The Danger of Celebrity

[Alfred Urrutia]

--- Dan Stiffler <calendar-girls@mindspring.com> wrote:

> 
> How much better it was for the magazine when it controlled its own
> star-making machinery, the centerfold.  Now that the emphasis has gone
> entirely over to celebrities (if the magazine's covers have not been making
> that shift clear for the last decade or so, then the quotes--most damningly
> by Hefner himself--in the recent NY Time article do), PLAYBOY has lost much
> control over its primary content, the content it is emphasizing to the
> public.  Now it's all about undressing those who have been already anointed
> by the general media.
> 

I'm not sure they ever had it.  Control, I mean.  Sure, they controlled *who*
would be a Playmate, how they should act, where they should appear, etc.  But
even today, in the most Playboy accepting climate I've seen (E! Channel, TV
shows, etc.) the majority of people *still* call Playmates "Bunnies" and label
celebrities like Carmen Electra as Playmates because they posed in Playboy.  So
the still haven't managed to control much in the way of perception outside of
the Mansion and the group of us fans.

Add to that that what was a big deal is comparatively minor now - nudity of
beautiful models.  Sure, Playmates are still, for the most part, the most
beautiful and the most admirable.  But there are porn actresses who should be
Playmates (especially considering the views of some that some Playmates
*shouldn't* have become Playmates), internet porn is everywhere, Girls Gone
Wild is acceptable and finds hundreds of amazing looking girls, Hooters and
Hawaiian Tropic have beauty contests and as much exposure as a typical Playmate
gets, etc.  It's too easy to find cheap/free nudity, it's too much trouble to
keep track of which model is a Playmate for what month.  Playboy was too
successful.  Now everybody has their "centerfolds" and their models and their
tease.


> From my point of view, celebrity pictorials are a quick fix, one that has
> pushed PLAYBOY away from the very principals that gave it a loyal readership
> in the first place.  While I am not in favor of eliminating the celebrity
> pictorial, I do think that the editors need to reconsider the long-term
> effects of placing *primary* emphasis on that feature in the magazine.
> PLAYBOY could be in danger of becoming just a high-class version of
> Celebrity Sleuth.
> 

One good thing about celebrity pictorials is the spike.  I've been guilty of
buying an issue of a mag I never really thought much of because of some person
or article (in those big font headlines we all hate) and found out, surprise,
that the magazine as a whole was better than I thought.  Having that one
exposure has tipped the balance for me in the past.  Car mags, architecture
mags, anime mags, most of what I buy now started as an impulse buy because of
some key article or person mentioned on the cover.  It does work.  Does it
hold?  I have no idea.  But the celebrity pictorial should be the gateway to
the mag for the non-subscriber.  What retard would buy every issue in a year at
newsstand prices?  He'd subscribe.  So the celebrity pictorial is there to
catch the eye.  I see that and I have to agree with the tactic.

The big problem is the quality of the *rest* of the mag.  Sure, you can flip
through the celebrity pictorial and the centerfold pictorial a few times.  But
there has to be a reason to *keep* the mag in your house afterwards.  The
articles.  Otherwise it gets those thumbprint folds all over the cover and gets
thrown away after a month or two.




Alfred.

=====
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Way more fun to suckle on than Feli is.  Don't forget
 that.  Feli probably tastes like sweaty gym socks soaked
 in nads and pesto."
       - Clu, on how Google-ing breasts rate next to swops.

Alfred Urrutia                     rampagingsloth@yahoo.com