Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I subscribe to Playboy. Among all my magazines while their issues do have the occasional great article, the issues are just really thin and other magazines more often have better reads. What they do have is a brand. Getting rid of nudity may increase subscriptions which may increase ad space, but they're also getting rid of the main reason people many subscribe to Playboy. We'll just have wait and see if they can execute and deliver on what their brand demands of them. Pretty big gamble IMO.



Subscribing to Playboy to see naked women seems so archaic. It's ridiculously easy to find naked women on the internet for free, and with far greater variety than the entire history of Playboy.

Focusing on what makes them unique seems like a smart move, although time will tell if it is enough to save the periodical.


So are you suggesting that clothed women will be better for them than nude women because ...?

Or that they should not focus on women at all because the internet has everything?

(I am just asking for clarification, not disagreeing.)

Few people have bought Playboy for its pictorials for a couple decades, but that doesn't mean the pictorials didn't have meaning.

The nude women reinforced their brand and made them unique in the magazine world. Playboy was the unapologetic pro-sexual magazine, but with taste and restraint. Who else does that?


>So are you suggesting that clothed women will be better for them than nude women because ...?

If they take out the nude pictures they'll be able to put the magazine in more outlets.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: