skin and ads

[Dan Stiffler]

While this forum apparently still has a few gasps left, I thought I might
put a coda on a debate that sprung up this last summer.  To quickly review
the main contention, I was and remain in favor of adjusting PLAYBOY's
newsstand explicitness so that it can regain marketplace that it has lost in
the post-Meese era, while Steve Sloca has argued for an even more explicit
magazine.  To support his case, Steve noted the then up-coming FOX series by
Jerry Bruckheimer; I repost here Steve's explications of his points that he
claimed I "completely missed":

"My points were (1) that, contrary to the assumptions Dan, Donna--and yes,
Hugh Hefner (remember that famous quote from him about "less" nudity)--were
making, Americans are not died-in-the-wool puritans who are only interested
in smirking, snickering 'laddie' trash like Maxim; and (2) that mere nudity
was not enough these days to satisfy their 'real sex'-seeking,
fetish-oriented desires for visual sexual imagery.  Bruckheimer, who 'is the
curve,' as Rich describes him, has clearly understood point (1) and is
prepared to capitalize on it; while Playboy moves backward into
Maximization.  Bruckheimer has not gotten to point (2), but Rich's
column clearly shows that Rich sees that trend, because that is what
explains why 'Skin' is now acceptable for mainstream audiences--and he
ends his column with what I interpret as a plea for someone to present
this kind of erotic sexuality with more class and style than the adult
film and mainstream TV industries are now using."

Well, the results are in and, after three broadcasts, the network has
cancelled Skin because, according to the Thursday, Nov 6th, New York Times,
the show "drew low ratings."

Since I am a baseball fan, I had to endure countless self-promotional ads
for Skin on FOX during October.  I must say that it looked pretty much like
all the other crap that FOX broadcasts, including the apparently popular
O.C.  I am not exactly sure why one piece of "slick, clever melodrama"
(Alessandra Stanley in the Times) is more successful than another, but
apparently Fox was not willing to ride with a Romeo-Juliet remake of two
families, one representing sin (a pornographer) and the other law (a
district attorney), even if it was a Jerry Bruckheimer vehicle.

Meanwhile, Bob Guccione has jumped off his sinking ship of explicit porn.

On another matter, congratulations to Donna for her part in the Tommy
Hilfiger ad "win."  It's a nice series of images and a goodly number of
pages.  The tough thing is that, as good as the ad series is (and, honestly,
I think it is great), the cover of the December 2003 issue is just the same
ol', same ol' (with, in fact, a retread of a cover celebrity).  According to
the recent report from PEI, newsstand sales are up five percent (down from
the earlier ten percent reported here by Donna).  It would be interesting to
know how the newsstand sales for Dec 2003 compare with Dec 2002, which had a
rather striking Dita cover.  This simple fact remains true: PLAYBOY is not
on any more newsstands now than it was a year ago--and it won't be as long
as the newsstand copies insist on full-frontals.

That, and it's a shame, really, when an ad series has photos that are better
produced than the centerfold.

Btw, Tommy Hilfiger bought Marilyn Monroe's boots from The Misfits and her
jeans from The River of No Return at the Christie's auction in 1999.  I
wonder if he will be at the PLAYBOY Christie's auction this December to bid
on the limited edition print of Marilyn's Golden Dreams.

regards,

Dan Stiffler