How A Mainstream Webmaster Would *Fix* Playboy
 

http://inside.offervault.com/2010/12...it-as-a-brand/

Interesting ideas... I don't agree with the get rid of Hugh part but the idea to allow webmasters to promote Playboy products does seem to be a step in the right direction.

Bring Lensman back as CEO! :winkwink:

Hahaha Joe for president!

nice link ;)

its always easier to solve problems when you are looking in from the outside :2 cents:

interesting

their content looks like it's from the 50s. tastes have changed. pretty simple actually.

I have read that only six companies exist today that are older than 100 years.

isn't hugh hefner a pretty important part of the brand if not the brand?
Think of playboy and i bet the first 3 things will be
the bunny
hugh hefner
naked girls

pretty funny in his recommendation he drops his ref link. that guy should post on gfy.

Haha i agree, i think one day when Hugh passes on they will prop up his body and it will be "Weekend At bernies" for the next 50 years LOL!

http://www.vidriver.com/movies_image...%20Bernies.jpg

Grampa Munster :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

He thinks the Playboy girls are too fat? What the fuck is wrong with this guy?
I don't read playboy... but kudos to them for selecting "chunkier" models!

PS: He compares Playboy with IGN (a game site)? Hahaha... Seriously?

Yeah but when that brand turns, how old is heff any way like 90?, people dont even wanna think about tits when they've got the image of an old wrinkly man having sex stuck in their head. lol.

I agree, there are a couple good ideas there but on whole that article makes some seriously wild assumptions and completely reckless comparisons.

i.e. Pornhub vs Playboy = because of photos? or Playmate vs Pirate when Kendra ( and others ) are making the equivalent of Khloe Kardashian.


Look, I agree that Playboy has issues so do a lot of us .. but this article is honestly bizarre on the whole.

Just my :2 cents:

QFT

That playboy plastic blonde type he likes, and the image of his wrinkly old ass in a robe is just nasty imo.

I mean, imagine THAT sex tape. ::gag::

Playboy didn't seem to realize that men watch videos of naked girls to see the girls naked, and for some reason instead of showing their beautiful models naked and well lit, they thought it was better to make "art film" style videos where the camera was always moving and focusing on everything but the girl, lighting was all over the place, cut scenes were rapid and showing scenery or extras dancing around, just a hodgepodge of annoyance. Look at any of the Playmate videos from the 80's and 90's if you don't know what I mean, stunningly beautiful models but the videos were impossible to watch.

I haven't even bothered to see what they are up to lately, but the other thing I noticed is the quality of the typical model of the late 2008,9,10 era is a far cry from the quality of the average playmate of the 80's and 90's.... overall the quality was dropping coinciding with the competition becoming more intense... a recipe for a big decline

It's like if you don't make twenty thousand plus a year, you don't jerk off!

Fuck that Heff is the man!!

That's the problem, they don't listen.

I'm not sure what you read, but that is nowhere near true. The number is far greater than 6.

My Fiances family owns a global corporation that is well over 150 years old.

It is privately held - but I don't think your statement holds true even when only publicly traded companies are considered.

their photography is very very boring. And they have too much of the standard blonde bimbo with fake tits... when i used to put galleries up from other sites on my blog, the playboy galleries were really the most boring of them all.. they cant even come close to met art, watch4beauty, etc.

Has anyone tried promoting playboy.tv? How much did they pay to put their skin on GFY anyway?

Now that's an idea!!

People still eat KFC

On the contrary, the girls actually pay out their own pockets to get nude for Playboy these days. I remember seeing the different packages available for the Casting Calls; Gold, Silver etc

Too right!! :thumbsup

Agree,playboy is still strong brand despise lower traffic,and having a playboy shoot in your portfolio means a lot.

At the recent Webmasters meeting in Brno I was discussing with a webmaster why some of the more glamor sites, no names but for instance Playboy, have such crap affiliate programs. Producers whose main business is off the the Internet.

My suggestion was that they still don't see the Internet as their main avenue of business. They still see DVD, Cable and then the Internet as avenues of business. Let's face it no Internet based company can afford to spend the money on production Vivid, Wicked, Digital Desires and others spend all the time. The returns simply aren't here for that.

Some here think porn starts and ends on the Internet. Go to the AVN show or Berlin show for DVD and compare the difference to Internext.

They say old Hef is becoming senile... people have seen him wandering around wearing suits...

the main problem is glamor is dead, people just want to see naked pics of their neighbor

Homegrown Video loves Playboy but Playboy just wants to be friends
 

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. :thumbsup:winkwink:

Now that he's laid out a map for Playboy's future financial success, maybe he could work on the other 99% of print media that is struggling.

Mind your own, mainstream webmaster...

I sure as hell hope it's not his birthday suit! Ugh!!!

