June 2003 issue comments

[Peggy Wilkins]

I have more than a few comments about the June issue.  This issue has
the most apparent changes since the more subtle ones that have
preceded it.  Most are good; as usual, I think it can be even better.

Sarah Kozer cover: It's pretty good, but I have to give PLAYBOY many
demerits for supplanting the PMOY.  The picture of Christina that
opens her pictorial on page 70 would have made a stunning cover with
the PLAYBOY title in a color matching the flowers.  Christina shows
nipples here, which is a newsstand no-no, so how about sending this
cover to subscribers, and Sarah on the newsstand?  Donna mentioned
this possibility as well.  This could be seen as a special extra
reward by some subscribers: subscribe to get the PMOY cover.

I would still like to see some more attractive fonts used on the
cover: the repeated use of all caps in the squarish font continues to
look sterile and unappealing to me.  I commend the turning of the bar
code so that it doesn't impinge on the cover image; but would still
like to see it on the back cover instead!  (Or how about making it
narrower?  Is the size a standard?  I have seen bar codes that are
narrow, but maybe those aren't on magazines...)

Playbill: The format change is a huge improvement over the previous
stale look and awkward text transitions.  This section was becoming
almost a joke to me in the past couple of years: the textual
transitions were sudden and jarring, and the paragraphs used to read
like a bunch of press release hype strung together, with little
thought given to coherence.  Grouping into isolated segments solves
these problems and looks much neater.  However, it is too short; for
instance there is no mention whatever of the pictorial features.  More
could be made of the issue redesign here; this is the place to
logically put info about what PLAYBOY is doing/planning in the months
ahead, and perhaps even build reader anticipation (anyone reading this
section probably cares).  I am also a bit perplexed about photo choice
-- often the subject of the features is shown rather than the
contributor; why not use smaller photos, and feature both subject and
contributor together?  Readers look to this page to see what the
contributors look like; we already know what the feature subjects look
like (e.g., Mike Piazza, Frank Sinatra).  I would expand it to two
pages to say more about the issue and to feature more contributors.
Perhaps even introduce the new editors.

Dear PLAYBOY: Good, clean layout, good use of space, the graphics are
a good reminder of what features are being talked about.  I hope the
reproduction of the cover of the issue under discussion will be
featured regularly; it's the most tangible reminder of what issue is
being discussed.

PLAYBOY After Hours: I really miss the Chicago skyline graphic, it
added a nice touch of sophistication; it would be nice to see
something like that added again.  Instead, we are left with a very
blocky-looking title.  It's not bad, but it is followed on subsequent
pages by a lot of other blocky looking things, so perhaps the opening
page could be distinguished.

Babe of the Month: needless to say this is a great feature, and
expanding it is a good idea.  Maybe move it outside of After Hours --
it has sufficient interest to stand on its own as a feature, it could
go before the start of After Hours.  This would give some room to add
an After Hours graphic, too.
Barometer: it seems uninteresting and random to me.
Drink of the Month: what can I say but, :)  A keeper.  The photo is a
nice touch; elegant.
Employee of the Month: very nice, it looks like this will be a regular
feature, and I think it will potentially be one readers look forward
to.
Stupid little list: sorry, but it's so stupid, it's annoying.
Raw Data: expanding this to a full page is good.  I see a lot of white
space in here; given its expansion, add more content, don't just
spread it out.  The picture of Terri Welles is an outtake from her
5/80 cover and is terrific, the longtime reader will appreciate
touches like this.

Reviews: movie reviews have a good, clear layout.  A release date is
only given for the movie of the month, can one be added for the
others?  I like the 7-bar rating, it is easy to read/understand and
the 7 available slots is a good degree of resolution (more than the
usual 1-4 or 1-5 star-type rating).  This is the first time we've been
given a photo for every movie, and that is a good addition.  Regarding
Leonard Maltin: I'm now confused about what exactly his role is.  He
appears to have a smaller role than in the past; if anything, I think
he should be given expanded space.  Can't the movie section be
expanded to accomodate this?  His name is a feather in PLAYBOY's cap;
exploit it.

Re: expanding features, this could mean more advertising pages to
correspond.  Ads can give a magazine a very slick look, if they are
the right ads.  Boy are we in need of more variety here, too: there is
a very strong alcohol-tobacco slant here.  We've discussed this
before.  I heard reports that the redesign is being presented to
advertisers -- great!  Also tell them you're expanding your content,
maybe?  I would think that would be at least a minor plus.  Tell them
that more is coming...

A general comment on reviews: I wish they were longer; I wish there
were more of them.  This is somewhere that PLAYBOY could really shine.

playboy tv/playboy.com: I find these sections clunky looking; i'm not
enticed to read them.

I'm going to have to stop here for now; I have to get up and go to
work tomorrow... but I will continue.  I hope there is something of
use in here.  Any other comments from others?

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu