The New TV Guide

[dustyvinyl]

Well, after several weeks now of the all-new, all-larger TV Guide, my opinion really hasn't changed. When my subscription expires in March, I'm finished with it. Quite frankly, I get the same grids with my Sunday newspaper TV magazine, and they are marked with the local channel numbers, as opposed to national networks. The rest of TV Guide seems to be devoted more and more to gossip-style articles and pix. Please feel free to share your thoughts......

 

[Markxxx]

> Well, after several weeks now of the all-new, all-larger TV
> Guide, my opinion really hasn't changed. When my
> subscription expires in March, I'm finished with it. Quite
> frankly, I get the same grids with my Sunday newspaper TV
> magazine, and they are marked with the local channel
> numbers, as opposed to national networks. The rest of TV
> Guide seems to be devoted more and more to gossip-style
> articles and pix. Please feel free to share your
> thoughts......
>
I loved the commercial TV Guide aired. They have a woman saying things like

"Make it bigger"
"And lose those TV listings"

I was like WHAT???? I mean c'mon NO ONE has ever said "I want TV Guide but those nasty listings are cluttering it up."

Talk about and idiotic statment. "Lose the listings" indeed (LOL)


<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[KML0224]

The overhaul is actually a nice touch...but they f---ed up royally with the local TV listings. That's why I'm letting my subscription run out after Christmas.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

I agree with KML0224 on this one.

The larger page size isn't by itself a bad idea, and neither are changing program listing pages from black-and-white to color.

But they should have (1) kept local program listings, and (2) bring back the kind of articles about the industry that were a hallmark of TV Guide for almost fifty years. TV Guide used to have excellent articles that let viewers learn "the nuts and bolts" of television.

Hopefully, there will be one more makeover to TV Guide in the next few months, one that will restore complete local program listings and bring back the kind of articles that TV Guide was known for over almost a half-century.

But I'm afraid that more likely, the 2006/2007 Fall Preview issue next September will be the last issue of TV Guide after 53-plus years as a nationally-published weekly magazine.

 

[6tothebronx]

If you call customer service and cancel they will refund your money for the remaining issues you have left. I did that about 2 years ago. It would be a good way to put a few extra bucks in your pocket before the holidays.


> Well, after several weeks now of the all-new, all-larger TV
> Guide, my opinion really hasn't changed. When my
> subscription expires in March, I'm finished with it. Quite
> frankly, I get the same grids with my Sunday newspaper TV
> magazine, and they are marked with the local channel
> numbers, as opposed to national networks. The rest of TV
> Guide seems to be devoted more and more to gossip-style
> articles and pix. Please feel free to share your
> thoughts......
>

 

[HomerJay]

>
> Hopefully, there will be one more makeover to TV Guide in
> the next few months, one that will restore complete local
> program listings and bring back the kind of articles that TV
> Guide was known for over almost a half-century.
>
And have it priced at $5 a copy? To produce listings of all of the channels available today is hugely cost-prohibitive, and a major reason TV Guide had to make the change they did. I don't know that it's enough to save TV Guide, but full local listings was definitely a recipe for its end.

As for the detailed articles, I don't think people have the kind of awe they once did for TV--it's just not "new" anymore. Today, for better or worse, the articles reflect more popular tastes. Sure, those of us who inhabit message boards love those kinds of insights, but the larger pool of viewers wants to know the gossip about the stars. There's a reason "People" and "Star" and "Us" and the countless other clones dominate the market now.

 

[Markxxx]

> And have it priced at $5 a copy? To produce listings of all
> of the channels available today is hugely cost-prohibitive,
> and a major reason TV Guide had to make the change they did.
> I don't know that it's enough to save TV Guide, but full
> local listings was definitely a recipe for its end.
>
I honestly don't see how it's so cost prohibitive. The local stations provide the listing to places like Titan TV and WebTV and MSN get local listings. Even details and program notes. A simple SQL query and statement would do a find and replace. With computers it would be even easier.

TV Guide would put the onus on the station or network to provide the listings and details. If a station didn't want to be listed zapp it out of your databse. I can't see how this would be such a problem with and SQL or even an Access database.

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> As for the detailed articles, I don't think people have the
> kind of awe they once did for TV--it's just not "new"
> anymore. Today, for better or worse, the articles reflect
> more popular tastes. Sure, those of us who inhabit message
> boards love those kinds of insights, but the larger pool of
> viewers wants to know the gossip about the stars. There's a
> reason "People" and "Star" and "Us" and the countless other
> clones dominate the market now.

The problem is that "People" and "Star" and "Us" and the rest already have the market for celebrity gossip and fluff well served -- "TV Guide" is coming late to the competition and doesn't really seem to have any sort of competitive advantage here.

The "nuts and bolts" industry articles were what I used to like about "TV Guide" and as they've disappeared since the eighties, I basically quit reading. Whether articles on those types of topics could be a mass appeal item in today's market is not a question that I can answer, other than noting that some of the "nuts and bolts" articles were really quite entertaining. They also present information that can't really be gotten anywhere else, short of a (pricey) subscription to "Broadcasting & Cable".

On the other hand, consolidation in the industry has definitely pulled much of the human interest out of the industry stories. One of my favorite articles from when I was a kid was about a TV station owner in Charlotte, NC who went on the air and asked his viewers for loans so that he could stay on the air. It worked and the station turned the corner, repaying the viewers who loaned the money. Try finding stories like that to tell today...

(As a sidenote, the station owner in the article was Ted Turner in the pre-superstation days, and he eventually sold that Charlotte station and used the money from the sale to launch CNN.)

 

[TimInHouston]

> > And have it priced at $5 a copy? To produce listings of
> all
> > of the channels available today is hugely
> cost-prohibitive,
> > and a major reason TV Guide had to make the change they
> did.
> > I don't know that it's enough to save TV Guide, but full
> > local listings was definitely a recipe for its end.
> >
> I honestly don't see how it's so cost prohibitive. The local
> stations provide the listing to places like Titan TV and
> WebTV and MSN get local listings. Even details and program
> notes. A simple SQL query and statement would do a find and
> replace. With computers it would be even easier.
>
> TV Guide would put the onus on the station or network to
> provide the listings and details. If a station didn't want
> to be listed zapp it out of your databse. I can't see how
> this would be such a problem with and SQL or even an Access
> database.
>

I don't think it would be that hard, but the printing costs are probably what is prohibitive. TVGuide was already consolidating many of its seperate market editions into larger regional ones (ie: the consolidation of North and South Mississippi into one edition a few years back).

The other problem with the changeover that I see immediately is that TV Guide lost its magazine rack "real estate" by changing from a pocket size book that was always staring you in the fact right at the check stand (usually on the lane pole) to a full-size glossy. I stand in the checkline at Walmart and do not even see it anymore because it blends in with the other full-size entertainment glossies (and fluff tabloids) that I ignore.

At least when it was pocket size, and staring me in the face while the attendant was scanning my purchases, I might peruse if there was an interesting tease on the cover (or even buy it if it teased information or an interview about a show I was watching).

Maybe they should just go syndicated and offer the TVGuide name to newspapers as a replacement for the local sunday inserts (like Life magazine did a year ago and Parade has done for years). Share the printing costs with the newspapers and voila, an even larger customer base is born.

 

[ccmfan]

> I don't think it would be that hard, but the printing costs
> are probably what is prohibitive. TVGuide was already
> consolidating many of its seperate market editions into
> larger regional ones (ie: the consolidation of North and
> South Mississippi into one edition a few years back).
>
> The other problem with the changeover that I see immediately
> is that TV Guide lost its magazine rack "real estate" by
> changing from a pocket size book that was always staring you
> in the fact right at the check stand (usually on the lane
> pole) to a full-size glossy. I stand in the checkline at
> Walmart and do not even see it anymore because it blends in
> with the other full-size entertainment glossies (and fluff
> tabloids) that I ignore.
>
> At least when it was pocket size, and staring me in the face
> while the attendant was scanning my purchases, I might
> peruse if there was an interesting tease on the cover (or
> even buy it if it teased information or an interview about a
> show I was watching).
>
> Maybe they should just go syndicated and offer the TVGuide
> name to newspapers as a replacement for the local sunday
> inserts (like Life magazine did a year ago and Parade has
> done for years). Share the printing costs with the
> newspapers and voila, an even larger customer base is born.
>

