Friday, January 16, 2009

How to fix Playboy--and magazines in general

Written by | Edit this Post

Topics:

I happened across this excellent article from Salon, written upon the ascension of James Kaminsky to the editorship of Playboy in 2002. It's right on the money, as far as
--what the best magazines used to be;
--why that worked for them, artistically AND financially;
--why they changed to what they are now;
--and why that destroys them, quickly or slowly, one-by-one.

The major problem with American magazines is that they have no idea what they should be--what they do better than other media. If they identified those things, and provided them consistently, intelligently, almost ruthlessly, they would begin to thrive again, in print, pixels or both.

2 comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

Michael Reynolds says:

As a contributing writer to Playboy from the 70s through the 90s--up until the fatal removal of the edtitorial leadership and the foolish move to NYC from Chicago and the subsequent installation of the "lad mag" boys--I applaud your revisiting Taylor's 2002 piece. Playboy was then a writer's dream--they never stinted in their support--financial and editorial.

There is nothing much left now for in-depth feature writing. The Internet aggregators don't have the room (plus nobody wants to screen through a 5-7000 wd piece) and they don't pay the money--not enough to pay expenses for on-the-ground reporting nor for sustainable living. Unfortunately in these times there's little hope that we'll see the likes of Playboy for quite some time.


Kate says:

I saw an article yesterday on CNN about Mickey Rourke and The Wrestler that had a bullet-point synopsis on top, just in case you didn't want to read the full three paragraphs that followed.

No wonder there's no room for in-depth feature writing. We've grown to pathetic to read anything longer than a twit. Or so these editors believe...


Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!