Scattered Shots

[Donna Tavoso]

I felt it important to comment on a few things in Dan's post

1).  I am going to have to disagree with you with regards to what a
balance is, or maybe balance is the wrong word since I'm now feeling
it implies that they will be equally used.  I think the truth is that
they will be used appropriately, which is what I believe Mr. Kaminsky
is trying to imply when he says that young men relate more easily to
photographs than artwork.  My understanding of his goal is to use art
where it's appropriate, as with a with a fiction piece or an essay and
use photographs where it's appropriate, as in the Music Poll or with
the Sports feature or another feature, for example, in the story about
One Last Score, for me the story would have lost something without the
photo of the author in the past Playboy would have used artwork to go
with that.

Dan wrote:
> As has been mentioned in a number of venues, PLAYBOY should be the
> magazine to which the Maxim reader graduates.  If it is just the same
> (except for the nudity), I don't see what the big deal is about
> graduating.

I have always hated the notion of graduating from Maxim to Playboy --
and I don't think it's should be Playboy's goal.  To me, they are two
very different magazines, Maxim is a quick fun mindless read -- you
can enjoy it and still read Playboy because it is more informative and
gives you more information.

> The irony is that the magazine is in a fight for its life.  It's just
> not fighting the old foes.  I happen to think it is fighting itself.

I couldn't agree more; sometimes I think Playboy is Playboy's own
worst enemy --

> 4.  Celebrity: As most of you know, I think that PLAYBOY has a
> dangerous addiction to celebrity, one that could very well prove
> fatal.  I had to cheer when I read Steve's "'undressing celebrities'
> is a major fantasy among pre-pubescent children."  Given the postings
> generated on the PML any time someone starts a "who would you like to
> see naked?" thread, this is a condition that hangs on well past
> puberty for some.  However, by all accounts it is a silly
> preoccupation.  Unfortunately, it seems to be the preoccupation of
> PLAYBOY today (and, I must add, in recent years).

At the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that this is not just a
Playboy phenomenon but one that is shared by our country as a whole.
My god, almost every news show (both regular and entertainment)
carried the story about the old naked photographs of Carmen Diaz that
were being offered for sale and how she had an injunction against him
selling it.

I applaud you guys for saying you are beyond it and aren't interested
but as a single woman who spends a lot of time with guys I have to say
you are in the minority.  No guy I know would not run to the newsstand
to see a picture of Anna Kournikova nude -- I think we are a celebrity
obsessed nation and until that changes I don't think that Playboy can
survive without celebrities on the cover.

I do think they should give more support to the Playmates, I wish they
would do a feature about some of the girls who have gone out and
started new careers outside of acting -- and I wish those who had been
Playmates and are now on the brink of success like Lisa Dergan would
give a nod to Playboy when she is on the cover of Stuff or that Nikki
Ziering wouldn't go on the Craig Kilbourn show, to promote her new
movie and tell the audience not to buy the Playboy issue because she
thinks the pictures aren't that good.

> Donna dismissed Esquire, GQ, and Details as "niche" magazines.  Well,
> what's wrong with that?  Even though PLAYBOY once had astonishing
> circulation figures, it was no less a niche magazine.

I disagree, Playboy was never a niche magazine -- by definition it was
always a magazine that covered a broad range of topics that appealed
to men -- GQ and Details are fashion magazine with an occasional great
story thrown in and Esquire is a magazine that most often writes great
stories or exposes with some fashion thrown in.

That being said I couldn't agree more with the statement you wrote below -- 

> One of the problems I have with the current obsessive outreach to the
> 18-35 year-old demographic is that the approach seems monolithic: as
> if all 18-35 year-olds are the same (addicted to reality shows, video
> games, and one-paragraph articles).  PLAYBOY needs to rediscover its
> niche.

but I don't think it's that they need to rediscover that niche I think
that they need to reinforce that this is what Playboy is a magazine
for men who aspire to more in every way of life.

regards,

Donna