Honor Thy Playmate

[Peggy Wilkins]

I am not thinking clearly enough tonight to continue with more
comments on the June issue, so I will wait until tomorrow; but until
then I offer a few more lightweight remarks that may be of interest.

Regarding Donna and Dan's recent comments:

    Donna> ... I am just getting a little annoyed by the constant
    Donna> bashing of Playboy today compared to the glory days of
    Donna> things gone by when everything was done right...

    Dan> This "wake up" argument is as tired as the "glory days"
    Dan> argument...

I have come to think that it isn't particularly useful in any
practical sense to keep holding up PLAYBOY's past as a standard by
which to judge its present.  I certainly never was in full approval of
everything that PLAYBOY did in the past, and can't imagine that anyone
else truly was, either.  For me personally, there are whole runs of
issues, particularly from the early through mid '70s, where I like
very little of what they were doing because it did so closely reflect
the culture and I simply don't much care for the culture from that
era.  But even beyond that limited perspective, I think the way we
have been talking about the past has become more of a hindrance to
progress than a help.

When I started collecting back issues of PLAYBOY and saw the early
issues for the first time, one of the things I enjoyed most was
watching the magazine grow and evolve at a rapid rate.  This was very
obvious, I think even the casual reader at the time must have noticed
this evolution and must have been impressed by it.  Many even directly
commented on it in letters to PLAYBOY that were published in the
magazine at the time.  Improvements happened quickly, sometimes on a
month-by-month basis, and the magazine got bigger in both size (number
of pages) and circulation as this happened.  As was probably
inevitable, as the decades passed this evolution slowed until
eventually the magazine seemed to go on auto pilot, and most changes
were much more superficial in nature.  PLAYBOY got overly comfortable
in its niche, and all the while the environment continued changing
around it.  I find it particularly exciting now to watch all the
changes going on in the magazine again -- it has been a long time
since this has happened.  As I have said before, the impetus to change
offers wonderful opportunity for growth; it really is exciting to
watch.  It's even more exciting to take part in it, even if in a small
way.

    Dan> I just happen to think that we might be able to learn
    Dan> something useful, as we think about PLAYBOY's next 50 years
    Dan> (the purpose of this forum, after all), by examining what
    Dan> made PLAYBOY successful in the first place.

This is a very valid point.  I would add, though, that if we spend too
much time reflecting on the past, we are losing valuable time that
could be spent discussing more practical issues.  We have already
spent a lot of time discussing ideas and concepts that come from the
past; I think it is time to turn to discussion of more practical
issues, and add the reflection only as supporting arguments.

    Donna> And for god sake don't mention taking the PMOY off the
    Donna> cover, because it was and still is a smart savvy business
    Donna> move by the magazine -- 

A more savvy business move would have somehow taken account of the
PMOY cover tradition, which is a meaningful one to many.  I like to
see creative solutions to problems such as this one.  That
unfortunately didn't happen here -- in solving one problem, another PR
problem was created.  Of course this is easier to see in hindsight;
but I would hope there would be a more active attempt to head off such
problems before they happen, by addressing the problem creatively.
I'm not saying this just to criticize PLAYBOY's editors/decision
makers; I am saying it because I truly believe that creative solutions
to problems such as this are both possible and practical.  What is
needed here is someone who knows there will be a problem and has both
the desire and the creativity to address it.

    Donna> The magazine will never regain it's high point of 7 million
    Donna> readers -- it's called competition ...

I too am a bit frustrated with all the times the 7 million figure is
brought up.  My reason for being frustrated is that I don't feel that
it is particularly important for PLAYBOY to reach some arbitrary
circulation figure that it had in its past -- the important thing is
to keep the base that is there now, and hopefully grow it as much as
possible.  I think the 7 million figure is an unattainable goal; if it
happens by chance, fine, but it is unrealistic.  I am one of the
biggest PLAYBOY supporters out there, but even I wouldn't want to be
charged with growing circulation to 7 million!  PLAYBOY itself didn't
have that charge; it just happened.

    Dan> PLAYBOY had lots of competition in the fifties and sixties,
    Dan> when it was making its place in history (Dude, Adam, Rogue,
    Dan> Gent, et al).  Studying what made PLAYBOY different from its
    Dan> competition can be quite constructive...

I have always thought that the so-called "competition" never got the
point.  I have looked at some of those magazines you mention,
sometimes because they had PLAYBOY Playmates appear in them, and I
didn't find a one of them that I wanted to obtain a second issue of.
I just had to laugh when I looked at them, because they were so
obviously based on PLAYBOY's design; and they so obviously did not get
the point at all.  PLAYBOY is now and has always been unique.

    Dan> You are right that PLAYBOY is the number one men's magazine.
    Dan> However, we all know that it holds that status because of its
    Dan> 2+ million subscribers...

I was just thinking about this subscriber base tonight (which I
suppose is about as surprising as hearing that the sun set this
evening... ).  I thought it interesting how much I have thought of the
fickle newsstand buyer as a "problem" when maybe it would be more
useful to think of the subscribers as an "asset".  The high
subscription rate suggests that people want to subscribe to PLAYBOY,
or that they prefer to use subscription as the means to obtain it.
Perhaps this means that more effort should be spent trying to gain and
retain subscribers.  I am sure they are already doing this, but can it
be more aggressive and creative?  I have some ideas and I could say
more about this if there is interest.

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

And what a lot of work we have before us!

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu