Playboy announced that they're no longer feature fully nude women in their magazine as of this March. They say the reason is that nudity and sex are passé. It's everywhere. The real reason is money. That's always been the reason. When you're losing $3million/year you've got to change. Seems like money is driving another reason Playboy has been in the news recently: the Playboy mansion is for sale. I've laughed about how there are lots of strings attached to that sale, including that you have to let Hugh Heffner live there.
These are the real reasons that Playboy is changing their brand.
Reason #1: To Get Social Media Traffic.
Social media sites have policies against nudity, which means Playboy is missing out on the potential traffic (and advertising dollars) that those views bring. It's not worth showing certain views if it means eyeballs aren't going to their website. Solution? Make the magazine more work and social media friendly. “The magazine had already made some content safe for work…in order to be allowed on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, vital sources of web traffic.”
This is already working. According to Shareablee, Playboy had the most growth in social media engagement in November 2015. They were #9 on the list of Top US Media Publishers, with Facebook showing the most improvement — 72%.
Reason #2: They Need Advertising Dollars.
Playboy says they're moving away from nudity and featuring more art. That's what the demo they want (younger men/millennials with jobs) likes. By going for art and less towards porn Playboy can also attract more ad dollars. As they say, “the magazine must please its core advertisers.”
Reason #3 They Want to Attract a Younger Audience.
Just by making the magazine more safe for work and skewing towards art, they are getting a younger audience. This audience is also more likely to be reached on social media.
Last, they make more money from their logo and licensing merchandise with their brand. That's a profitable part of their business already and it doesn't require nudity.
Playboy isn't taking a moral high ground. They're doing what businesses do – and that is – what makes them most profitable. Still, I like that following the money is leading them away from nudity.
Older companies run by old men can sometimes be slow to change. Actually any company can get stuck (just like people) by doing things that aren't working for far too long. My biggest question is – why did it take them this long?