Taming down PLAYBOY: desirable?

[Dan Stiffler]

On 8/4/03 8:57 PM, "Peggy Wilkins" <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu> wrote:
 
> 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?

Well, one way to convince them is to improve the overall quality of the
magazine.  Instead of aiming at the mindset of Maxim, aim at the mindset of
The New Yorker and Harper's, as the magazine did when it was becoming a
success instead of becoming irrelevant.

Personally, I find this fixation on full-frontal nudity puerile, ironically
what the Maxim reader wants but cannot get unless he goes elsewhere.
 
> - 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.

I don't see the contradiction at all.  This is just an effort to improve
the marketplace, pure and simple.  If PLAYBOY, as it is, could be sold at
the same places as Maxim and Harper's, then all to the good.  But it can't,
and to ignore that fact is to ignore an enormous obstacle to improving
newsstand sales.

You know, everyone makes a big deal about how Maxim outsells PLAYBOY on the
newsstand.  Well, duh!  It is on virtually all of the newsstands in America.
My Kroger carries it.  My CVS (drugstore) carries it.  Neither carries
PLAYBOY.  Maxim outsells PLAYBOY on the newsstand because it *is on*
newsstands where PLAYBOY *is not*.  Only the most juvenile can believe that
Maxim outsells PLAYBOY because it is a better magazine.

Earlier I suggested that PLAYBOY improve its marketplace by starting its own
mall shops or restaurant line.  In many ways that approach would be
preferable.  But it still wouldn't get the magazine into the supermarkets
and drugstores of America.

I am trying to be practical about this.  I just happen to believe that
newsstand sales would improve and advertising revenue would go up if PLAYBOY
were to change its policy on full-frontal nudity.
 
> - 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.

Such an audience is probably already doing this.  I doubt that PLAYBOY alone
satisfies any man's appetite for explicit photos.
 
> - 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 believe there would be many more general readers picking up "occasional
issues" if the product were available universally, instead of in a limited
market.  Again, if the overall quality of the magazine were to return to the
sixties community of The New Yorker and Harper's, then the reader would have
plenty of reason to buy more copies in the future.  And if he is curious
about seeing Miss September without her panties, then he would sign up for
the cyber club or seek out an SE.
 
> 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.

Actually, I have previously suggested the "enticement" element as being a
strong marketing possibility.  If PLAYBOY can improve its market presence on
the newsstand, its sales of other product offerings would also improve.
This can happen best with improved visibility.

Well, I wouldn't use playboy.com as a model for PLAYBOY.  The magazine has
its own successful precedents.
 
> 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?

As I mentioned once before, Peggy, PLAYBOY could offer two versions of the
flagship magazine.  A newsstand version, with "acceptable" standards of
nudity, and an R-rated subscribers version.  I wouldn't want to slap any
subscriber in the face.  They are sore enough already!

Peggy thinks this idea has the potential of being a disaster.  Steve thinks
it would be a major error.  Brian thinks it would be wimping out.

I will admit that the move would be radical in some ways but now the
strategy for improving newsstand sales is to procure celebrity pictorials.
The current identity of PLAYBOY is as a skin mag.  There was time when
PLAYBOY successfully fought that classification, a time when it was building
an extraordinary readership.  Now it seems that "men's entertainment" is
focused on nudity, at whatever level, and that PLAYBOY has lost its larger
vision of being a magazine of the first rank.

Regards,

Dan Stiffler