![]() "Hugh Hefner was always such a supporter of cartoons. "It’s strange to all of us," says Yeagle. When longtime Playboy cartoonist Dean Yeagle posted on Facebook about the magazine no longer accepting cartoon submissions, artists and fans responded with heartbreak, nostalgia, and confusion - especially considering the publication's longtime love affair with cartoons and illustrated pin-ups, and the rise in popularity of comics, animation, and conventions. But no more cartoons? Playboy, say it isn’t so! ![]() Susan Karlin at talked to several of them and to the magazine’s management for a full explanation, and the rest of this entry quotes her article verbatim (with snide comments from me in italics): However canny the maneuver may be, it left Playboy’s cartoonists high and dry. Eliminating jumped text had the effect of emphasizing the content of the feature articles in the front of the magazine, theoretically helping Playboy change its ambiance for the younger audience it hopes to attract. The pages of jumped text created random spaces into which cartoons could be inserted. Playboy’s lame explanation for dropping cartoons is that the magazine wanted to eliminate “jump stories” - articles that started in the front of the magazine and are then continued in the back pages. Playboy was one of the last bastions of magazine cartooning (the other is The New Yorker) and now half that bastion is blasted. What pissed me off was that Playboy has also given up publishing cartoons. Still, the absence of naked ladies isn’t what got my wattles in an uproar. The plan may be working but it doesn’t look like a net gain yet. Since the change, newsstand sales of the magazine have increased by a corresponding percentage, subscriptions have decreased. Appealing to a generation with short attention spans, the magazine is now loaded with short articles no fiction anymore. So Playboy, going after this demographic, changed its content. And the younger generation, which spends all its time on the Internet, searching for pictures of naked ladies, didn’t need Playboy for nude women. ![]() Maybe so.īesides, Playboy wanted to go after a younger generation of readers/buyers. Ergo, cancel the nudity and, awash in pristine purity, advertising will come flooding in. Advertisers won’t buy ads in Playboy because they don’t want to be associated with nudity. The brand makes money but the magazine does not. ![]() The reason: interested parties can find all sorts of barenekkidness on the Web, so why bother with print? Besides, Playboy has been losing money steadily in recent years. ![]() As numerous of us gradually became aware, Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine (“Entertainment for Men”) stopped publishing photographs of absolutely barenekkidwimmin with the March 2016 issue. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |