Playboy Enterprises: Worthless
Posted by: Willie D
Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/29/09 09:03 AM
There's a story running on Adult FYI about the purported "value" of Playboy Enterprises, which owns such things as the Mansion, the magazine, Club Jenna and some shitty satellite porn networks. The import of the story (
link here) is that there are lots of physical assets than an investor would find valuable.
PEI is worthless, at least financially. Here's why.
1.
The Playboy Mansion. First off, discount the Mansion as anything of value. The writer at Crane's Chicago Business think it's worth a ton because Hef bought it in the early 1970's for about $1.2MM. Money gained via an IPO, not through his own personal means. They now estimate the property to be worth $35MM. Wonderful idea, but they missed one key problem: the Mansion serves as the
collateral for a $50MM loan from the Bank of America (see the entire Credit Agreement
here. Copy of the Deed of Trust
here.) Even worse, Bank of America is actively looking for
other lenders to buy out its stake down to $30MM, as noted in the 7th Amendment to this credit agreement, seen
here.. Other indicators that B of A isn't so happy with Hef and the company include: an
interest rate increase, an
increase in the commitment fee to use the credit facility,
a mandatory recapitalization of the company, and a limitation on the company incurring any new debt without the bank's consent.
Basically,
if you sold the Mansion, Playboy as a going concern would evaporate. With no other collateral to support any new borrowing, the company would have no way to issue letters of credit or subsidize any short-term finance gaps. Nor would they probably be able to find a new bank, since it's clear they're being kicked out by their old bank.
And let's finally dispense with
the myth that Hef "owns" the Mansion. The Deed is in the company's name, always has been. He lives there basically as a
renter, and has done so for over thirty years. He's required to
pay the company for all of his personal expenses, right after the company spends $100M a year to have an auditor come in and determine the market value of renting that kind of space.
And in case you're financially illiterate:
$1M = one thousand
$1MM = one million
Tomorrow: why would you want a stock that closed at $2.48 per share, when it
should be at $62.39, and has
never paid a dividend.
Posted by: Bornyo
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/29/09 09:12 AM
About all I have to add is "he had a good run".
The day Hef takes a dirt nap, the whores will be shown the door, the gratto will be shut down and a pending auction sign will appear on the front gate.
Posted by: cqd
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/29/09 11:23 AM
I always liked the Playboy pinball machine.
I worked at an arcade while I was going to school in central PA. There are lots of Amish folks in PA and (I'm not sure how the rules work) at some point when they are teenagers they have the opportunity to leave the farm and go out into the world. Anyway, whenever any Amish teens showed up at my work all they would play was Playboy pinball and all of the driving games.
I think we even used the "PG-13" versions of the artwork, no exposed breasts...
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/29/09 11:32 AM
Until Playboy starts showing vag and shit pipe, they are irrelevant. They broke boundaries 100 years ago, and haven't taken another step forward since. They are trying to sell 8 tracks on the same shelves as Ipods and BluRay discs.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/29/09 02:50 PM
Quote:
I think that was the last ver....I like the orginal ver....Bally style.
Posted by: Outback Whack
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 06:16 AM
Doesn't his tv show with the three annoying, whiney-mouthed, whores bring in some dough?
Posted by: Dick Dastardly
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 11:30 AM
Never been there, haven't even any knowledge of where the Mension is.
That said, can they turn it into condos?
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 03:35 PM
2. PLA Stock is worthless
The price of a company's stock is a genuine indicator of what other people think about that business. It's the ultimate indicator of worth.
In this case, their stock is also worthless.
Playboy trades on the NYSE under the symbol PLA. At least, they used to. Earlier this year, PLA was informed by the exchange that they were in danger of being delisted because their market capitalization had fallen below the $75MM threshold. Delisted...as in...yes, they're a publicly-owned corporation, but on one wants to provide a market for people to buy and sell their worthless stock. PLA took this stinger like any company would: they petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission to delete any references to the delisting from the annual reports they have to file with the SEC, normally available to the public..
To get a sense of how shitty this company's stock has performed, consider this: the company went public in 1971 with an initial closing price of $23.50. Yesterday, the shitty giant closed at $2.48. TWO FUCKING DOLLARS!!! If you adjusted for inflation, the stock would have to have closed at $62.39 just to maintain the same value it had in 1971. And that even takes into account a virtual two-for-one stock split in 1990, which the company had to perform in order to keep it alfoat.
Assumptions:
average inflation rate of 3.27% over the last 20 years
CPI estimates place a 1971 Dollar worth $5.31 today
Not to mention that the company has never paid a single dividend. Oh, except of the preferred shares Hef got when the company had to recapitalize itself in 1990. Basically, this shitbag had taken his investors for a ride. When he dies, the bunny will mean bubkus--he will effectively be a pronographic Bernard Madoff, who skimmed his company over and over again until he finally left them holding the bag.
Tomorrow: satellite porn and ClubJenna: also worthless
Posted by: freestylah
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 04:10 PM
Interesting stuff, Willie.
Did you do all 'research' yourself on this? It's well explained. Thanks.
Posted by: gia jordan
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 05:04 PM
Quote:
Never been there, haven't even any knowledge of where the Mension is.
That said, can they turn it into condos?
It's a few houses down from the Spelling Mansion in Holmby Hills kinda near where Bev Hills, Bel Air, and Westwood meet. I don't think it's zoned for condos. Other than houses, I've only seen a school, the fire station, and a park. It's a small area, but each property takes up massive amounts of ground.
Posted by: LouCypher
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 05:11 PM
It sounds really dull and remarkably boring.
What color was the grass?.
Posted by: Claude Goddard
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 04/30/09 08:16 PM
No surprise that the porn magazine (even the softcore of Playboy) market is in the crapper is it? Penthouse disappeared years ago.
I personally can't stand the fucking 'lad mags' that also drove Playboy, etc out. The 'writing' (if you think a bunch of top 10 lists qualify) is moronic and they even lack the basic honesty of the wank mags. Shitty porn for teen boys.
Quote:
2. PLA Stock is worthless
The price of a company's stock is a genuine indicator of what other people think about that business. It's the ultimate indicator of worth.
In this case, their stock is also worthless.
Playboy trades on the NYSE under the symbol PLA. At least, they used to. Earlier this year, PLA was informed by the exchange that they were in danger of being delisted because their market capitalization had fallen below the $75MM threshold. Delisted...as in...yes, they're a publicly-owned corporation, but on one wants to provide a market for people to buy and sell their worthless stock. PLA took this stinger like any company would: they petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission to delete any references to the delisting from the annual reports they have to file with the SEC, normally available to the public..
To get a sense of how shitty this company's stock has performed, consider this: the company went public in 1971 with an initial closing price of $23.50. Yesterday, the shitty giant closed at $2.48. TWO FUCKING DOLLARS!!! If you adjusted for inflation, the stock would have to have closed at $62.39 just to maintain the same value it had in 1971. And that even takes into account a virtual two-for-one stock split in 1990, which the company had to perform in order to keep it alfoat.
