Category Archives: Media

Chicago newspapers, television and radio plus movies and TV

Now playing: David Byrne’s How Music Works

Received David Byrne’s book How Music Works for Christmas from my wife. I’m only on the first chapter but already love it. 20121230-080209.jpg

Byrne’s got a bit of the sly raconteur in him and it marries well with the goal of the book: to discuss how music comes to be through its performance, sale, distribution, recording and audience. His style combines a college lecture (especially in the way Byrne uses photos to illustrate his points) with the experience of talking to a clever person at a party.

If you’re one of those people who enjoys the feel of a book, track this one down in a bookstore just to weigh it in your hands. For a modern work, it has a surprisingly classic feel from its soft, faux-leather cover to the care that went into binding it. It’s only 300-some pages but suggests more. McSweeney’s published it and they’ve given it the same bespoke sensibility they give to other things they create. It’s an approach that suits Byrne’s text well.

Just the clip: The Paper Machete -10.12.2012

Here’s my piece from last weekend’s Paper Machete show.

Sometimes you write something and you’re not sure how it reads until it gets in front of an audience. One of the reasons I love doing Machete is I get that instant feedback. Of course, I usually do something pegged to a news event that week so there’s rarely a reason to go back and revise and make the piece better. It felt weird to do this piece so long after the event in question even if that was kind of the point. Still, I wished I came up with a better tag at the end.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that we’re no longer talking about how the highest-rated cable news channel in America broadcast a live suicide?

(Don’t worry, it gets funnier.)

I know, I know, it happened a whole two weeks ago and with the speed at which news operates it’s like I’m pestering you about something that happened during the Taft administration. And sure it seems like it was an honest mistake but where was…the processing? The part where we as a society collectively feel remorse after something like this happens and examine How We Got Here was just…missing. It was as if we got really shitcanned the night before but we’re somehow able to get up the next morning and run a triathalon. All of the whippets but none of the headache. Whatever concerns we might have had about how our insatiable thirst for destructive acts led us – even inadvertently – to witness a live suicide were gone once the next episode of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo aired. (Because if that’s not a show about people killing themselves – albeit very, very slowly – then I don’t know what is.)

I had my thinking on this retroactively confirmed when I went back and read a post Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan wrote about how terrible it was that Fox News was running live car chases in the first place, and how they were “mayhem porn” and what did they expect would happen? Of course, all of this would have had more impact if Gawker hadn’t posted the unedited suicide clip itself some 45 minutes before. As the Big Dog says, it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. Nolan’s justification for airing the clip was as follows “When we heard that Fox News had aired a suicide, what was the first thing we all did? Search on the internet for the clip. The clip is news.”

I invite all of you to review your own Internet search history to determine what it is you think of as news.

Gawker’s misunderstanding is really very simple: The news is not that this suicide happened – as Gawker pointed out, an unhappy ending to a car chase is almost the point of airing it in the first place – the news is the context in which it occurred. But that’s the part of this story that’s missing on Gawker, Buzzfeed and almost everywhere else that posted just the clip under the guise of news. What made the clip newsworthy wasn’t the event itself but that it violated a standard Fox News had set (which, I know, “Fox has standards,” LOL!).

It isn’t clear in the clip why that happened, only that it did. So the clip has almost no newsworthy value except for the portion where Shepherd Smith tries to explain why it happened and apologizes for it. But of course that’s not going to get anyone riled up and talking. What allows most media to get away with this double standard is the way news is structured around outrage and how many forms of media serve to troll you 24/7.

The other day I was watching a local morning newscast and their teaser into the break went something like “Find out who is behind a controversial weapons and ammunition tax” as if there was some shadowy Illuminati pulling the strings. Turns out? It was Toni Preckwinkle, the Cook County Board President and a more Establishment figure you will never find (her apparent sympathy for pot smokers aside). *

So nevermind that the city of Chicago has the highest homicide rate in years and maybe making guns and ammo more expensive is an idea worth exploring. No, we have to frame it as a plan with suspicious motives or it’s somehow less important and therefore we won’t be able to even feign interest. Similarly, television news is great at saying things like “This terrible thing has happened and it’s very offensive and right-thinking people everywhere object to it…Anyway, here it is.”

I was reminded of this listening to a recent interview with Gilbert Gottfried on Marc Maron’s podcast when Gottfried wondered if what he said about the Japanese tsunami was so offensive, why did most news outlets think it was OK to repeatedly say it or print it? The same holds true for Michael Richards’ yelling racial slurs at an audience. If saying certain things are so terrible that a man should lose his job, shouldn’t they be equally terrible to repeat? Or do they only become terrible upon repetition?

