Challenge to PLAYBOY's editors

[Dan Stiffler]

On 5/26/03 11:59 PM, "Peggy Wilkins" <mozart@lib.uchicago.edu> wrote:

> - The magazine is too short; add more pages, make PLAYBOY more
> substantial.  Dan mentioned he would like to see expanded reviews
> because the current ones are too short.  I fully agree with this, and
> I think it is significant that someone I gave a PLAYBOY gift
> subscription to independently told me that the reviews (like in many
> other magazines) are so short as to be mostly useless.  Putting more
> real substance in reviews would be a great service to readers.

This is an area where I would like to see the "radical change" that Peggy
calls for.  Even in its early incarnation, After Hours did not have
"expanded reviews," although compared to what we have seen in recent years
they were veritable dissertations (they were also trenchant).  I suppose one
thing about June's changes that can be seen as a positive is the
introduction of a Movie or CD or Game or DVD or even a Book of the Month
(the latter seems a little derivative, doesn't it?).  In each case, the
reader actually has a little more to read about the subject under review.
However, to use films as an example, the "now showing" and "score card" have
all the weight of those fifteen-second reviews for which Leonard Maltin is
infamous.  I get just as much information from the so-called reviews that
come across the PA system at the Kroger.

June's "Movie of the Month" (X2) is not, as others have noted, reviewed as
much as a previewed in the form of a brief conversation with actress Kelly
Hu.  The callout pretty much sums it up: "They wanted the fighting to look
quick and vicious."  Gee.

Under the new format, we seem to have two rating systems: the rabbit heads
and a new thermometer-like "buzz," which is connected to "Our Call."  The
movie review pages, at least, look like the report of a committee--not a
good thing.

What I would like to see are reviews that are substantial discussions of a
work or product that would have some relevance to the interests of a Man Who
Reads Playboy.  Again, using films as an example, why not an examination of
Secretary, a wonderful "little film" that presents a sadomasochistic
relationship in a way similar (to borrow an analogy from the director) to My
Beautiful Laundromat's presentation of homosexual love?  A willingness to
discuss sexual relations has been one of the defining features of PLAYBOY's
content over the years.  I would like to see full-page reviews of films that
say something interesting--and in relation to the Playboy Philosophy--on
that subject.  Another film for a full review might have been Auto Focus,
which makes dangerous implications about the addictive nature of
pornography.  In the DVD section PLAYBOY could have full discussions of
classic films, ones that dealt with sex in provocative ways during their era
(I just watched Candy the other day).

If PLAYBOY were to follow such a model, then the reviews would be
distinctive, not to mention worth reading.  As it stands, the review pages
have improved marginally, in both content and design...but real change?
Nah.

> - A good way to accommodate added content such as expanded reviews
> would be to make the magazine physically larger.  For instance, why
> not make it slightly wider?

As a collector, I bellow a resounding NO!  To change the magazine's size (it
has, in fact, shrunk slightly over the years) would be to change all the
tools of collection: the bags, the boards, the cases.  A number of years
ago, Road and Track changed its size and went to a larger format.  I saw no
sense in it.  R&T now doesn't fit well with other magazines in its genre
(maybe that is Peggy's point); the change seemed to be a gimmick.  ESPN
magazine, which recently won a National Magazine Award, is an oversized
publication, and it does have the advantage of putting lots of stuff on a
page (the direction of the current PLAYBOY design), but I find it
excessively busy (I seem to remember Peggy's making the same comment about
Wired several years ago).  A change in the size of the magazine would also
change the size of the gatefold.  My vote would be no.  Make that NO!
 
> - Another factor that is obvious to even the casual newsstand viewer
> is the appearance of the cover.  Do away with the formulaic studio
> shots that have dominated the cover for so long and try for a fresher
> look.  Try some new photographers (perhaps some highly prestigious
> ones).  Of course this is easy for me to say; but I think it would be
> well worth every bit of creative effort put into it.  Maybe it's past
> time for a new perspective (new staff?) in the Art department.

As I understand it, some people in the art department have already been
relieved of their jobs.  This last year, the American History Association
met in Chicago and decided to have a panel observing the 50th anniversary of
PLAYBOY.  A scholar from the University of Houston was invited to present,
along with several people from PLAYBOY's art department.  The artists didn't
show up because, as the scholar tells it, they were laid off.  So he had to
do the panel himself.  Gosh, what great public relations for PLAYBOY (I
heard this report at a session of the American Culture Association
conference in April, at which the Houston professor expressed little hope
for the revival of PLAYBOY).

To be honest, I have never blamed the art department for the insipid covers
that we have had to endure for the last decade or so.  Every once in a while
a good one sneaks through and, after all, Tom Staebler trained under Art
Paul and has produced on his own stunning covers during his tenure.  I think
the talent has always been there in the art department, but the artists seem
to be stuck with the formulaic Cosmo covers because of corporate-think.  I
have a hard time believing that an artist would work up a good cover image
(and there have been some in recent years) and then say, let's see, how can
I ruin this with a bunch of contents type.

We have discussed this problem on the PML before.  Obviously, the contents
type is meant to drive newsstand sales and there must be a belief at PLAYBOY
that a strong design can no longer do this alone.  As we have suggested
before, there are other ways of advertising contents--especially since most
newsstand copies are bagged anyway.  However, I must also note that, as much
as we have complained about these formulaic covers, the covers remain the
same.
 
> After these specific suggestions, my challenge to the editors of
> PLAYBOY are:
> 
> Be bold.  There's no need to handhold your readers as long as you
> respect them.

Respect is the key.  I have a problem with the current attitude that young
people don't read anymore and, therefore, the magazine has to hook them into
reading with sidebars and catchy graphics.  I have no problem with good
design, but I do have a problem designing a magazine for "non-readers."  I
work with young people and, believe me, there are a lot of good readers out
there.  In a sense, this is the old generational argument on its head.
People complain about today's youth not being able to read (as they think
back fondly on their own reading youth).  It's poppycock and it's
disrespectful.  Just because it's a "different world out there" doesn't mean
there are not young readers in that world.  We have far more college
educated readers now than we had during PLAYBOY's developmental years.  Yet
the PLAYBOY editors think their audience has to have its text sugarcoated.
 
> Be willing to change and experiment; evolve.  I really miss the old
> days when changes and improvements were happening almost every issue.

I am not sure which "old days" Peggy's talking about here, since she only
began reading the magazine in the late 70s.  But it is absolutely true that
when PLAYBOY was growing a readership they were adding features to the
magazine and writers to the stable.
 
> Don't fall into predictable patterns; every month is a new opportunity
> to do better than the last one, and nothing need be set in stone.

Well, there are a few "predictable patterns" that need to be honored.  I
better not say any more...

regards,

Dan Stiffler