Playboy removed nudity from its magazine in March 2016. It put nudity back in March 2017. The 12-month experiment is one of the cleanest brand-repositioning failures of the last decade — and one of the most-studied.
The decision.
In October 2015, then-CEO Scott Flanders announced that Playboy magazine would drop nude photography. "You're now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free," Flanders told The New York Times. "And so it's just passé at this juncture." The first non-nude issue dropped March 2016, with Pamela Anderson on the final nude cover the prior December.
The thesis.
Free internet pornography had stripped the magazine of its category. The brand could no longer compete on transgression. The pivot: reposition Playboy as a Vanity Fair–style men's lifestyle title, attract mainstream advertisers, and pull a younger reader who would not be seen carrying a nude magazine in public.
The data, mid-pivot.
Newsstand sales jumped 28% after the non-nude shift. Subscription sales fell 23%. The optics worked. The economics did not.
The reversal.
In February 2017, newly installed Chief Creative Officer Cooper Hefner — son of founder Hugh Hefner — announced the return of nudity in the March/April 2017 issue. The headline on the new cover: "Naked is Normal." Cooper Hefner's framing: "Nudity was never the problem because nudity isn't a problem. Today we're taking our identity back and reclaiming who we are."
The "Entertainment for Men" cover tagline was also retired in the same reset — a sharper, more durable decision than the nudity flip-flop.
Why it failed — three communications lessons.
1. They repositioned the product without repositioning the buyer.
The non-nude magazine did not arrive in front of new readers. It arrived in front of the same readers, who now had less reason to buy. Brand repositioning fails when the repositioning is announced inside the old distribution.
2. They removed the category cue.
Playboy's distinctive asset was not nudity itself — it was being the magazine that took a position on sexuality, journalism, design, and culture under the same cover. Removing the nudity removed the cue. The remaining product was a generalist men's lifestyle book in a market that already had Esquire and GQ.
3. They confused PR upside with brand upside.
Removing nudity generated weeks of free press. It moved newsstand sales for a moment. It did not move the underlying brand strategy, because the brand strategy required choosing a new audience — and Playboy chose neither. The old reader was alienated. The new reader never showed.
The repositioning that did work.
Two assets from the same period survived: the dropped "Entertainment for Men" tagline, and the broader decision to stop addressing the brand only to men. Those were structural moves. The nudity removal was a tactical move dressed as a structural one. The structural ones held. The tactical one reversed in 12 months.
The textbook takeaway.
A brand can reposition. A brand cannot abandon its category cue and expect the new category to recognize it. Playboy ceded the cue, did not earn the new category, and the only path back was to walk the cue back in. For the broader context of how this episode fits into Playboy's 72-year brand arc, see the hub piece — Playboy: The Brand That Invented the Creator Economy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Playboy remove nudity in 2015?
CEO Scott Flanders said internet pornography had made Playboy's nude pictorials commercially irrelevant. The company wanted mainstream advertisers and a non-stigmatized brand presence.
When did Playboy bring nudity back?
March/April 2017, under Chief Creative Officer Cooper Hefner. The reversal was announced in February 2017 with the "Naked is Normal" campaign.
Was the Playboy nudity removal a successful rebrand?
No. Newsstand sales rose 28% short-term, but subscription sales fell 23%. The brand lost its category cue without earning a new audience. The decision reversed in 12 months.
Who decided to remove nudity from Playboy?
Then-CEO Scott Flanders, with the magazine's editorial leadership. Hugh Hefner was alive at the time but not in day-to-day operating control. Cooper Hefner opposed the move and was sidelined during the non-nude period.
What is the brand-repositioning lesson from Playboy?
A brand cannot abandon its category cue inside its existing distribution and expect a new audience to find it. Playboy removed the signal that made it a category — without rebuilding it as a different category.
Did the "Entertainment for Men" tagline come back?
No. That removal was structural and held. The nudity removal was tactical and reversed. Hub: Playboy: The Brand That Invented the Creator Economy · Sibling: How Playboy Survived by Reinventing Its Audience
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
