Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Main Community Forum
 

Main Community Forum General Modeling & Photography Forum
Adult posts prohibited!>>Please Read Our GUIDELINES before posting!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Sex sells, but who's buying?
Old 05-15-2006, 03:17 PM   #1 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,092
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.196.35
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

<center>Sex sells, but who's buying? </center>
<center> Playboy's lack of hard numbers for the second quarter sending out bunny warnings</center>
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" id="table13" border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> <td>
--Smart Money.com

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> WWW- Shares of the Chicago-based adult-entertainment company shed 15% Thursday after Playboy projected a "substantial" second-quarter loss and tempered the forecast for all of 2006. In a conference call early Thursday, Chief Executive Christie Hefner told analysts "we will not meet our initial earnings projection of 67 cents to 70 cents per share for the full year." Playboy, which lost its exclusive programming deal with satellite broadcaster DirecTV last month, blamed its souring outlook, in large part, on declining domestic television revenues.


Making matters worse, Playboy reported weaker-than-expected first-quarter results. Earnings came in at two cents a share, well shy of the Street's consensus forecast of 13 cents. A year earlier the company lost 39 cents a share including one-time charges. Total revenues slipped to $82.1 million from $83.5 million a year earlier. Playboy shares were down as much as 22% in early trading.


Lucas Binder, an analyst at UBS, wrote Thursday that the company's shift to a video-on-demand broadcast model hurt performance. "We believe that Playboy must find a way to stem the declines while also lowering the cost of the domestic TV business to grow earnings per share." Domestic TV revenues fell to $22.3 million in the first quarter from $25.2 million a year ago.


Hefner, who consistently refused to cite specific numbers despite analysts' persistent questioning during the conference call, also declined to detail the impact of the loss of the exclusive arrangement with DirecTV. In April, the nation's largest satellite provider announced it would also air hard-core adult content from New Frontiers Media. DirecTV has 15.1 million U.S. subscribers who now have the option of choosing New Frontier's adult channels over Playboy's tamer offerings.


Playboy hasn't signed a new pact with DirecTV, Hefner said, leaving unclear whether it would lose more channel spots to other adult-content providers. Privately owned competitors Hustler Magazine and Penthouse Television are gearing up to enter the video-on-demand cable market, with Penthouse TV slated for a June launch.


"Playboy could lose another channel or two," says Dennis McAlpine, president of independent research firm McAlpine Associates in Scarsdale, N.Y. "They had five. The good news is that it's too early to tell — they don't know how badly it's hurt them. It's not just DirecTV. The other stuff is going to hell, too. The magazine is a dreadful performer."


Lower advertising and newsstand sales for its flagship magazine caused a 13% decline in quarterly publishing revenues to $23.5 million. Playboy expects to report a 16% decline in ad revenues year-over-year for the second quarter.


Sex sells, but who's buying? Playboy has pinned much of its revenue hopes on the video-on-demand model, but that's based on single viewings of individual programs. Cable companies are reluctant to promote adult content, making it difficult to increase revenues beyond customers who seek out the programs through their cable and satellite providers.


It's a revenue model that makes money in small increments. At DirecTV, for example, pay-per-view porn comes in blocks that cost between $5.99 and $14.99, and content providers get between 5% and 15% of viewers' money, with the rest going to the cable company or satellite provider. In contrast, mainstream movie studios take about half the proceeds from pay-per-view films.


In a survey conducted by Veronis Suhler, a New York boutique investment bank specializing in media companies, video-on-demand spending growth dropped to an estimated 55.6% in 2005, suggesting that a spending trend peaked in 2004, when the growth rate was 123.9%. This year, that growth is expected to ebb further, to 37%. Satellite pay-per-view spending hit $1.2 billion in 2004, and the survey had a 2005 estimate of $1.3 billion and a 2006 estimate of $1.4 billion.


"It's not something new, but video-on-demand ain't working," says McAlpine. There's no growth in it, from what [Hefner's] saying."


Hefner said the ideal model would be subscription video-on-demand, where customers would pay about $15 a month for unlimited on-demand access to its content, which runs the gamut from racy to raunchy. But key aspects of that shift aren't in Playboy's hands. She said the company has yet to reach agreement with Time Warner (TWX: 17.50, +0.19, +1.1%), one of its largest cable partners, on its video-on-demand distribution model.


"Looking ahead, it's obvious we have a challenge," she told analysts, speaking of her dealings with Time Warner. "They are less than precise, to be candid, on their timing. The driver for domestic television is the rollout of our VOD product, and we aren't in control of that."


McAlpine says the balkiness of the Time Warner deal obscures a larger problem.
"The only hope they seem to have is subscription video-on-demand," he says. "The problem for video-on-demand is that you have to constantly promote it, and the cable operators won't let them. You've got to consciously go to that channel, and they're saying it isn't working."


It's not a new concern for Matthew Harrigan, an analyst at Denver investment bank Janco Partners. "They have had, over the years, some operations issues and had to cut costs, and are about to do it again," Harrigan says. "At some point you have to get some more traction on your revenue model. People knew it was going to be really soft. The only thing that seems really robust right now is the licensing."


It'll be a while before Playboy's rabbit ears perk up, and investors need to decide whether they want to stick around for the long haul. Management said the weakness in publishing and domestic TV results will continue. Improvements are expected in advertising sales, the licensing business should continue to be strong, and the opening of the Playboy at the Palms casino in Las Vegas should boost the top line.


