Get ready for the last small-size TV Guide collectors' edition....

[RobertMoore]

...Cause this one has stars from 9 current shows paying tribute to classic TV Guide covers from the past:

Reba McEntire("Reba") in a 2001 "I Love Lucy"'s 50 greatest moments cover

Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen("Two & A Half Men") in a 1971 "Odd Couple" cover

Regis & Kelly conjuring a 1966 "I Dream Of Jeannie" cover

Zach Braff, Donald Fasion and John C. McGinley("Scrubs") imitating a 1976 "M*A*S*H" cover

Homer Simpson going back to 1964(A.D.) for Fred Flintstone's classic cover

Greg Gumbel and Dan Marino dressing up for a 1985 "Miami Vice" cover

Jennifer Love Hewitt channeling Sally Field's 1967 "Flying Nun" cover

Conan O'Brien team up with "Howdy Doody" to bring back a 1954 cover

The cast of "The Bernie Mac Show" show their love to another classic African-american sitcom by covering the "Good Times" cast pose from 1974

This is going to be one collection I'm going to keep.

 

[toby]

Can you give us details like when these issues or issue is going to come out?<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>

 

[RobertMoore]

> Can you give us details like when these issues or issue is
> going to come out?

I got the one with "Reba"-meets-"Lucy" cover in the mail today(October 3rd), but if you live near a Kroger/Albertson's/Safeway, it's this Thursday(Octber 6th).

 

[ccmfan]

> I got the one with "Reba"-meets-"Lucy" cover in the mail
> today(October 3rd), but if you live near a
> Kroger/Albertson's/Safeway, it's this Thursday(Octber 6th).
>

Kroger and Wal Mart should have them on Thursday in my area, but most other stores wobn't get them until next Monday or later because the distributors in this area have never made any effort to get TV Guide out any earlier since they switched to Thursdays except for a few larger stores that get second deliveries on Thursday or Friday anyway. If the new larger issue comes out on Monday, I won't be surprised if the other stores never get this week's issue, and they go to next week's.

My subscription ran out last week, and I'm definitely not renewing, although I might buy a copy of this week's issue off the rack.

 

[ccmfan]

I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek cover?

 

[RobertMoore]

> I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek cover?

Hmmm.....

From the way they look at it, maybe TV Guide wanted to go with the best covers from its past, and the 9 they picked are covers of sought-after issues, especially the Fred Flintstone cover.

 

[MegoMan]

> > I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek cover?
>
> Hmmm.....
>
> From the way they look at it, maybe TV Guide wanted to go
> with the best covers from its past, and the 9 they picked
> are covers of sought-after issues, especially the Fred
> Flintstone cover.
>
One would think that the cover with William Shatner & Leonard Nimoy from the 60's would have topped the list. I wonder who they would have gitten to do that one? How about Johnny Carson? He graced the cover many times over the years. Adam West as Batman and George Reeves as Superman should have made the cut. M*A*S*H from Febuary of '83 should have been on that list, too.<P ID="signature">______________
"Always on the move." Obi-Wan Kenobi in Revenge Of the Sith</P>

 

[KMRichards]

> > > I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek cover?
>
> >
> > Hmmm.....
> >
> > From the way they look at it, maybe TV Guide wanted to go
> > with the best covers from its past, and the 9 they picked
> > are covers of sought-after issues, especially the Fred
> > Flintstone cover.
> >
> One would think that the cover with William Shatner &
> Leonard Nimoy from the 60's would have topped the list. I
> wonder who they would have gitten to do that one? How about
> Johnny Carson? He graced the cover many times over the
> years. Adam West as Batman and George Reeves as Superman
> should have made the cut. M*A*S*H from Febuary of '83 should
> have been on that list, too.

All of this discussion reaffirms what I was originally thinking.

TV Guide screwed itself so badly that I don't even want a copy of the last issue with listings, regardless of which cover. (Although I'm tempted to look for the one with Jennifer Love Hewitt *sigh*)<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[dustintv]

My subscription ends this month as well, I'm not renewing. I haven't liked TV Guide since they went all grid. The two-column listings were much more user-friendly. I can get listings easier in my own local newspaper's TV Book or online. Sadly I can see TVGuide being another trashy gossip magazine down the line.
>
> TV Guide screwed itself so badly that I don't even want a
> copy of the last issue with listings, regardless of which
> cover. (Although I'm tempted to look for the one with
> Jennifer Love Hewitt *sigh*)
>

 

[rugrats1]

> My subscription ends this month as well, I'm not renewing. I
> haven't liked TV Guide since they went all grid.

And I cared even less for them since scrapping the "channels listed" page in many editions, making them available online only. With that and eliminating most late-night listings, plus changing their distribution schedule, TVG really frigged up this time. I have not read TVG since they started these changes, and I will not read TVG when their "new & improved" version starts up.