Assumptions:
average inflation rate of 3.27% over the last 20 years
CPI estimates place a 1971 Dollar worth $5.31 today
Not to mention that the company has never paid a single dividend. Oh, except of the preferred shares Hef got when the company had to recapitalize itself in 1990. Basically, this shitbag had taken his investors for a ride. When he dies, the bunny will mean bubkus--he will effectively be a pronographic Bernard Madoff, who skimmed his company over and over again until he finally left them holding the bag.
Tomorrow: satellite porn and ClubJenna: also worthless
So Hef's been basically doing "refi's" on his little biz and pulling out dollars forever. No wonder he got his daughter to run the place for all those years. But someone on the board should have cryed foul along the way. Don't know who they were but it is obvious that he stacked the board to keep his little enterprise running the way he wanted to. 
Posted by: Stevie Why
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/01/09 09:30 AM
I don't follow stocks that much, but Playboy's at $3.10 today (and was trading for $1.30 a month and a half ago); is that considered really volatile, or?
And that article mentions Hefner owns 70% of the common stock; is that generally good to own that much and keep it from the market? Or does having a higher percentage available to investors keep interest up?
I always thought when Hef passes that the Playboy brand will die a horrific death with a shit load of different parties battling over it (All Hef's whores from over the years, his daughter, the stock holders, those two little shitty-punk sons, and all the roaches that will come out of the wood work demanding something) but that might not matter if there's no money.
Posted by: Vukmir Vukmir
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/01/09 05:51 PM
They are doing some major restructuring, that's for sure. But they're also paying my rent next month so they're still good for something!
Posted by: static
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/01/09 06:26 PM
Buy low, sell high.
Posted by: duckduckgoose
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/02/09 12:26 AM
Can you post your analysis of the value of the various licensing deals the company benefits from? I would be interested to know, for example, how much they make from the
huge Vegas suite at The Palms hotel which features their branding (often shown on TV), or any of the other merchandise that features their logo. Maybe this detail is in their annual public financial filings; just never seen it discussed. To my mind, the licensing of the brand (for shirts, accessories, hotel suites) would be worth a fair bit for them.
Posted by: Visaman
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/02/09 01:30 AM
Keep in mind that Ford and Gm trade at about the same level. It's the New Economy.
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 05:27 AM
Quote:
And that article mentions Hefner owns 70% of the common stock; is that generally good to own that much and keep it from the market? Or does having a higher percentage available to investors keep interest up?
A big fat warning sign that says this is a family run company that the founder wanted to get some cash out of ("a reward for his efforts"), but still maintain complete and total control. This is the telling result of megalomania and is usually the kiss of death for a firm. For example, instead of getting real management to run the firm, Hef put his daughter in charge. Never a good sign. Hef should have went all the way and kept only 38% or so of the company. That is usually more than enough to accomplish the goal (total control) and get more cash for his efforts.
Quote:
I always thought when Hef passes that the Playboy brand will die a horrific death
Sort of. It is dying with a whimper. Fading into irrelevance. No one has cared for quite some time.
Posted by: Dean Wormer
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 11:37 AM
Quote:
Sort of. It is dying with a whimper. Fading into irrelevance. No one has cared for quite some time.
I'll say. They're apparently trying to get some "celebrity" named Heidi Montag to do some posing. Supposedly some sort of "raunchy" (that's how Extra or some other show described it) cover but with no nudity.
Posted by: Sonny Chiba
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 11:51 AM
Quote:
2. PLA Stock is worthless
Tomorrow: satellite porn and ClubJenna: also worthless
I'm looking forward to this part. 
Posted by: Fuk Yo Mama
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 12:38 PM
I'll never understand the contempt for Playboy that some people have. I was a subscriber for 15 years. The first naked woman I ever say was when I checked out my dads Playboy collection. He even started giving them to me when I was 15. I think of all the famous chicks I never would have seen naked without Playboy.
They never pretend to be hardcore, they've always been more about making the girl look beautiful. But magazines are dying and I can't see how a softcore magazine has any shot to survive.
What this means to me is that in the future allllllll of those famous girls that you'll want to see naked will have nowhere to show their goods. They won't be doing hardcore and their won't be a Playboy option anymore.
I don't know maybe I'm too sentimental. But I enjoy seeing Aubrey O'day, Vida Guerra, Cindy Margolis, Lisa Rinna, Kim Kardashian etc etc etc get naked. If Playboy fails we won't get to see that anymore.
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 01:02 PM
I disagree that the celebs will not show their stuff. If Playboy folds, I think what will happen is that a few D-List celebutards, either on the way up or down, will pose for an explicit magazine. This will soften the blow, and as time goes on the names will get bigger. I'm not saying that an oscar winner will be spread eagle in a centerfold, but maybe an upstart, edgy actress will bend over and let us see her money maker.
Fact is, if a once popular, or wants to be popular, whore needs to make a couple $$ off showing the goods, then with out Playboy there are 2 choices: Fake leaked sex tape or a Hustler magazine.
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 02:38 PM
3. Club Jenna is Worthless.
If you remember far enough back to 2007, when it was announced that Playboy was going to buy out Jenna, there were all these wild speculations...what was the company worth...her name alone was worth $30MM...the talk of all the "prefilmed" movies of her and Jay so that she would never have to shoot new content. You would think this purchase was something that was really going to revive the business. Well, then it was all said and done, the deal went like this: Club Jenna owners got about $17MM in cash over 4 years,
PLUS they would get even more
if the company met some sales goals.
Anybody want to guess how much Playboy has had to pay in additional royalties for the past few years? That's right,
absolutely nothing. Now, on one hand, you could say, Well, they don't have to pay for any new content. True, except now they are the de facto owners of the company. They have to pay for all the expenses, such as hiring the whores, paying for production space, etc. Playboy thinks so highly of Club Jenna now, they mentioned it exactly
twice by name in their 2008 annual report, itself almost ninety pages long.
Twice.
Of course, the exact results are buried in with a bunch of other business units--they aren't ready to make that knowledge public. All the same,
it's not hard to figure out why the enterprise isn't paying off like they envisioned: Jenna got her money, and like any other two-bit whore, ran away as fast as she can so she could squeeze out some MMA-babies and live like a queen for another decade or so. The current list of whores at CJ is pretty depressing: Sophia Rossi, Jill Kelly, Ashton Moore...women with plastic faces and overstuffed tits. Well, I suppose for a magazine that purchases photo retouching ink by the gallon, maybe it's not such a stretch. Just imagine
paying your fired CEO Christie Hefner $2MM to go away quietly after spending $17MM two years ago, and then having to include this line in your financial report about it, "No earnout payments have been made through December 31, 2008, and no future earnouts are expected
as we are exiting the DVD business."
