Honor Thy Playmate

Dan Stiffler calendar-girls@mindspring.com
Sat, 17 May 2003 14:13:21 -0400


On 5/16/03 3:32 AM, "Donna Tavoso" <dtavoso@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I'm going to apologize in advance for the tone of this note, because I
> am just getting a little annoyed by the constant bashing of Playboy
> today compared to the glory days of things gone by when everything was
> done right.  It wasn't always right then and it won't always be right
> now.  But the fact of the matter is that everyone has to wake up and
> join us in the year 2003

This "wake up" argument is as tired as the "glory days" argument.  They are
both generational arguments, and they have both been going on for hundreds
of years.  I am neither Chicken Little (cf. Brad's "Sky is Falling" post on
the PML) nor am I Rip Van Winkle.

I call attention to the way things were done in fifties and sixties for two
primary reasons:

1)I am now personally involved in a re-evaluation of my collection.  In the
process of examining these early issues, I have discovered some matters that
I think might be of interest to a larger audience, one that cares about
PLAYBOY--including its past.

2)PLAYBOY built a readership during the fifties and sixties.  During those
two decades, the magazine went from selling just over 50,000 to well over
5,000,000.  I am curious about why that happened.  How did PLAYBOY become
such publishing phenomenon?  There have been books written on this subject:
"Reaching for Paradise" by Thomas Weyr (1978) is generally considered the
best, although some might argue that Barbara Ehrenreich's chapters on
PLAYBOY in "Hearts of Men" are also essential. Interestingly, however,
PLAYBOY often addresses this very question itself, in its own Playbill.  The
editors at PLAYBOY were frankly amazed (and no doubt delighted!) that the
magazine had caught on with such fervor.  Well into the sixties, Playbill is
commenting on the magazine's impressive success and explaining what it has
done to earn that success.  I just happen to think that we might be able to
learn something useful, as we think about PLAYBOY's next 50 years (the
purpose of this forum, after all), by examining what made PLAYBOY successful
in the first place.

A lot of things are generational.  Movies, music, fashions.  But the
verities of life are not generational.  I can understand why PLAYBOY has to
stay up with the changing times in some areas.  I am not, Nigel's recent PML
comment aside, an old fuddy-duddy.  But quality matters; quality endures.
Respect is important.

As I recently posted, I have not come to this position of PLAYBOY curmudgeon
easily.  I don't "bash" PLAYBOY; I criticize decisions made by its editors.
For a long time, the bulk of my criticism has been focused on pedestrian and
formulaic covers.  However, I have spent far more time on the PML defending
PLAYBOY and applauding PLAYBOY than I have expressing my displeasure.

I recently picked up a book entitled Movie Crazy, by Samantha Barbas.  It is
a fascinating examination of how the movie studios in the early 20th century
developed a relationship with the movie-going public.  Of special interest
is the relationship that was developed between the stars and their fans.  As
I read this book, I couldn't help but draw the obvious parallels with
PLAYBOY.  It is very easy to see PLAYBOY as a studio, the playmates as the
movie stars, and the readers as the fans.  One of the points that the book
makes is that fans take very seriously their relationship (such as it is)
with the stars and that the studios were quick to recognize the value (in
dollars, among other things) of that relationship.  All constituents should
be "invested" in this relationship for it to grow and to be healthy.

I suppose it is a 41-year investment that I am trying to protect when I
reluctantly criticize PLAYBOY.  I would be much happier if I were secure
about the future of PLAYBOY, but I am not, and to pretend otherwise would be
dishonest.  I do not doubt the seriousness with which the current staff at
PLAYBOY is working to secure that future, but I do doubt some of the
judgments.  Yes, I have been critical of James Kaminsky, but I have also
been critical of Hugh Hefner--and it pains me.  Hugh Hefner is one of the
few heroes I have had in my life.  However, I think his recent statement
about nobody caring about "somebody's cousin"--that is, the playmates--is
dead wrong.
 
> 1. It is a different world today and as much as it has changed the
> world we live in, it has also changed the women who are Playmates.
> This means a great number want to go on want to go on Howard Stern.
> These women aren't forced to do anything the don't want to do and
> because I work within the industry I can tell you they expect to be
> paid a great deal more for everything they do.  And I think they
> should be, but before you say that Playboy has devalued the Playmate
> you should actually know the facts.  If you look at the Playmate
> appearence calendar on the site over half of the appearences the
> Playmates make are booked and paid for by Playboy or through Playboy
> affiliate actions.  More than ever Playmates are appearing in ads for
> products in the magazine, do you think is happening without people at
> the magazine pushing for them to get those jobs.  And for god sake
> don't mention taking the PMOY off the cover, because it was and still
> is a smart savvy business move by the magazine -- guess what they are
> in this to make money and as a shareholder I respect that.  Oh, by the
> way, she did Howard Stern.

I say PLAYBOY has devalued the playmate because she only rarely appears on
the cover of the magazine anymore (a position of honor) and because PLAYBOY
pays 10 to 20 times a playmate's paycheck for its celebrity pictorials.
Those are facts.  Count the covers.  Check the paychecks.  You say that
dismissing the PMOY from her cover was a "smart savvy business move."  Are
the figures in yet?  Sarah was paid a reported $500,000 for her pictorial.
Did her newsstand sales support such an investment?  Did moving her to the
cover really spike the sales by half a mil?  Isn't is a little early to be
making such a pronouncement?  Indeed, given the early reports here, Sarah
had very little effect at the newsstand.  If I were a shareholder of PLAYBOY
(and I could be for less than the cost of a subscription), I would be
concerned about the way the magazine is throwing around its hundreds of
thousands.  I mean, who's to blame the Hilton girl for holding out for a
half a mil?  That's what a reality show contestant got.  This is the kind of
culture that PLAYBOY is developing when it hires a "celebrity wrangler."
And it is a culture that effectively puts the playmate on the second tier.

