Challenge to Playboy Editors

[Donna Tavoso]

> - The magazine is too short; add more pages, make PLAYBOY more
> substantial.  

Great idea and I'm sure the editors would love to add more content,
but to get more content they need more ad pages -- to do that the
magazine has to show growth at newsstand and show a higher household
income.  Just as a point of reference, Playboy has one of the highest
ad to edit ratios in publishing.


> - 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 Dan pointed out not only would this send long time collectors into
a frenzy, it also would be extremely expensive for the magazine to
undertake.  If they invested in anything along these lines, it should
be in paper quality but with the cost of paper going up, I don't think
the magazine could afford that.
 
> - 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.

I would believe this is coming with time -- you can't change
everything at once and in every article that I have read Jim Kaminsky
has said the his goal is to bring in new photographers, but getting
them to do Playboy will take some time and effort.

Dan wrote regarding the covers:
> 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.

How about instead of a belief - a point of fact.  Strictly art driven
covers will not move magazines on the newsstand today.  It's not
corporate think that makes the cover designs the way they are, it's a
fact of the culture and what makes an issue sell on the newsstand.  Do
you honestly believe that they aren't testing the cover lines and
various covers in different areas of the country.  The bottom line is
that a great celebrity cover will sell at newstand, no matter how ugly
its design.  Maxim's cover are horrible, they sell 800,000 copies at
newsstand b/c of who is on them not because of design.

Does this mean the covers have to be so formulaic, probably not but
you can't change everything in a day and since the press reported that
at least 3 different celebrities were going to be on the July issue -
I think that the covers will be something that changes overtime and I
am hopeful that they can find a way to balance the need for a
celebrity with an interesting cover.  I actually thought the April
issue cover with Carmen Electra was better than the usual cover.

And again, let me point out that the newsstand issues are bagged in
clear plastic so you can absolutely read what's on the cover so the
cover lines are important.

Dan wrote -
> 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."

The magazine isn't designed for "non-readers" and it has never been
evolution of the book has never been positioned in that way.  What has
been said is that his goal is to get the readers to spend more time
with the magazine and to have more ways to draw a reader into a story
that he may not have orginally started.  In almost every interview
that he has given Jim Kaminsky has that he totally disagrees with the
notion that young people don't read, he just believes (and research
backs him up) that they process information differntly so the stories
need to be presented differently.  More visuals and more entry points.
This doesn't equate to editing for non-readers, it equates to making
the book more reader friendly for everyone.  None of the stories in
the recent issues had shorter word counts - they just had better
layouts to make them more inviting to readers.  If you read the book
in a linear fashion, (which I do) you can follow it, but I admit that
I went back and read The Last Score after reading the side bar on
other bank heists that went bad.
 
> Be willing to change and experiment; evolve.  I really miss the old
> days when changes and improvements were happening almost every
> issue.

I think you will constantly be seeing tweaking to the book and the
addition of new features.  I heard Jim speak at a breakfast a few
weeks ago and he discussed other new features that were going to be
added down the road.  When he says that the front is done, I think he
is implying that the major design changes are done, but that doesn't
mean they won't be refined, it just means the
 
> 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.

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

It's so good when someone else proves your point for you -- .  Be
bold, take chances, the established readers can take change if you
respect them, that's what Peggy wrote, but it's not really true.
Because your definition of respect means' honoring "predictable
pattern" whether or not they are working just because you are like
them.  And vedring from them is a lack of respect.  It's not.  To
truly effect change at Playboy, Jim Kaminsky and his team have to be
brave and bold enough adopt the mandate that no "predictable pattern"
is sacred, that philosophy is what shaped Playboy in its early days
and I for one hope that it is one that the editors embrace.  Although,
I for one do not envy him the job of trying to do it.

Donna