Media Life 5/20/2003: The not entirely all new PLAYBOY

[Peggy Wilkins]

    >> The not entirely all new Playboy
    >> http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/may03/may19/2_tues/news4tuesday.html

Just a few brief comments.

    >> As of the June issue, which features a redesigned front of the
    >> book, the makeover is 40 to 50 percent complete, says
    >> Kaminsky. Next up is a new back-of-the-book service/lifestyle
    >> section with coverage of fashion, cars and gear.

It sounds as if there's been an already fairly fixed template in place
detailing precisely what changes are wanted.  That's pretty much as
expected, but it does make me wonder a bit how much they're willing to
vary from that template.  I still would like to see tweaking of what's
been done so far.  Probably there will be -- they'd be nuts not to be
flexible -- but I do wonder at how much flexibility will be likely or
acceptable.

    >> Lad titles, he says, are adept at drawing readers in with what
    >> editors call "access points" or "entryways" -- humorous charts
    >> and sidebars or photographs with "deep captions."

I have no idea what "deep captions" are.

    >> "In the case of Maxim, entire stories are access points and
    >> entry ways," says Kaminsky. "In the case of Playboy, we'll use
    >> them as devices to get people to read ambitious stories. You
    >> can still run an 8,000 word piece on a complex subject, but it
    >> might mean you have to be more creative with your
    >> illustrations" -- by, for instance, adding a funny sidebar and
    >> more pulled quotes.

Having seen a few of these sidebars, I have to say that I am quite
ambivalent about them.  I think some of them are good (which to me
means it is both related to the story and adds real information) and
some of them are less good.  For an example, look at the Phil Spector
story in the June issue.  The sidebar titled "To know him is to fear
him: Phil Spector through the years" adds real information that is
directly relevant to the piece, while the one on the following page
titled "Bad Vibrations" is for the most part unconnected to the story
at hand.  I suppose that may be the point of it -- it's a different
way of access to the story by way of being only remotely related --
but to me it reads like a random unrelated thing and doesn't add much
to the impact of the story.

If the real point is to get people to stop flipping through the pages
long enough to notice there's a story there, it makes sense, but then
it's also kind of silly.  I'd really prefer to see more directly
related stuff.  But I know I am probably just missing the point...  so
I remain ambivalent about it.

    >> Increasingly, however, female subjects will be depicted
    >> partially nude or minimally clothed in the style of mainstream
    >> men's titles. The idea is to be able to attract the most famous
    >> actresses and models to a magazine that has all too often had
    >> to rely on lady wrestlers and reality TV "stars" to drive
    >> newsstand sales.

This quote strikes me as strange, because the specific magazine
history that he is talking about, and the one he is presumably
departing from, is only very recent: this is 1999 and later.  And
isn't he undercutting the enormously successful Torrie Wilson issue of
last month (and she was definitely PLAYBOY-worthy), Sarah Kozer in
June, and even the (presumably) upcoming layout on the latest Survivor
women, all issues produced under his watch?  I think all of these
women belong in PLAYBOY, yet he seems to be belittling them.  This
isn't consistent.  He could (and should) come up with a better
example.

    >> In addition to be more accommodating, Playboy has also hired a
    >> well-connected celebrity wrangler: Heidi Parker, former editor
    >> in chief of Movieline.

I had to do a double take when I read that, because the person who
hired me for my very first job in Chicago was named Heidi Parker.

Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu