![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some interesting cultural news. "Playboy" magazine is dropping nudity from its pages. At first I thought it was a joke. What else is "Playboy"?
However, the company's chief executive, Scott Flanders, explained how the Internet has really changed the game on them: “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
That is a great point. But it still begs the question, what else are they going to do? The magazine does put out good interviews sometimes, but that is hardly a basis for going on. The deal is that the "Playboy" brand and logo is still very big. People will come to it. They also have been playing with the idea online. When they dropped nudity from their website, traffic actually increased, especially for the younger demographic, the more vital consumers that advertisers value. Old folks clicked less, as I suppose they might not be as comfortable surfing the web for porn, preferring the bland pictures over having to deal with all the malicious pop-ups and viruses that come with the less mainstream porn sites.
I still don't get it. I would think that if you are going to "Playboy" for the articles, you would still just as soon see the grade-A babes baring all. Why would it be a turn-off, even if you can get plenty and better elsewhere? They do intend to keep doing pictures of women in provocative poses; they just won't be naked. The only angle I can see is that when they do naked pictures, they feel constrained to present the women tastefully. Now that the models will not be naked, the pictures will make them more like submissive sex toys. The pictures will be a little more degrading, more macho. I see how that can be hotter. Other than that, I got nothing. I don't see it.
[Source: The New York Times]
However, the company's chief executive, Scott Flanders, explained how the Internet has really changed the game on them: “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”
That is a great point. But it still begs the question, what else are they going to do? The magazine does put out good interviews sometimes, but that is hardly a basis for going on. The deal is that the "Playboy" brand and logo is still very big. People will come to it. They also have been playing with the idea online. When they dropped nudity from their website, traffic actually increased, especially for the younger demographic, the more vital consumers that advertisers value. Old folks clicked less, as I suppose they might not be as comfortable surfing the web for porn, preferring the bland pictures over having to deal with all the malicious pop-ups and viruses that come with the less mainstream porn sites.
I still don't get it. I would think that if you are going to "Playboy" for the articles, you would still just as soon see the grade-A babes baring all. Why would it be a turn-off, even if you can get plenty and better elsewhere? They do intend to keep doing pictures of women in provocative poses; they just won't be naked. The only angle I can see is that when they do naked pictures, they feel constrained to present the women tastefully. Now that the models will not be naked, the pictures will make them more like submissive sex toys. The pictures will be a little more degrading, more macho. I see how that can be hotter. Other than that, I got nothing. I don't see it.
[Source: The New York Times]