Obviously a steady drop in traffic for playboy.com but unless I'm reading alexa wrong, they still have a way more traffic than sites like penthouse or hustler, similar sites to playboy are also down in traffic.

Nothing innovative or exciting in that at all. :2 cents:

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.

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.

Quoted for truth.

When I was working for Playboy UK, I made a very successful viral video. It was all over the world. The end of it said: "Playboy UK. Porn, the way it should be done".

Christie RANG UP my MD and told him to "take that off the internet immediately".

Amusing that she has such little comprehension of online that she thought you could just 'stop' a viral video. Also amusing that she made my MD make me recut it with "adult entertainment, the way it should be done" and then try and 're-viral' it.

They spend SO much money on pointless middle management and don't 'get' how the internet works. And they don't want to be seen as a porn company, when they are a porn company.

pretty much. amateur and gf sites sell like crazy. no one likes that corny playboy style any more.

Damian look at the other side of the coin.

Do you think they didn't want their name associated with a video anyone with a camera could make?

Do you think that going into the bottom of the market quality wise would harm their brand?

Do you think after 15 years of the Internet the people who run these top quality sites and brands DON'T know how the Internet works?

Do you think that they see their traditional markets STILL as the best place to sell THEIR product?

Maybe they just don't want to be seen as a porn company that makes content anyone with a camera can produce?

This POV needs a thread of it's own. Who will read it from the other persons POV?

that playboy does not get the internet that is obvious. but since paul does not either, of course he can not grasp that.

DUUHHH!!!!

You're talking about something you're clearly clueless about and making yourself look stupid.

Playboy's income is all about their brand, logo and image. Like most publishers they sell adverting. They're more about advertising than anything. Look at the companies fighting for a place on Playboys pages. Some of the top brands in the world. Tobacco, spirits top perfumes, cars, etc all advertise in Playboy or did, because of their image. The revenue from EVERY soft porn magazine came from selling ad space. From Playboy down to Naughty Neighbors, it was always about advertising.

For Playboy it's obvious to all but a few that Playboy believe associating themselves with something lower quality will harm their brand and their advertising revenue. Did you ever think think putting the bunny logo on things like pillow cases was a better earner than you can imagine?

Maybe that's why they were so incensed with a video Damian created going viral on the Internet.

As I said so many here see one side of the coin.

As for my earnings on the Internet, you're clearly stupid. Or weren't you around in 1998 to see the amount of content content sellers were selling. Before digital cameras were widely available.

Read this for another man's view. http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?p=...7#post17775007

yeah things have changed. in internet time 1998 is a hundred years ago. literally.

If you ask him nicely, he will post 2000 words on how brilliant things were 12 years ago.

So why don't Playboy employ you and Agent to run their company. About $300 a week should get you both. :1orglaugh

If you ask 90% of the people on the Adult Internet they will write 100 words on how brilliant things were in 2005. :winkwink:

They can't afford the time to write more, too busy trying to drive more and more traffic to sites that convert worse and worse. :(

Or gone to mainstream.

How A Mainstream Webmaster Would *Fix* and upmarket quality porn company

Marketing man. First thing he would do is to tell them to set up a webmaster program and spend at least half the turnover of the site on driving traffic to the site. Also give them what ever help they needed. Then employ a couple of people to look after these webmasters. Plus fly around the world to all the shows.

Upmarket porn company. Isn't that going to take a lot of focus off what we do?

Marketing man. Then, and this is the genius of it all, give away the product they're selling in aver increasing amounts to affiliates with TGP sites, Tube sites, Blogs (write their text as well) plus give them programs and hosting to allow them to run these sites.

Upmarket porn company. So give away the product we sell?

Marketing man. Well yes but 10,000s will view it everyday and 1000s might click through to the site and 1 in a 1,000 might buy a $30 membership. Then as you don't produce enough scenes at the moment, you must release at least 5 new ones everyday to keep the affiliates sites updated with new content.

Upmarket porn company. It's going to be very expensive to produce our level of porn in those numbers.?

No problem we can get some guys to shoot content for a few $100 a scene to fill the site. Anyone who can point a camera will do the trick.

Upmarket porn company. Don't you think that might harm our branding we spent decades building?

Marketing man. Not sure, but think of the 1,000s and 1,000s of people viewing your content for free on Tube sites that earn money from selling memberships or advertising to companies who don't give them content.

Upmarket porn company. So what are the projected earnings?

Marketing man. That's hard to say, because no one really has a clue. But if it starts to slide. You can lease your exclusive content to other paysites or get other paysites to share your exclusive shoots.

Upmarket porn company. I'm not sure I want to endanger my core business with this scheme.

Marketing man. You don't understand how the Internet works. It's based on giving it away to millions so a tiny % buy a membership.

Upmarket porn company. NO THANK YOU.

It's a bit tongue in cheek and sarcastic and I'm sure Damian and Agent would pitch it better. But can you see the problem from the other mans POV?