Find PLA's annual report here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072341/000116923209001548/d76389_10-k.txt
Next: who pays $80 million for satellite porn that no one watches...and what kind of company issues
eighteen pages of cautionary "risk factors" about their business?
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 03:48 PM
Willie D is knocking it out of the park with this thread.
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 08:13 PM
Goodwill and intangible assets account for 64% of the assets.
FWIW, insiders are holding. Looks like they believe there is more to come.
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/04/09 10:24 PM
Quote:
Goodwill and intangible assets account for 64% of the assets.
FWIW, insiders are holding. Looks like they believe there is more to come.
Their only hard assets are their PP&E, the Mansion and the leasehold improvements, which are also mortgaged under guaranty agreements to B of A.
And they recorded a shitbag of impairment charges against those intangibles. Either the company is doing some accrual-basis shenanigans, or the Playboy brand isn't nearly as cool as it used to be. 
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/05/09 04:41 AM
Quote:
Their only hard assets are their PP&E, the Mansion and the leasehold improvements, which are also mortgages under guaranty agreements to B of A.
And they recorded a shitbag of impairment charges against those intangibles. Either the company is doing some accrual-basis shenanigans, or the Playboy brand isn't nearly as cool as it used to be.
Yes and yes.
All "family-owned and operated" stock exhange-listed corporations cook the books to some degree. I have seen a number of startups bury just about everything in the corporation. Donzis ("Donzii?", "Donzi's?"), you name it. PLA is just doing this on a larger scale.
$31M in cash, though. At yesterday's close, 30% of the stock, most likely a controlling interest) would be about $31M (biz.yahoo.com). I am no financial genius, but the company appears to be valued for the amount of cash in the bank. If the stock drops into low 2's or even the 1's, there could be a tidy profit there. An XPT buyout of PLA could result in some beer money for all around.
And the insiders appear to be holding. The stock will bounce up eventually on reputation, alone. As long as the cashflow is there, and it appears to be, PLA will be around.
Yahoo Cash Flow Stmt
Posted by: Sonny Chiba
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/05/09 09:46 AM
Interesting facts from the SEC statement-
-Hef paid $700,000 in rent for the mansion in 2008 (page 39)
-Holly, Bridget and Kendra racked 400K a year in rent, food, beverage and "other personal benefits" in 2007 and 2008 in addition to payments for "services rendered on our behalf, including appearance fees."(page 40)
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/06/09 11:28 PM
4. PLA management is worthless.
So back in the roaring '60s, Hugh turned his jack mag into quite the brand. And when he took it public in 1971, dudes were waiting in line to have a share of the "Bunny." Hef pocketed millions.
Then the company came to him again in the early 90s. Now, the price of cash was his daughter Christie. Make her the CEO of my fabulous franchise.
And lo and behold, decades later, his daughter has basically run the company into the ground. Want some examples????
--Christie was behind the wheel when the company made its ludicrous purchase of Club Jenna for over $20MM. That purchase has produced no measurable results to the company's bottom line.
-- CH orchestrated the purchase of Spice TV and several other cable porn companies, hoping they would justify the revenue. Guess what, they didn't. Spice died as other cable porn outlets came online, and PLA's cable TV franchise is so tenuous that a single broadcast company can cancel their distributorship unilaterally, and PLA can't do a fucking thing about it.
So for all this incompetence, guess what Hef's daughter got in return for being fired from the company:
--$2MM in cash, lump sum
--30,000 Shares of PLA stock, class B
--$22M in vacation pay
--Payment in full on her Diner's Club Card.
--All "personal costs" to be reimbursed
All this skank had to do was:
1. Don't badmouth the company
2. Don't compete against the company for two years
3. Make "intellectual use" of Playboy.
Yeah, right. Hugh fired his daughter, then set her up for life.
Read the shit here:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072341/000116923209001548/d76389_ex1027-d.txt
Fuck this whore and phuck Playboy!!!!
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/07/09 04:12 AM
Quote:
Then the company came to him again in the early 90s. Now, the price of cash was his daughter Christie. Make her the CEO of my fabulous franchise.
And lo and behold, decades later, his daughter has basically run the company into the ground.
Hef is facing his mortality now. Christine is the result of the mania of an old man wanting to leave a legacy to/for his children, or in this case, child. Nero has nothing on the aging founder of a family run business.
Posted by: PHATBOY
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/07/09 10:36 AM
I just read it for the articles. L.O.L.
I miss Patric Nagel's artwork.
Posted by: Dean Wormer
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/07/09 02:03 PM
Quote:
To me, it got old as soon as they started putting B-level celebs in every month.
If only they would use even B level celebs. They're down to about the D level now.
Posted by: Crocodile
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/11/09 06:10 AM
Earning conference call earlier today. I'll leave the analysis to Willie:), just some numbers: Revenue 61.6 million, bellow expectations. Net loss of 13.7 million or 0.41 per share compared to a loss of 4.2 million last year.
The company predicts revenue and profit growth in the second half of 09 and expects to lose less money this year than they lost last year. IMO bullshit.
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/11/09 02:03 PM
All you need to know from that press release and the conference call was summariezed by the new CEO, "We are beginning to see the results of the extensive restructuring and cost-reduction work that we began implementing in last year's fourth quarter. These initiatives allowed us to offset all but $1.4 million of the nearly $17 million revenue decline and led to improved margins in our TV and digital businesses, despite a lower revenue base."
In other words:
--We're firing people left and right, leaving everyone else to handle the same workload.
--We aren't making more money. We're just less unprofitable because we stopped spending so much money.
--I forgot that the supply and demand graph was an "X," not a hyperbola.
Posted by: Crocodile
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/11/09 02:21 PM
In fact, it even funnier/more tragic than that.
-that guy is not even a "proper" CEO, he's just an "interim CEO" temporally assigned to do the job after Christie Hefner's long awaited departure until they'll find a proper replacement. They've been looking for a replacement for quite some time now but somehow it seems good executives are not exactly banging on the doors. The interim CEO guy is a 71 years old coffin dodger who doesn't seem to have any other plan besides "we are willing to listen" to a buyout offer.
-They are not even less unprofitable. Even if one ignores the costs of "restructuring"(read: firing 25 % of workforce) they still lost more money than in Q1 2008. The only thing that they accomplished by restructuring was that they lost less money compared to what they would have lost if they hadn't fired all those people and closed their offices in New York. This is a serious problem because they obviously can't fire many more people without severely impacting their operation.
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 05/22/09 09:37 AM
$300 million dollar pipe dream of an asking price. It would be cool if some one bought it and evicted Hef.
Posted by: Willie D
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 06/03/09 10:48 PM
Quote:
$300 million dollar pipe dream of an asking price. It would be cool if some one bought it and evicted Hef.
Except he would have to agree to a sale since he has a controlling interest. He would probably let the company flush down the toilet before selling his [Gollum] "Preciousssssss" [/Gollum] in the interest of the remaining shareholders.
Let's face it, Viagra is keeping this douchebag alive. The day some MD declares him unfit for sexual activity, he will be dead within the hour.
