PLAYBOY: Your Father's Oldsmobile?

[Dan Stiffler]

On 2/4/03 10:11 AM, "Mark Tomlonson" <tomlonson@WMICH.EDU> wrote:

> Where I fall down is finishing this metaphor. What would the "New"
> Playboy be? What kind of magazine would pay homage to the past without
> being hidebound by it? What part of the magazine should be retained to
> keep that classic curve?
> 
> My preference would be a centerfold as the link between the old and new
> Playboy, but maybe that is the air-cooled engine.

The centerfold still can be a link, provided the new guys on the block don't
screw it up.  I think the link is currently tenuous, for reasons I've
mentioned before (e.g., only two main photographers), but it is the
magazine's signature feature.  Without it, PLAYBOY will become another
Esquire.  The celebrity pictorials may fuel the sales but the playmates are
the necessary lubricant.

I would argue that a change in cover art--going decidedly retro--could make
a big difference.  True, the new Beetle has little in common with the old
Beetle, except for its "cover" lines--but then that is the point, isn't it?
I wouldn't mind cup holders in my new PLAYBOY, if only the magazine looked
like PLAYBOY and not Cosmo or Maxim.  Bring back Mr. Playboy and the
charming, clever covers of the past.  The New Yorker *still* has that link
with its past and it is *still* a successful magazine.
 
>> Let me ask you this: if Oldsmobile had decided to release a new 442, do you
>> think young buyers would be so worried that it had been their dads' car?
>> 
> Nope. But the 442 was atypical for Olds. How about the 88?

As in "Rocket 88"? That car inspired arguably the first rock 'n' roll song!
But, more to the point, PLAYBOY was atypical for men's magazines during its
prime.  It was both the E-type and the muscle car of its generation.
 
>> I agree that each generation must define its own culture; who else could?
>> But this fact is no reason that PLAYBOY cannot be as cool as a PT Cruiser.
>> 
> No reason at all. But will it? Upper management fought the New Beetle.
> The PT Cruiser was at best greeted with suspicion.

Well, what a mistake had management scratched the Cruiser!  I am under the
impression that our role here is to help the PEI corporate culture from
making a similar mistake.

>> The new has always
>> been worshipped, but many people now also respect the past.
>> 
> But are enough of those people in Playboy's audience? I've *always* had
> an interest in history, but I can assure you that was not my primary
> goal when I first came in contact with OFM.

Here is where I think all the talk about PLAYBOY's target audience goes
astray:  PLAYBOY always aimed at the "select group of urbane fellows [Š]
concerned with [Š] good food, drink, proper dress, and the pleasures of
female company" (12/54).  Why do we think that PLAYBOY--the magazine, that
is--needs to aim at the common denominator, the "quarter-educated"?  PLAYBOY
should feel secure in its niche and not panic every time a Penthouse,
Hustler, or Maxim hits the stands.  Leave the "quarter-educated" to those
guys and be satisfied that PLAYBOY provides the best entertainment for the
sophisticated man.

>> I've said it before.  I will say it again: PLAYBOY must not condescend to
>> its audience.  Enough magazines already do that.  The details of
>> sophistication change with each generation but the attitude doesn't.
>> 
>> PLAYBOY should be your father's '49 Merc: chopped, lowered, with lake pipes
>> that rumble sex.
>> 
> Here we agree 100%. My position is that the '49 Merc is ready to
> restore. It's not rumbling now, but it could.

Oh, I can hear those lakers now!  And have you seen the new Mercury
Marauder?

Dan Stiffler