Change is bad!

[Peggy Wilkins]

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Sorgatz <bsorgatz@hotmail.com> writes:

    Brian> I'm glad that Peggy has framed the discussion partly in
    Brian> terms of tradition versus innovation.

This actually gives me a good entry to say why I wanted to put it that
way.

Playboy has an imposing history.  I think this works both for them and
against them.  On the one hand, their history is something they can be
very very proud of.  People remember those impressive back issues
well, and it helps to give Playboy a strong identity and a positive
set of associations in people's minds.  On the other hand, this same
history can lead to a perception of Playboy as routine, old, and tired
-- people feel they've seen it all before.

For instance, look at the recurring features in Playboy.  January has
the Playmate Review; April is sex and music; June is Playmate of the
Year; October is college girls; November is Sex in Cinema; December is
Sex Stars.  I'm certainly not putting down any of these features, some
of which I'd be highly distressed if they went away... These recurring
features offer rewards to the returning reader: a sense of
familiarity.  But can't they also imply routine and boredom, in the
"If this is Tuesday, it must be meat loaf" sense?

My point is that there is a fundamental tension between desiring
familiarity and desiring change.  Go too much one way, and things
become stale; too much the other way, and you lose grounding.  Most
likely the ideal mix is a balance of the two extremes.  Playboy has
stuck very much with the familiar; I think so much so, that change is
definitely called for at this point, in many ways.

I think that one of Playboy's strengths has been the way that right
from the beginning, they cultivated a stable of regular contributors.
Of course these returning contributors must be of the highest quality,
or there is no piont in their returning.  I have enjoyed so many of
Gahan Wilson's cartoons I can't even count them; the same can be said
for reading Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury, Shel Silverstein, etc.
These recurring top quality appearances offer a reward to the
returning reader -- a sense both of feeling right at home, in familiar
surroundings, and of enjoying it all immensely.  I would definitely
push this point into the future: not that they keep all their old
contributors, but that they work on developing a similar stable of
new, top quality contributors.  The resulting sense of familiarity can
be a powerful thing where reader enjoyment and loyalty are concerned.
But by this point 50 years later, they do need more new contributors
(besides which, sadly, we are slowly losing the old ones).

I have another point in emphasizing the tradition vs. innovation
duality as well.  To me, the idea behind Playboy is as valid today as
it was when Playboy began, and it will continue to be so: while times
change, the vision remains the same.  As I have said before, it is the
vision of what Playboy is that should drive its content.  Hence, as
far as I'm concerned, the look and content of the magazine is free to
change, as long as it is the expression of the good vision that is
behind it as the prevalent force.  I am not sure if I am being clear
here... but one of my points is that they could benefit greatly by
working on precisely articulating that vision -- the traditional
vision -- while innovation can be applied in any particular ways that
vision is expressed.  For example, I think the Interview can be today
as important as it ever was, but why not add a color portrait, or some
additional component to the feature?  There is room for growth and
improvement while still preserving the best qualities that have been
there all along.  It's the content, not the appearance, that is the
important factor.  So work on both: articulate the vision, and express
it in new, innovative ways.

    Brian> Putting these subjects together, I must say that I strongly
    Brian> favor Playboy's TRADITIONAL look and feel, down to the
    Brian> smallest details. I hope that the Playboy Interview, for
    Brian> example, will always look the way it did in 1962.

Did you notice the larger title space at the top of April's interview,
and the addition of a color picture on the second page and a sidebar
on the third page?  I am interested to know what people thought of
these changes.  I was reservedly thrilled (if you can imagine that) --
wow, they acknowledged that color photography exists, and that a
graphical overview of an interview subject's work can be interesting!
Wonderful!  To me, this was a move in the right direction, and I think
they should go even further.  How about a full page color portrait or
head shot?  The sidebar was a bit sterile and clunky, maybe resize or
reposition it or try a different layout.  But wow, what a great
change!  I was excited to see it.

    Brian> I was
    Brian> disappointed to see the main text of some articles in the
    Brian> March 2003 issue printed in a new font. My eyes adore the
    Brian> font that Playboy has used since the 1950s.

Could you give examples of which articles you are referring to?

I will mention that I was actually disappointed in the font change
that happened circa 1985 on the centerfold's "Miss Month/Playboy's
Playmate of the Month" -- the original version seemed more attractive
to me.  I sometimes wonder if anyone else noticed it.

    Brian> For that matter, I miss the pre-2000 format for the table
    Brian> of contents... The new, categorically arranged table of
    Brian> contents suggests disposability and forgettability.

While I do agree that previous Contents layouts were very nice, I
don't see the current layout as problematic as you do.  I think it
makes it easier to find particular features.  I would like to see some
further development on it, though.  For instance, I find the
presentation of the pictorial contents to be rather dry.  In the April
issue:

    PLAYMATE: CARMELLA DECESARE
      but this feature has a title that doesn't appear in the
      contents, why not use it instead, something like --

      SPRING FEVER -- Carmella DeCesare, Playboy's Playmate of the Month

    CARMEN ELECTRA
      again, the pictorial's title is missing, why not include it?


    Brian> ... The magazine has been in
    Brian> decline during most of my adult life, and I worry that it
    Brian> may never be as great in my lifetime as it was before I was
    Brian> born. Irrational though it may be, I'm inclined to see any
    Brian> change in Playboy's contents as another nail in the
    Brian> coffin.

I would like to say again that I firmly believe that if they stick to
the Playboy vision, changing the specific content shouldn't matter
that much.  I don't think that the issue is, should they make new
issues carbon copies of old ones; to me, the issue is to make the new
issues faithful to the vision that I and many others have lived with
and loved for so long.

    Brian> ... What if the party ends before I truly arrive?

This reminds me very much of Hugh Hefner's comment that he felt he'd
missed out on the party: the Jazz Age that just preceded his youth.
How funny that you in a later generation feel the same way about the
magazine he produced.
__
Peggy Wilkins                                         mozart@uchicago.edu
Marilyn @Glamournet                http://glamournet.com/legends/Marilyn/
Playboy Mailing List                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PML1