This project

[Dan Stiffler]

On 7/25/03 2:29 AM, "Peggy Wilkins" <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu> wrote:
 
> Actually, I will tell you exactly who cares -- Hugh Hefner cares.

I believe this.  PLAYBOY is Mr. Hefner's legacy and he cannot possibly be
happy to read the commentary that relegates his magazine to the "irrelevant"
and to those "gone bad."  That is, if he is aware of such criticisms.  I
have the impression that Mr. Hefner might be shielded from negative
observations, something that frequently happens to those at the top.

However, as Mr. Hefner cares, he cares in a way different than he used
to--or at least that is the way it appears.  Three recent statements and
events support this idea.

1.  Mr. Hefner acknowledged that he doesn't pay much attention to the text
of PLAYBOY anymore.  His interest is, according to his own admission,
primarily with choosing the playmate and editing her pictorial layout.  He
also still approves the covers.  Leaving aside the fact that most covers in
recent years have been mind-numbingly formulaic, this is--by any
account--limited oversight.  This distance from the general content of the
book is, of course, by choice of Mr. Hefner.  Even so, when we consider how
much he used to be involved with all the production details, it is not hard
to understand why the current version of PLAYBOY is of lesser quality than
those when Mr. Hefner was in complete editorial control.

2.  Mr. Hefner also recently said that young men in America are no longer
interested in "somebody's cousin."  This is apparently his reasoning for the
magazine's persistent pursuit of celebrities, no matter their list status.
While I find the current "Girls of Starbucks" a hopeful sign, I am not yet
convinced that Mr. Hefner all of a sudden has reassessed PLAYBOY's focus.
The magazine has far too long been stuck in the slough of celebrity seeking.
In some ways, Mr. Hefner's comment about "somebody's cousin" just reinforces
the magazine's noticeable privileging of celebrities over the cousin next
door.

3.  The dropping of the PMOY cover had to have been, as Donna pointed out,
approved by Mr. Hefner.  While I first thought that considerable
arm-twisting must have been involved, after hearing some gossip at the
Chicago Glamourcon, I think Mr. Hefner might have approved, possibly
initiated, without pause.  I have no firm evidence for this gossip; I will
say only that *apparently* Christina Santiago wasn't not Mr. Hefner's first
choice for PMOY, that she may not have been even his second choice.
However, even without this gossip, consider this question: does anyone here
think that Mr. Hefner would have taken the PMOY cover away from Brande
Roderick (PMOY 01) or Dalene Curtis (PMOY 02)?  Not a chance, since both
playmates had also been Hefmates.  Thus, for whatever reason, Mr. Hefner
approved a cover that promoted an accidental celebrity over the magazine's
very own PMOY.

When I first started reading PLAYBOY in 1962, I wanted to *be* Hugh Hefner.
After that adolescent fantasy passed, I grew to admire Mr. Hefner, indeed to
refer to him as a hero of mine.  I still remember the first time I "met"
him, in the press of a Glamourcon crowd, gaining an autograph from not only
him but also Kimberley.  I have also had the totally unexpected pleasure of
visiting Mr. Hefner's Mansion West on four separate occasions, each of them
special in its own way.  Mr. Hefner must be the world's greatest host.

My admiration for Mr. Hefner remains steadfast.  I have never criticized him
for his dating choices or his playmate choices.  Indeed, while so many on
the PML were complaining about Hefmates being promoted to playmates, I
argued that Mr. Hefner had been exercising that prerogative for decades,
often with spectacular success.  I have never made "May-December" jokes at
Mr. Hefner's expense, possibly because I am myself advanced in years yet
still attracted to young women.  When I see Mr. Hefner interviewed on TV
shows, I am convinced that he is still one of the brightest and most
engaging guys on the planet.  Quite simply, Mr. Hefner is still a hero of
mine, even if I might disagree with some of his editorial decisions.

It is my opinion that Mr. Hefner's magazine is not as good as it once was.
This is an opinion shared by many observers, fans and professionals.  One of
the reasons I have participated in this forum is to explore why this decline
in quality happened and what might be done to correct it.  I have offered my
opinions on both counts.  Given recent actions by Mr. Hefner, my concerns
about the magazine are likely to deepen.

Peggy gave us many examples of changes that may have been responses to the
concern of readers, primarily her own.  As Peggy admits, most of these
changes happened back in the nineties.  Whether or not the magazine will be
responsive in this new decade, with its new leadership, remains to be seen.
However, as I have mentioned to Peggy privately, I think the best way to
ensure that Mr. Hefner receives a copy of the playboy50 report is for Peggy
to hand it to him personally.

I wish her the best...and also a happy birthday!

Regards,

Dan Stiffler