Posted by: duckduckgoose
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 06/13/09 09:02 PM
Quote:
Let's face it, Viagra is keeping this douchebag alive. The day some MD declares him unfit for sexual activity, he will be dead within the hour.
If this is indeed true, a lot of us can learn and benefit from this lesson, becoming stiff to avoid becoming a stiff.
Posted by: Da Burglar
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 06/15/09 01:10 AM
Larry is my Hero, and NOT because he has a gold plated wheelchair.
Hustler has reaped a decent (certainly LIFE-giving) profit from the POKER-Boom/Fad of the last 10 years, offering both a titilating environment in which everyday players can go and play, and a decent series of tournaments which have drawn very well in terms of the size of the field of entrants. Plus, it is a NATURAL relationship, SEX & POKER; Hustler can market its poker events in ways that other casinos and organizations cannot.
Now, imagine if PLAYBOY had shown such foresight or imagination and decided to apply its fading but still viable (in certain cases) brand to Poker...? Instead of the friggin Palms opening up a fake Playboy Mansion in Vegas long after the company is a corpse, the folks at Playboy had gone to the larger, multi-property corporations in Vegas (and Reno, AC, Biloxi, etc.) and partnered up to open a series of Playboy-themed Poker Parlors, with a NAtional Playboy Poker circuit culminating in a PLayboy Poker Championship (whereby the winner not only wins a shitload of money, but dates with playboy bunnies), the situation would be a lot different.
Of course, they could also have tried to resuurect the Playboy Bunny Casinos of yesteryear and compete directly with LArry's establishments, but that might have been too ambitious for Playboy even 10 years ago. Under my plan partnering with the existing Corporations in Vegas, Startup costs (and therefore RISK) would have been minimal. This, in turn, would have led to the formation of the long awaited classy STRIP CLUBS in the Larger Casinos, with PLAYBOY leading the way attaching its name to these entities.
And that's why I am Da Burglar.....
Posted by: Stevie Why
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 06/15/09 09:18 AM
A couple weeks ago while up in LA I heard a radio spot (on KNX 1070) for Hustler Casino that made me think of this thread and how Flynt's trumped Heffner in branding; it advertised playing in a Poker tournament for a chance to play against Larry in the final round. It actually sounded kind of cool.
Flynt's done everything right when it comes to expanding to casinos and strip clubs; owning controlling interests in Deja Vu and physical real estate rather than putting all your eggs in the magazine-business like Hef's stuck to for years.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 06/23/09 07:11 PM
Quote:
A couple weeks ago while up in LA I heard a radio spot (on KNX 1070) for Hustler Casino that made me think of this thread and how Flynt's trumped Heffner in branding; it advertised playing in a Poker tournament for a chance to play against Larry in the final round. It actually sounded kind of cool.
Flynt's done everything right when it comes to expanding to casinos and strip clubs; owning controlling interests in Deja Vu and physical real estate rather than putting all your eggs in the magazine-business like Hef's stuck to for years.
I maybe wrong but Hef tried...key word TRIED to open a casino in AC....but they were allegedly denied a permanent gaming license.
Quote:
Casino number seven in Atlantic City was the ill-fated Playboy Hotel & Casino. The casino was owned by Hugh Hefner’s PlayboyEnterprises and the Elsinore Corporation. Built on a postage stamp size of real estate on Florida Avenue and the boardwalk the unique three-level casino with the minimum 500-room hotel opened on April 14, 1981. The three level design did not go over too well asmost gamblers disliked it. Each of the three floors were long and narrow making it difficult for an “even flow” to the casino. Hefner and Playboy were not granted a license and the casino was run by their partner; Elsinore Corporation. The casino retained the bunnydealers and cocktail waitresses and still operated as Playboy till April of 1984. After two years of appeals, Playboy Enterprises gave up on its effort to become licensed and sold its 45.7% interest in the casino to Elsinore. In June of 1984, after weeks of work byElsinore crews removing the bunny logo from every nook and cranny of the hotel and casino, the huge Playboy sign atop the hotel was lowered and up went the new one - Atlantis! Elsinore continued to run the hotel - this time under the Atlantis name for five more years, unprofitable ones at that. In April of 1989, the Casino Control Commission refused to renew the license for the Atlantis and placed the property under the control of a conservator. The following month, the casino at the Atlantis was closed. It was the first casino in Atlantic City to fail. In June of 1989, Donald Trump took over the Atlantis as a non-casino hotel and re-named it TrumpRegency. At the time, Trump already owned three casinos in Atlantic City, the legal limit in 1989. In 1996, the casino at the Trump Regency was re-opened under the name Trump Worlds Fair Casino. Earlier, the law limiting the number of casinos owned by one individual/corporation to three was abolished. Even though, Trump is operating this casino as an “arm” of his Trump Plaza casino.
The narrow three-level design of the Playboy/Atlantis was never embraced by gamblers in Atlantic City and probably led to its’ demise. Maybe under the Trump name and open as only a part of a much larger complex, the property may be able to hold its own in the highly competitive Atlantic City market.
Quote:
Quote:
A couple weeks ago while up in LA I heard a radio spot (on KNX 1070) for Hustler Casino that made me think of this thread and how Flynt's trumped Heffner in branding; it advertised playing in a Poker tournament for a chance to play against Larry in the final round. It actually sounded kind of cool.
Flynt's done everything right when it comes to expanding to casinos and strip clubs; owning controlling interests in Deja Vu and physical real estate rather than putting all your eggs in the magazine-business like Hef's stuck to for years.
I maybe wrong but Hef tried...key word TRIED to open a casino in AC....but they were allegedly denied a permanent gaming license.
Quote:
Casino number seven in Atlantic City was the ill-fated Playboy Hotel & Casino. The casino was owned by Hugh Hefner’s PlayboyEnterprises and the Elsinore Corporation. Built on a postage stamp size of real estate on Florida Avenue and the boardwalk the unique three-level casino with the minimum 500-room hotel opened on April 14, 1981. The three level design did not go over too well asmost gamblers disliked it. Each of the three floors were long and narrow making it difficult for an “even flow” to the casino. Hefner and Playboy were not granted a license and the casino was run by their partner; Elsinore Corporation. The casino retained the bunnydealers and cocktail waitresses and still operated as Playboy till April of 1984. After two years of appeals, Playboy Enterprises gave up on its effort to become licensed and sold its 45.7% interest in the casino to Elsinore. In June of 1984, after weeks of work byElsinore crews removing the bunny logo from every nook and cranny of the hotel and casino, the huge Playboy sign atop the hotel was lowered and up went the new one - Atlantis! Elsinore continued to run the hotel - this time under the Atlantis name for five more years, unprofitable ones at that. In April of 1989, the Casino Control Commission refused to renew the license for the Atlantis and placed the property under the control of a conservator. The following month, the casino at the Atlantis was closed. It was the first casino in Atlantic City to fail. In June of 1989, Donald Trump took over the Atlantis as a non-casino hotel and re-named it TrumpRegency. At the time, Trump already owned three casinos in Atlantic City, the legal limit in 1989. In 1996, the casino at the Trump Regency was re-opened under the name Trump Worlds Fair Casino. Earlier, the law limiting the number of casinos owned by one individual/corporation to three was abolished. Even though, Trump is operating this casino as an “arm” of his Trump Plaza casino.
The narrow three-level design of the Playboy/Atlantis was never embraced by gamblers in Atlantic City and probably led to its’ demise. Maybe under the Trump name and open as only a part of a much larger complex, the property may be able to hold its own in the highly competitive Atlantic City market.
This when he still had viable Casino's in England. The most profitable Casino in the World at the time. In Fact his profits at the time came 100 percent from the revues through his Casino's in England. The Problem was that he fell victim to a anti porn witch hunt lead by the Conservative Political Movement of Old Margret Thatchers Party in England in the Early Eights and he sold/ lost his Casinos in England.
I think if he had the Fight of Larry Flynt at the time he may have help the Long Term Outlook of Playboy Enterprises. Also Like Willie D said, he shouldn't have made his daughter "CEO". It's all in the book "The Day the Bunny Died" , the picture I posted is the cover of the book. Like Burg said he should have entered into partnerships with some big casino Companies in the late eighties to early nineties and maybe the company wouldn't be in such a mess.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 07/04/09 02:43 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A couple weeks ago while up in LA I heard a radio spot (on KNX 1070) for Hustler Casino that made me think of this thread and how Flynt's trumped Heffner in branding; it advertised playing in a Poker tournament for a chance to play against Larry in the final round. It actually sounded kind of cool.
Flynt's done everything right when it comes to expanding to casinos and strip clubs; owning controlling interests in Deja Vu and physical real estate rather than putting all your eggs in the magazine-business like Hef's stuck to for years.
I maybe wrong but Hef tried...key word TRIED to open a casino in AC....but they were allegedly denied a permanent gaming license.
Quote:
Casino number seven in Atlantic City was the ill-fated Playboy Hotel & Casino. The casino was owned by Hugh Hefner’s PlayboyEnterprises and the Elsinore Corporation. Built on a postage stamp size of real estate on Florida Avenue and the boardwalk the unique three-level casino with the minimum 500-room hotel opened on April 14, 1981. The three level design did not go over too well asmost gamblers disliked it. Each of the three floors were long and narrow making it difficult for an “even flow” to the casino. Hefner and Playboy were not granted a license and the casino was run by their partner; Elsinore Corporation. The casino retained the bunnydealers and cocktail waitresses and still operated as Playboy till April of 1984. After two years of appeals, Playboy Enterprises gave up on its effort to become licensed and sold its 45.7% interest in the casino to Elsinore. In June of 1984, after weeks of work byElsinore crews removing the bunny logo from every nook and cranny of the hotel and casino, the huge Playboy sign atop the hotel was lowered and up went the new one - Atlantis! Elsinore continued to run the hotel - this time under the Atlantis name for five more years, unprofitable ones at that. In April of 1989, the Casino Control Commission refused to renew the license for the Atlantis and placed the property under the control of a conservator. The following month, the casino at the Atlantis was closed. It was the first casino in Atlantic City to fail. In June of 1989, Donald Trump took over the Atlantis as a non-casino hotel and re-named it TrumpRegency. At the time, Trump already owned three casinos in Atlantic City, the legal limit in 1989. In 1996, the casino at the Trump Regency was re-opened under the name Trump Worlds Fair Casino. Earlier, the law limiting the number of casinos owned by one individual/corporation to three was abolished. Even though, Trump is operating this casino as an “arm” of his Trump Plaza casino.
The narrow three-level design of the Playboy/Atlantis was never embraced by gamblers in Atlantic City and probably led to its’ demise. Maybe under the Trump name and open as only a part of a much larger complex, the property may be able to hold its own in the highly competitive Atlantic City market.
This when he still had viable Casino's in England. The most profitable Casino in the World at the time. In Fact his profits at the time came 100 percent from the revues through his Casino's in England. The Problem was that he fell victim to a anti porn witch hunt lead by the Conservative Political Movement of Old Margret Thatchers Party in England in the Early Eights and he sold/ lost his Casinos in England.
I think if he had the Fight of Larry Flynt at the time he may have help the Long Term Outlook of Playboy Enterprises. Also Like Willie D said, he shouldn't have made his daughter "CEO". It's all in the book "The Day the Bunny Died" , the picture I posted is the cover of the book. Like Burg said he should have entered into partnerships with some big casino Companies in the late eighties to early nineties and maybe the company wouldn't be in such a mess.
talk about a string of bad luck....dorothy stratton gets offed around the same time i think....
I dont think hef as well as most members wading in the porn pool like to share....they want it all...the whores, the glory, the fame/attention and gratitude.....and natuturally the $$$. I can see the nepotism to a degree....who else can you get to give you all the power and just use her as a figurehead/rubber stamp.
If I hadnt said it before It kinda sucks to see someone asleep at the wheel of such an "iconic" brand.
could have been a contender....but with everyone pushing the envolpe and their suscription base dwindling due to lack of disposable income + the older readers just DIED.....you have to keep up with the times to make a profit....especially if there are clones of your stuff selling at 1/2 price....what would you buy.....
only people with money to burn or those that say I have a "lifetime subscription"....and I think they used to actually do this....get the print publication anymore....just another sad story of what would have/could have if ya just kept up with the competition....
easy choice of retail....companies that actually honor regular/sale prices of other local stores....why do they do so well??? I wouldnt have the foggiest
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 07/13/09 08:33 PM
The ONLY thing Playboy has recently done successful is monetize their LIVE casting calls-
Basic Casting Call-- $19.95
Secures you a personal interview and test photo session appointment.
*You may upgrade to the Gold or Platinum Casting Call package on site at the Casting Call.
Gold Casting Call package -- $49.95
Secures a personal interview and test photo session appointment - PLUS you'll receive an exclusive goody bag featuring Playboy merchandise: an official "I Posed" t-shirt, a PLAYBOY magazine on CD, a Special Edition issue, one month FREE membership to Playboy's Cyber Club, a discount coupon to shop the Playboy Store (www.shopthebunny.com) and within 3 to 4 weeks you will receive an email containing 3 un-retouched photos from your Playboy audition.
*You may upgrade to the Platinum Casting Call package on site at the Casting Call.
Platinum Casting Call package -- $59.95
Includes all elements from the Gold Casting Call package goody bag PLUS within 3 to 4 weeks you will receive an email containing 12 to 20 un-retouched photos from your Playboy audition.
Eligibility
Sexy girls -- 18 years of age or older -- including college students, busty babes, hot housewives and natural beauties. No modeling experience necessary.
