Quote:
Originally Posted by arock10
the main problem is glamor is dead, people just want to see naked pics of their neighbor
|
DUUHHHH!! Which is why some glamor porn companies can afford to spend far far more on porn than those selling naked pics of their neighbor. I already quoted a few who do.
The regulating factor is supply and demand. The niche of "naked pics of their neighbor" is saturated far beyond the demand. The glamor niche isn't. Two reasons, few can produce it and fewer can afford to produce it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Far-L
We have worked with Playboy for years and they certainly don't lack for intelligence there but imo the issue is systemic and not only problematic at Playboy but other old school brick and mortar publishing giants as well.
First, there is a hierarchy of middle management that in recent years they have sought to trim and shape into something leaner and meaner. However, before that, long term turf wars between publishing, online, and cable more than took their toll by creating chaotic changes in focus thereby stifling cooperative imperatives, dashed even in the midst of profitable forward momentum.
Next, at the top, Hef (and formerly his CEO and daughter Christie) to this day has severe issues with being seen as anything even remotely resembling a porn company. They don't want the brand associated with "porn" and still hold onto the "just read it for the articles and cartoons" mythic ethos.
I get that when you are putting your logo on pillow cases sold in Target or whatever. Still, this is a damn shame since at least for my generation Playboy represented a celebration of sexuality that partly helped inspire my foray into this biz in the first place. No matter what Hef thinks about Playboy not being porn - he helped everyone here be the porn purveyors they are today. He made it not only ok but even I dare say an honorable vocation because he spoke to the universal truth that sex is beautiful and should be celebrated rather than untolerated. At least, that is what I took from it and that is what helped lead me to where I am today.
They have recently been addressing these issues but the fact is that the latest site incarnations are more confusing than ever (reflecting still a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach imo) and they do not put their most profitable entities out front. Case in point - even though it seems highly contrary to Playboy's image of itself - their "Naughty Home Amateurs" has been consistently one of their most profitable cable offerings for years, and online it performs ahead of most of their other pay properties; however, just try to find the link from the Playboy site, which makes it practically impossible to find due to this content being "too porn". They could be the top solo girl site company in the market but are being beat by people that started without even 1/1,000th of the resources. If one of their top stars and brand ambassadors Kendra even did an amateur video then there might be something to that... amateur thing.
Nothing we haven't said to any number of execs there over the years. Just feels good to get it out again.   |
Recently a very large porn company lost it's founder. Paul Raymond died and Paul Raymond Publications passed to his descendants. Nephew and Niece I believe. They didn't see a future in porn even though they had a large very profitable website promoted only via their magazine. Traffic and content were largely free. The magazines had for the first time ever lost money, the website was on it's way their as well and they didn't want to be associated with porn. Especially as it's a dying market for many.
Do the people at Playboy see a similar picture?
Might suit your traffic to go into the "Amateur" market, does it suit them to compete in a market that's already saturated and because of that slowly dying.
It would be far better for them
in my opinion to go after a market very few can work in than a market that anyone with a camera can work in.