Toward a more practical view

Peggy Wilkins mozart@lib.uchicago.edu
Sun, 18 May 2003 23:58:17 -0500


I would like to thank both Dan Stiffler and Donna Tavoso very
sincerely for recently contributing such frank and passionate views.
It is exchanges such as these between individuals with substatially
different perspectives that bring out points that need to be
expressed, and help us to think about the things we might have
otherwise taken for granted.

Both Dan and Donna are thoughtful people who express themselves well.
I very much appreciate the way Donna brings us facts and an insider's
perspective.  She helps keep us from resorting too often to wild
speculation.  Too much incorrect speculation could potentially cause
our opinions to be completely disregarded -- we could easily be
dismissed as not knowing what we are talking about.  I am very
sensitive about this, and it is often a source of frustration to me
that I can't speak authoritatively, or draw good conclusions for a
simple lack of facts.  While Donna often reminds us of the practical
issues at hand, Dan is the intellectual professor who thinks
abstractly and analytically, a point of view that is always as
interesting as it is potentially useful in drawing conclusions.  There
is also no doubt that he is a PLAYBOY historian of the first rate, and
one who sincerely loves and appreciates the subject of his hobby as
well.  While they may have taken exception to each others' approaches,
I could not have asked for two better participants.

With this thought as a preface, I would like to take another look at
two topics Dan has been so eloquently discussing, but with a more
practical approach.  These two topics are what he calls the cult of
celebrity, and the devaluation of the Playmate.

Dan expresses concern at the changing role of the Playmate.  He states
that the pictorial focus of the magazine has shifted from the
Playmate, who previously occupied center stage (quite literally in the
days of the staple), and also often appeared on the cover as well, to
the celebrity, who now commands not only the cover but an employment
price an order of magnitude above the Playmate.  I think there is no
doubt of the facts in this; all one needs do to prove it is to compare
salaries and count Playmate covers and celebrity covers on a year by
year basis and look at the figures.  I believe he has even done this
for us in a previous message.  He says that PLAYBOY used to generate
its own celebrities to feature on its cover; now it gets them handed
to it from an outside source.  To Dan this represents a loss of
control: PLAYBOY is no longer taking such an active role in
determining content for the magazine, he sees it as a passive
acceptance of whoever is popular at the moment, given some vague
definition of "popular".

Let me add a few thoughts to this to take the discussion to a more
practical focus.

I came to PLAYBOY as a young fan of Marilyn Monroe.  As I related in
an earlier post, it was Pamela Sue Martin's July 1978 cover appearance
combined with a gorgeous preview photo of that month's Playmate that
got me to go out and get my first issue.  I was kind of thrilled with
Pamela Sue Martin in that issue; I was even more thrilled when Marilyn
appeared in full color in the 25th anniversary issue.  That issue had
other stars I admired in it as well, and I was impressed to see Jayne
Mansfield and Kim Novak featured in beautiful pictures.  Later that
year found a stunning Raquel Welch on the cover (12/79).  My point in
mentioning all this is that all of these things pleased me very much;
and they still do.

However, at some point, PLAYBOY's presentation of the celebrity
changed to the point that many of us now view it as a problem.  To me
there were a number of factors in this:

- Selection of celebrities: the choice of whom to feature has often
been questionable.  Many have been chosen because of notoriety; had
they not had that notoriety, they probably wouldn't have "made the
grade" to appear in PLAYBOY.  To give one example, I will cite "Franky
Panky: The Woman Who Sacked Kathie Lee's Hubby" aka Suzen Johnson in
the 11/97 issue.  For people who like to look at Playmate-caliber
models, these women are a big disappointment.  I also feel that
catering to tabloid-style pictorials does not enhance PLAYBOY's
reputation; it may even diminish it.

- Celebrity covers became formulaic.  I'm sure I've already discussed
this topic to exhaustion.  Were there more creativity and good design
principles put into the celebrity covers, they would be much more
welcome -- and would still be good sellers.  I commend this May's
Torrie Wilson cover, which was very attractively and tastefully
designed; and Torrie's name sold it -- so everybody is happy (or at
least I was).

- Celebrity covers became almost an obligation.  I want to see good
covers, not just celebrities slapped onto them.

- "Artsy" photographic treatment of many celebrities was a turnoff for
many readers.  This is one area where PLAYBOY definitely was
listening, and I've been very pleased to have seen that many celebrity
pictorials in recent years have been done by the wonderful in-house
photographers.  One big reason people come to PLAYBOY is for their
unique pictorial style, and staying consistent with that seems to me
to be a win.

I think Dan's objections might well diminish if not entirely disappear
if the following principles were followed:

1. Improved selection of celebrities.  Every woman who appears in
PLAYBOY should be PLAYBOY-worthy; she should enhance the perception of
the magazine.  I suspect the new editorial/photo teams (especially
what we have been calling the celebrity wrangler) will improve this
quite a bit.

2. Creative presentation on the cover.  I have no objection whatever
to celebrities appearing on the cover; but I do object to formulaic
and inattentive cover design.  Give priority to the appearance of the
cover again; make it really stand out.  Win those awards again!

3. Present the celebrities in the renowned PLAYBOY style.  Fortunately
this appears to alread be going on at present.  Of course should
PLAYBOY evolve its photographic style for the Playmate, the same
evolution should apply to the celebrity.  Don't allow too great a
chasm to develop between the Playmate and the rest of the pictures in
the magazine.

4. This is more of a corollary: have more pictorial features on the
most beautiful women -- women who unqualifiedly deserve to be in
PLAYBOY.  Consider adding pictorial content; this would be a great
selling point.  Do more of what you do best.

In summary: selection criteria for celebrities should be as high as
for Playmates.  Keep very high production standards.  Don't "settle".
No rush jobs.  If timeliness is an issue, have a stable reserved with
good cover ideas ready to go, or else put the extra effort into
brainstorming to come up with a great cover/pictorial.  I don't mean
to diminish the creative effort that has gone into past covers; I do
mean to suggest that PLAYBOY can (and therefore should) do better than
it has in the past ten or so years.

I hope this discussion of practical issues will be of some use.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu