Tequila Zaire]

Well, it's a new medium. People are still getting the hang of it.

New as it may be their is no need to bring old habits into the mix. It gets kinda disheartening when you see the same formula, style, or in some less ethical places, content used over and over.

Though to be fair people do see through it and the sites fold fast or simply give up...but when a few mimic enough to hit ...it sure does feel like the only diffrence between some websites is their URL.

[ForrestBlack]

New as it may be their is no need to bring old habits into the mix. It gets kinda disheartening when you see the same formula, style, or in some less ethical places, content used over and over.

Though to be fair people do see through it and the sites fold fast or simply give up...but when a few mimic enough to hit ...it sure does feel like the only diffrence between some websites is their URL.

I think it's fair to judge them by what drives them then. A genuine article is created by people with qualifications and a copycat is not. Supporting the people with qualifications seems like the smart thing to do, bucause if you throw your support to the copycat instead, the original might just give up and you will be left with nothing, because the copycat will have nothing to be derivative of. But, we might be talking about totally different issues. Hard to say. I get the feeling there is a lot to this thread that is going unsaid, and maybe that is for the best.

[Tequila Zaire]

I think it's fair to judge them by what drives them then. A genuine article is created by people with qualifications and a copycat is not. Supporting the people with qualifications seems like the smart thing to do, bucause if you throw your support to the copycat instead, the original might just give up and you will be left with nothing, because the copycat will have nothing to be derivative of.

Indeed that is a truth but recent plagerism scandals have shown one with enough desire can pull off work that can fool the best of us. While they do get caught the damage and truth of it is already in circulation. Guess what I see is an almost sampling like technique starting to filter into more and more work...even in peoples own private writing. But it could just be typical mimicing of style that's nothing new...but with more people putting the written word to use it can get overwhealming.

But, we might be talking about totally different issues. Hard to say. I get the feeling there is a lot to this thread that is going unsaid, and maybe that is for the best.

Dunno if things are going unsaid, it's not a veiled attempt to lay criticism on your work if that's what your thinking. It's really more of old fan watching one of his favourite things die off in a less than noble manner. At the same time though the inevitable rise of magazines going digital is a bit uneasy since the strengths sometimes leave out the feel print mags have. The net is a bit too clean for my tastes...but then I'm the kinda guy who likes the smell of old pulp mags. It feels like sites are becoming more impersonal in some ways in favor of style and content that can be easily digested...kinda like the People magazine model gone horribly insane.

[Amelia G]

I am 100% sure Forrest didn't think you meant it as any sort of ding on what we do. Forrest and I miss publishing in print a lot. Yes, more people will see our work online and the internet is not quite the fiscal bloodbath print publishing always agonizingly was, but I just really like magazines and miss the old plethora of cool ones. The net is so much faster-paced and less quality-oriented than magazines that, only a few years into its popularity, the cooler portions of the net already seem to be being subsumed by larger corporate interests, while magazine publishing had many decades of genuine journalism before its decline. Ah, I am biased. I just like magazines.

[BrightStar]

I like both. Online is awesome and Magazines get damaged easily, but with Magazines, they are Tangible, and there is just something awesome about books you can hold and adjust angles of easier.

[SindelChaos]

Hmm, I did like the Dita Von Teese and the Bettie Page issues.

[Hypnotic Vampire]

Used to buy Playboy a lot over the past decade...and yes, the articles are good . However, it seemed to me that sillicone was becoming the rule rather than the exception, so I stopped buying it, and I have to say, whenever I see pics of a newer Playmate I'm not familiar with, floating about on the net, I really don't think I've missed out on anything I'm afraid to say .

I have to say they let their standards go, in my opinion...too many of Hef's clone girlfriends as Playmates. But I'd still rather read Playboy than Maxim or FHM or some other such crap.

[Tequila Zaire]

Yes, more people will see our work online and the internet is not quite the fiscal bloodbath print publishing always agonizingly was, but I just really like magazines and miss the old plethora of cool ones. The net is so much faster-paced and less quality-oriented than magazines that, only a few years into its popularity, the cooler portions of the net already seem to be being subsumed by larger corporate interests, while magazine publishing had many decades of genuine journalism before its decline. Ah, I am biased. I just like magazines.

That's pretty much where comics are now...right now I'm taking the self publishing jump on a project and financially it's a HUGE gamble to go print. But at the same time it's the ONLY way to get into comic shops and a shot at attention in the traditionl ranks...but going online is cheaper and can get you jsut as much attention...but no real profit and the stigma of being an "online comic". It's a real challenge cause many new guys taking the dive know that thanks to their being only 1 distributor for the print side of it...their is little room for error.

Both have pro's and con's but it all still boils down to having a quality product to begin with...so at least you get people wanting to really push the artform in a new direction and with new ideas. Cause you have to be a bit ego driven and insane to enter an industry that is print heavy in an age where that is dying off in many areas....

It's fun being crazy though.

[Amelia G]

That's pretty much where comics are now...right now I'm taking the self publishing jump on a project and financially it's a HUGE gamble to go print. But at the same time it's the ONLY way to get into comic shops and a shot at attention in the traditionl ranks...but going online is cheaper and can get you jsut as much attention...but no real profit and the stigma of being an "online comic". It's a real challenge cause many new guys taking the dive know that thanks to their being only 1 distributor for the print side of it...their is little room for error.

Both have pro's and con's but it all still boils down to having a quality product to begin with...so at least you get people wanting to really push the artform in a new direction and with new ideas. Cause you have to be a bit ego driven and insane to enter an industry that is print heavy in an age where that is dying off in many areas....

It's fun being crazy though.

Ooh, that's exciting! I'm sure you will find it really satisfying creatively, whether or not it is a huge profit thang. Also, comics are, because of the distro policies, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to turn a profit for an indie publisher than magazines are. Good luck!

[Tequila Zaire]

Ooh, that's exciting! I'm sure you will find it really satisfying creatively, whether or not it is a huge profit thang. Also, comics are, because of the distro policies, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to turn a profit for an indie publisher than magazines are. Good luck!

Yeah I'm not looking to make a profit, just enough to cover costs and give me a bit of hope.

[Camby Savelle]

I recieved the new issue of playboy in the mailbox today. I was rather unitrested in it once so ever. I viewed the center fold out for about 3 seconds, before throwing the corpse of crap to the magazine stack. Now WYWS that is a superb magazine. I remember when I discovered the old blueblood site there was a magazine they had for sale. I wish I could have purchased atleast a cupple issues of that.