More thoughts on the Interview

[Dan Stiffler]

On 7/23/03 12:54 AM, "Peggy Wilkins" <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu> wrote:
 
> Dan, you have taken on quite a defeatist attitude here!  I know full
> well that most people here have been disappointed in PLAYBOY's content
> in recent years.  That is in fact the main reason I thought of holding
> this project in the first place.  I was seeing the disappointment of
> PLAYBOY's audience on a nearly daily basis in all kinds of comments on
> the PML and when I got together with people and talked about PLAYBOY.
> I was seeing the press repeatedly say things about PLAYBOY that were
> pretty sad and negative, and there was nothing at all that was
> positive balancing it out.  I was disappointed myself, and I knew they
> should and could do better.  I want PLAYBOY to always be the kind of
> magazine that *I* want to read -- not just a magazine, but THE
> magazine.  I was thinking about this for quite some time, long before
> Mr. Kaminsky and his new editorial staff made the scene.  But here you
> are, looking at what they are doing now, and saying what sounds to me
> like, why even bother, they've sold out to celebrity and therefore all
> must be lost.  If you are looking for PLAYBOY to leave aside the world
> of the celebrity and worship exclusively at the altar of the Playmate,
> then I think you should get ready to remain disappointed.  However, I
> am far from ready to say that the jig is up.

It is pretty unfair to say that I have a "defeatist attitude," when in fact
I continue to contribute here.  You and I both know that there are lots of
lurkers on this forum who would have plenty to say but don't bother, for
whatever reason.  I have yet to take my ball and go home.  Instead, I have
invested a considerable amount of time making a case for what I think would
be improvements to the magazine we both love.

Do I think PLAYBOY is continuing down the road of "irrelevance"?  Yes.  Do I
think more "entry points" to superfluous or tabloid journalism is going to
set PLAYBOY on the right track?  No.

You and I can probably both agree on certain "nuts and bolts" matters.  My
first suggestion, in my list of ten, was to improve the quality of
production by improving the quality of paper.  It is stupid for PLAYBOY to
continue printing a book wherein the pages of the pictorials stick together
because of ink saturation on thin paper.  And I happen to know that your
sharp eye has often found unpleasant digital effects in those pictorial
reproductions.  I think we both agree that PLAYBOY could be better produced.

Where we part company (and I hope it is only philosophically) is that you
apparently want to redesign the basic model, maybe slap a new fender or
tailfin on the body.  What I want to do is take the few parts that are still
working and reinvent the concept.  I want to take this vehicle and direct it
to a new road, a road that admittedly has some features of the old "blue
highways" of the fifties and sixties.  The road where the class magazines of
today, the ones that win the awards for content and design, travel.  I don't
think PLAYBOY can get to that road by simply changing the hood ornament.

Am I skeptical about the efficacy of this project?  Unfortunately, yes.
There have been too many signals of indifference from PEI for me to hold out
much hope.  Personally, as much as I have apparently annoyed Donna and as
much as she has in fact annoyed me, I am glad she is here.  She is the only
person "in the business" who has had the courage to speak her mind.  She is
also the only one of cares enough to participate.  I admire her on both
counts.

But where were the people from PEI when we were in Chicago at Glamourcon?
For one weekend, some the the best minds and most loyal readers were
gathered in Chicago--on their own per diem--and who from PEI cared?  As hard
as you have tried to get PEI participation in this project you have been
stonewalled.  Will your final report ever get into the hands of Mr. Hefner?
Or Mr. Kaminsky?  I hope so, but I certainly wouldn't bet my milk money on
it.  To be honest, I hope so primarily for your sake.

For my own sake, I have enjoyed the discussion here.  I have found the
writing and thinking superior to that usually on the PML.  Apparently, when
the debates about the larger issues, such as celebrity or explicitness, get
really rolling, we have strayed from our main purpose.  But that difference
in purpose goes back to the "redesign" or "reinvent" conflict.

I think all of us here has his or her own particular idea of what we would
like the PLAYBOY of the future to be.  Surely, there is some overlap of
ideas, but each of us would make something different of PLAYBOY given the
chance.  However, we are not going to be given the chance.  And what chance
is there, honestly, that what we say here will make any difference at PEI?

Is such an attitude "defeatist"?  I don't think so.  Why do debate teams
argue over the death penalty, after all?  Is there really any chance that
Texas, or Virginia, or Florida will close their death chamber doors?  Not
much.  But the debate is necessary if we have any hope at all of making some
kind of progress.  Illinois is proof of that.

To return to my original metaphor: last night I went to a baseball game
where the locals tied the game in the sixth only to give back the lead in
the seventh and fall 5 runs down by the ninth.  The rain was coming down
when our boys came up for their last chance, and I turned to my companion
and said, "I won't be surprised if this is a quick three-up and three-down."
Yes, I was a skeptic.  On the other hand, I was still in the park, not
headed home in my car, as many others were.

As it happens, the local boys put up a rally and scored two runs, closing
the gap to three.  With two on and two out, the league leader in average and
homeruns came up to the plate.  It was possible, indeed it was hopeful, that
he would hit a homerun and tie the game.  Instead, he hit a fly ball to left
and, as they say, the fat lady sang.

Some, including David Reeves, have said that the fat lady sang with the
August issue of PLAYBOY.  But I haven't cancelled my subscription yet, and I
haven't left this forum, anymore than I gave up on our boys last night.
Even so, things are looking pretty dreary in Mudville these days.

Regards,

Dan Stiffler

P.S.  Peggy, I like your idea about a "promotional interview," especially if
it would improve the quality of the main interview.  However, I think this
suggestion is simply a better hubcap.

P.P.S.  Peggy, maybe you haven't "thrown in the towel" on the PMOY cover.
However, when you wrote "I think that before the PMOY cover concept is
completely done away with, it [your idea of moving the PMOY to April] is
worth trying this one time," I found your ability to even entertain the
notion that the PMOY cover might be "completely done away with" just a
little too acquiescent.  You see, I still harbor hopes that someone at
PLAYBOY will eat crow and publish a cover that says "Ooops, we goofed...here
she is, the Playmate of the Year, Christina Santiago!"

And you call me "defeatist"?