Vanity Fair/New Yorker

Donna Tavoso dtavoso@earthlink.net
Sun, 18 May 2003 01:40:19 -0500 (EST)


> Well, if PLAYBOY quits throwing six figures at "artificial and
> temporary" celebrities, they just might have money left over for some
> real content.  A novel idea, I know, but it just might work.

I too spent time at the prestigous halls of Conde Nast and the fact is
the New Yorker continues to lose money and if anyone but Mr. Newhouse
owned it, it wouldn't be in business anymore.  It doesn't lose money
just because of the high amounts to its contributors, it loses money
because it doesn't generate enough subscriptions, newsstand and
advertising revenue -- why because it is only relevant to a very small
group of people, it's rate base hovers around 850,000 that's 1/3 the
size of Playboy and they struggle still to maintain that. And just for
the record the one point in the past several years when it did do
better was under Tina Brown's leaership.  The good news for them is
they are trending slightly upward this year which is a huge credit to
both the new editor and to the publisher, still they are a far way
from being profitable.  Good news for them they don't have to be --
Advance publications is privately held.

As for real content and the matter of paying for it -- I must read a
different magazine than the rest of you.  I loved Sex in Two Cities
and the Last Score in March, the China Snydrome actually helped me
understand what the risk was at Indian Point and put it terms I could
understand, and what about the exclusive book excerpt on Sinatra and
JRK's secret parties that was in June.  All proof that Playboy is
still paying for good stories that have a wide variety of appeal.  I
love the new design for RAW DATA and find it much easier to read and I
can actually get through the reviews with a little more ease.  And at
the last three interviews have at least been on really current and
relevant celebrities. The only thing missing to date is fiction, but I
figure they can't fix everything at once so I'll be patient.

It's been very disappointing to me that with the exception of Peggy's
comments on the April issue, I have yet to see one comment here on the
content of the current magazine -- all everyone writes about is the
poor undervalued Playmates; who I don't believe are undervalued at
all.

If I was Playboy and I read the reports on this site I would give it a
whole lot of credence because all you talk about is the Playmates and
PMOY not on the cover, so if you want them to listen maybe you should
offer some solid critisim of something besides not putting PMOY on the
cover.

Donna