Regarding Howard Stern: I will admit to having no use for him.  I've tried
to watch the TV show; I've tried to listen to the radio show.  I know he is
an important figure in the history of "shock radio," and I understand that
he is a star in his own universe.  But when I have read transcripts of his
interviews with playmates, his formula is clear: humiliate the playmate.  He
does this by asking her a bunch of questions that any literate person could
answer and, when she misses, making her look like a fool.  Or he will ask
questions about her sex life and then make crude comments about what he
would like to do with her body.  It may be that a "great number [of
playmates] want to go on Howard Stern."  But does that mean that PLAYBOY
should enable this kind of humiliation?  Again, this has to do with respect;
lack of respect at one level leads to a disrespect at another level.  If you
really think that Howard respects playmates (I have heard that argument),
then I guess we just have different ideas about what respect means.
However, please remember that respect is one of those verities: it is not a
matter of changing times.  The old question--"Would you want your daughter
doing Howard Stern?"--holds.
 
> 2. Before you make a statement be sure of your facts, the Playmates do
> still make numerous on-campus appearences - maybe not to the extent
> that this woman did but hey maybe that's due to the fact Playboy is
> not as well received on campuses as it was in the early sixties, count
> the women's movement, the conservative right, and a decrease in the
> appeal of the magazine to young men among the reason -- wait maybe
> that's why they hired Jim Kaminsky.

I try to be sure of my facts, Donna.  I honestly do.  I am a professor and I
value documentation.  In my nearly eight years on the PML, I don't remember
reading a single post about a playmate visit to a college campus.  While I
am not a regular checker of the playmate appearance website (so I will admit
that some might have passed me by), I have not seen a single college campus
engagement advertised--although there have been lots of bars, conventions,
and shows scheduled (and, as Peggy has pointed out, often misscheduled).  It
has been years and years since PLAYBOY has run any notice whatsoever--much
less a feature--in the magazine depicting a playmate visit to a college
campus.  If you say "Playmates do still make numerous on-campus
appearances," then they do.  What I say is PLAYBOY is not doing a very good
job of getting the word out if a regular reader like myself doesn't know
this.

Indeed, one of the reasons I have focused on this area is that, to use your
words, "Playboy is not as well received on campuses as it was in the early
sixties."  If James Kaminsky is really going to do battle with the radical
women's movement and the conservative right, then I will be among the first
to sign on as a foot soldier.
 
> 3. Also, Playboy had in the sixties and still has today a very active
> on-campus program.  Currently the program has reps on over 150
> campuses across the country who frequently do host parties and such
> that the Playmates attend.  Maybe not the same type of events that
> this Playmate went to, but again events and signings that will appeal
> to college students today are different than they were in the sixties.

I am glad to hear this.  As I said in another post, we once had one of those
on-campus reps on the PML.  He was at an Ohio school, as I remember.  You
know, since you are "inside the business," maybe you could suggest that more
of those 150 reps join the PML and let us know what is happening on campus,
how they are manning the front lines in the name of PLAYBOY, just which
playmates are doing the campus visits.  Better yet, have the magazine run a
feature on these guys (and gals?).  Just a suggestion...
 
> 4. The magazine will never regain it's high point of 7 million readers
> -- it's called competition and not just from other magazines but from
> 100s of other media outlets, stop pointing it out and holding it up as
> source that shows the magazine was better then, every major magazine
> that had huge circulation in the sixties and the seventies has lowered
> its circ numbers, some to a much greater extent than Playboy.  Today
> Playboy is the number one circulation men's magazine in the world, but
> to hold onto the position it needs to gather new readers (and yes a
> large percentage of the current ones)

PLAYBOY had lots of competition in the fifties and sixties, when it was
making its place in history (Dude, Adam, Rogue, Gent, et al).  Studying what
made PLAYBOY different from its competition can be quite constructive...but
there I go again with the "glory days."  Today, I am afraid, PLAYBOY is more
interested in becoming *like* its competition, which has all the hallmarks
of a quick fix.

You are right that PLAYBOY is the number one men's magazine.  However, we
all know that it holds that status because of its 2+ million subscribers (it
sells only a fraction of Maxim at the newsstand).  Kaminsky has said that he
doesn't want to lose that base of subscribers.

It wouldn't hurt to listen once in a while to that base.  We are loyal
readers but we should not be taken for granted.  We may be cranky, but we
care.  For us, PLAYBOY is not a job, but an avocation.  Some of us are
spending a lot of energy at this crucial point in PLAYBOY's history to share
our hopes and fears about the magazine we love.

This particular forum is Peggy's brainchild and she is the one who will
eventually have to decide what will go in our final report.  As she made
clear in her response to the "Sky is Falling" post, she is much happier with
the present state of the magazine than am I.  However, if she didn't have
concerns about the magazine's future, she wouldn't be spending the energy
now--and the enormous energy to come--keeping our discussion about PLAYBOY's
future alive.  To be honest, I am skeptical that much of what we say here
will matter to those who make decisions at PLAYBOY.  Criticism is not easily
accepted by those who are in power.  However, Peggy has the optimism and the
perseverance to believe that what we do here can matter.

The incurable romantic in me out shouts the skeptic as I sign on to Peggy's
dream.

Dan Stiffler