P
Phillyradiogeek
Guest
I've always read with interest the comments made about the many changes to TV Guide these last few years. That's because up until two months ago, I was an employee of TV Guide. I was also a lifelong lover and customer of the Guide, having grown up with it in my household all my life. Even as a youg child I read every issue with great love and interest, as I'm sure many of you have. So I know full well what it's like on both sides.
That probably explains why I read the negative comments of posters which mixed emotions. From a customer standpoint I sympathized with the negative reaction as changes were made that led to a different product that, with each passing year, made the Guide a warped image of its former self. On the other hand, I constantly heard about decreasing circulation (which, in all truthfullness, started long before the intense tinkering of the format) and difficulty in generating revenue from corporate sources. Less revenue, coupled with rising costs, leads to drastic choices and risks. The Guide we knew and loved was no longer successful, so the only path that could be taken, or so decision makers believed rightly or wrongly, was to make changes to keep it alive. Whether these changes were helpful aesthetically is up to each individual reader, but economically things didn't change for the better. The Fall 2003 relaunch of the digest was the last bold attempt to keep the magazine alive. In the first few months things looked bright, but the homeymoon period fell short soon enough. It was that failure that most likely led management to thoughts of the current format.
I was never privy to any research or hard figures, but I'm not surprised that the old format failed as well as the attempts to save it. Anecdotally, among my friends not associated with the guide, very few ever gave the magazine a second thought (including my own wife). "Why should I buy the Guide when I can get the listings from the paper," or "I have the interactive guide, why use the magazine" were common responses to my queries about their impressions of the Guide. The mag has always had its ardent fans (like myself), but the truth is a surprising plurality, if not a majority, of people coulnd't care less about the Guide no what what format it had. How much can you do to change that?
What rarely gets mentioned about the changes all these years is the dedicated people (my former colleagues) who have lost jobs in all this mess. Not a year went by without a layoff announcement. The past year has been especially harsh. I would have been a victim myself had I not been fortunate enough to find a new opportunity right after the latest round of job cuts.
While I regret the loss of the Guide as we knew and loved it, I wish the new format well, even if I hold reservations about its chance for success. No one I've talked to holds out hope, but only time will prove who's right. All I can ask is that you keep in mind those who lost their jobs, the realities of the marketplace, and ,just maybe, give the new magazine a try.
Thanks!
That probably explains why I read the negative comments of posters which mixed emotions. From a customer standpoint I sympathized with the negative reaction as changes were made that led to a different product that, with each passing year, made the Guide a warped image of its former self. On the other hand, I constantly heard about decreasing circulation (which, in all truthfullness, started long before the intense tinkering of the format) and difficulty in generating revenue from corporate sources. Less revenue, coupled with rising costs, leads to drastic choices and risks. The Guide we knew and loved was no longer successful, so the only path that could be taken, or so decision makers believed rightly or wrongly, was to make changes to keep it alive. Whether these changes were helpful aesthetically is up to each individual reader, but economically things didn't change for the better. The Fall 2003 relaunch of the digest was the last bold attempt to keep the magazine alive. In the first few months things looked bright, but the homeymoon period fell short soon enough. It was that failure that most likely led management to thoughts of the current format.
I was never privy to any research or hard figures, but I'm not surprised that the old format failed as well as the attempts to save it. Anecdotally, among my friends not associated with the guide, very few ever gave the magazine a second thought (including my own wife). "Why should I buy the Guide when I can get the listings from the paper," or "I have the interactive guide, why use the magazine" were common responses to my queries about their impressions of the Guide. The mag has always had its ardent fans (like myself), but the truth is a surprising plurality, if not a majority, of people coulnd't care less about the Guide no what what format it had. How much can you do to change that?
What rarely gets mentioned about the changes all these years is the dedicated people (my former colleagues) who have lost jobs in all this mess. Not a year went by without a layoff announcement. The past year has been especially harsh. I would have been a victim myself had I not been fortunate enough to find a new opportunity right after the latest round of job cuts.
While I regret the loss of the Guide as we knew and loved it, I wish the new format well, even if I hold reservations about its chance for success. No one I've talked to holds out hope, but only time will prove who's right. All I can ask is that you keep in mind those who lost their jobs, the realities of the marketplace, and ,just maybe, give the new magazine a try.
Thanks!
