The Future of Playboy

Steve Migala HiHef@msn.com
Sun, 2 Nov 2003 01:58:05 -0600


I hope it's not too late to post my views on Playboy 50.

Because of my work schedule, and the time I've been putting in on a
project which hopefully will result in a career change, I have been
unable to post my views, but because of the deadline, I've decided not
to procrastinate any longer.

I have been reading all the posts, and I know that a lot of what I am
going to say will overlap what a lot of others have already said, but I
wanted to add my own take on what I would like Playboy's future to be.

Now, what primarily concerns me as to the paths that Playboy has taken
over the later part of it's first century has been what I consider the
loss of the mission and attitude that made Playboy such a unique,
beloved, and wildly successful phenomenon in the first place.

For those of you who missed it, Hugh Hefner was featured on a "This Week
in History" episode recently on the History Channel. During one of the
interview segments, there was the following exchange:

Q: Simply the key to success is giving people what they want. How much
of what you give them is what you want to say, versus what they want to
see, or hear?

A: Well, I think it's always a combination of both, and it certainly is
true for me. When I began the magazine, it was an entertainment magazine
and a lifestyle magazine in the 1950's, and then with the success of the
magazine, I introduced the other part of who I am. There was the more
serious part of the magazine, the interviews, the non-fiction on very
serious subjects, the political agenda, the beginning of the Playboy
Philosophy, those are the things that helped to shape and change
America, and I think in a positive way.

I know I'm not the only one who has noticed that Playboy no longer seems
to care about the "serious side" anymore. Look at the Interviews over
the last decade. Sitcom stars, pop stars of the moment, actors plugging
their upcoming movies. Where, during the '90s were the Interviews with
people like:

Sadaam Hussein, he gave interviews to American news networks all the
time,

Boris Yeltsin, a Cold War KGB agent now President of a now non-Communist
country,

Osama bin Laden, he gave numerous interviews to non-American
correspondents all through the '90s (heck, remember when Playboy
interviewed the IRA?)?

While I realize that it may not have been possible to get interviews
with these people, the bigger questionis, DID PLAYBOY EVEN TRY?

I remember Dan Stiffler making an excellent point when he said that he
thought that Playboy's slide away from seriousness began when he moved
from Chicago to California. I strongly agree.

Now, another point I'd like to make.

Playboy has been described in many ways over the years, including porno
magazine, skin magazine, girlie magazine, etc.

However, as a serious reader of Playboy for many years, there are two
terms I've always used to describe Playboy when talking about it to
others:

Motivational Magazine, and
Inspirational Magazine

This is another area where, I believe, Playboy has lost its vision.

Please note the following from Chapter 2 of The Playboy Philosophy:

[in the 1940s] "To be an average guy, a part of a group, one of the gang
became a pretty good thing to be. "Mr. Average Man" was someone with
whom everyone could identify, and who wouldn't be proud to be considered
"Mr. Average American"? But just a generation before, no American worth
the name would have settled for the notion of being an "average"
anything. His aspirations were a good deal higher than that. For there
is something far better than being just average, and if most of us
aren't aiming for that something better, then the very average itself
will drop lower and lower, along with our aspirations".

[also]

"A bit later, near the end of this editorial, we plan to list a number
of specifics in which Playboy believes. You may put one down now, ahead
of time: We believe wholeheartedly in the Uncommon Man and his right to
be uncommon. There is perhaps no single belief that is more important to
us.

Playboy has never done much direct editorializing -- this present piece
is a rare exception -- but regular readers have come to know the things
we believe in through the subjects we choose to write about and what we
choose to say about them. One of the things we believe in is the
Uncommon Man, and the magazine has included articles on the Uncommon Men
from its earliest issues -- Chaplin, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hemingway,
Charlie Parker, Stirling Moss. We've commented upon their uncommon
natures and expounded their uncommon philosophies".

[also]

 "...the articles, on the creature comforts and the infinite variety of
man's more elegant, leisure-time possessions, clearly stress that these
are the prizes available in our society in return for honest endeavor
and hard work. Thus Playboy exists, in part, as a motivation for men to
expend greater effort in their work, develop their capabilities further
and climb higher on the ladder of success".

Do you see any of this motivation in today's Playboy? Any inspiration to
make the extra effort to get a better grade point average? To work the
extra hours necessary to rise up the ladder at work, and not just go
through the motions for a paycheck? I don't, and we won't, as long as
Playboy if "following the followers" (Maxim, Stuff, FHM, etc.)?

The answer is no. Nowadays, the goal of Playboy is to cater to the
average man.

I remember hearing a motivational speech one time that asked the
question: "Are you a thermostat or a thermometer?" Which means are you
in command of your life, making your own decisions, or are you simply
following the crowd, and doing what everybody else is doing?

The major problem I see with Playboy is that it has gone from being a
"thermostat" (leader) magazine to a "thermometer" (follower) magazine.

Now, what to do about it? Here's my solution.

Playboy Enterprised Incorporated, is a publicly-traded company. I say
it's time to take it private.

Aside from Hugh Hefner's fixation with the entertainment industry, it
seems that all Playboy decisions are made to impress stockholders and
analysts. If Playboy can once again become a privately-held company, it
could focus on what made it great without having to please outside
parties. The ancillary ventures (hardcore cable, etc.) could subsidize
the entire operation (much like the British casinos subsidized the
entire corporation earlier), and Playboy magazine could once again
become the principled, unique, high-class product that will cater to the
upscale attitude, instead of having to lower itself to the "Animal
House" mentality in order to maintain a stock price.

Well, that's all I have to add on this matter. Hope it helps, because I
do consider myself a serious Playboy reader.

How serious? I'm as hetero as can be, and there's not one word in this
message about pictures of naked women.

Sincerely,
Steve
Chicago, Illinois