"This has become an unusual year with two extremely different halves," Hefner said.
But the current lack of hard numbers for the second quarter makes a longer-term outlook all the more murky, wrote Binder at UBS. The DirecTV blow hurt, but because of the lag between the loss of exclusivity and the payment from video-on-demand orders, the severity of the impact won't be clear for a couple of months.


"That was a significant and unanticipated adjustment," Hefner said. Linda Havard, the company's chief financial officer, added that when the video-on-demand adult market stabilizes, Playboy's share will sink to between 40% and 50% of the market due to an influx of competition. Right now Playboy controls about 75% of adult programming.

Then, too, there's the Internet, which hasn't provided much of a boon to Playboy. That's largely because of the huge amount of free adult content available. Online subscriptions and e-commerce brought in just one-sixth of Playboy's total revenues during the first quarter.

  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
Last edited by jimmyd; 05-15-2006 at 03:39 PM..
 
Re: Sex sells, but who's buying?
Old 05-15-2006, 04:46 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Member GG#: 35723
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 476
Comments: 0

Dman65 is offline IP: 63.243.17.130
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

That is the result of a market economy. When competition arrives it definitely affects the bottom line. I hope they weather the storm though. They have had a reputation for quality work and I always hate to see quality die at the hands of cost efficient medicority.

But based on this article most of the revenue seems to be coming from their pay-per-view business. I haven't seen any of their television programming so i don't really know if the same standards of quality apply there. I noticed the article mentioning that the programming ran the "gamut from racy to raunchy." I guess raunchy is not a word I had ever associated with Playboy before.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Dman65 Find More Posts by Dman65
 
Re: Sex sells, but who's buying?
Old 05-16-2006, 12:22 AM   #3 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,092
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.196.35
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman65
TI noticed the article mentioning that the programming ran the "gamut from racy to raunchy." I guess raunchy is not a word I had ever associated with Playboy before.
that's because everyone seems to think playboy is the holy (R-Than-Thou) grail of contemporary glamour. personally, i do think they're the "grail" of adult entertainment but, to quote chris rock, "ni... please."

playboy is quite possibly the largest distributor of the "p" word in the world and when i read people who act as if they are (strictly) something other than what they are, i am seriously amused by the level of denial that seems to exist amongst some glamour photographers and others. (and when i say "denial" i ain't talking about a river in egypt.)

btw, if you want to know who the other really big contenders for world's largest distributors of the "P' word are, they would be companies like TIme-Warner, Hilton, Marriot, and more.

Hypocrisy runs deep in America and extends, well, it extends all the way to photo forums.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
 
Re: Sex sells, but who's buying?
Old 05-16-2006, 09:58 AM   #4 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Member GG#: 46605
Location: Dyer
Posts: 2
Comments: 0

paviduz is offline IP: 205.215.123.61
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyd
that's because everyone seems to think playboy is the holy (R-Than-Thou) grail of contemporary glamour. personally, i do think they're the "grail" of adult entertainment but, to quote chris rock, "ni... please."

playboy is quite possibly the largest distributor of the "p" word in the world and when i read people who act as if they are (strictly) something other than what they are, i am seriously amused by the level of denial that seems to exist amongst some glamour photographers and others. (and when i say "denial" i ain't talking about a river in egypt.)

btw, if you want to know who the other really big contenders for world's largest distributors of the "P' word are, they would be companies like TIme-Warner, Hilton, Marriot, and more.

Hypocrisy runs deep in America and extends, well, it extends all the way to photo forums.
I think part of the problem is that Playboy has carefully cultivated that "Classy" image, and has tried to make people believe the holier than thou stuff. It's become a common view (at least in mainstream culture) that Playboy is a more glamorous and respectable organization than its’ competitors. Whether that's true or not, the market tends to act in accordance with that belief.

That belief leads to a couple of things: there's an impression that it's more acceptable to shoot for Playboy, and it's more acceptable to patronize Playboy, but at the same time those competitors which have more stigma attached are more likely to draw consumers looking for something a little "more" than glamour photography or the equivalent video. The point really isn't what Playboy produces, or what they are, the point is that the image they so carefully crafted both works for them and hinders them. It earned them a position as the closest thing you can get to a respected company in their industry, but it also drives away customers who have the idea that "Oh, Playboy doesn't make that kind of stuff."

It seems like they're losing money for two reasons related to the above: there's more competition, in new more attractive and affordable venues, and they're seen as a company that produces quality content in an industry where most customers seem to be more concerned about "raunchy" than production values.

When you say the word Playboy to most folks, they assume you're talking about a magazine and not a company. Playboy is largely seen as the king of softcore, and I think that particular niche doesn't quite have the draw it used to.
__________________
Anything not nailed down is mine...
Anything I can pry loose, is not nailed down.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to paviduz Visit paviduz's homepage! Find More Posts by paviduz
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
buying....... usnrs Main Community Forum 8 10-10-2006 07:37 PM
Who sells California Sunbounce reflectors? nuru_expressions Tech Talk Forum 13 06-30-2005 12:07 AM
Buying from Ebay? (grey market issues?) **DONOTDELETE** Tech Talk Forum 6 08-24-2004 04:56 PM
Thinking about buying a ringlight - revisited Andy_Pearlman Tech Talk Forum 24 11-03-2003 03:35 AM
Thinking about buying a ring light bsphoto Tech Talk Forum 11 10-28-2003 04:40 AM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94