Maybe, in an unexpected way, there isn’t any harm in Gawker or Buzzfeed airing a clip of a guy killing himself when in our current media landscape these incidents aren’t really worth the import they’re given. They only seem that way because they’re everywhere now. Something isn’t just said, it’s retweeted, maybe hundreds of times and that amplification gives it an undeserved status as a topic worth discussing. And then a week later we wonder why we were so mad. We’re hit so often with stimuli that anything without an innate conflict is processed so fast by our brains that it’s out of our heads before we’ve had a chance to think it through. We move so quickly from one thing to the next that what passes for analysis is a blog post that’s written within an hour of the incident. So everything has to come with a little outrage attached. It’s not enough for Newsweek to run a story about the 101 best places to eat in the world. It has to run that story with a cover image of a woman fellating asparagus.

Or that appears to be the expectation many news organizations have of their audiences. Yet even Gawker must have felt some hesitation about reveling in the same mud it decried. On every post it publishes, you can see how many views and comments it’s garnered. But neither the post with the clip or the subsequent high-horse commentary displayed it. Some things are better not known.

At some point, I hope we sort this out. When everything is an outrage, then nothing is. And it would be nice to have the time to sort out the true harm from the completely inane before the next…OH COME ON! BIG BIRD IS GETTING FIRED? THIS…IS…BULLSHIT!

* Upon re-reading this, I’ve taken a bit of poetic license here. “You will never find” is going a bit far, even for the sake of a good line.

MySpace could stand to be more complicated

So far, all the news stories I’ve read on the new MySpace make it sound like Jessica Biel: it’s very pretty and has an ongoing relationship with Justin Timberlake.

If people are talking more about the design of MySpace than its functionality that’s probably not a good long-term sign. When they do talk about the functionality, it’s compared to other social networking sites: Pinterest and Facebook, mostly.

Oddly enough, this is the reverse of MySpace’s previous problem: people ignored its lousy design because they loved its functionality. Facebook enjoys the same pass on its design even though it makes it harder to do things like tweak your privacy or sharing settings. But hey, who cares about that when there are so many pictures of babies and food and links to Buzzfeed lists?

Maybe MySpace had to lead with an exciting design to get the benefit of the doubt as it continues to create new features. That’s a decent argument.

But at least Jessica Biel also knows how to act.

What’s next

For the last two years and four months, I’ve been the director of digital strategy and development for Chicago magazine. In two weeks, I’ll leave that position to become an account director within Social@Ogilvy where I’ll be working on social and digital strategy for their clients. I’m really excited about this opportunity as the job will be a new and challenging experience with a company that has spent almost as much time in Chicago as I have. At Ogilvy, I expect to learn a great deal more about social, mobile and analytics – three areas that are crucial to knowing the full breadth of digital strategy.

Before I get into all that, I want to say a few things about my soon-to-be-former colleagues. I’ve been incredibly lucky to lead Chicago magazine’s digital team, a group of people who work hard and, more importantly, work together. Since I started in April 2010, we’ve accomplished quite a bit: tripled our unique monthly visitors, tripled our social media audience on Facebook and Twitter and expanded into several more spaces (Foursquare, Pinterest, etc.), launched new blogs, expanded our video content, increased digital revenue and won a couple awards along the way. Over the last few months, I’ve focused less on the day-to-day and more on new product development, including mobile and tablet apps. The only reason this was possible was due to my team’s ability to work as an interconnected whole and not as a bunch of individuals with divergent goals. While I won’t be around for the launch of the table and mobile products, I’m leaving all of it in very capable hands. If, as a manager, you’re only as good as the people you lead then my team allowed me to be very good.

I also had the pleasure of serving under a great boss, Chicago magazine publisher Rich Gamble. Entrepreneurial in mind, he always encouraged me to look at the big picture. When I was interviewing for this job, Rich and I spent hours on the phone talking about what Chicago magazine needed to do to make an impact in the local digital space. He gave me the freedom and trust to do exactly that while ensuring our goals would build a stronger business.

In addition to colleagues at Chicago magazine, I’m also going to miss working with all the other folks at Tribune who’ve been sources of advice, good humor and wisdom, especially all the folks in the Justice League.

I’ve spent several years in news media and journalism and I’ve learned more from the people I’ve encountered in those fields than almost any other work I’ve  done. The field still inspires me and whether through the writing I do here, the conversation I have in other spaces or the readings I do around Chicago, I still intend on being an active voice in the larger media community.

