Taming down PLAYBOY: desirable?

[Peggy Wilkins]

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

    Dan> ... I have proposed
    Dan> dropping the full-frontal photos only in the flagship
    Dan> magazine.  I have made this suggestion for two reasons:
    Dan> increased advertising revenue and increased distribution in
    Dan> the marketplace; i.e., the financial health of the magazine.
    Dan> It's not that I don't enjoy the full-frontal nudes in today's
    Dan> PLAYBOY, but I do believe that PLAYBOY will be stuck with a
    Dan> dwindling advertising base and a behind-the-counter placement
    Dan> (if any at all) at the newsstands unless it makes some
    Dan> adjustments regarding the explicit nature of its photos.  On
    Dan> the other hand, I would fully endorse explicit, even
    Dan> hard-core, images and videos for PEI's other venues and
    Dan> products...

>From the many recent articles about the "new" PLAYBOY, it would seem
that they, too, have been considering this; whether this was a serious
consideration, or more of a quest for publicity (it certainly did
cause an uproar among both press and readers), remains to be seen.

There is some precedent for this type of product diversification in
PLAYBOY's video division.  A couple years back they split their video
productions into three "tiers" -- that is, three separate product
lines.  They have the Playmate videos, with high production standards
and well known titles such as Video Centerfold, Playmate of the Year,
Playmate Video Calendar, and other magazine-related releases; then
there is the PLAYBOY TV/erotic movie releases; and finally the PLAYBOY
Exposed series, which has Girls Gone Wild type of titles and similar
(low) production standards.  Personally, I consider this
diversification to have been a good move on their part.  Each series
appeals to a different type of audience, and the corresponding wider
audience base likely translates into higher sales overall.  I don't
know how successful this has been for them, but since they have
continued along these lines, I would guess it is considered a
success.

The look of the three video lines is different and distinctive, and so
I think audiences can be happy with this diversification, with each
person going for whichever line(s) he likes.

As far as the magazine, SE's, and online divisions of PLAYBOY are
concerned, though, I am less sure that this type of approach would be
successful.  Here are some thoughts about it.

- People have come to expect full nudity in PLAYBOY magazine; this
has been their niche since the full frontal threshold was crossed over
30 years ago.  How to convince people to shell out $5.99 or more to
get a monthly magazine that has backtracked in an aspect that is
important to them?

- This tiered approach may dilute the brand.  What is an audience to
think of a softcore magazine that produces hardcore SE's and online
content?  This seems to send a contradictory message of what PLAYBOY
is about.  I think there is a need for more of a separation between
products that offer soft/hard core images.

- Why would an audience that is after harder core material seek out a
print magazine that is tame by comparison?  Such an audience would
probably skip the magazine altogether and go directly for what they
really want in the first place.

- PLAYBOY enthusiasts would probably go for this tiered approach, but
what of the general reader who only picks up an occasional issue?
What is his motivation for wanting both the magazine and the other
products?

I think the magazine should stand on its own, and should not be
produced as a mainstream enticement to get people to buy other
products.  (Not that Dan was suggesting this -- but it seems to be the
natural end of an evolution in this direction.)  The free playboy.com
site already does this, and looking at it is often an exercise in
frustration.

I do understand and completely sympathize with Dan's wanting to get
PLAYBOY back on the newsstand, but I think the cost of this concession
is too high.  Worst of all, it would have too high a chance of being a
disaster -- I really think most of PLAYBOY's regular readers would
feel cheated.  What about those 3.2 million subscribers?  This could
be seen by them as a slap in their faces.  Is the newsstand so
important that they should risk losing their subscribers?


Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu