Cover issues

[Peggy Wilkins]

>>>>> "Donna" == Donna Tavoso <dtavoso@earthlink.net> writes:

    Donna> Just as a point of fact, Playboy's newsstands issues are
    Donna> polybagged in a clear plastic bag with a sash so you can
    Donna> absolutely see who is on the cover of the issue

Now that you mention it, I have noticed this consistency with the
bagging of the magazine over the past year or so.  I have seen
inconsistent displays of the special editions -- sometimes they seem
to be in clear bags, other times in bags with printing on them, and
(at least in some venues) they are not bagged at all.  I have actually
been positively impressed with some of the creative overprinting they
have used on these bags (for instance, the use of black lace on the
Book of Lingerie, or a strategically placed rabbit head logo).  I
think I may have confused special editions displays with the magazine.
I also remember some years back bags which did completely obscure the
cover image, but I haven't seen this anytime recently.  My local B
Dalton used these opaque bags for a few years.

    Donna> ...  And in a large majority of cases even
    Donna> when the issue is behind a counter with a card over the
    Donna> front, the cover and over lines have been laid out so that
    Donna> newsstands buyers can see at least the head and the first
    Donna> name of the cover model.

I remember covers from around 1983-84 that had copy text above the
PLAYBOY title.  Of course only one line would fit up there, but it did
feature this text very prominently for newsstand display.  I think
that is a good way to get feature text noticed, but it also has a
somewhat disruptive effect to the visual layout of the cover (or at
least I thought so at the time).  I see other magazines with diagonal
"banners" across part of the title, and those are even more disruptive
since the banners impinge on the title itself.  Maybe a return to the
above-title text, if done in an attractive font, would be worth
considering.  I'm not really enthusiastic about it, but thought it was
worth at least suggesting.

And what about New Yorker-style pseudo covers?  I believe Dan has
suggested this option, involving affixing a removable printed page
over the actual cover, as a potential solution to cover layout/display
problems.  Newsstand purchasers could simply remove it after taking it
home, leaving a much more attractive cover.  I can't imagine any
readers objecting to it, and it would have the advantage of pleasing
those of us who want a more artistic, less text-cluttered cover.

While we're on the topic of cover layout: how about using the back
cover for something besides advertising?  For instance, what if the
June issue had been printed with Sarah Kozer on the front, right side
up, and Playmate of the Year Christina on the back cover, upside down?
Such a cover could be displayed in either orientation, gives the
readers a bonus, and gets rid of the problem of disappointing the
traditionalists who want the PMOY cover.  That sounds like a win-win
situation.  Would the loss in ad revenue be too much?  Here's an
approach to that: why not tie-in an inside back cover ad to the PMOY?
That could be eye catching and creative, and perhaps they could charge
a premium for that tie-in ad space.  All it would take is some
creative selling to advertisers.

Any other creative approaches?

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu