The Danger of Celebrity

[Dan Stiffler]

On 4/22/03 2:40 PM, "Alfred Urrutia" <rampagingsloth@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> 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.

I am not sure that the media's mixing up labels has a lot to do with
PLAYBOY's control of its image.  What I was talking about is the shift from
the emphasis on the playmate, an in-house product, to the celebrity, clearly
an out-of-house product.  This shift is a loss of control over the general
image of the magazine.  I think the mislabeling of Bunnies and Playmates is
largely a matter of subculture literacy.  But then I may be missing your
point. 
 
> 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. 

Well, this does get to a larger, more crucial issue.  I think this
prevalence of nudity is why Hefner is rethinking the nudity level for his
magazine.  However, if he backs off full nudity for celebrities but not for
playmates, then he has done nothing to improve his marketplace, only the
pool of celebrities who will to pose.  I don't see that kind of move as
changing much of anything at PLAYBOY, certainly not anything for the better.
 
> 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. 

OK.  Well, your testimony will no doubt support the rush to celebrity.  I
can't remember ever doing this with celebrity nudes, although I was curious
about the Vanessa Williams nudes in Penthouse.  Didn't buy the magazine,
however, until years later when I learned that Tracy Lords was the pet.  But
I most certainly do buy magazines at the newsstand based on an article I
might be interested in reading.  So that aspect is probably universal with
all magazine buyers.  And I have purchased some magazines because they have
featured a playmate.  Even so, I don't subscribe until I discover that I am
buying the magazine frequently enough to warrant the subscription.  And this
is why I think PLAYBOY's celebrity approach will not yield improved
subscriptions--most of their celebrities appeal to select subcultures,
without much crossover.  Of course, there are exceptions like Cindy
Crawford.  But the reject from Joe Millionaire kicking the PMOY off the
cover of her magazine?  Really, this is what is happening at PLAYBOY and it
is, I think, a very dangerous precedent.
 
> 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. 

Absolutely.  Quality is what lasts.  If the celebrity pictorial is the main
reason for existence, then the magazine will soon go in the recycling bin,
along with its subscription cards.  Playmates are forever; many of PLAYBOY's
celebrity pictorial subjects are basking in their fifteen minutes, usually
with the lights dimming fast.

regards,

Dan Stiffler