Recent Chicago Tribune article on the new PLAYBOY

Peggy Wilkins mozart@lib.uchicago.edu
Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:06:01 -0500


The below commentary on the August issue of PLAYBOY appeared in the
Sunday Chicago Tribune a couple weeks back.  The one sentence that
best summarizes it:

  [The new PLAYBOY] is a hodgepodge of information and ideas that
  lacks unity in voice, reason or, perhaps most important, intrigue.

Interestingly the reviewer doesn't mention much at all about the
actual articles that appear in this issue; he seems to have
concentrated entirely on the layout and opening features (front of the
book).

 ====================================================================

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0306290412jun29.story

An uneasy alliance in revised Playboy

Jason McKean

June 29, 2003

Hugh Hefner started Playboy in Chicago in 1953 with a few hundred
bucks, some stylish nude photos of Marilyn Monroe and the innovative
notion that a magazine could successfully combine nudity and
quality-of-life features and, yes, literature and social commentary.

He was right. Not only did he become one of the principal architects
of the sexual revolution, but he also created one of the most
successful and influential magazines in history, one that, like it or
not, dictated and defined a certain male American lifestyle for
decades.

At its height of popularity in the 1960s, Playboy magazine sold 8
million copies a month and spawned a host of imitators. But recently,
with circulation down to a still-impressive 3 million but facing
increasing competition from such "laddie mags" as Maxim, Stuff and
FHM, Hefner decided a makeover--a face-lift, so to speak--was in
order. He hired 42-year-old James Kaminsky as its new editor, laid off
some longtime staff members, hired new ones and moved the editorial
offices from Chicago to Manhattan.

Kaminsky, previously the executive editor of Maxim, vowed to make
Playboy more visual, lively and relevant. Kaminsky told the press,
"It's an evolution, not a revolution."

The first issue to feature many of these evolutionary changes hits the
newsstands this week. Q was able to get an early peek. We asked our
section's 25-year-old art director, Jason McKean, a member of what is
certainly the target audience for the "new" Playboy, for his
opinion. Here it is:

Claims that this is a new, hip-to-20-somethings Playboy are greatly
exaggerated. So far, efforts amount to nothing more than a fresh coat
of paint, not a complete renovation.

The main problem is a schizophrenic desire to appeal to multiple
generations.  The departments of yesteryear remain--the Playboy
Interview, Advisor and Forum, and a fiction piece and long
feature--but they're now coupled with "youth infusing" sidebars and
featurettes.

Suddenly, there are video game reviews and a short interview with
rapper 50 Cent alongside geezer yuks courtesy of "Playboy's Party
Jokes."

Most of the MTV-appealing bits are organized in the opening "After
Hours" section. It's fronted by "Babe of the Month"--partially clothed
B-lister Monica Keena--a feature that apparently emerged from focus
groups without a second thought on what to call it. Here we also find
a number of who-could-possibly-care Tidbits. (Indecent proposals asks,
"Would you French-kiss your dog for $25? How about for $50? For a
Certs?" You're encouraged to log on to Playboy.com and vote.) There's
also a full page devoted to "Raw Data," aptly subtitled "Significa,
Insignifica." (Example: "Number of balloon retailers in the U.S.: more
than 12,000.")

Together these efforts feel like a half-hearted attempt to appeal to a
younger generation and reek of Old Man Poser. A sidebar "on hiphop
shoutouts to Playboy" says Hefner "gets more props than a helicopter
pad."

Who's writing this stuff? My dad?

Of course, nudity still abounds. But Playboy continues to shoot its
models as though it's 1980 and everyone's auditioning for an all-nude
episode of "Dallas." Soft light, diamonds and gold had their time. I'm
certain it has passed. The stories and features also carry a look that
has come and gone. The typefaces, packaging techniques and color
schemes are all dated.

It's a 160-page mess. Playboy's half stuck in the last century, while
trying get some footing in this one. It's a hodgepodge of information
and ideas that lacks unity in voice, reason or, perhaps most
important, intrigue.

Elders tell me of a time when one could profess the merits of actually
reading this magazine. There was a time, they say, when it was
relevant, insightful and cool. Without a complete overhaul, the bygone
era will remain just that.

What kind of man still reads Playboy? Heyday hangers-on and those
looking for B-list celebrity skin.

Those looking to graduate from Maxim and the rest of the laddie ilk
would do best investing in a subscription to Esquire, Details or GQ.

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune