Talk:Playboy

Archives (Index)

2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Playboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124193520/http://www.davidmecey.com/about.php to http://www.davidmecey.com/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303121206/http://waydaphoto.com/main.html to http://www.waydaphoto.com/main.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710174747/http://www.postimees.ee/070607/esileht/meedia/264993.php to http://www.postimees.ee/070607/esileht/meedia/264993.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mozart.lib.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/nand/search/pmstat?browse=%3A%3ACONFIG%3A%3Amodelbrowse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal intro and request

Hello editors. I'm Zach, a new editor here on Wikipedia, and a representative of my employer, PLBY Group. I understand the rules for editors with a conflict of interest, and am committed to following community standards. I disclosed my COI in the banners above, and on my user page. I will not edit the article directly, instead I will make suggestions here. My goals are to help volunteer editors by providing appropriate sourcing where there are gaps, and suggest changes or updates to information that is out of date or inaccurate, again with appropriate sourcing to support any proposed edits.

I understand that some edits I suggest may not be accepted, or may be altered by editors. This is a new process for me, but I'm looking forward to collaborating with the community and learning more about Wikipedia. As I'm new, I've posted what I hope is a simple request below, and provided some sources to address a couple of the "citation needed" tags in Publication history.

Sources for Publication history

I've noticed there are a few tags in the article where no source has been cited to support the content. I have a few sources here that I think will help support some of the unsourced content.

• Citation needed in 1950s for: The cover price was 50¢. Copies of the first issue in mint to near-mint condition sold for over $5,000 in 2002.

This Mental Floss article confirms the first issue cover price. I was not able to find a source that supports the $5k selling price in 2002, however the Mental Floss article does mention an auction of a first issue. This Newsweek list confirms that a copy of the first issue sold in 2018 for $6,100, but I learned to cross-check sources with this list of reliable sources and saw that Newsweek is not always reliable, so I understand if editors prefer not to use.

• Citation needed in 1960s-1990s for: Since reaching its peak in the 1970s, Playboy saw a decline in circulation and cultural relevance due to competition in the field it founded—first from Penthouse, then from Oui (which was published as a spin-off of Playboy) and Gallery in the 1970s; later from pornographic videos; and more recently from lad mags such as Maxim, FHM, and Stuff. In response, Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18–35-year-old male demographic through slight changes to content and focusing on issues and personalities more appropriate to its audience—such as hip-hop artists being featured in the "Playboy Interview".

The Los Angeles Times went into detail about this period in this story.

One other note for this section, it says "...Playboy has attempted to re-assert its hold on the 18-35-year-old male demographic..." I think it would make sense to remove the word has from this sentence, because it implies that the section describes current efforts, when this information is past tense.

I'll continue to look for sources that support other parts of the article, and appreciate any feedback editors have. Thanks, PLBY ZG (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that I added the edit request template above. PLBY ZG (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

PLBY ZG  Done, the above two requests have been implemented -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: Thanks so much for implementing those changes. I've posted another request below, if you're interested in continuing to collaborate on these updates, please have a look. I've also posted a request at Talk:Playboy Enterprises. Thanks again, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tense and sourcing updates for Post–2000

• Paragraph two currently reads in present tense in several places. I propose updating it to past tense, and specifying that it's referring to the printed edition of Playboy for clarity. Suggested changes are in bold below:

The printed magazine ran several annual features and ratings. One of the most popular was its annual ranking of the top "party schools" among all U.S. universities and colleges. In 2009, the magazine used five criteria: bikini, brains, campus, sex and sports in the development of its list. The top-ranked party school by Playboy for 2009 was the University of Miami.

• Paragraph three ends with an unsourced sentence "In December 2009, they further reduced the publication schedule to 10 issues per year, with a combined January/February issue." This Business Insider article confirms that the magazine published one less issue in Q1, 2010. If that source is acceptable, here is a citation:

<ref name="BusIns Aug2010">{{cite web |title=Playboy Loses Less Money Than It Did A Year Ago |last1=Joe |first1=Pompeo |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/playboy-loses-less-money-than-it-did-a-year-ago-2010-8 |work=Business Insider |date=August 5, 2010 |accessdate=April 27, 2021}}</ref>

• Question for editors: The article currently notes that along with bringing back nudity in 2017, Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes also returned. Cartoons also returned to the magazine at that time, but I've been unable to locate secondary coverage for independent verification. My question is, can the magazine itself be used to support mentioning the return of the cartoons? I understand if editors prefer to wait for a secondary source. The reason I'm asking is because in 2016–2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity the article mentions that "Hefner, himself a former cartoonist, reportedly resisted dropping the cartoons more than the nudity, but ultimately obliged." So it seems relevant to the history that cartoons returned. Curious what editors think, and any advice you have.

