Content and layout (was: Re: Going Backward)

[Peggy Wilkins]

>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Sloca <gokings@comcast.net> writes:

    Steve> ... Playboy's problems have less to do with appearance and
    Steve> graphics and more to do with content... No amount of
    Steve> graphical improvements, or cover cleanups, or changes in
    Steve> format or illustrations for the Interview, etc. will mean
    Steve> anything in the end unless the content of the magazine
    Steve> captures the interest...

I believe Steve's comments (and Dan also made similar ones) are in
reference to several of my detailed suggestions toward
changing/updating the look of the magazine.  I am in total agreement
that content is very important; but presentation cannot be ignored.
I'm sorry if this aspect seems trivial to some people, but in the
larger context of all that I wish to bring to PEI's attention,
presentation definitely belongs in the picture.

Not to discount Steve's experience with designing web sites for
models, but PLAYBOY is not a model needing a web site, and I for one
want different things from a print publication than I do from a web
site I pay for pictures.  I can't accept the argument that
presentation is not important to a print publication, especially for a
print publication with the large circulation that PLAYBOY has.  They
have a reputation to uphold -- a brand to maintain.

Why do so many of us despair about the formulaic cover design?  It is
because that presentation is important -- the visual presentation
symbolically speaks for the ideas behind it.

Consider for a moment, what if PLAYBOY offered the best content
anywhere, but printed in newspaper format.  Would that matter?  It
matters to me; I would be very disappointed.  I want PLAYBOY to look
as good as it can.  I want a visual feast; I want to be charmed by the
layout, attracted to it, not bored or repulsed by it.  Back when I was
defining what qualities of PLAYBOY made me sit up and take notice, and
converted me into a loyal reader, I mentioned that one of those
qualities was that PLAYBOY had a strong visual impact.  I want that to
be as true for audiences of the present and future as it was for me
back then.  It is one more way to attract attention in a positive way.

    Steve> While I am not suggesting that Playboy, the magazine,
    Steve> should copy Danni's site (although if they turned over
    Steve> running the Cyber Club to her, they'd make a mint!), it
    Steve> (and we) should learn from this example that it is content,
    Steve> not its presentation, that determines success in the media
    Steve> business.  And it is in content that Playboy has most
    Steve> failed those who could be its readers...

I am of the opinion that a significant part of the "dad's magazine"
attitude came from the stagnation of the magazine -- and visual
presentation was a most significant indicator of that stagnation.  The
same features were presented in the same ways, year after year.  I
have stopped reading some magazines because I got bored with the way
they looked, when they got to be too much the same thing month after
month.  When something becomes too predictable, too stylized in the
same way for too long, people lose interest.  Note that I am in no way
saying that content isn't just as important.  I just want to make
clear that both content and presentation are important, and I can't
ignore one to the exclusion of the other.

Which is more important: words or pictures, heredity or environment,
lyrics or music... they are different aspects of a larger whole, and
are important in different ways.  So it is with content and layout.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu