revisions

[Dan Stiffler]

A while back, several of us weighed in with our ideas for the 50th
anniversary cover, and Donna has recently reopened the question.  At the
time, I offered an idea of using the Golden Dreams image framed in gold.
The only contents type needed: 50th Anniversary Issue.

Peggy, who is one of the world's great Marilyn fans, objected.  Never get
those nipples to the newsstand, she said.  I reminded her that PLAYBOY
regularly put nipples on its covers back in the 70s, before it had won the
George Will "victory."  That argument didn't seem to impress her.

At the recent Glamourcon in Chicago, I spent a Saturday night dinner with
several PMLers, and we returned to the subject.  I offered a revision to my
original idea: Golden Dreams would still be framed, but Hugh M. Hefner,
founder and editor, would be standing in front of it.  I like this idea for
several reasons: 1)Hefner, indeed, has a framed Golden Dreams hanging in the
Mansion (used to be in the foyer, but Peggy--whose Mansion visits are a
multiple of mine--says that it has been moved); 2)Hefner's celebrity is of a
rank with Marilyn's (I say this not without due consideration); and 3)It's
his damn magazine.

(If you are still worried about nipples on the newsstand, use an opaque
bag.)

Golden Dreams on the cover would create buzz on the media shows that are
going to cover this significant media anniversary.  It is a historic image
(I'll say it again, American Photo voted it one the top ten photographic
images--in any venue--of the twentieth century) and Hefner bought it for
$500 (10 times what Marilyn was paid for it, and others, by Tom Kelley),
surely one of the smartest business decisions of the twentieth century,
although I missed that one on Fortune's list.  While many know the story
surrounding the image--Marilyn's defense for posing; ubiquitous calendars in
taverns and garages; sweetheart--it's still an interesting story, one that
can be told very effectively via today's media styles.  It's a story with
some substance, room for thought.

Unlike any story that might be generated by any cover girl in the
contemporary mode.

A couple of days ago, I thought of a revision to this revision.  Instead of
Hefner, the gentleman rabbit, the original Mr. Playboy.  The set would be
similar to those in that great series of January covers, running from 1958
until 1977.  On the wall, only the framed Golden Dreams, PLAYBOY's very
first pin-up, published 50 years ago this December.  And just think of the
fun making the set and Mr. Playboy contemporary!  He hasn't appeared on the
cover in full dress since 1977: just take some items from "Hipster Seduction
Gear," July 03, p. 122.  Yeah, Mr. Playboy in checkerboard Vans--that's the
ticket!

Along with Steve Migala, I would be satisfied with a simple golden rabbit
head symbol on the cover.  But I honestly think that Golden Dreams would be
a better statement about what PLAYBOY means.  The title for that photograph
was no doubt dreamed up by somebody at John Baumgarth Calendar Company,
Melrose Park, Illinois, in the early fifties, not long before Hugh M. Hefner
began to make real his own golden dreams.

I also have another revision to a PB50 post.  Several months ago, I offered
a list of ten suggestions for improving the magazine and its business.  The
tenth suggestion was actually three, grouped under the subject of improving
the marketplace (i.e., actually being able to buy the thing off the magazine
rack).  I still like the idea of PLAYBOY mall stores and, if I didn't have a
job that I already like, I might well go into the business myself.  I mean,
if Spencer's can make a healthy profit off Playboy Products (cf. Wil's
recent post on the PML), why shouldn't I?  This one is really a no-brainer.

My third marketplace idea received virtually no support from this group,
although I think Mark was more interested when I acknowledged that I was
thinking the sixties as well as fifties when I suggested eliminating
explicit nudity from the flagship magazine.  At Glamourcon, I continued
arguing this proposal with Peggy, who remains unconvinced, making the case
for flagship as tease and cyber club, along with Special Editions, as
revelation.  What I am trying for here is a way to get PLAYBOY off the rack
with Penthouse and Hustler and back on the rack with mainstream magazines
(again, pre-Will victory days).  I think that such a strategy would, in
fact, build the relationship between the flagship and the other boats that
depend upon its continued health for their own success.

Well, my revision of this proposal is really a simple adjustment: two
editions.  We have talked about this before in terms of giving subscribers
artistic covers; let all that content-type spill onto the newsstand version.
Taking this concept the next step, I propose that the newsstand version of
PLAYBOY publish non-explicit nudes (that is, at fifties and sixties levels
of modesty, or whatever it takes to get the magazine back on the same rack
it was on in those fifties and sixties) and that subscribers get an explicit
version, as they do today.

I don't even want to hear about how expensive this would be to shoot.  With
regard to the playmates, PLAYBOY already shoots modest versions of its
centerfold (cf. The Lingerie Calendar) and, with regard to the other
pictorials, well, isn't that the new philosophy? More modesty, more
celebrity.

As far as the actual production, sure, that would be an additional expense.
But one reason for going perfect-bound back in 1985 was to interchange pages
for advertising more easily than staple-bound.  Just how much of an increase
in newsstand sales would be necessary to off-set the costs of two-version
photo spreads?

Just imagine PLAYBOY in the 7-11 again, in the supermarkets again, at the
drugstores again.  Of course, somebody at PLAYBOY would have to go out and
make the case to these marketplaces, but it would be a far easier case to
make if the magazine had an option that was suitable in today's post-Will
victory climate.

Once PLAYBOY returns to those marketplaces, it will also to return to some
homes that it left long ago.  And it will enter many for the first time.

For those who want the explicit nudity, subscribe.  Go to the cyber club.
Buy Special Editions.  It's a matter of choice.

regards,

Dan Stiffler