Cover Changes

Donna Tavoso dtavoso@earthlink.net
Sat, 19 Apr 2003 03:06:29 -0500 (EST)


I think that Peggy raises a very valid issue about how important
selling the magazine at newsstand has become -- I often wonder why
Playboy doesn't take the lead and venture away from the trend of
putting celebrities on the cover and go back to designing the great
covers from the sixties, when the images on the covers were so unique.
I think the more art directed focused covers would get better
placement on the newsstand.  I realize that would be a risk in the
goal to draw younger readers into the fold, but I think that is
selling the demographic short.  I think they can be captured by great
images, after all the campaign to launch Playboy.com featured images,
not of women and those became some of the best selling posters on
college campuses.  To me the execution is what is crucial.


 -------Original Message-------
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:17:39 -0500
From: Peggy Wilkins <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: changes

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Stiffler <calendar-girls@mindspring.com> writes:

    Dan> ...But all the squawking about undeserving playmates, all
    Dan> the wish lists about celebrities--all this does is make the
    Dan> editors think that the playmate is a losing proposition and
    Dan> that any girl in the media's eye is a winner.

I wouldn't put it this way at all -- I think the editors are clear
that the Playmate always has been and remains one of PLAYBOY's key
concepts.  If anything, all the "squawking" proves that the concept is
key, because it is a clear indication that people care.  I think they
should worry when people stop talking about the Playmate.  People do
go on with enthusiasm about Playamtes they like, as well.  And I will
remind you that people complain about the celebrity pictorials as much
as they do about the Playmates... indeed, one can't be in any internet
group for very long without coming to the conclusion that most people
want to complain, about anything and everything, more than they do
anything else.

I think it's also an overgeneralization to conclude that anyone in the
media's eye is an automatic winner.  What they are going for is
newsstand sales, and newsstand buyers are a fickle lot.  Their sales
figures are most likely the source of the tendency to turn PLAYBOY
into Celebrity of the Month, because these celebrities are what have
turned in the sales figures.  If that is the bottom line, then it's
very natural that this is what they're concentrating on.

Personally I believe that there is a deeper issue here than what
celebrity feature can sell more issues.  There is a problem with
distributing PLAYBOY; there is a problem with displaying PLAYBOY in
many markets; and unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with
buying PLAYBOY.  I'm sure none of this is news to any of us.  The
celebrity features can overcome this to a certain extent, but this can
only be on a hit-or-miss basis.  If the distribution, display, and
public perception problems are addressed directly -- perhaps making it
much easier to find and buy PLAYBOY than it currently is -- some of
this could change.  Unfortunately there are no easy solutions to these
issues -- but I feel they can still be addressed.  I suspect that
addressing these things could have a significant impact on PLAYBOY's
newsstand sales.  I'd sure like to see them try.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@uchicago.edu