Identification
You must bring with you two ORIGINAL and VALID forms of identification to prove that you are at least 18 years of age. The primary form of ID must be government issued and have your photo, date of birth and expiration date -- this can be a driver's license, passport or state ID. A second form of ID can be a birth certificate, student ID, Social Security card, voter registration card or military ID. Please note that expired IDs will NOT be accepted and you will NOT be tested.
Wardrobe/Preparation
A pair of heels with lingerie, bikini or a swimsuit. Please have your hair and makeup done BEFORE your interview.
Expectations
After completing your bio form and a model release (optional) we will verify and digitally photograph your IDs. Once you've changed into your lingerie/bikini you will have a casual interview during which photos and video will be taken of you. Please be aware that this audition is for Playboy and a certain level of nudity is expected.
Portfolios
No need to bring a modeling portfolio. You may leave additional photos for consideration but they will not be returned.
Notification
No phone calls please. If you have not received a phone call from a Playboy representative within four-to-six weeks after the casting there may not be an opening available for you, but your submission will remain on file.
Re-Scheduling Your Interview
If you need to change your interview time or day please do not call the hotel but simply send an email with your name and your scheduled day and time and then give us the new day and time. Use this email address:
castingcalls@playboy.comCancellations
If you need to cancel your interview you must notify us at least 24 hours prior to your scheduled appointment in order to receive a full refund of your Registration Fee. Please contact us at this email address:
castingcalls@playboy.com with your name, date and appointment time. Please note that your registration fee cannot be applied from one city to another.
http://www.playboy.com/specialeditions/casting/details.html
Posted by: duckduckgoose
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/11/09 04:30 AM
Why would (oxymoronish) un-retouched photos be desirable? Especially considering Playboy is famous for the airbrushing of their photo spreads for the past few decades... If I was a model, i'd want to see how their experts could clean me up -- i'd have enough photos already of how I actually look.
Posted by: duckduckgoose
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/11/09 05:10 AM
From the
Los Angeles Times ...
Quote:
Hugh Hefner and his wife, Kimberley, have sold their personal residence, just a hop away from the Playboy Mansion next door in Holmby Hills, for $18 million. The buyer is Daren Metropoulos, a25-year-old entrepreneur who will be moving from Beverly Hills.
How in the fuck does a 25 year old who, is not on the roster of any professional sports team, have a recording contract, or is a member of SAG afford an $18 million dollar house? I thought the real estate industry was supposed to be in the shitter yet they can pull a deal like this out of their ass?
Posted by: Soopergrizz
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/11/09 10:39 AM
Quote:
How in the fuck does a 25 year old who, is not on the roster of any professional sports team, have a recording contract, or is a member of SAG afford an $18 million dollar house?
He got it the old-fashioned way, inheritance.
His dad was a corporate raider that bought up consumer brand names like Bumble Bee Tuna, Aunt Jemima, Duncan Hines, etc.
http://www.neomagazine.com/2008_04_april/2008_04_148_kin.html
Posted by: zenman
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/11/09 08:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
How in the fuck does a 25 year old who, is not on the roster of any professional sports team, have a recording contract, or is a member of SAG afford an $18 million dollar house?
He got it the old-fashioned way, inheritance.
His dad was a corporate raider that bought up consumer brand names like Bumble Bee Tuna, Aunt Jemima, Duncan Hines, etc.
http://www.neomagazine.com/2008_04_april/2008_04_148_kin.html
ooooh that guy. He was on Stern years ago when he was about 16 and his cachet was that he was running companies for his dad back then. Unless it was all hype of course.
Posted by: Jigaloo
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/11/09 08:19 PM
Since you mentioned it I also remember Evan Metropoulos from being on Stern.
Posted by: delanoojos
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/12/09 08:44 AM
The playboy brand is in the process of being sold to the guy who owns all of the rights to the National Lampoon materials. His plans are to take it in a whole new direction.
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/12/09 01:17 PM
Hopefully the "New Direction" includes pictures of vaginas and assholes.
Quote:
The playboy brand is in the process of being sold to the guy who owns all of the rights to the National Lampoon materials. His plans are to take it in a whole new direction.
How can a company that trades at fifty cents a share pony up the 300 million dollar asking price for Playboy Enterprises? Who would lend them the money?
Hey do you guys know that John Hughes Died?
Posted by: delanoojos
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/13/09 07:30 AM
Quote:
Quote:
The playboy brand is in the process of being sold to the guy who owns all of the rights to the National Lampoon materials. His plans are to take it in a whole new direction.
How can a company that trades at fifty cents a share pony up the 300 million dollar asking price for Playboy Enterprises? Who would lend them the money?
Hey do you guys know that John Hughes Died?
A company is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. According to the AAF The Playboy brand is #12 of the most recognised brands amoung males 45+. There is brand value there. However, that being said the brand has not been well taken care of.
They have gone far outside of their core business and they have paid for it. The new owner is a classic 45 year old guy who is all about money. He will do what it takes to turn a profit.BTW, he knows nothing about the Porn biz, other than hanging out at Hefs place with the bitches. He also flys in Bitches to his private place in Miami. If that means going in a more XXX direction then that's the way that he will take it.
He owns three restruants in South Beach
Two in LA Etc....the dude has serious cash
Money to loan is not a problem here. Taking the company private is what will happen.However, Obama may not let him do that. A reversal of the national trend. We all see now when you try and run a compnay by a democratic system. Business is not democratic. It is auto-cratic. There can only be one captain of the ship.
Quid Pro Quo..baby
Posted by: Soopergrizz
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/13/09 11:16 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The playboy brand is in the process of being sold to the guy who owns all of the rights to the National Lampoon materials. His plans are to take it in a whole new direction.
How can a company that trades at fifty cents a share pony up the 300 million dollar asking price for Playboy Enterprises? Who would lend them the money?
Hey do you guys know that John Hughes Died?
A company is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. According to the AAF The Playboy brand is #12 of the most recognised brands amoung males 45+. There is brand value there. However, that being said the brand has not been well taken care of.
They have gone far outside of their core business and they have paid for it. The new owner is a classic 45 year old guy who is all about money. He will do what it takes to turn a profit.BTW, he knows nothing about the Porn biz, other than hanging out at Hefs place with the bitches. He also flys in Bitches to his private place in Miami. If that means going in a more XXX direction then that's the way that he will take it.
He owns three restruants in South Beach
Two in LA Etc....the dude has serious cash
Money to loan is not a problem here. Taking the company private is what will happen.However, Obama may not let him do that. A reversal of the national trend. We all see now when you try and run a compnay by a democratic system. Business is not democratic. It is auto-cratic. There can only be one captain of the ship.
Quid Pro Quo..baby
I hope to have a little spare time this weekend and I plan on sitting down and figuring out what your were trying to say here.
Thank you for the nonsensical word-salad.
He owns three restaurants!!! OMG - he should buy General Motors while he's at it.
Why would the president care if someone took a failing business private? Happens all the time.