One thing I'm wondering about, though -- what's going to happen to the official TV Guide magazine jackets that went on sale just a couple of months ago? Better off selling them to Reader's Digest, Soap Opera Digest or Disney Adventures.

 

[feenotype]

> > > > I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek
> cover?
> >
> > >
> > > Hmmm.....
> > >
> > > From the way they look at it, maybe TV Guide wanted to
> go
> > > with the best covers from its past, and the 9 they
> picked
> > > are covers of sought-after issues, especially the Fred
> > > Flintstone cover.
> > >
> > One would think that the cover with William Shatner &
> > Leonard Nimoy from the 60's would have topped the list. I
> > wonder who they would have gitten to do that one? How
> about
> > Johnny Carson? He graced the cover many times over the
> > years. Adam West as Batman and George Reeves as Superman
> > should have made the cut. M*A*S*H from Febuary of '83
> should
> > have been on that list, too.
>
> All of this discussion reaffirms what I was originally
> thinking.
>
> TV Guide screwed itself so badly that I don't even want a
> copy of the last issue with listings, regardless of which
> cover. (Although I'm tempted to look for the one with
> Jennifer Love Hewitt *sigh*)
>


They have them all displayed in a gallery online:

http://www.tvguide.com/TV/CoverStory/

 

[bpatrick]

> > > > I had another thought: Why was there no Star Trek
> cover?
> >
> > >
> > > Hmmm.....
> > >
> > > From the way they look at it, maybe TV Guide wanted to
> go
> > > with the best covers from its past, and the 9 they
> picked
> > > are covers of sought-after issues, especially the Fred
> > > Flintstone cover.
> > >
> > One would think that the cover with William Shatner &
> > Leonard Nimoy from the 60's would have topped the list. I
> > wonder who they would have gitten to do that one? How
> about
> > Johnny Carson? He graced the cover many times over the
> > years. Adam West as Batman and George Reeves as Superman
> > should have made the cut. M*A*S*H from Febuary of '83
> should
> > have been on that list, too.
>
> All of this discussion reaffirms what I was originally
> thinking.
>
> TV Guide screwed itself so badly that I don't even want a
> copy of the last issue with listings, regardless of which
> cover. (Although I'm tempted to look for the one with
> Jennifer Love Hewitt *sigh*)
>
Especially given that the George Reeves cover from 1953 is
probably the most sought-after among collectors. And if they
wanted to do a Lucy cover, how about the cover of the very
first issue, with Lucy and baby Desi Jr.?

I'll probably get a copy of this last digest-size issue for
posterity's sake. But TV Guide lost me when they scrapped the
channels-listed page, truncated the late-night listings, and
reduced Monday-Friday daytime to grids. I wish them the worst
of luck with their new format; I don't think it will last two
years.

 

[TimL]

I picked up the last issue just for posterity's sake as well, though I ended up with the "Miami Vice" Cover though I would rather have had the "Flintstones", "Flying Nun" or "I Dream Of Jeannie" covers. I am not going to buy 9 TV Guides at $2.49 a pop just for the covers.
I mentioned a few months back on the Classic TV Board about a "TV Guide" Classic TV DVD set I picked up a few months ago for $5.00 (32 shows) I find it intreresting that TV Guide will trade on the Classic TV name yet throw away everything that made it special over 52 years for the "hip, now, trendy" thing..<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TimL on 10/07/05 05:06 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[ixnay]

> I am not going to buy 9 TV Guides
> at $2.49 a pop just for the covers.

Neither am I, especially with a 5% tax on mags in MD and 6% tax in PA.

ixnay

 

[ccmfan]

> > I am not going to buy 9 TV Guides
> > at $2.49 a pop just for the covers.
>
> Neither am I, especially with a 5% tax on mags in MD and 6%
> tax in PA.
>
> ixnay
>

Not meaning to turn this into a thread about sales tax rates, but TN's sales is definitely worse. Depending on the county it can run up to 9.75% on non-grocery items (8.75% on groceries), and most of them take all they can get. But then Wal Mart sells magazines at 10% off, so it comes out about even.

I picked up the MASH cover while I was in Wal Mart tonight, but it also turned out that I got the Lucy cover in the mail today, although my subscription ran out last week. I'd guess they might send the first large issue as well hoping to keep some old subscribers.

Something else I noticed is that there is a difference in the subscriptions being sold in the two issues. The copy I got in the mail had a rate of 99 cents an issue ($25.74 for 26 or $51.48 for 52). The copy I picked up in the store had a deal of 4 free issues, then the next 22 issues for 76 cents each ($16.72), and a copy of the last small issue thrown in as well. To me this sounds like a dirty deal on the people who had been regular subscribers.

