When U.S. national retailer Wal-Mart decided to pull the infamous lad's mags or men's magazines such as Maxim off its shelves last week, many small-town adolescents may have been upset, but was Dennis Publishing, Inc. (the mag's publisher) upset?

Hardly.

In the wake of retail giant's announcement, spokesmen for Dennis were fairly nonplussed. Stephen Colvin, president of Dennis Publishing USA, which also owns Stuff, told the New York Times that Wal-Mart only accounts for "less than three percent" of his company's sales at newsstands.

Not exactly the kind of impact that will have shareholders grousing.

If anything, it's bizarre that Wal-Mart, which has had far more navel-gazing issues with selling CDs it considers inappropriate than selling firearms, even stocked the flesh-filled periodical in the first place.

What's also odd is that the Christian women's groups that pressed Wal-Mart to yank (so to speak) these magazines have more of a problem with the suggestive, non-nude (though scantily clad) images in Maxim than with the arty, often nude images found in, say, Cosmopolitan. Or maybe not so odd, considering that no young teen male in his right mind is going to thumb through the Cosmo with a tastefully clad model on the cover, as opposed to a lad's mag with Pam Anderson obscuring her tits with her hands (this month's Stuff cover, by the way, which is another fine Dennis publication).

Like I said, though, all this basically means fuck-all to Maxim, which is clearly the leader of the lad's mags pack. It clearly outsells the rest, and in terms of celebrity drawing power and notoriety, it is head and shoulders above its closest competitor.

In fact, nowhere is Maxim's influence more keenly felt than at one of their closest competitors, which happens to be Hugh Hefner's legendary (if slightly Jurassic at this point) Playboy.

Playboy introduced its "new look" this week with an issue that features Joe Millionaire runner-up (and fetishist) Sarah Kozer on its cover, and within its pages a whole lot of reformatting in a style that will seem awfully familiar to those whose coffee tables and bathrooms have been graced by Maxim.

That's due to Hef's widely publicized luring of ex-Maxim editor James Kaminsky to the top of its editorial food chain. Kaminsky bumped Arthur Kretchmer, who had held the position for almost 40 years. More than long enough to lose all touch with what's relevant or exciting in the world of men's publishing. Kretchmer remains on staff (in name only) until December.

Hef and others at the bunny mag, while admitting the need to revitalize its content, tried to downplay rumors that it would become Maxim with tits 'n' bush. So how does their estimate stack up against the new issue?

Well, as fate would have it, when I picked up the Kozer issue and opened it up, I beheld an image that would never have found a place in the old, stodgy, martini-sipping Playboy of old. It was a fashion photo shoot skewed toward youth culture—the same kind that you'd find in a certain lad's mag that used to employ Kaminsky.

Then there was summer movie preview piece, which had Maxim written all over it. The layout was in no way what Playboy would have designed in the past, especially in terms of graphics.

It's just too bad that the new editors haven't fully embraced one of Maxim's best attributes… no, not those kind of attributes, which are still plainly evident in these pages! I'm speaking of their consistently clever and irreverent photo captions. The ones in the summer movie piece seemed to straddle the line between smartass remarks (my favorite) and the conventional method of actually trying to convey information.

Another aspect that's suspiciously new and seems a little borrowed is the little sidebars and boxes, with trivia and lists and little things like that, which are ubiquitous in Maxim.

Clearly, with items like these, the editors are trying to keep up with the shortened attention span of young bachelors. But, even with all of these notable changes, I don't feel like Playboy has gone far enough in its attempt to attract the interest of the post-online content reader.

First of all, parts of the old and unnecessary Playboy paradigm still exist, and they need to go the way of the dodo. For instance, the Forum section is still ugly as all get-out, with way too much text for the format (a problem that exists in other spots as well, like the Playboy Interview section), and the pastel colors employed are completely inexcusable.

It's worth noting that cover girl Kozer would only pose for Playboy if she didn't have to show full frontal nudity (in simple terms, bush or nowadays, pink). Their new policy concerning the luring of higher-profile celebrities, and their willingness to suspend previous policies concerning nudity, is a dangerous gamble. On one hand, bigger stars on the cover might secure more newsstand sales; conversely, why would anyone buy Playboy to get the same non-nude layout they can get from the lad's mags, which are about two dollars less?

That's not to say, though, that you can't still find wisps of finely groomed pubic hair in the new Playboy. Playmates don't have quite the negotiating leverage of even a minor celebrity like Kozer, and despite her presence on the cover, the pull-out centerfold still belongs to Miss June.

So, sure, this represents a certain amount of (justified) desperation on the part of Hef. I guess that's the price you have to pay when you're too busy whoopin' it up with the girls in the grotto to notice that a new order has set in.

Welcome to Maxim's world, Hugh—you just live in it.

Playboy

The old man on the block. Whether or not its new redesign will make it worth its newsstand price of $5.99 US, £7.99 UK, only time will tell. What's not in contention is that any change to this stale, obsolete rag has to be for the better.

Maxim

Leader of the lad's mags pack in the influential US market. To compete, Playboy had to lure an ex-editor to get some fresh blood going through its veins. And at the less pricey $3.99 US, £3.20 UK rate, there's plenty of skin for your sheckels.

FHM

Leader of the lad's mags pack in the UK. After a disappointing sales period last year, FHM has regained its footing in the market, staving off efforts by runner-up Loaded. With a competitive $3.99 US, £2.50 UK newsstand price, this mag provides a fair amount of quim for your quid.

Cosmopolitan

Well, sure, Cosmo isn't a men's magazine by any stretch of the imagination. But those of you who have girlfriends know full well that there's a fair amount of flesh in the folds of this publication. And, ironically enough, unlike the lad's mags, this one actually includes nudity! If you can't bear the indignity of checking one out at the newsstand price of $3.50 US, £2.50 UK, don't worry, your galpal will likely bring one over to thumb through as you stare at the telly.