Sorry, suckers -- this is Maxim

Peggy Wilkins mozart@lib.uchicago.edu
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:45:27 -0500


>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Sorgatz <bsorgatz@hotmail.com> writes:

    Brian> In a previous post, Peggy, you revealed that you seem to
    Brian> have considerable influence over important editorial
    Brian> decisions at PLAYBOY.

I wouldn't put it that way at all... I'd say rather that I've said a
few things, some of which for whatever reason were listened to on
occasion.  I've been lucky that someone has wanted to listen.  I don't
know why or how much, though I'd like to flatter myself and think that
I have occasionally had a good idea, or pointed out a valid and useful
concept.

    Brian> If so, now is a better time than
    Brian> ever to exert that influence.  I humbly suggest that you do
    Brian> whatever you can to reach Hef, Kaminsky, Kretchmer, and all
    Brian> other relevant parties with your message.

Of course, that's all that I *can* do -- pass on a few words.

    Brian> I would like to add that, while I still think an ad
    Brian> campaign ridiculing the competition is a good idea, it is
    Brian> pointless if PLAYBOY *becomes* the competition.

Since you put it that way, it reminds me of a thought I've been
entertaining lately.  One way to look at a monthly magazine is to say
that it has various features -- think of them as "slots" -- and the
editors job is to come up with material to put into those slots.  This
is a passive view, with the features filling existing spaces because
they "fit".

Now consider it from a different point of view.  Think of the magazine
as providing a service to its readers.  If it is a very successful
magazine, it will provide services that the readers really want.  The
presentation of features is then motivated by how well they fulfill
the services, and the editors job is to design and frame features so
that they fulfill readers' need for these services.  The editor must
have a clear vision of what services the magazine provides.  If the
magazine provides unique services, or fulfills the services better
than any other magazine, the readers will keep coming back month after
month to get their fix, since the magazine is uniquely giving them
something they can't get elsewhere.  (This speaks for being unique,
not just like the competition.)  This will lead to reader loyalty
because the readers have a real reason to get each and every issue --
not just because a particular feature interests them some random
month, but because they are getting a real need fulfilled, and they
want the need fulfilled over and over again.

To apply this idea more concretely: consider any pictorial PLAYBOY
might present.  The service it is providing is to bring readers the
best models presented in a visually compelling way.  (For the sake of
this discussion I will leave the details out, but assume that the
details can be worked out by creative editors.)  Many people want this
service, and it can be fulfilled to varying degrees of success by many
different venues.  From PLAYBOY's perspective, instead of thinking, we
have Person X to shoot and/or to put on the cover, they should think,
we are bringing great pictures to readers, and our presentation must
fulfill our readers needs for these pictures.  If they are successful,
the readers can't miss an issue.  They aren't just after Person X,
they are after the presentation that only PLAYBOY can give them.

Could this shift in perspective cause a change in the quality of what
is produced?  I think it could potentially be a powerful and useful
way of thinking.

This concept can be applied to any feature, not just to pictorials.
The readers want certain services, and PLAYBOY fulfills their needs.
This requires editors who have a vision of what the needs are
(probably because they personally have the same needs and desires as
their audience), and how they can be fulfilled in a compelling way.

I think that PLAYBOY originally took off because it answered a need in
a large potential audience -- people wanted what it provided.  I think
this has been forgotten in the shuffle of churning out a monthly
magazine decade after decade, and it's time to remember it.

I'm not entirely convinced that this way of thinking about the
magazine is really all that effective -- it is a bit of a subtle
concept.  If anyone wants to build on it a bit, I welcome further
thoughts.


Peggy Wilkins
mozart@lib.uchicago.edu