There’s still plenty for me to learn. I have a long-term goal of someday launching a digital-only news site, based in Chicago but national in scope. I’m not sure what it will look like or what it will cover but I do know that the world in which such a thing might exist is changing rapidly. To those paying attention, it’s become obvious: Anyone or anything can be a publisher, including consumer brands.

* An apartment rental agency publishes a list of the top Chicago vintage restaurants

* Red Bull publishes a magazine, in print and in an app

* Ad Age/Visible Measure’s weekly top 10 list of the most-watched videos is dominated by the likes of Old Spice, Axe or Samsung without a single traditional media publisher in the bunch.

Before you dismiss the above as inconsequential, note that a tire company is one of the most influential names in the rating of fine dining around the globe. If that’s true, then anything’s possible.

Behind all of that content are methods and practices that tell us how long people view that content, who’s doing the viewing and how that information can be used to build a sustainable business. It’s something that traditional media publishers need to know more about and do more of in the future.

If I want to have a complete view of the mass media ecosystem and truly understand how content is created, consumed, tracked and paid for across all platforms, then the work I’ll be doing at Ogilvy is the next logical step. Innovative things are happening there and I’m excited to be a part of it.

Keeping up appearances: WBEZ and Social Media Week Chicago

I’ve been appearing on WBEZ’s Afternoon Shift about once a month to discuss the cultural news of the day. This week, I was on with host Steve Edwards and Kelly Kleiman to talk about the deaths of director Tony Scott and comedian Phyllis Diller, Groupon’s falling stock and the use of eminent domain in resolving the foreclosure crisis. You can listen to the segment here on the show roundup page. Also, check out my appearance on WBEZ’s 848 program a little while back when I talked about NBC’s Olympics coverage, black comic book characters and the Chick-Fil-A controversy with host Tony Sarabia and Chicago Tribune reporter Nina Metz.

Also, I’m still blogging for Social Media Week Chicago’s site. This week’s post is a discussion of the ways social media is affecting the 2012 election.

Playboy continues to distance itself from Chicago


The above screenshot is from Playboy Enterprises Inc.’s new Facebook page. The timeline notes several major events in the company’s history like Hef’s move out west, the start of the Playboy Foundation, etc. It seems odd to me that the item about the founding of the magazine doesn’t note that it was started in Chicago.

In fact, the major events on that page – the first Playboy Jazz Festival, the arrival of The Big Bunny jet, the first Playboy Club – all occurred in Chicago. Yet there’s no mention of the city anywhere.

And then there’s this quote from Playboy CEO Scott Flanders:

“If Hef could rewrite his life, he might have started it right here in Beverly Hills.”

I disagree. But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s Hef in his goodbye letter to Chicago last April: “Playboy could not have happened anywhere else but Chicago.”

Sure, some of the above is the typical corporate talk whenever you open a new office somewhere. But juxtaposed with the complete lack of a mention of the city where Playboy was founded, it certainly seems like the company wants to break with its Chicago history and focus on its current environs.

I’ve written that long before Playboy actually left Chicago, it stopped being a part of it. So maybe the above shouldn’t be that surprising.

UPDATE 1/20/12:  Not sure when this happened but since I wrote this post five months ago the captions on Playboy’s Facebook page have been rewritten to reflect Playboy’s Chicago roots.

Why #NBCFail matters beyond the Olympics

Listen to me discuss NBC’s Olympics coverage and other news of the week on WBEZ’s “848” program here.

While most consumers have been perfectly happy with NBC’s Olympics coverage on prime time cable, broadcast TV and online via livestreams and apps, a largely social-media powered stream of objections has converged around the #NBCFail hashtag. There are as many complaints as there are Olympics sports but the biggest objections related to NBC’s tape-delayed coverage and its shutdown of Independent correspondent Guy Adams’s Twitter account. While Simon Dumenco of Ad Age and Megan Garber of The Atlantic have great takedowns of some of the other arguments, there are a few points in this kerfuffle that bear some discussion. These are a few that occurred to me. Fair warning: There’s been so much discussion of this, I’m skipping over some of the bedrock arguments and backstory to get to some of the “where do we go from here” ideas. This is a bit rough and open-ended so bear that in mind.

1. If it’s “just sports” then it can be “just _____.”

One comment I’ve heard often in this conversation is #NBCFail is mostly a “first-world problem” because the discussion is about the coverage of sports and sports isn’t “real news.” But one person’s distraction is another person’s “real news.” Once we say sports is not worthy of real news coverage it becomes easier to say books, consumer tech, music or movies are mere distractions and not worthy of serious consideration either. And once we say something isn’t deserving of careful consideration it makes it easier for publishers to talk less about how it can be covered well and more about how it should be packaged and sold.

2. Is NBC tarnishing its news brand and ultimately making it less likely to monetize those users?

NBC is leveraging its full news power only when it can do the most good for its business interests, not for its consumers. NBC’s tape delay strategy is moot in years when the Olympics are in the same time zone as the U.S. because NBC carries these events live. So it’s not as if it always chooses to emphasize its news interests over its business interests but in the case of sports, or at least the 2012 Olympics, it chooses the latter.

If you’re to be taken seriously as a news publisher, you have a requirement to publish as complete a news experience as possible at the moment when the information will have the most value to your audience. The consumer is paying you – or subscribing to a platform that includes your content – based on the perceived value of that news as well as for the convenience factor of acquiring it. The friction here seems to be that many people want a la carte coverage they can pay for without having to subscribe to a major cable provider. It will be interesting to see NBC explores the creation of raw news feed channels via something like Roku (as well as online) and provides the packaged version on its other more-established channels. It may find its building an entirely new audience segment. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense economically, but might in years (months?) to come. But NBC seems to be losing the opportunity to build this audience in its owned channels and finds some of that digital audience doing elsewhere (see #4 below).

3. What gets treated as the news and what gets treated as entertainment?

NBC doesn’t seem to think providing the big screen/HD TV experience several hours later is a problem. That seems less like a strategy you employ for news and more like one you employ for entertainment. If it’s entertainment, it generally doesn’t matter when it’s broadcast or consumed. But news certainly has a time-sensitive component to it (the dismissive phrase “That’s old news” comes to mind here). The weight of that news is relative to the timing of it.

What stops a publisher from waiting to tell you about news until it can maximize the profit in the telling of it? If you have a big scoop and can figure out how to package it as a multi-day event, why not wait until you have an advertiser to run ads around that coverage before releasing it? There’s an argument to be made that NBC is doing exactly that but I’d hate to see what the end result of that strategy means for news consumers.

4. News coverage is mostly determined by who controls and publishes on the platform

For years now, users have been determining what news is and how it is published, largely through Web and social media channels. It’s no longer the sole province of large print and TV publishers.The conversation sparked by the #NBCFail hashtag has made this more obvious than ever but also showed just how much control big news organizations that A) partner with or B) own the platforms have over the platforms with the biggest reach.

Many people will bootleg news content (like providing an overseas livestream of the Olympics opening ceremonies) not because they want to hijack a revenue stream for themselves but just because they don’t like the idea of a closed system. With a platform like Twitter, it’s easier than ever to find raw feeds which satisfy those whose desire for news of an event outweighs the number of easily-available news sources. (I didn’t have to seek out a livestream of the opening ceremonies; I saw a link for it on Twitter from people I already follow.)

Barriers or inconveniences to the consumption of news (like having to download special equipment, make changes to obscure computer settings or watch a poor quality, buffering livestream) will start to seem like less of an issue to consumers as the real-time value of a news event increases. For me, the value of watching the opening ceremonies live seemed greater because people I followed on Twitter were discussing it. Unfortunately for publishers, the real-time news value is different for each person so it’s tough to know what publishing streams are monetizable and which ones aren’t without either experimentation or waiting to see how users themselves innovate.

As for the Guy Adams temporary Twitter account shutdown, Alexis Madrigal of The Atlantic has a good summary.

NBC may not have known this tweet existed were it not for someone at Twitter who notified NBC of both the tweet and a remedy. Whether the information is public or private is debatable but NBC’s proximity to power, due to its (non-monetary) Twitter partnership, allowed it to get the account suspended without a thorough consideration of this point. Twitter acknowledged it should not have done this, but with the service already looking for more ways to monetize its product for publishers it’s clear they’re interested in hyper-serving this particular user base.

Let’s say an upstart publisher decides to start covering the heck out of the Olympics. Maybe it’s a traditional television channel, maybe it’s Web-only. Perhaps they find a way to provide a broadcast-quality stream of the BBC through fair use. Or they find a way to leverage content from athletes’ personal social media accounts to provide unique value. What’s to stop NBC – which is owned by Comcast – from shutting down that publisher on its Web and cable television systems? Nothing. Or what if NBC develops a “strategic partnership” with iTunes and asks Apple to remove another news publisher’s app because it feels that app infringes on its exclusivity agreement with the Olympics?

