Challenge to the Editors/Ad Pages in the Magazine

[Donna Tavoso]

Peggy wrote:
> I don't quite understand this -- if PLAYBOY is the highest circulating
> men's magazine, why does it need higher newsstand sales to sell ad
> pages?  Isn't it the total circulation that matters more?  I would
> think the high circulation could be pushed to the advertisers as a
> strong point of sale.  PLAYBOY is in the top 20 magazines in paid
> circulation, don't the advertisers want this?

Because in today's market the vitality of a magazine (in some
categories, especially for the entertainment books and the men's
field) is judged in a large part on the stregth of its newsstand sales
- Maxim sells 800,000 copies, Playboy on average 320,000.  As I
pointed out earlier, it is unfortunate that in today's ad community it
is less about subscribers (you would think advertisers would want the
committment) and more about the churn of new readers.  Again, remember
the NYTimes article pointed out Playboy's low newsstand and never
mentioned its strong subscriber story.

And while Playboy is the largest circulation men's magazine, it
doesn't have the largest audience -- Maxim does.  That's because
Playboy readers keep their issues, don't leave them in seat pockets of
planes or pass them along.  Unfortunately when you do the numbers for
planning an ad buy, you use audience number and that can make Maxim a
more effective vehicle to reach men -- again, it's sad that
advertisers don't value people who keep and reread an issue, but the
fact is they don't.

> I do understand that higher reader income would help, but doesn't
> income level also affect the type of ad that should appear?  For
> instance, there are many fashion ads that I would expect to appear in
> PLAYBOY directed toward people of moderate income, but I just don't
> see them -- for instance, Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Benneton, athletic
> outfitters, etc.  Such brands sell well to moderate income households,
> and their ads are often visually appealing, so why doesn't PLAYBOY
> currently carry such ads?

Every client you listed above has a sensitivity to the nudity in
Playboy, just like the Detroit automakers do.  I know you are thinking
this is absurd after all Bennetton features nude model in their ads,
well Pony has a nude Pam Anderson in their shoe ad and they won't run
in the magazine.  A magazine's primary source of revenue is its
advertising -- and as someone who works in publishing, has spent time
in the men's category and has a friend who sold ad space for Playboy I
can only tell you that Playboy would kill to carry any of the brands
that you listed above and a great many more -- there is no way that
not getting them is because they aren't working on it, it's because
they won't run.  Here's a fun tidbit for you - Viagra will not
advertise in Playboy; why Pfizer, their parent company won't allow it.

The conservative action groups got Wal Mart to pull Maxim, Stuff and
FHM from their shelves -- imagine the pull they have with an major
apparel company like the Gap.  It's unfortunate that Playboy's loyal
fans (and this is not a criticism of anyone) never choose to boycott
7-11 when they pulled the magazine from their company stores
(franchise stores do carry it) or question why certain advertisers
aren't in the book.  But I believe, just based on reading your note,
that if you don't know how publishing functions, your first belief
would be that Playboy doesn't want or go after the ad as opposed to
the fact that these people are actually opposed to running in the
magazine.

> I follow this right up to your last point.  That last point implies
> that design is almost irrelevant -- so make the design a good one,
> with whoever is going to sell the copies as the focal point.  I will
> add that I have no problem with cover copy, either; but I do want it
> to look attractive.  I just don't think the current look is
> attractive.  The look of the copy can be improved, too.

As a creative person, it pains me to say you are right, in many ways
the design can be irrelevant if the cover model who is featured is
strong enough to move copies.  As I said I think the covers will
change and hopefully, do some of the things you suggested earlier --
be shot outside, etc.  But considering that we heard in the press that
at least 3 different people were going to be on the cover of July
before it was Nikki Ziering, I think it may be more of a function of
timing than of not wanting to do a great photo shoot.  But that's a
thought, I could be wrong.

> I really do mean precisely what I said. 

I believe that you do -- I just think you are in a minority even on
this site. I think bold changes are very risky when you are an
established brand, I think that Jim Kaminsky and his team have shown a
willingness to push the envelope -- and I think they will continue to
do so.

Donna