Peggy's letter about the June cover

[Dan Stiffler]

On 4/29/03 4:19 AM, "Donna Tavoso" <dtavoso@earthlink.net> wrote:
 
> Yes, Playboy took advantage of having a "celebrity of the moment" on
> the cover of the magazine, but in doing so it took nothing away from
> the PMOY.  In fact, it will probably extend the number of people who
> will see her issue by a couple of hundred thousand people, a large
> number of whom may actually begin subscribing to the magazine.  The
> PMOY still had her party at the Mansion and her video release party,
> she still has done tons of interviews and gotten a ton of press.

This is assuming that "a couple of hundred thousand people" extra folks are
going to buy this magazine because of Sarah Kozer.  I realize that the Joe
Millionaire show had record numbers for its final showing (I wasn't one of
them, so mark me as ignorant) but how many of them are going to buy this
magazine?  I am willing to bet that Torrie Wilson's issue will get a bigger
spike than this one will.  Those wrestling fans are serious about their
babes.

And how do you figure that "a large number" of them are going to become
subscribers?  If they are buying PLAYBOY to see Sarah Nude, what is the
logic in subscribing?  The chance of seeing another reality show reject
remove her bra?  Well, every year or so PLAYBOY delivers one; wasn't the
Survivor girl the last?  Probably better to just check out PLAYBOY at the
newsstand, if you are into that sort of thing.

The report I heard on the radio about the Sarah Kozer deal (as I was driving
through Harrisburg PA last March) was that she was paid 500,000 to do this
pictorial.  I don't think a "couple hundred thousand" extra buyers are going
to cover this investment.  And in the process of dismissing the PMOY,
PLAYBOY has alienated a portion of their regular readers--those readers who
have become loyal primarily because of the playmates.

btw, I received my subscription copy today and I noticed that the price is
$5.99, which is what it was last month for Torrie Wilson, a buck more than
usual.  Is this how PLAYBOY intends to recoup the big bucks that it spends
on so-called celebrities.  Of course, my subscription copy cost me about
$1.67.
 
> I also think it was smart not to reveal who it was on the cover, after
> all, the goal of cover lines is to get newsstand buyers to buy the
> issue, so if you want to see who PMOY is, you have to get the issue.

Well, I have got a twist for you.  How about using playmates for cover
models and having some kind of contents line about the celebrity du jour
that is "revealed" inside?  Now, that's the ticket.  All those folks who are
dying to see celebrity nudes will be tearing into the newest issue.  Could
it be a wrestler?  Could it be a reality show reject?  Could it be some
scandal-tainted paramour?  Oh, the possibilities are endless...

Sorry for the sarcasm, Donna.  I don't aim it at you but at the magazine
that I have defended for over forty years and that has now signaled it no
longer cares about its playmates.  It is one thing to find this true about
James Kaminsky.  He has come, after all, from a magazine that made its
living off the cult of celebrity.  But when Mr. Hefner begins to think that
his audience doesn't care about somebody's "cousin" (the quote in the NY
Times article), then I have got to think that he has lost touch with his
base.  PLAYBOY was built on the ideal that its playmate is somebody's cousin
(i.e., the girl next door).  It will most certainly fall on the notion that
its readers only care about the latest 15-minute celebrity.

regards,

Dan Stiffler