Chicago Tribune Article/Comments

[Donna Tavoso]

Steve wrote - 
> Jason McKean's "review" of the new-look Playboy for the Tribune is
> very enlightening on several fronts.  First, I suspect we do not have
> too many contributing "20-somethings" in this group, much less one as
> media-savvy as Mr. McKean, so his comments give us a real insight into
> that generation's impressions of Playboy.  Mr. McKean's derogatory
> references to Playboy's tone and many of the magazine's features
> ("geezer yuks," "departments of yesteryear," "Old Man Poser") and his
> repeated assertions that the magazine's appeal is only to "heyday
> hangers on" are, I suspect, typical of the views of the 20-something
> urban professional men and are a big reason for Playboy's losing
> circulation and influence today.  On the other hand, he gives us hope
> that the "dumb and dumber" approach of Maxim is not all that appealing
> either to the young urban professional man.  He excoriates the
> Kaminsky-led attempt to "Maximize" Playboy ("Who's writing this stuff?
> My dad?") and advises today's yuppies to read Esquire, Details or GQ
> instead.

First of all while I agree with some of the points in Mr McKean's
article, I don't think he speaks for a generation and, he certainly
doesn't seem to be speaking for the appoximately 750,000 plus urban
professionals that buy Maxim on the newsstand every month.  And as a
person who works in the magazine publishing industry I found his
comments advising young men to read Esquire, GQ or Details laughable
at best -- none of the magazines have circulations over 1 million and
they don't for one reason, they appeal to a niche.  (Although I will
give huge applause to Esquire for their Vargas inspired pictorial of
Jennifer Lopez and shame on Playboy for not doing it first, if you
haven't seen it you should it's beautiful.)

I also challenge your assertion that his view of the magazine is in
fact held by the great majority of the younger generation.  Research
can back me up, currently the fastest growing subscriber demographic
for Playboy is that very target.  If Playboy is guilty of anything
it's ignoring it for so long and just assuming they were reading the
magazine.  Maybe all the changes aren't as perfect as we would like,
when you make over an icon it has to be an evolution not a revolution.

And while I often say that Playboy's biggest mistakes is confusing the
popularity of the brand with the magazine, I don't think the two
completely inseperable as Mr. McKean and you make out.  If that
generation feels the way they do, why is Playboy, the Mansion and Hef
on MTV almost every time you turn around.  Why is E! constantly
covering Playboy events.  Why have GQ, Vanity Fair, Harper's Bazaar
all done articles on Playboy recently?

> I only wish that Mr. McKean had been a little more specific in his
> analyses.  For example, he seems to pan the Playmate photos ("Playboy
> continues to shoot its models as though it's 1980 and everyone's
> auditioning for an all-nude episode of 'Dallas'"), without telling us
> what kind of photos he would like to see instead.

I couldn't agree with this comment more.  Here's why I think
Mr. McKean didn't give specifics, because it's easy to sit back and to
find fault (who doesn't think the Playmates pictorials need work, well
with the exception of Hef) It's alot riskier to put your suggestions
and work out there take the heat for them being good or bad.  One of
the best articles written about the changes at Playboy was in Folio
Magazine which is a trade journal, art directors and editors shared
what they would do in the magazine and what the pros and cons of those
changes would be.  It was insightful and recognized that the task for
anyone taking over the magazine would be monumental.

> PS: These views are not just my personal ramblings.  After 4 years of
> hosting Playmate and internet model sites and interacting with
> thousands of fans, I have gotten a pretty fair idea of what desires
> and interests are on the minds of Playboy's potential audience.

I don't doubt for one second that these are the desires of the fans on
the internet and that the things you outlined for success are true and
viable -- for Playboy.com and for Playboy Entertainment group, in fact
I would argue that the channel needs to be more explicit than it is
. . . however, they are simply not viable for any publication.  Both
home video and porn do not need mainstream advertisers to support
their business, the magazine does.  And the magazine also needs to be
carried by newsstands across the country -- this is the number one
reason why Maxim and the other laddie books don't show full frontal
nudity, they aren't afraid to, it would be financial diaster for them
to do it.  The magazine can not survive without advertisers and among
the list of NFWs (no fucking way advertisers) that exist in the
Playboy world are names such as Chevrolet, Ford, GM, The Gap, Tommy
Hilfinger, Ralph Lauren, L'oreal and countless others.

Lastly I want to just take a moment and comment on your desire for
someone to take on Ashcroft -- not because I don't agree with you, I
do.  I just think that's a pretty big risk you are asking Playboy, Hef
and Jim Kaminsky to take, not to mention the 800 or so employees that
work there, especially when history and consumer research shows that
if they take them on they can't count on the support of the readers or
consumers in general.  The Meese commission got 7-11 to stop selling
Playboy in the 1980's, Playboy's 7 million readers didn't stop
shopping there, 7-11 didn't suffer, Playboy did.  Most recently Wal
Mart said it would stop selling Maxim, FHM and Stuff, while I rarly go
to Wal Mart I would never shop there again and I wrote a letter
telling them so.  I wonder how many others, like you or Mr. McKean did
the same.  And not to get on a soap box, but having just returned from
a dinner party with a large group of those urban male professionals,
where a discussion along these lines came up, I am willing to bet that
while they don't agree with Ashcroft and his ilk, they will vote again
for the man who put him in office (just like they did for Regan),
because it benefits them financially to do so.

And lastly let me say, that I'm not trying to be overly critical, but
as someone who actually works in publishing and has spent time at
Playboy, it's impossible for me not to point out when I feel the ideas
presented won't work or when the facts presented are not entirely
accurate, as was the case with many of the statements in the Tribune
article.