changes

Peggy Wilkins mozart@lib.uchicago.edu
Sun, 13 Apr 2003 20:35:49 -0500


Gretchen's message about huge editorial staff changes has reminded me
that i wanted to post my recent PML message about recent PLAYBOY
issues here.  I posted this some time ago on the PML, and I also
reposted it on the PLAYBOY message boards
(http://boards.playboy.com/).  I was disappointed that no one at all
responded to it (apparently people are much more interested in
communicating about Playmates and other nude models than about
editorial issues!); so I will give it a third try here.  (To be fair,
Dan Stiffler replied to the paragraph addressed to him, but that
didn't address any of the editorial issues.)

Gretchen, insofar as you haven't been able to get a reply on your
status from Mr. Kaminsky, can't you call up Hef and ask him more about
what's up?  Not to take liberties here, just suggesting what seems
reasonable from my outside point of view.  I have no idea how one gets
to talk to Hef, all I know is that I am not someone who calls him up...

So here is what I thought about recent PLAYBOY issues; I hope someone
here will have some comment.  I'd love to talk about editorial issues!

=====================================================================

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:25:14 -0600
From: Peggy Wilkins <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu>
Subject: recent PLAYBOY issues: comments

here are some comments on the february through april playboy issues.

EDITORS:

february was the first issue with james kaminsky's name under the
masthead.  he's cutely listed as "the new guy" in 2/03, and then in
the march issue his name appears jointly with arthur kretchmer as
editorial director.  by april, his name precedes kretchmer's in this
listing; i could only guess whether this is a move to a simple
alphabetical listing or if it means anything rankwise.  the march
playbill mentions that that issue is kretchmer's last, though i
believe he was/is set to stick around through the 50th anniversary
issue, and his name does still appear in april.  does this mean that
kaminsky's hand is heavier in determining april and subsequent issue
content?  i don't know, but i do know that in my opinion, there are
some evident changes starting in february.  i think most of these
changes are for the better; but as always that doesn't mean there
isn't more room for growth/evolution/improvement.  (isn't that always
the case by definition?)  i will also mention that some long-familiar
names have disappeared from the editorial listings, and by april there
are two completely new additions: steven russell as deputy editor, and
robert love as editor at large.  it will be interesting to see what
happens as the newer, reworked editorial team picks up speed.

COVERS:

there is a core group of us PML'ers who both realize the significance
(historic and artistic -- and also personal) of PLAYBOY covers and who
have despaired over the unfortunatate prevalence of the recent
formulaic celebrity/mass-marketing-driven cover design.  the great
majority of covers over the past several years look like they were
designed by a marketing committee, with only the occasional nod toward
good design or visual impact.  we perceive this as a great and
unfortunate loss.  if i had to guess what the most significant factor
in these cover designs has been, i would say it has been industry
market surveys about what sells magazines on the newsstand:
celebrities, numbered lists (20 ways to... the 10 best/worst... the
100 most...), and obnoxiously large copy type that overwhelms all
other aspects of the cover.  often the cover image takes on a
secondary role to the text, as if it were only making an appearance
out of obligation.  occasionally PLAYBOY does a good job with the copy
type, but most of the time they have fallen back on what i consider to
be a par-for-the-course layout and look that i consider to be very
unattractive -- i have mentioned this here many times before.  i am
particularly put off by the all-caps, overly large, square-shaped font
that they have consistently used on their covers.  to me, this gives
the magazine a sterile look -- and that is just not the vibe i want to
get from PLAYBOY.

both february and april bring a different, fresher look to the PLAYBOY
cover; and april is particularly strong in this regard.  to me, the
largest factor in this fresher feel is their use of combined upper and
lower case letters.  the february cover in particular has a very
different look and feel than the usual playboy cover, and in fact i
remember that several people here noticed the different look and
mentioned it.  i still find the overall look of this cover a bit harsh
-- part of it is that alison eastwood looks a bit stiff, part of it is
the very crisp and vibrant color scheme, part of it is the italicized
font.  it is also a welcome relief not to see the usual NUDE following
alison's name; the more clever Makes Our Day is pleasantly subtle.
and i like the april cover even more.  carmen electra is a stunning
model, the saturated colors are less harsh/contrasty than february,
and the upper case headers and smaller, mixed case subheaders give
more of a sense of balance, even elegance, to the overall look.  i
hope they will continue in this direction: if there has to be this
much text, this is a much better way to do it!

to me the march cover is a bit of a mistake; i just don't get it.
they reverted to the all-caps text, and cover girl doris mar's face is
blurry.  couldn't they have selected a picture with more depth of
focus?  the implication seems to be that we are supposed to look at
her body and not her face; nothing wrong with that, but i prefer the
total package.  i also have to wonder if the second hidden bunny is
deliberate: there is the officially credited one on her hip and a
second one in the flower around her neck.  were they having some extra
fun with us, or just not paying attention?  perhaps it symbolizes the
dual editorial directors.

INTERVIEW:

did anyone else notice the new touches in the april interview?  on the
opening page, the title bar is expanded (i think this makes it easier
to find in browsing the magazine); and lo and behold, turn the page
and there is a color portrait, and then a sidebar on the following
page!  adding additional photos and career info is in my opinion a
positive addition to this classic feature.  the sidebar looks a little
clunky, so i hope they will tweak its look/layout if they use it again
(please!), but it is moving in the right direction.  keep going, keep
going!  how about a larger color portrait?  more side info (as long as
it doesn't get superficial)?  there's lots of room to go here.


FEATURES:

i gotta hand it to the editors for coming up with some really good,
interesting features for these recent issues.  the february co-ed sex
advice (college sex columnists) is right on target for playboy, and
interesting, too.  chip rowe's why you can't get tickets is another
high interest feature.  in march, the online gaming article was very
interesting -- and just too short!  it could have been even more
interesting if it had been drawn out quite a bit more, with a larger
scale pace and feel.  it's a good, timely topic choice.  april's "sex
and two cities" is another winner, again right on target for playboy.
i've also been liking the liquor features (e.g., mezcal in april) and
hope they will continue.  these issues seem to be packed with stuff
like this that i feel i *have* to read because it's interesting -- and
that's a good thing.  my only complaint is that we seem to have almost
completley lost larger-scale articles, and it can be a bummer to start
reading something that is very interesting, and then have it suddenly
draw to a close.  large scale development can be a good thing.

those are my overall impressions of PLAYBOY a-la-kaminsky.  keep it
coming guys!  more, more!

if these issues are any indication, i think that we can start breating
easier that PLAYBOY won't be over-overhauled, or as some have said,
MAXIM-ized; its spirit shows every sign of remaining intact.  if they
can integrate the best of a great tradition with fresh ideas and a
newer, still elegant look, i will continue to be a happy reader.

(note to dan stiffler: did you check out Mr. Playboy in the april
issue, page 46? -- nice, huh?  with that "join us" sentiment, i may
have to hang it up on my wall!)
__
Peggy Wilkins                                         mozart@uchicago.edu
Marilyn @Glamournet                http://glamournet.com/legends/Marilyn/
Playboy Mailing List                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PML1