The Danger of Celebrity

[Alfred Urrutia]

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

> 
> 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. 
>  

Maybe I didn't state it well, either.  I guess what I was saying, in a
backwards way, was that if it's their decision to switch over to emphasizing
celebrities then in a sense it *is* still controlled by them.  And since they
can't control how people view Playmates (I've heard normal non-media people
fuck up the Playmate/Bunny names and assume anyone who is in Playboy is a
Playmate) they have, in a sense, lost whatever control of that they might have
had when they used to be the only class game in town.  Now, with Mystique and
Perfect 10 and porno being mainstream their control is even less.

> 
> 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.
>  

Remains to be seen.  I agree that full nude celebrities is a special deal, what
with the dozens of new lad mags raining from the skies lately.  But if
celebrities won't pose nude then the pool of available celebrities really
shrinks and Playboy loses out.  It's still better than FHM and Maxim because
whereas Playboy would be even with them as far as which celebrities pose and
how much nudity they'd have, Playboy would still have the Playmates with their
nudity and whatever extra pictorials they might throw in.  And who knows, if a
celebrity said she *wanted* to pose nude I don't see Playboy saying no.

> 
> 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


I have for Penthouse.  Mostly for (finally) decent pictorials of some of my
favorite porn stars like Devon, Janine, Kira Kener, Cheyenne Silver, etc.


> 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


Yes, that's phase two.  But you can't get to that part until you get people to
actually buy your mag once in the first place.


> 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.
>  

If they stick to C-list celebs and *no* nudity then you're absolutely right. 
Very dumb, very dangerous.  If, though, they end up with Amanda Peet or Jessica
Alba or Charisma Carpenter in there then good for them.  Maybe I'll finally get
a decent Jennifer Garner pictorial.

> 
> 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.
> 

I agree.  But most people don't give a shit about Playmates.  I had a nice test
group when I worked at DD.  My whole cubicle was plastered with snapshots from
Glamourcons.  Most guys could recognize the few "known" Playmates (Victoria
Silvstedt, Shannon Tweed, Jaimie Bergman) but only a couple could recognize
Tawnni Cable or Carrie Stevens.  And only because they sort of remembered
seeing them in their own newsstand purchased issue back when.  They all agreed
that they were the hottest women around but they couldn't recognize one from
the rest.  Playboy can change that if they put the effort in.




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