Thank you for reviewing, PLBY ZG (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Y Partly done Changed the tense in paragraph two (diff), makes sense to me. ritenerek⋆:) 20:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@PLBY ZG: sorry, forgot to ping ritenerek⋆:) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have closed this request as answered since it looks like it has been fulfilled. Please post a new request below if there are still things to add to the article. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions and sourcing for Online section

Hello, Zach here with another set of suggestions and some sourcing updates for the article. Ritenerek, thank you for your help with the wording changes on my last request. I'm pinging you here in case you're interested in collaborating on some additional changes.

These suggestions all pertain to the Online sub-section of Other formats. I found some unsourced material in the current article, and some details that could use some clarification. I hope these suggestions are improvements from a reader and encyclopedia perspective, and I understand that editors might not prefer to implement every change, or might alter my suggested text.

• I'd like to propose changing The growth of the Internet prompted the magazine to develop an official web presence called Playboy Online or Playboy.com, which is the official website for Playboy Enterprises, and an online companion to Playboy magazine. The site has been available online since 1994. to The growth of the Internet prompted the magazine to develop an official web presence called Playboy Online in the late 1980s. The company launched Playboy.com, the official website for Playboy Enterprises and an online companion to Playboy magazine, in 1994.

• The proposed change clarifies when Playboy first had a digital presence with what I hope is an appropriate source, and includes improved sourcing to confirm details about the website launch, which is currently sourced to an archive of the website.

• Details about the "Playboy Cyber Club" are currently unsourced. I have a citation here that confirms the details, but I was not able to find an easily accessible digital copy. I understand if editors prefer not to include, but thought I'd offer it just the same:

<ref name="TheRecord June1997">{{cite news |title=Playboy widening its use of The Web |last1=Jones |first1=Tim |page=H09 |work=The Record |date=June 23, 1997 |accessdate=}}</ref>

• I also propose changing In September 2005, Playboy launched the online edition of the magazine Playboy Digital. to In September 2005, Playboy began publishing a digital version of the magazine.

• I've added a citation here as well, since it's currently unsourced. Because the magazine has existed in a digital format since that time in one form or another, I've rephrased this slightly to be inline with the supplied source and to focus on when the company began publishing the magazine digitally.

• I noticed that details about iPlayboy are also currently unsourced and "i.playboy.com" is inaccurate. For clarity and to eliminate any need to keep the URL up to date, it seems like this could be Changed from i.playboy.com to iPlayboy. I've also provided a source below that discusses the launch of iPlayboy.

<ref name="CNN May2011">{{cite web |title=Playboy puts 57 years of articles, nudity online |last1=Griggs |first1=Branddon |last2=Susana |first2=Miguel |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/05/20/tech.playboy.issues.online/index.html |work=[[CNN]] |date=May 21, 2011 |accessdate=May 7, 2021}}</ref>

• One last question. This section also talks about "The Smoking Jacket", which was redirected when Playboy.com became a safe-for-work website. Do editors think it's worth mentioning that change? I wasn't able to locate a source that specifically mentions "The Smoking Jacket" being redirected. This CNBC article mentions the main site becoming safe for work.

As always, I appreciate all the help from editors with these requests so I can remain hands off with my conflict of interest. I am open to any feedback. Thank you! PLBY ZG (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Done: All Edits Done. Jaxarnolds (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

International editions updates

Hello again! I'd like to ask editors for their thoughts on updating the International editions section. In the collapsed box below, I've posted a list of changes to international editions that are not reflected in the article. Can someone take a look at let me know what might be an acceptable source or if it's reasonable to implement any of these changes? Looking at WP:VERIFY, these don't seem like changes that are "likely to be challenged". But, I understand that editors prefer to use secondary coverage whenever possible, so I'm not sure what's appropriate for updating information already in the article if the new information wasn't reported in the news. Jaxarnolds, thanks for your help implementing my most recent request! I am tagging you here in case you'd like to weigh in on any of these.

Extended content

Current editions – date corrections Asia Philippines (2008 – 2021) – will terminate at the end of the year Africa South Africa (1993–1996, 2011–2016, 2017–) *Digital only Afrikaans (2017–) *Digital only North America Mexico (1976–1998, 2002–) Oceania Australia (1979–2000, 2018–) *Digital only Europe Czech Republic (1991–) Denmark (2018–) Digital only France (1973–1985, 1993–2013, 2016–) Germany (1972–) Greece (1985–2015, 2018–) *Digital & Special Editions. Will terminate in March 2022 Netherlands (1983–) Russia (1995–) Sweden (1998–1999, 2017–) *Digital only Ukraine (2005–) Former edition amendments Asia Indonesia (2006–2007) Singapore (2009, 2011) South Korea (2017–2020) Thailand (2012–2020) South America Brazil (1975–2017) Colombia (2008–2011, 2017–2020) Europe Estonia (2007–2012) Macedonia (2010–2012) Bulgaria (2002–2020) Croatia (1997–2020) Italy (1972–1985, 1987–2003, 2008–2020) Portugal (2009–2010, 2012–2013, 2015–2020) Slovakia (1997–2003, 2005–2019) Slovenia (2001–2020) Spain (1978–2013, 2017–2020) Remove: Belgium (1987–1991, 1994–2003, 2008) Switzerland (2017–) We don't have records of editions that were specific to Belgium and/or Switzerland. Other territory editions were permitted to distribute in those territories, e.g. PB Italy had the right to distribute its edition in Switzerland as of Nov. 2017, but it was not a Swiss edition

There were also a couple of questions I asked in requests above that hadn't been answered when the request was closed, so I figured I would repost those here as well.

• In Post–2000 The article currently notes that along with bringing back nudity in 2017, Playboy Philosophy and Party Jokes also returned. Cartoons also returned to the magazine at that time, but I've been unable to locate secondary coverage for independent verification. My question is, can the magazine itself be used to support mentioning the return of the cartoons? I understand if editors prefer to wait for a secondary source. The reason I'm asking is because in 2016–2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity the article mentions that "Hefner, himself a former cartoonist, reportedly resisted dropping the cartoons more than the nudity, but ultimately obliged." So it seems relevant to the history that cartoons returned. Curious what editors think, and any advice you have.

• The Online section talks about "The Smoking Jacket", which was redirected when Playboy.com became a safe–for–work website. Do editors think it's worth mentioning that change? I wasn't able to locate a source that specifically mentions "The Smoking Jacket" being redirected. This CNBC article mentions the main site becoming safe for work.

Looking forward to hearing editors' thoughts on how to move forward with these updates. Thanks for the continuing help! PLBY ZG (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the editions as described (hopefully correctly). I'm not inclined to add the cartoons back based on the primary sources only (you can't cite every edition, but just the first edition it came back could have been a one–off, or maybe they were added back for a year only... difficult under WP:V to establish they came back indefinitely). Similar with the Smoking Jacket—without a secondary source, I don't think it's worth mentioning. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for making those updates and your explanation on the other questions. I understand your reasoning there. I looked over the changes to ''International editions'' and it looks like all but one was transferred over. Do you have time to add "Thailand (2012–2020)" to the list of former editions? Thanks again, PLBY ZG (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, done now, sorry about the mistake. — Bilorv (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition for 1960s-1990s

Hello. I have another request I'd like to make for this article. Below, I've proposed a short mention of when the Playboy Philosophy column was added to the magazine, and some early topics covered, as well as brief mention of the magazine's stance on cannabis reform at the time. I think this would fit in 1960s-1990s, and gives valuable context on the magazine's development over time. I will of course defer to what volunteer editors think is best, and as an editor with a conflict of interest, appreciate the help reviewing and implementing acceptable changes on my behalf. Thanks! PLBY ZG (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In the 1960s, the magazine added "The Playboy Philosophy" column. Early topics included LGBTQ rights, women's rights, censorship, and the First Amendment. Playboy was also an early proponent of cannabis reform and provided founding support to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in 1970.

References

•  Done: edits have been done. Jaxarnolds (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jaxarnolds: Thanks so much for reviewing and

implementing! PLBY ZG (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition for 2016-2018 and introduction change

Hi there. I'd like to make another request for editors to review. This time, it pertains to the 2016-2018 changes and brief ending of full frontal nudity section, and the article's introduction.

• For 2016-2018, do editors think it would make sense to add a little more context about the magazine's editorial history when it switched to quarterly publication in 2019? Currently, this phase is only mentioned briefly and is sourced to a New York Post article, which I see is considered unreliable according to WP:RSPSS. Here is an entry with a stronger source that I think could replace "In September 2018, the magazine announced that it would move to publishing quarterly, beginning in 2019."

In 2019, Playboy was relaunched as a quarterly publication without ads. At the time, the magazine's editorial staff was making efforts to improve the publication's inclusivity both internally and on the page. Examples of this include having primarily women photograph Playmates, expanding LGBTQ content, and features such as an interview between the MeToo movement's founder, Tarana Burke, and filmmaker Dream Hampton.

References

• In the introduction, can we change "Playboy is an American men's lifestyle and entertainment magazine..." to "...a global lifestyle products and services brand that started as an American men's lifestyle and entertainment magazine.."? I think this provides a more accurate summary of the magazine's history and current state of Playboy. I know the introduction doesn't typically use sources, but here are some sources that talk about Playboy moving away from "entertainment for men" for editors to consider when deciding whether to implement this change: L.A. Business Journal, Business Insider(video), Today(video), InsideHook, and The New York Times article above talks about these changes.

Jaxarnolds, If you're interested in continuing to collaborate here, I welcome your feedback.