Posted by: delanoojos
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/13/09 12:41 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The playboy brand is in the process of being sold to the guy who owns all of the rights to the National Lampoon materials. His plans are to take it in a whole new direction.
How can a company that trades at fifty cents a share pony up the 300 million dollar asking price for Playboy Enterprises? Who would lend them the money?
Hey do you guys know that John Hughes Died?
A company is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. According to the AAF The Playboy brand is #12 of the most recognised brands amoung males 45+. There is brand value there. However, that being said the brand has not been well taken care of.
They have gone far outside of their core business and they have paid for it. The new owner is a classic 45 year old guy who is all about money. He will do what it takes to turn a profit.BTW, he knows nothing about the Porn biz, other than hanging out at Hefs place with the bitches. He also flys in Bitches to his private place in Miami. If that means going in a more XXX direction then that's the way that he will take it.
He owns three restruants in South Beach
Two in LA Etc....the dude has serious cash
Money to loan is not a problem here. Taking the company private is what will happen.However, Obama may not let him do that. A reversal of the national trend. We all see now when you try and run a compnay by a democratic system. Business is not democratic. It is auto-cratic. There can only be one captain of the ship.
Quid Pro Quo..baby
I hope to have a little spare time this weekend and I plan on sitting down and figuring out what your were trying to say here.
Thank you for the nonsensical word-salad.
He owns three restaurants!!! OMG - he should buy General Motors while he's at it.
Why would the president care if someone took a failing business private? Happens all the time.
You are welcome,,,,it's what I do The three restruants are on Collins Blvd asshole and one on Lincoln Ave. I guess the National Lampoon property is not worth anything right. The fucking doormat at the lincon property is worth more than your house trailer.
If you knew anything about valuation and the relative constraints reguarding percentage calculations in effect for schedule 11456 in the blue files of the FTA the rules about stock priceing you would fully understand my post.Oh shit, Im looking out my Benz window here and I sees your car. 
One of the tires is going flat on your bedroom. You need to fix that or your tume of Jack Gel will be rolling around all night and youll have to wack off dry. You want to question my marketing knowledge, bring it .
BTW, a restruant is place where you sit down and eat food, not order fries on a box on the side of a building. 
Gia, straighten this poor child out please. He's been eating too many in and out burgers
Jerkwad, the President cares because he does not want ANMYTHING private. He wants to own and run it all. He now has GM and soon your life in his hands. Make sence? Think about it over the wekend. Mayby by sunday you will be able to google enough of these words to understand what I am saying.
SWING
National Lampoon Inc. Has a Market Cap of 4 million. Ok he has some interest in some movie residuals. I guess. Two restaurants maybe another 4 million. The magazine. Maybe a circulation worth 200 thousand. Ok so maybe net income of 5 mil. Unless he has some deep familial pockets like Rockefeller Carnegie or something. The guy can't afford to pony up 300 million 150 million maybe 50 million...
Maybe he can organize a group of wealthy guys who eat at his places but he would be and owner like George Bush was the Owner of the Texas Rangers....Figure Head...
Posted by: Soopergrizz
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 08/13/09 02:21 PM
I don't have all day to teach you reading comprehension, so I'll point out a few highlights.
Quote:
Quote:
How can a company that trades at fifty cents a share pony up the 300 million dollar asking price for Playboy Enterprises? Who would lend them the money?
<snip>
A company is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. According to the AAF The Playboy brand is #12 of the most recognised brands amoung males 45+. There is brand value there. <snip>
The O/P notes that a piece of shit company like National Lampoon (where the CEO was recently indicted for stock fraud Link1 Link2 ) could not likely come up with $300 million to buy Playboy.
You responded with a bunch of useless shit about Playboy's brand awareness, thereby completely missing the fact that the issue is Nat Lamp's worthless brand, not Playboy's nearly worthless one. Well played genius.
BTW financial guru - here's a snapshot of NatLamp Link EPS -0.39; Market Cap $4.63 Million. So, in answer to the O/Ps question of how they could come up with $300 million to buy Playboy, one answer is to liquidate their holdings in NatLamp and then come up with $295 million more (since only 2000 shares traded today, that might take a while).
Quote:
Jerkwad, the President cares because he does not want ANMYTHING private. He wants to own and run it all. He now has GM and soon your life in his hands. Make sence? Think about it over the wekend.
Another excellent point. I believe that the President will be personally evicting people from their homes right after he finishes euthanizing the retarded people (note to delanoojos: hide in the basement until the death squads leave your state).
Posted by: xvod
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 09/25/09 01:32 PM
You guys are all missing the mark with the Playboy discussion. Sure, the stock is in the shitter. Sure, Hef owns a controlling majority. Sure, the brand has seen better days. **BUT** the brand is still worth far more than the revolving credit facility and the company is far from worthless. Everybody knows the Playboy logo. Everybody.
The fact is that Playboy is a mainstream company with tentacles in publishing, adult DTC video, vod, ppv, cable network programming, interactive, apparel, jewelry, housewares and casinos. There isn't one other adult enterprise that wouldn't want to be as big a monstrosity as Playboy.
As a media company, they are having trouble navigating the physical to digital transition, just like everybody else but I haven't seen any of their vanilla sex videos wind up pirated on free clip sites. They may have been late to the interactive and VOD markets, but they're expanding there now. The one thing that they have fucked up is not getting into high-end strip clubs. They should open one in Vegas and fix that.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 09/25/09 03:34 PM
Quote:
just like everybody else but I haven't seen any of their vanilla sex videos wind up pirated on free clip sites.
they also own Adult.com...their videos i think are on the tube sites.
Posted by: Kingfish
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 09/25/09 04:03 PM
Quote:
The one thing that they have fucked up is not getting into high-end strip clubs. They should open one in Vegas and fix that.
That would go against the brand, I believe. They always marketed themselves as showing "the girl next door". The girl next door wouldn't be a stripper. I haven't seen any Playboy product in many years, so maybe that isn't the brand emphasis anymore.
Posted by: xvod
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 09/25/09 06:26 PM
Playboy has been working to update the brand and despite the fact that a strip club would be outside the norm it would be hugely profitable.
If it were up to me I'd take it the Playboy Club route and just ramp it up with servers in Playboy Bunny outfits and hot strippers. Fuck, I might even just go topless in the main showroom to attract more women to the clubs.
Look at the dough companies like Rick's Cabaret is raking in. $20MM in 3rd Q revenue. With Playboy branding a chain of strip clubs that same size could triple the gross.
Posted by: Kingfish
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 09/25/09 06:51 PM
I wonder if Hefner is aware of or even cares about the financial struggles of his company. Maybe there is the sleazy equivalent of
Fitzwilly operating in the mansion.
Posted by: Stevie Why
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 12/01/09 02:47 AM
FBI Raids Offices of Indy Financier Timothy Durham (National Lampoon CEO) I wanted to post something a few months ago when all these claims were made about Lampoon being so viable given some experience a few friends and business partners had with them, but waited in case there was any retribution. Luckily they got out without too much being owed (a bit less than $10K for development deals), but jesus...how many times can one company fuck up in a year?
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 12/01/09 05:09 AM
Quote:
Playboy has been working to update the brand and despite the fact that a strip club would be outside the norm it would be hugely profitable.
If it were up to me I'd take it the Playboy Club route and just ramp it up with servers in Playboy Bunny outfits and hot strippers. Fuck, I might even just go topless in the main showroom to attract more women to the clubs.
Look at the dough companies like Rick's Cabaret is raking in. $20MM in 3rd Q revenue. With Playboy branding a chain of strip clubs that same size could triple the gross.
that would be a conservative estimate naturally it is based largely on location and area wide marketing...they would have to have also in place an attractive code being that some clubs allow just any dancer to work there....this would be the cream of the crop maybe even a feature once a month...and they would also have to make it the upscale "gentelmens club" style making it "trendy" to be there...as maybe a regular nightclub/dance club.
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 12/02/09 02:49 AM
The reality is that there is a critical tipping point in the life of a startup: when the founder yields control to professional management. This is one of the reasons why the first step in any buyout it to clear the top 2 ranks and insert your own team.
Hef turning over the keys to his daughter aint it. Doomed to fail.
Posted by: xvod
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 12/02/09 02:11 PM
Quote:
Hef turning over the keys to his daughter aint it. Doomed to fail.
Christie walked with a severance package...
The douch running Playboy into the ground is a guy named Scott Flanders, the same guy who ran Freedom Communications (OC Register, Coast Magazine) into the ground.
Why any media company needing a turn around would hire an executive that already ruined a hugely profitable media company is beyond me.
Posted by: geek
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 12/03/09 01:19 PM
Depends who was ruined. If the execs all got out with a bunch of dough, who cares what was left behind. Happens every day in small and mid-sized companies. Sure, it happens in the larger outfits, but those organizations are large enough to recover the antics of any one or small group of people. The smaller outfits are usually an extension of the management team's personal bank accounts (if you are lucky) an/or their personal egos (if you are not).
You are actually looking at Playboy as a business that should and could make a profit and one and all would benefit. That is, all boats float higher when the tide rises. Altruistic and admirable, but that is not what your fellow man actually does when founding and running a company. Egos take over. Greed sets in.
I happen to like the view of what a corporation should be that you appear to have. It is the correct and proper view any business owner / executive should have. Unfortunately, it usually aint that way.
Summed up, Playboy is a dairy cow that gets emptied regularly.
Posted by: Sonny Chiba
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/09/10 05:42 PM
Hefner being sued -
TMZ
Great quote - "Today, the price of a Playboy magazine is far higher than the price of Playboy common stock." In 1999, the stock sold for $36 a share. Today Playboy closed at $3.14. The magazine sells for $5.99"
Do they own reality gang? The trailers seems to come from Playboy.com.
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/10/10 09:37 AM
By the time they are through court, you'll be able to trade a stack of cum covered 80's Playboys for 100 shares.
Posted by: JRV
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/18/10 12:59 AM
Quote:
**BUT** the brand is still worth far more than the revolving credit facility and the company is far from worthless. Everybody knows the Playboy logo. Everybody.
The fact is that Playboy is a mainstream company with tentacles in publishing, adult DTC video, vod, ppv, cable network programming, interactive, apparel, jewelry, housewares and casinos. There isn't one other adult enterprise that wouldn't want to be as big a monstrosity as Playboy.
Brand recognition is valuable, but only as a sales lever. Playboy hasn't developed any other good revenue streams. Strip clubs is a good idea - although they used to do this years ago and I'd want to see why it failed. A "Club Med" style resort destination might be another.
Quote:
The reality is that there is a critical tipping point in the life of a startup: when the founder yields control to professional management.
Ken Lay learned this the hard way too...
Quote:
Hefner being sued - TMZ
Great quote - "Today, the price of a Playboy magazine is far higher than the price of Playboy common stock." In 1999, the stock sold for $36 a share. Today Playboy closed at $3.14. The magazine sells for $5.99"
That lawsuit has 0% chance of winning. The catch is that Playboy can't recover their legal costs when they win.
The one thing the lawyers suing Playboy do NOT want to happen is for the case to go to trial - that's the worst possible result for them. They'll guess at how much a victory will cost Playboy and offer to settle for less.
If Playboy contests the suit they'll spend real $$$ to win and the lawyers suing will be out only a few hours time but no cash (losers don't pay winner's legal fees). So Playboy probably pays a settlement fee in spite of knowing they're certain to win at trial, because the lawyers suing make sure it's it's cheaper to lose than win.
(most people think it's cheaper to win and that a loss is expensive. But plaintiff's lawyers know that if they make sure it's cheaper for the victim to lose that most companies will go for the cheapest result and lose, which is a win for plaintiff's lawyers. That's the advantage of a loser-pays-winner's-cost system - it means it's cheaper to win than lose and plaintiff's won't file suits unless they can win on the merits)
Posted by: 99% Fiction
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/18/10 07:35 AM
When I was in college my business professor told us a good story about companies avoiding litigation by settling. There was a guy in jail that would write companies whose stocks had recently gone down in price and tell them that he had lost X dollars (usually 5-10k) and that he was going to sue because their poor management was the reason for the loss. He had 40-50k in his account before a company decided to pay their lawyers to fight him and showed that he was a fraud.
Posted by: daloresdollor
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/21/10 08:03 PM
The Club Jenna purchase was a disaster and their inhouse web ventures have done just as bad. The company that did their web marketing fucked them big time by giving pretty much all of their archived pay webcontent (cyberclub) for free. Christie was too late to the party as far as getting into the hardcore part of the industry.
The bunny itself is the most marketable part of the brand now. However even that has lost much of its luster due to the fact that they put the damn logo on anything and everything you could possibly imagine.
As far as the magazine goes, MAXIM/STUFF/FHM cut into their sales. Even with STUFF/FHM gone, they never recovered. Seven years ago they brought in a former MAXIM editor to head the magazine, it was a disaster. A lot of their loyal readers jumped ship within the last 10 years because of the shitty Z list celeb pictorials. A lot of them also started to bail when Hef started putting is lookalike girlfriends or girls that looked like them in the magazine on regular basis. A lot of the feedback was negative, and they did try and change it, but the damage had been done.
That being said, they got it right with who they just picked for Playmate of the Year.
Posted by: Anonymous
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/22/10 10:32 PM
Quote:
The bunny itself is the most marketable part of the brand now. However even that has lost much of its luster due to the fact that they put the damn logo on anything and everything you could possibly imagine.
oversaturation of any branded logo almost always typically spells disaster quite quickly.... 
Posted by: Dean Wormer
Re: Playboy Enterprises: Worthless - 02/22/10 10:54 PM
If they, as rumored, give a seven figure amount to Heidi Montag for another lame pictorial like her last one it will be close to all over.