As with most issues surrounding social media and news distribution, the best practices in these scenarios are still being sorted out.

In the wake of early reports

As early reports come in from Aurora, Colorado – and let’s remember early reports often turn out to be less than accurate once the cloud of confusion clears* – I’m experiencing the same feelings of dread and helplessness many in Chicago have over the past few months.

I got up for a run this morning and checked Twitter. A number of people dead in Colorado, tens of people wounded. All due to a gunman who shot them during a midnight movie screening for no discernible reason.

“I’m going to go back to bed,” I thought.

The news of random violence due to guns has been almost overpowering this summer, at least in Chicago. Now here was one more example of mass murder and, with it, the compulsion to hide. As with the “point-em-out-knock-em-out killing of Delfino Mora earlier this week, there seemed no way to stay safe.

Then I thought of all the people who can’t hide from violence. The people for whom violence is not just something they see on the news and not just a sudden, inexplicable event out of nowhere but a daily occurrence brought on by poverty, miseducation, lack of mental and physical health systems…so many symptoms.

And then I felt guilty for feeling the least bit put-upon by any of this. I’m lucky enough to live a life without those daily symptoms; the illness of violence doesn’t pervade my immediate world. Do I feel its indirect effects? Everyone in Chicago does. Or should. The biggest lie we tell ourselves is violence in “those neighborhoods” can’t reach us. Of course, that’s what allows it to spread.

So, knowing this, I’m back to wondering what I can do beyond reading and trying to understand it all. The most important thing seems to be to face it. To avoid the easy outrage and look beyond the first reports, the knee-jerk explanations that often turn political.

If nothing else, it seems the least I can do.

* The book Columbine by Dave Cullen is a great examination of how our efforts to make sense of senseless violence in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy often lead us to make snap judgments. (About “goth kids” or a “Trenchcoat Mafia” in this case. And keep in mind this was years before social media lent more speed to early reports.)

Playboy, party of one: The Paper Machete 04.28.2012

Here’s my piece from last week’s Paper Machete. You can read my previous pieces for the Machete here. (UPDATE: WBEZ has the audio of this piece here.)

Back in 2009, I wrote and performed a piece about life at Playboy for You, Me, Them, Everybody (before it was a talk show when it was an evening of readings and performances). None of my other ideas for that night panned out so I threw a framework around a few anecdotes I’d share at parties about work. The best thing I can say about my performance is…I met the lead singer of White Mystery that night and she was really cool. The piece was a dud. Didn’t play well in the room and reading it three years later I can see why. I come across as pompous and the piece has nothing interesting to say about me or the experience of working there. (I never posted it.)

I’d always wanted to revisit Playboy as a topic and talk less about what it was like to work there and more about where that brand is in the current cultural landscape. But the press coverage I’d garnered thanks to tweeting (and talking) about my departure earned me a cease-and-desist letter from Playboy so writing about it would mean writing less about my very brief time there and more about what happened since then.

My appearance at The Paper Machete last week coincided with the last days of Playboy in Chicago and followed a mash note from Hugh Hefner to the city in the Chicago Tribune. I finally felt like I had something worthwhile to say and Christopher Piatt – the EIC of the Machete – liked my pitch so it seemed time to revisit the topic. The Machete keeps to a strict word count for time and this is one of those pieces where I was both writing up until my deadline but also struggling to get all the ideas in without going over. Part of me wants to have another go at it but once you connect with the ball you don’t linger, you just head to first.

There are few things sadder than throwing your own going-away party. But that’s exactly what Hugh Hefner did this past Sunday in the pages of the Chicago Tribune. To mark the departure of Playboy magazine’s editorial operations for Los Angeles, America’s horniest octogenarian threw one last party via an 800 word, misty-eyed eulogy to Playboy’s nearly 60 years in Chicago.

He was one of the few who marked the occasion. There was no retrospective in the city’s glossy culture magazines, no historical timeline in either of the daily newspapers. Even television news, which rarely passes on an opportunity to cover newsworthy nudity, didn’t seem particularly interested. Aside from an op-ed here or radio segment there, Playboy’s departure from the city of its birth went largely unnoticed.

Perhaps it’s because you only get one going-away party. Playboy, for all intents and purposes, left Chicago in the mid-1970s when Hefner – after decades in the first Playboy Mansion on State Street – headed west to establish a new mansion in the Holmby Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.

Now, before I go on I want to offer some disclosure: From March of 2009 to March of 2010, I worked for Playboy.com, first as its Senior Editor then as is its Director of Content. I stopped working as Playboy.com’s Director of Content when Playboy…ordered me to. More specifically someone from HR ordered me to in a conversation that featured the words “severance” and “can stay until the end of the day…if you want.” But the year in between was a lot of fun. It’s hard to bear too much ill will toward a job that once asked me to write a script for something called “Playboy’s Naked Yoga.” That’s right, I said a script.

Any personal animus I might bear toward the organization is tempered with affection. I’m more a fan of Chicago than almost anything and knowing this city was the birthplace of THE iconic magazine brand of the 20th century ought to be a point of pride for anyone who calls Chicago home and particularly for someone like me who’s spent his formative working years in media.

In his Tribune piece, Hefner offered a detailed highlight reel of the magazine’s first 20 years in Chicago including the Hyde Park apartment where he laid out the first issue, the first Playboy Jazz Festival in 1959 at the old Chicago Stadium, the first Playboy Club in 1960, and the company’s move into the Palmolive Building in 1965 with its nine foot high letters spelling out Playboy. And then the following:

By the mid-1970s, I moved to Los Angeles, the land where my dreams had come from, but Chicago remained the company’s base, headquartered in the Lake Shore Drive offices we’ve occupied since 1989.

Now, after nearly 60 years, the Playboy offices in Chicago have closed as we consolidate our operations in Los Angeles.

So by Hef’s own admission, there’s been nothing worth mentioning about Playboy’s time in Chicago since the first Bush administration. At least from his point of view.

And this is exactly the problem with Playboy magazine: It’s all from his point of view and long ago stopped leading the culture in favor of following it. Last month’s cover promised features on The Walking Dead, Bruno Mars, Jon Hamm and Meghan McCain. Contemporary, sure. But territory most other modern major magazines had already covered.

In the book Mr Playboy author Steven Watts quotes Hefner as saying  “I’ve always edited the magazine for myself, on the assumption that my tastes are pretty much like those of our readers. This was fine when Hef was in his 30s. But now a magazine that’s supposed to be about contemporary culture and aspiration is trapped in amber, held hostage by a 84 year old who long ago sought to wall himself off from the concerns of the everyday man.

I can’t remember where I read it now but Hefner said he moved into the Chicago mansion, in part, because it allowed him to centralize his work and social lives. This freed him, he said, from worrying about pedestrian things like how he was going to get to work or what he was going to wear that day. I suppose life is easier when you can go to work in your pajamas. But eventually the young men who were Playboy’s core audience – and had to worry about things like wearing pants and getting to work on time – realized Hef and his magazine didn’t have much to say to them. Do people still want to visit the Mansion in L.A.? Sure. But people still want to visit Disneyworld. But nobody ever talks about wanting to live there.

A couple years ago, Playboy’s CEO said the company was going to shift to “brand management” as its core strategy with an emphasis on opening new Playboy Clubs around the world. Essentially, Playboy as a company was going to be about being Playboy. The trouble is the modern Playboy brand – particularly the clubs – isn’t all that strong. Last year’s NBC TV show “The Playboy Club” – a show about its Hefnerian heyday that essentially said life stopped being cool after the 1960s – got yanked off the air after three episodes. Rumors of a Chicago Playboy Club re-opening after a 20 year absence turned out to be little more than trumped-up publicity for the show. Even The Playboy Club casino at the Palms in Las Vegas is closing. It almost sounds like a bad joke. “Your mama’s so dumb she couldn’t even keep a Playboy Club open in Las Vegas.”

Two events last year symbolized both Playboy’s reversal of fortune over the past couple decades and its reaction to it. First, Playboy sold off its online business to a company called Manwin. You’ve probably never heard of Manwin but they run a whole bunch of websites that offer free porn on the Internet. It’s exactly the kind of company that’s made it hard for Playboy to make money online. So hard that Playboy decided to get out of the business altogether then turn around and sell it to the very people who put them in that position in the first place. Also notable was Hefner’s decision to take Playboy from a publicly-traded company available on the New York Stock Exchange to a private company controlled largely by him. It was yet another example of Hef doing everything he can to turn inward keep his world free from external forces.

So if this week’s end of Playboy’s party in Chicago was met with a collective shrug it shouldn’t have been a surprise. The party’s location was really far away and seemed like it’d been over for a while now. Plus, Hef was the only one on the list.