IIRC, OMNI was on the cusp of a reboot, like a year ago. Damn IP hassles though.
Might have to go a name-change to Seriousperson.
2 Likes
PG-13? Be sensible. This isnât Hollywood, running in terror at the notion that tweens wonât be able to see At the Mountains of Madness
Ok back to the point which isnât tweens. Itâs repositioning a girly mag to something that perhaps more people who wouldnât consider it âŚmight. It might show up in waiting rooms. It might be in the bin on airplanes⌠Thusly ergo forthwithhe more sales of SeriousPerson shit. They are gonna change their logo from a bunny to a pair of boots, Duckyman. Can I call you that? I like ducks. Bunnies are sometimes cuter. But ducks sure have this head jerky alertness that I think takes it. PlayDuck. Thatâs it!!!
PlayDuck.
Get some duck.
11 Likes
Damn. Youâre quick. As a bunny.
1 Like
Canât speak to that since itâs been a while since I read the only issue I ever obtained (which is one more issue that I bothered obtaining of Playboy). All I remember are the pictures of Jenny McCarthy and some lame golf-related joke.
Through the power of google Iâve confirmed that she doesnât look terribly uncomfortable, but I have no idea if thatâs representative since I never bothered with any other issues.
Anyway, I still think itâs rare that any human being, man or woman, looks better in the buff than with some clothing on, but thatâs merely a matter of opinion.
ETA:
Okay, yeah, the cover shot isnât a very natural stance, and the text is douche-bro all the wayâŚ
Was Playboyâs writing superior?
I barely even have to reply, as it pretty famously was; even if you dismiss their publishing of name authors and high-profile interviews and other various strivings for respectability in the non-pictorial areas of the magazine as Hefner trying to legitimize the more prurient side of his business, that stuff still saw print.
[quote=âGulliverFoyle, post:47, topic:67437â]
Anyway, I still think itâs rare that any human being, man or woman, looks better in the buff than with some clothing on, but thatâs merely a matter of opinion. [/quote]
Thereâs no absolute rule either way, and in any case thatâs not really relevant to the point I was making.
.
Guess I shouldâve read more magazines as a kid. I must admit, the reputation for nudie pics caused me to never give it a second glance. So people really did read Playboy for the articles? I always thought that was just a bad joke.
1 Like
AlsoâŚ
7 Likes
Maybe buying magazines will come back like vinyl and be a hipster niche-collector-with-discerning-tastes thingâŚ
3 Likes
They are not my thing, but Iâll give them this, they produced a really high quality magazine. Very professional, slick photography, great articles The look of the women over the years has gone from âGirl Next Doorâ to âInflatable Doll.â I doubt they can go backwards on that one, but they have a valuable brand if they can figure out the right direction for it, and they have a history of changing their business model up successfully.
Iâm not really sure how âSafe for Workâ these images are if the programmers had to be in a covered room to work on the site.
1 Like
For SeriousPersons Only.
1 Like
I donât think anybody would ever claim that Maxim was a classier alternative to anything. GulliverFoyle only found it âmore titillatingâ than Playboy.
2013, actually:
I like my women with less plastic⌠When I think Playboy I think overly photoshoped pictures of Frankenstein women (they have a wide range of tricks including pulling body parts with tape that really hurt the skin and image banks with all the body parts needed to make any average looking sub celebrity in a supermodel), the selling point being the exclusive nudity of said âstarâ. OK, the curiosity about seeing, dunno, Angelina Jolie naked makes sense - - magazines buy shitty paparazzi pictures of celebrity nudity all the time. Your average bunny, not so much.
They could keep the naked sessions if the art direction was better - make it less unrealistic and more artistic. Bring female photographers, make the art the selling point instead of the nudity.
And focus on online first if you want to attract anyone under 30. One of the mistakes I see the publishing industry making is focusing in selling lots of issues of quickly consumed media, when quality printed material still has its value. Make it special, make it something people would like to purchase and read slowly and re-read. We like to collect beautiful things. Use the Internet to make people desire the printed issue.
3 Likes
About 10 years ago I was sent an unsolicited subscription to some magazine, I canât remember the name of it. It was a tech/gadgetry magazine, but as though it had been published by Maxim. For example, thereâs an article about some GPS device or whatever, but being held by a woman wearing a swimsuit. I told them to cancel the subscription, that I donât even want this for free. I felt prudish sending that in (like how I felt about my grandfatherâs reaction when Life put a woman in a bra on the cover), but I know how and where to find titillating pictures if I want to see one, and this magazine was just four-door stupid.
Iâm also reminded of this.
2 Likes
Iâm guessing that was Stuff. They apparently dropped the âhot girls holding gadgetsâ shtick last year.
1 Like
Probably, thanx(?) for the reminder, though it appears it didnât last long here.
(EDIT: It wasnât just on the cover, though â IIRC the whole magazine was like that)
âStuffâ⌠Pfft, knew a guy who one day said his new nickname was âStuff.â (No, not Stuff.)
They have girls inside the magazines too. Or did. This other article mentions that they are removing it from their covers and spreads.
1 Like
