Layout and Design II: Covers

[Peggy Wilkins]

I would like to continue commenting on issues of layout and design.
This particular topic -- Playboy covers -- is one that I feel is very
significant.

I think that the cover is one of the most important components of any
magazine, if not the most important: it presents to the viewer an
overall impression of what the magazine is about on both a small scale
(the particular issue in hand) and a larger scale (all issues in
general).  Whether the viewer is a first-time reader or is returning
for the 100th time, the cover is the first, and hence most memorable,
experience that the reader will have with any particular issue.
Ideally it will evoke a reaction in the viewer that is consistent with
the overall editorial and artistic goals of the magazine.  I have no
doubt that many a magazine sale has been made on the basis of cover
impact -- a cover that catches the eye and pleases will be looked at
more often and for a longer time, and may push through to the eventual
sale.  This is certainly true of me as a newsstand browser; I have
even begun reading some magazine titles regularly strictly on the
basis of their having consistently pleasing covers.

Many of us regular Playboy readers have reacted strongly and
unfavorably to the recent decline of the classic Playboy cover.  The
great majority of current covers appear as if they were designed by a
marketing committee: they are most often laid out in accordance to a
rigid formula.  The motivation for the formula would seem to be
marketing surveys that have determined what sells generic magazine
issues; and then featuring those top selling points as prominently as
possible.  In this formula, the celebrity du jour is typically starkly
posed against an indistinct background with contents copy in very
large caps along both sides from top to bottom.  This is not to say
that all Playboy covers are like this; I know that they are not.  But
certainly most of them have followed this formula for the past several
years; and certainly too many of them for my taste.

One derives two conclusions from this formulaic design:

 - Playboy is celebrity driven; little else matters.

 - The editors believe that few will buy the issues without being
   "caught" by a particular blurb promoting the contents (as evidenced
   by the large font and overwhelming placement of the contents type).

In my opinion, it's a sorry state when the editors themselves no
longer believe in the appeal of their own magazine enough to let it
pass muster, saleswise, on its own merits -- so much so that the cover
no longer accurately represents the intended attitude of the magazine.

Either that, or I am simply not capable of understanding the appeal of
many recent covers.  Am I missing something?

While I certainly do understand the desirability of marketing and
promotion, I also believe that marketing need not be in such direct
conflict with good design.  Often it seems that good design has
actually been abandoned!  It seems to have been deemed not worth the
effort.  Surely there are some artists/designers out there who can put
together thoughtfully designed covers on a regular basis that will not
result in the issues' sales going down the tubes.  Respect the readers
enough to give them attractively presented cover text that doesn't
SCREAM out the contents like a billboard; respect them enough to
assume that they *want* to read your magazine -- they are your allies,
not your adversaries; give them enough credit to realize that without
explicitly seeing NUDE on the cover, they will realize that Playboy
presents nudes.  Use some interesting fonts; use mixed case rather
than uppercase (that can be so unattractive!); place the text in
subtle locations that attractively fit into the design; in short, put
some thought into cover design again!

I went to some effort recently to state that an essential attribute of
Playboy is that it has a strong visual impact.  Historically speaking,
much of that impact has been from the cover.  The evidence for this
comes from how many of us remember particular covers.  The cover is
also a large contributor to the continuing collectible value of
Playboy: it is one of the significant reasons that some people want to
collect Playboy.  While everybody is not a collector, this value
should not be overlooked; it builds up respect that contributes to a
loyal following, and so contributes to Playboy's longevity.

I would direct anyone who wants to see Playboy covers past and present
to the cover gallery in the Cyber Club.  It is at this address:

    http://cyber.playboy.com/members/library/covers/

Interestingly, the text on this page says:

    A blend of popular art, cultural history, stellar design and
    soaring imagination, these are the covers of Playboy magazine.

How true this is!  But it hardly refers to most current covers; it
only reflects bygone days.

I did want to give some specific examples of past and recent covers
and talk a bit about the values and ideas that they represent, but
given the lateness of the hour and the length of what I have already
written, I will defer this contribution to a later date.  In the
meantime, I will solicit the input of others.  How important are
covers to you?  Have I exaggerated their importance?  Any new points
to add?

In a way I regret that this topic has to be expressed in such a
negative way -- I had hoped to talk more about what we do want than
about what we don't -- but to me it is of such significance that it
can't really be accurately discussed otherwise.
__
Peggy Wilkins                                         mozart@uchicago.edu
Marilyn on the Web                 http://glamournet.com/legends/Marilyn/
Admin, Playboy Mailing List            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PML1