Celebrities on the Newsstand

[Donna Tavoso]

Dan wrote:
> OK.  Here's the fundamental problem as I see it.  Donna says that this
> celebrity phenomenon is one "shared by our country as a whole."  No
> argument on that point.  But PLAYBOY used to be a leader, not a
> follower. Certainly by the 50s, when PLAYBOY began publishing,
> celebrity was a major aspect of American culture.  Surely the
> celebrity "phenomenon" of today is more pervasive than it was in the
> fifties, but that very pervasiveness makes it more diluted and, to my
> way of thinking, less viable.

More pervasive, it's not more pervasive it's taken over -- when was
the last time you say even a major fashion magazine (from Vogue to GQ
to Esquire) with a model (who wasn't also a celebrity) on the cover.
Go to the newsstand and look at the covers -- everywhere celebrities.
And have you noticed the the the entertainment books no longer feature
a picture of one celebrity, they show three or four images, just to
make sure that if consumers aren't interested in the lead they can
pull them in with something else. Why because that is what sells and
unfortunately magazines need to sell on the newsstand along with
subscriptions.

Be a leader and walk away -- that would be great; if it was a
financially viable option for Playboy.  And while I realize the
purpose of this is discuss ideas for making the magazine stronger, I
think Peggy's final report is only valid if it's rooted in facts and
figures of the industry in which it exists.  And for Playboy right now
not to show growth on the newsstand would have a huge ripple effect
that would be devastaing for the magazine.

> why should an A-list celebrity strip for PLAYBOY when the magazine has
> been cavorting with C-listers?

I totally agree, this is a huge part of Playboy's current problem,
added to the fact that everytime a name is mentioned it comes with
some way out figure that they got paid to pose for.  Unfortunately
this long far pre-dates Jim Kaminsky - and something my understanding
that the current editors are working to overcome.  I just think it's
going to take more than a few months to make changes - a year at
least.

> On running to the newsstand to see Anna Kournikova nude: well, she was
> supposed to be nude in a recent Penthouse and that debacle was
> probably a dying gasp.  It should also serve as a cautionary tale for
> PLAYBOY.

Well, last I checked while struggling Penthouse is still publishing
and the thing about them was those pictures weren't real, if they were
those issues would have flown off the shelf, why do you think there is
a bidding war going on for the nude photos (which Playboy is not a
part of) for the Cameron Diaz nudes.

> But, more to the point, I really don't get this preoccupation with
> seeing celebrities nude.  As Steve Sloca points out, it certainly
> isn't very mature.

Mature or not, I have to say that you and Steve are rare among the men
I know and as a single woman in new york I spend a great deal of time
hanging out with men, all of whom are educated and mature and they all
would run to the newsstand to get the issue.

> As many of you know, feminists have for a long time criticized PLAYBOY
> on just this point.  I never thought the argument held water with
> respect to the playmates, but PLAYBOY is filling the bucket by its
> addiction to celebrity.

I don't understand this statement, it's okay for an unknown Playmate
to be nude, but it furthers the feminist arguement if there are
C-level or reality stars nude.  How does that work?  As a feminist, I
will go on record that every arguement I have ever heard against
Playboy has never held water and it doesn't matter who is posing.

Donna