What’s going on with Playboy?

What's going on with Playboy?

Yesterday, when I was doing some reasearch for the Amiko-article, I was impressed by the succes of Met-Art.com and was asking myself how it would compare to Playboy.com. And guess what? Met-Art.com is nowadays more popular than Playboy.com!

Does anybody know what happened with Playboy.com at the end of 2002 and in the beginning of 2004?

(Visited 89 times, 1 visits today)

0 thoughts on “What’s going on with Playboy?”

  1. I think your question applies more to Playboy.com than to Playboy in general.

    For me, the Playboy.com website is horribly designed. The interface is clunky and confusing and a visitor really isn’t sure what they will get if they sign up. There’s also not very much nudity on it unless you sign up for the pay service.

    I do think that Playboy in general still has the reputation of being all about white, blonde girls with huge implants. They are going to have to get past that if they plan to stay relevant.

    I haven’t kept close tabs on this, but it doesn’t seem like Playboy has had much success getting top names to pose of the last few years. From what I’ve seen, it’s mostly just been women that were hot at one time but out of the public eye for a while like Tia Carrera or Kiana Tom.

    Playboy is now becoming known as place where has beens pose to try to get one last payday. Actresses like Lynn Chen, Linda Park or even someone like Diane Mizota would be a good start.

    Grace Park would be even better as she has a pretty big following but I don’t see her ever rising to level of demanding A-list money in movies.

  2. Kaine, true my question is indeed related to Playboy.com. Something happened with the site at the end of 2002 and in the beginning of 2004. New design? New navigation? Have they moved content to other sites? I have no idea but based on Alexa they lost a lot of visitors in the past few years.

  3. I think it’s indicactive of internet trends in general. There’s just a lot more competition out there now, and most of them provide a better user experience than Playboy.com. Now that the internet has become more mainstream, the really big sites like Met Art can have just as much of an online ‘brand’ presence in the adult market as Playboy.

  4. I’d say it’s all about marketing. There are far more sites now that cater to that market than there was in 2002, and when do you ever see Playboy advertise online? They have zero online marketing presence.

    Met Art hits the thumbs pages (like Asianthumbs), does banners, and so on. Playboy doesn’t.

    I’d also say that the market has fragmented into specialty niches. People who may have gone to PB in the past now can go elsewhere to get exactly what they want: no need to put up with artificial women who’ve each had 4 or 5 different surgeries.

  5. Dr Lee, have you tried the are these breasts real or fake game at Playboy.com? I’ve read a lot of your posts and you seem to be pretty good in that area.

  6. I didn’t try the Playboy one, as it didn’t work in my browser and they wanted my email address (I don’t trust Playboy!). I did try another one of these sorts of quizzes though, and got 19/20 (the one I got wrong I wasn’t sure about – I’m sure I would have gotten it right if I saw more revealing pics!).

  7. Maybe the problem is that there is not a lot of free content on playboy.com to interest visitors. I think they used to have more free content but now you need to join their CyberClub to see it.

  8. This is an interesting discussion One thing about search is that it doesn’t make sense to search for a site you visit frequently. There are all sorts of bookmarks and feeds that make that unnecessary. I use search to find the new and unknown. I use links and bookmarks to get to asian-sirens, for example. Because it makes sense that people who visite Playboy would eventually figure out how to bookmark it one way or another, a direct comparison of search might be misleading.

    That said, I totally agree about Playboy photography. It’s not just the bodies that seem totally artficial. It’s the photos. They are all totally unnatural and heavily photoshopped (or perhaps modified by older non-digital methods). The whole thing is a bit like looking at drawings rather than photos.

  9. Oops!

    I looked back at the chart, which I assumed was about search, and see that the scale is “daily pageviews,” so I guess the bit about search doesn’t apply. I wrongly assumed it was based on search (or click-through).

    So, my question now are
    — Where does that data come from?
    — Wouldn’t Playboy have to provide it?
    — Why don’t people know about 88square?

Leave a Reply