Going Backward

[Steve Sloca]

Peggy Wilkins wrote:
"I have been following the Playmate-vs-celebrity discussions and while
I find them interesting on a personal level, I feel that this
discussion has reached such a degree of fine detail that we are making
little further progress toward advancing to this project's final goal....
(Oh, my poor neglected discussion topic timetable!)  Perhaps we could
continue this further at another time, but unless there are some
really new ideas/concepts to introduce here, I hope we can move on."

I hesitate to disagree with our esteemed moderator, but I think that
the discussion in question is broader than "Playmate-vs-celebrity."
At least for me, and I think for Dan and Brian and maybe a host of
lurking others, Playboy's problems have less to do with appearance and
graphics and more to do with content.  We had a "guest opinion" the
other day (courtesy of the Chicago Tribune) that suggests that Playboy
is regarded as "my Dad's magazine" by a substantial segment of yuppies
today. I have had hundreds of Playmate site members tell me the same
thing in the last few years.  I imagine Dan has heard similar comments
from his students.  No amount of graphical improvements, or cover
cleanups, or changes in format or illustrations for the Interview,
etc. will mean anything in the end unless the content of the magazine
captures the interest and the allegiance of those who now distain to
buy it.

I have had this discussion dozens of times with Playmates and models
when discussing their websites.  Typically, a model wants her site to
look "pretty," "cool," "romantic" or some such flavor; and I find
myself repeating, "That's fine, we'll do that; but what is really
important is how much and what kind of content (pictures, videos,
diaries, biographical info, etc.) you put into it."  I usually give
them the example of Danni's Hard Drive, the most successful model site
on the internet.  Danni's has, IMHO, perfectly horrible graphics,
navigation and organization.  It's such a "busy" mish-mash of styles
and undecipherable links and meaningless section titles that a
graphics designer would be tearing his hair out.  Yet Danni's NETS
over $8 Million a year!  Compared to Playboy's Cyber Club, which has
lost over $50 Million since 1996, Danni's has made over $50 million.
Why?  Because she has TONS of content--tens of thousands of top
quality photos and videos of the hottest nude models in the world,
including many Playmates and Pets, some porn stars, and all of the
"big bust" models she can find--and just the right kind of content
which appeals to the majority of men willing to pay to see nude
photos.  Her photos are explicit (spread leg, but no "pink"), with
some girl/girl (but no boy/girl) and just the right amount of erotic
"heat" to fuel men's fantasies without any viewer ever believing that
he is visiting a "porn" site.  Her stories and articles are mostly
tongue-in-cheek, with some real erotica, lots of jokes, and even some
put downs of men.  But her content always celebrates women first--as
would be expected, since her writers are mostly women--and treats them
with respect.  Her site has almost no advertising; and all of her
profits come from subscriptions.  It is obviously a winning formula.

While I am not suggesting that Playboy, the magazine, should copy
Danni's site (although if they turned over running the Cyber Club to
her, they'd make a mint!), it (and we) should learn from this example
that it is content, not its presentation, that determines success in
the media business.  And it is in content that Playboy has most failed
those who could be its readers, including both those 4 million who no
longer subscribe and the 4 or so million that have never subscribed
because they see Playboy as "my Dad's magazine." So our discussions
here should focus on content: what kinds of stories, articles,
pictorials, etc. should Playboy be running?  what issues should it be
addressing?  what philosophy should it be promoting to guide the
lifestyle of the 21st Century playboy?  what is that 21st Century
lifestyle, and how does it differ from that of a half century ago?  In
short, what content does it need to make it interesting, relevant and
meaningful to both to those who are unhappy with where it has gone
these last few decades and those who don't now read it?