changes

[Dan Stiffler]

On 4/16/03 4:31 PM, "Mark Tomlonson" <tomlonson@wmich.edu> wrote:

> Dan Stiffler wrote:
> 
>> 1.  Improve the quality of reproduction.
>> 
>> 2.  Emphasize the photographers.
>> 
>> 3.  Use the history.
>> 
>> 8.  Promote the playmate.
>> 
>> C)  This might be my most radical--and reluctant--suggestion, but I know the
>> concept is on the table anyway, so I am going to address it: kill explicit
>> nudity in the magazine.
>> 
> One element of Playboy's history that I think it will be forced to carry
> into it's future is the nudity. It has always been what has set it
> apart. There were thoughful essays published in magazines all the time
> Playboy did, but Playboy had the naked women. Without naked women,
> Playboy would be Maxim or Esquire by another name.
> 
> If Dan means going back to the standard of nudity that Playboy had in
> the early Seventies, then I agree with him that this may be a good
> avenue for Playboy to explore. If he means the type of nudity in an "Oil
> of Olay" ad, then we part company.
> 
> If there are no nudes, why increase the reproduction quality? Or
> emphasize the photographers? There are several top-flight art magazines
> that fill that role. Without nudes, how can the history be used? Why
> promote the Playmate?
> 

Mark, I used the phrase "explicit nudity."  Of course, I also gave as an
example the modest pin-ups of the fifties.  I don't really know where the
line might be drawn but I know what wouldn't be shown and, I imagine, so do
you.

I want to point out that I offered this suggestion as the third of three
possible ways to increase the marketplace--and I saw it as the riskiest to
the magazine.  Personally, I prefer the Playboy Store or even the
restaurant/club model to dropping explicit nudity in the magazine.  However,
we have read that this idea is on the table, and I thought I would offer a
way that such a move would be acceptable to me; that is, using the photos in
the flagship magazine as a venue for "classic" nudes and "contemporary"
pin-ups (but non-explicit) and as a tease for getting readers to pursue
other PEI publications and on-line sources in order to see explicit photos,
if they so choose.

The one way to increase marketplace that I didn't suggest is to chase after
every hot property that comes down the celebrity trough.  That indeed seems
to be the track the new editorship is on (and, to be fair, the old
editorship was also on, to a somewhat lesser degree).  What this means
*fundamentally* is that PLAYBOY no longer chooses its featured models.  The
larger media does.  Now, instead of finding a playmate at the record shop in
Pittsburgh (Linda Gamble), the editors will be hanging out by the TV,
waiting for E! channel to anoint the next potential PLAYBOY cover girl.

This is not leadership.

And while I am on ranting...I didn't want to say this on the PML because I
didn't see any valid reason to spoil everyone's fun.  But all the squawking
about undeserving playmates, all the wish lists about celebrities--all this
does is make the editors think that the playmate is a losing proposition and
that any girl in the media's eye is a winner.

regards,

Dan Stiffler