Thanks for taking a look, and for the ongoing help with my suggestions. PLBY ZG (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I've  Partly done this—I've removed all content cited to the New York Post (should never have been added); given my own summary of the NYT article (I'm not interested in uncritical press release-like sentences like "making efforts to improve the publication's inclusivity both internally and on the page"); and not changed the introduction for the time being as I'm not happy with the corporate jargon "global lifestyle products and services brand". The New York Times, for instance, still comments "the elephant in the room ... is that Playboy is still a magazine full of nude women, whose chief executive is a straight white male, with a dead man still listed at the top of the masthead as the founding editor in chief". Playboy is trying to change its public image, sure, but Wikipedia is not part of a new directive given to the PR department to avoid mention of Hefner (or whitewash him as some sort of gay rights activist) and talk about the magazine in feminist language. The NYT says that the audience was 75% at the last measurement, so until I see newer data I don't think "men's lifestyle and entertainment" is inaccurate. — Bilorv (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for adding that. Your changes make sense to me. I understand your position on the intro change. What do you think about a toned down version, such as "Playboy is an American lifestyle brand that began as a men’s lifestyle and entertainment magazine."? My goal here is for the introduction to reflect what Playboy is today, as well as the magazine's origins. I think with how Playboy is covered in mainstream press these days, this clarification makes sense from a reader's perspective. Here are a few more examples of sources that talk about Playboy as a lifestyle brand: Reuters ("Playboy Enterprises Inc, the lifestyle brand that is in the process of going public and known for its eponymous magazine...), The Wall Street Journal ("In recent years, it has reinvented itself as a lifestyle company by generating revenue from licensing the Playboy name and bunny-ears logo and direct-to-consumer sales of products in sexual wellness, apparel, beauty and gaming."), Barron's ("Since taking the leadership reins in 2016, Kohn and his team have largely wound down Playboy’s legacy print, TV, and other media businesses and pivoted to monetizing the brand via licensing and consumer products.").

Thanks again for your help! PLBY ZG (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what proportion of the current audience are male? I don't support the change based on those sources. (On the topic of "products and services brand", I think it's worth saying that something like BuzzFeed is also monetizing largely by products, I gather, but we currently call it a "media, news and entertainment company". Though we do need to cover that side a bit more there.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Right now, the closest data I have to what you're asking for is that in Q1, 55% of sales across Playboy's sites came from women. The only source I have for that, though, is this interview with Ben Kohn, which I know is primary so not ideal. Can I ask what you'd want to see to make this change? I understand what you're saying about Buzzfeed, but I think that's a different situation. Our brand's products drive $3 billion in worldwide spending annually. My goal here is for the article introduction to clearly communicate Playboy's origin and current state. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me, I appreciate it. PLBY ZG (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well that is interesting information, though I can think of lots of reasons sale percentages could differ from readership. At this point I'd want to get more people's opinions and wouldn't make the change myself, even if I changed my mind, because I think it's a bit of a difficult and major thing to decide just with two people, one of whom is being paid. I can't really tell you what the necessary and sufficient conditions are to convince me—you'd have to just actually change my opinion through sources that demonstrate that it would be inaccurate to describe Playboy in current tense with the wording that we do. — Bilorv (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Getting input from additional editors sounds like a good plan. I reached out to Jaxarnolds. They helped with some recent edits, so they should be familiar with the current article. If we need to, I'll reach out to other editors and WikiProjects. Thanks! PLBY ZG (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Are any figures available to document how many subscriptions were cancelled in 2015-2016 when the ending of full-frontal centerfolds was announced?

Did the magazine experience an increase in cancellations of subscriptions, or an increase in the number of non-renewals of subscriptions, after plans to end full-frontal centerfolds were announced? Did this enter in to the conclusion a year later that "the dropping of nudity had been a mistake?" Can these figures be found and documented? One wouid think that Playboy tracked cancellations and non-renewals along with other market indecators. 2603:800C:3944:BC00:9D56:9EE1:9B4A:B199 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Playgirl

Shouldnt the Playgirl not also be mentioned at see also? The Other Karma (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: sure. I've added it. In future, you should be bold and add it yourself. Either there was a reason it wasn't mentioned, and you get reverted and learn something, or there wasn't and you've made an improvement. Articles aren't designed top down by somebody who is in charge, but the result of dozens of volunteers adding and tweak little bits here and there. — Bilorv (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

kk The Other Karma (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Centerfold.com

In the history section under the topic „online only“ should be more information about Playboys Centerfold.com. Centerfold.com is a platform the Plby Group (owner of the Playboy magazines) has bought. It is developing this Platform to a major Only Fans competitor. Adult Stars like Amanda Cerny and Lana Rhoades are allready Content Creators on this Platform. 2003:E0:AF2D:4B00:A8E5:EA93:C2C5:E788 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)