the average reader

[Donna Tavoso]

Dan wrote:
> PLAYBOY was never intended for the *average* person.  If that is whom
> the magazine is now aimed at, then that is why some of us have a
> problem with the direction it is taking.  I don't care if an average
> person doesn't know the names of playmates.  PLAYBOY built a
> readership (and a big one at that) on people who did know playmate
> names and who looked forward to the Playmate Review in January, the
> PMOY in June, and the calendar in September.  I've got friends who
> have long since stopped buying PLAYBOY but who can name playmate names
> and describe playmate layouts and they do so with a fondness that only
> a PLAYBOY reader can understand.  PLAYBOY was intended for the
> "sophisticated and urbane" reader.  It was intended to be a club
> (remember, you needed a membership to get in).  It was not intended
> for the average. It was not a magazine aimed at the dumb and dumber,
> or the "quarter-educated."

All I can say is the above paragraph completely discounts anything
else you have said in your previous posts, you don't care who writes
for the magazine or what's in it, in fact I don't think you read it --
Playmates, playmates, playmates and just for the record I completely
disagree - Playboy is aimed at the man who aspires to a best in life
in all aspects - clearly not you or your friends who used to read it
because clearly all they care about it is Playmates.  Here's a news
flash, that's not what Playboy built their reputation on -- Playboy
built it's reputation on Hef's belief that men could appreciate a
beautiful woman and a great story, interview along side outstanding
fiction and humor.  No it's not aimed at the dumb and dumber frat boy
mentality of the current lad magazines, it aims higher than that.

The Playmates are a crucial and important part of the mix but they are
just that, a part of the mix -- however it's clear that for the people
here it's the only part of the mix that seems worth talking about.

> From most early reports, people have already forgotten Sarah, which
> was obviously the fear that Kaminsky had when he rushed her onto the
> June cover.

Hmm, Sarah was old news when they put her on the cover, that's why US
magazine did a two page story on her the same week about being on the
cover and why her cover got so many press mentions across all major
press outlets.  I know, you are far too sophisticated for the likes of
US magazine, after all you can name the Playmates and talk about what
their centerfolds layouts were like.  Sarcastic, you bet -- you can't
call it both ways, you talk a good game about wanting sophisticated
journalism but your posts here prove that you don't care about that.

> But when I read on the PML about the money offered a Hilton, when I
> know that a PEI house cleaning has taken place so that a "celebrity
> wrangler" can be hired, well, times have changes, haven't they?

Yes, Playboy hired a west coast editor, what could be their goal,
maybe to not only get more A-list people to appear on the cover and
get more timely interview manners - did some people lose their job,
yes they did and it is always sad when that happens.  But some very
important people kept their jobs as well, people with a history and
tie to the magazine.  And some key people like Robert Love, a hugely
respected journalist have joined the magazine in New York.  Since you
all follow this so closely before those editorial people lost their
jobs almost 150 people in the past two years were laid off from
Playboy, yes a lot of factors when into that but the bottom line was
it wasn't working and something had to change.

Donna