Unless they do a great job of proving those of us who expect the worst wrong, I won't be renewing my subscription. I might buy an occasional issue, but probably very few.

 

[HomerJay]

Having spent several years working on the listings whose loss is so lamented by the few die-hards left, I feel perhaps a bit more of a twinge to see them disappear from print. (And for the record, I scoured local stores just to get the Homer Simpson cover of the final digest-sized version--my nostalgic streak isn't completely gone.)

I was passionate about the accuracy of listings, and took every discrepancy seriously. Situations out of my control were one thing, but I allowed myself no margin for error, and I hope today's team feels the same way.

But when all is said and done, the most important attribute of TV Guide isn't the newsprint, it's the data. It's the most comprehensive set of information about television anywhere. The data isn't going away, it's simply being used where the majority of people need it--in newer technologies.

In an era when most major cable companies report something like 40% of their customers have digital service, and that number keeps growing, paper listings are obsolete. That's not TV Guide's fault, and they're not "killing" what made the magazine great by acknowledging a simple business reality.

TV Guide data was once used to plan TV watching...then to help people set their VCRs. Now, that data is critical to the DVR experience. That's not destroying TV Guide, it's using the information in a more efficient manner.

TV Guide had the ultimate "rock and a hard place" quandry. Fact: newsprint--and the process of printing so many regional editions--is costly, and those costs continue to skyrocket. Trying to include more channels, to keep up with a television universe that's expanding more rapidly than it ever has, meant making hard decisions about cutting out listings for certain dayparts, and, yes, the hallowed channel conversion charts. Every page saved counts. What was the other option? Produce a phonebook-sized guide no one could practically use? Or cut more channels that people watch? Either way, you wind up ticking off a larger and larger segment of the rapidly dwindling audience for print products of any sort.

I can't fault them for accepting a business reality, cutting the losses and moving on.

Will a full-sized, features-only (well, nearly, if you don't count the few pages of national highlights) version work? I don't know. I suspect it won't last more than a few years in the already crowded market. Even if I'm right in my prediction though, it isn't stopping the digest and the listings that will have killed the magazine, it's simply that the need for a printed TV publication has passed.

With all of that said, I feel great sadness for those who probably lost jobs because of the changes. Here's hoping they land on their feet.

I hope today's staff of the listings group takes accuracy and quality seriously---we online and on-screen users need that data to navigate our choices.

> ...Cause this one has stars from 9 current shows paying
> tribute to classic TV Guide covers from the past:
>
> Reba McEntire("Reba") in a 2001 "I Love Lucy"'s 50 greatest
> moments cover
>
> Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen("Two & A Half Men") in a 1971
> "Odd Couple" cover
>
> Regis & Kelly conjuring a 1966 "I Dream Of Jeannie" cover
>
> Zach Braff, Donald Fasion and John C. McGinley("Scrubs")
> imitating a 1976 "M*A*S*H" cover
>
> Homer Simpson going back to 1964(A.D.) for Fred Flintstone's
> classic cover
>
> Greg Gumbel and Dan Marino dressing up for a 1985 "Miami
> Vice" cover
>
> Jennifer Love Hewitt channeling Sally Field's 1967 "Flying
> Nun" cover
>
> Conan O'Brien team up with "Howdy Doody" to bring back a
> 1954 cover
>
> The cast of "The Bernie Mac Show" show their love to another
> classic African-american sitcom by covering the "Good Times"
> cast pose from 1974
>
> This is going to be one collection I'm going to keep.
>

 

[MegoMan]

> Not meaning to turn this into a thread about sales tax
> rates, but TN's sales is definitely worse. Depending on the
> county it can run up to 9.75% on non-grocery items (8.75% on
> groceries), and most of them take all they can get. But then
> Wal Mart sells magazines at 10% off, so it comes out about
> even.
>
> I picked up the MASH cover while I was in Wal Mart tonight,
> but it also turned out that I got the Lucy cover in the mail
> today, although my subscription ran out last week. I'd guess
> they might send the first large issue as well hoping to keep
> some old subscribers.
>
> Something else I noticed is that there is a difference in
> the subscriptions being sold in the two issues. The copy I
> got in the mail had a rate of 99 cents an issue ($25.74 for
> 26 or $51.48 for 52). The copy I picked up in the store had
> a deal of 4 free issues, then the next 22 issues for 76
> cents each ($16.72), and a copy of the last small issue
> thrown in as well. To me this sounds like a dirty deal on
> the people who had been regular subscribers.
>
> Unless they do a great job of proving those of us who expect
> the worst wrong, I won't be renewing my subscription. I
> might buy an occasional issue, but probably very few.
>
I bought the Flying Nun and I Dream Of Jeannie editions at the local QFC earlier today. There were a few interesting articles.<P ID="signature">______________
"Always on the move." Obi-Wan Kenobi in Revenge Of the Sith</P>