Main >> Memory Assistant >> Mistakes
by Dan Stiffler
Apologia: I began reading PLAYBOY in 1962, at the age of thirteen. The magazine informed my early thinking about literature, politics, humor, art, and--of course--sex. I was not alone. The growth of PLAYBOY's circulation in the sixties is a phenomenon well documented in the cultural studies of this country, indeed the world. Thus, my own attachment to the PLAYBOY of the sixties is not, I think, idiosyncratic or nostalgic but one based on the power of the magazine during that time. What follows are five decisions that I think affected that power.
1) The Move to L.A.--While the magazine still has its headquarters in Chicago, the editor has long lived in L.A. PLAYBOY was conceived for the urban male, the man who found sport in his townhouse. The move to L.A. took the playboy out of his townhouse and put him in a gated garden. It also made him neighbors with Hollywood celebrities, fostered an increased involvment in the cult of fame, and generated more celebrity interviews and pictorials. The "reality" of the girl next door changes with the move.
2) Perfect Binding--The centerfold died with the first perfect bound issue. No longer stapled, no longer in the center of the magazine (e.g., the Dahms' gatefold begins on page 133 of an issue with 236 pages), the playmate has lost her central place. The magazine has a different feel, it doesn't lie flat, and two-page spreads are ruined by deep gutters. The best feature of the magazine, its truly distinctive feature, was compromised for commercial interests.
3) The Sham PMOY Poll--Not every playmate has an equal chance to win PMOY; in fact, not every playmate would want to win PMOY. Yet every playmate is a declared "candidate" in PLAYBOY's "mock" poll. Some years (e.g., 1997 with Victoria Silvstedt) the poll is entirely bogus. In the sixties, the PMOY Playoffs made sense; at least the editors presented their top three choices for an additional pictorial. For PLAYBOY to persist with the PMOY Poll, insisting that the results determine/influence the final choice, undermines the magazine's credibility or, worse, presumes the naivete of its readers. During the 10th anniversary year, PLAYBOY wasn't reluctant about distinguishing between the editors' choice and the readers'. A return to honesty would be refreshing.
4) Acquiescence at the Newsstand--PLAYBOY seems caught in no-man's land. While the current Cosmo screams "Improved Orgasm" for every shopper at the Kroger or Safeway, PLAYBOY is nowhere to be found. PLAYBOY's lost presence on the newsstand (when I started buying PLAYBOY it was at the front of the racks and available at grocery stores) is a sign of its willingness to let conservative values dictate the marketplace. Why not fight the Meese mentality by making financial arrangements with chain stores and groceries (fighting fire with fire)? Indeed, why not open PLAYBOY catalog stores in malls all across America? Take back the marketplace!
5) The UPC on the Cover--The intrusion of the UPC upon the magazine's second most important image is symbolic of a general decline the cover's aesthetics. Would PLAYBOY allow a UPC on the gatefold? Then why the cover? Put the UPC on the back cover, if it must be someplace; let the advertisers work with it. The UPC is, after all, a tool of technology and commerce. Return a blank canvas to the art department.
For me, these are the five most troubling decisions in PLAYBOY's history. I believe they all impacted the magazine in negative ways, some substantively, some symbolically. Some of these "mistakes" could be rectified with an editorial decision and without much cost. Others solutions would take some initiative and investment. And I certainly don't think the editor should move back to Chicago. After all, I have been to the Mansion (West). I know how seductive it is. That is one mistake I could live with!
Main >> Memory Assistant >> Mistakes
Page created by Dodo1
1998/12/27