Simple solution...two magazines.

[Brian Wallace]

Rough summation (in my opinion):

Playboy used to be great, relevant and sophisticated.
Starting in the 70's the magazine lost it's focus
and now in 2003 finds itself diminshed and no longer
relevant at all. There are "mens'" magazines that are
popular but they are far from sophisticated or
literate.

But, I feel, once the literate/sophisticated Playboy
faded, so did the audience for literate/sophisticated
men's magazines.

So, now in 2003, you get most of the people on this
list wishing a return to the glory days.  The New 
Yorker with classy pictures of naked women.  I wish
for this as well.

Then you have the other 85% of the populace who want
a Maxim with more nudity of more famous people.

This isn't a serious proposal, but what if they let
Kaminsky run a more Maxim-type mag with semi-nude
pictures of Christina Aguilera?

Then Playboy could publish a square-bound "Playboy 
Classic" with more hard-hitting interviews, relevant
fiction, art critiques, etc.  Plus, classy photos
of naked women, of course.

But the point of matter is, both "Esquire" and "G.Q."
have sort of gone to this "Playboy Classic" concept
and they are getting killed out there aren't they?
Maybe nudity is needed to make it sucessful but I'm
thinking about G.Q.'s recent Heidi Klum anniversary
pictorial and Esquire's Heidi Klum semi-nude cover
a couple of year's back.  THAT didn't work did it?
G.Q. and Esquire used to NEVER have women on their
covers or featured.  Now, there are probably four to
five female "G.Q." covers a year and five/six for 
"Esquire".

So, I'm not saying it's a hopeless cause.  I'm not.
It's just that the magazine business is a business
and there are two examples of a semi "Playboy Classic"
model out there and they are getting slaughtered
sales-wise.

The audience is there for us.  But I'm not sure if
there is a mass audience there for it.

Thanks,

Brian