In the Wal Marts in my area the larger issues are no longer on every aisle like the smaller issues were. Now they are on only certain aisles in the same areas where the celebrity gossip magazines and tabloids are. In some other stores I haven't seen the larger issues at all. Another problem is that the distributor in the area has made no effort to get TV Guide out on time ever since it switched to putting the new issues out on Thursdays. Now even though the new issues have switched to Mondays again, they still run as much as a week late and parts of the schedules are useless as a result. I know that this isn't TV Guide's fault, but it definitely has to be hurting their sales.

 

[BRNout]

> I loved the commercial TV Guide aired. They have a woman
> saying things like
>
> "Make it bigger"
> "And lose those TV listings"
>
> I was like WHAT???? I mean c'mon NO ONE has ever said "I
> want TV Guide but those nasty listings are cluttering it
> up."
>
> Talk about and idiotic statment. "Lose the listings" indeed
> (LOL)
>
>
>
My thoughts exactly!! "Lose those confusing TV listings" LOL!

Hey, why not lose the entire magazine? It's like complaining that Motor Trend would be great without those pesky articles.

I hope they paid that actress really well - she came off looking like such an dumb airhead!

 

[KMRichards]

> In the Wal Marts in my area the larger issues are no longer
> on every aisle like the smaller issues were. Now they are on
> only certain aisles in the same areas where the celebrity
> gossip magazines and tabloids are. In some other stores I
> haven't seen the larger issues at all. Another problem is
> that the distributor in the area has made no effort to get
> TV Guide out on time ever since it switched to putting the
> new issues out on Thursdays. Now even though the new issues
> have switched to Mondays again, they still run as much as a
> week late and parts of the schedules are useless as a
> result. I know that this isn't TV Guide's fault, but it
> definitely has to be hurting their sales.

Good. Serves them right.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[HomerJay]

> I honestly don't see how it's so cost prohibitive.

For a declining sub base in the face of on-screen and on-line guides, it's the newsrpint that's cost prohibitive. Even a decade ago, the costs were an issue. People hated the increasing use of grids--ok, understood. But it's always easy to spend someone else's money, all the while saying the cost to the end-user shouldn't go up.

The local
> stations provide the listing to places like Titan TV and
> WebTV and MSN get local listings. Even details and program
> notes. A simple SQL query and statement would do a find and
> replace. With computers it would be even easier.
>
The database system can't be quite so simple, believe me. There will always be some labor involved to maintain the integrityof listings--so that one persons "episode 123" of series X is the same as someone else's. And, again, believe me, if the business priority remains keeping the data uniform, you can't rely on what local stations just send you--you need quality control, big time.

 

[bhayes1016]

> The larger page size isn't by itself a bad idea, and neither
> are changing program listing pages from black-and-white to
> color.
>
> But they should have (1) kept local program listings

It would have been impossible to produce color listings for 200+ local editions, though.

 

[Garrett]

> > In the Wal Marts in my area the larger issues are no
> longer
> > on every aisle like the smaller issues were. Now they are
> on
> > only certain aisles in the same areas where the celebrity
> > gossip magazines and tabloids are. In some other stores I
> > haven't seen the larger issues at all. Another problem is
> > that the distributor in the area has made no effort to get
>
> > TV Guide out on time ever since it switched to putting the
>
> > new issues out on Thursdays. Now even though the new
> issues
> > have switched to Mondays again, they still run as much as
> a
> > week late and parts of the schedules are useless as a
> > result. I know that this isn't TV Guide's fault, but it
> > definitely has to be hurting their sales.
>
> Good. Serves them right.

I used to be able to get them at 7-11. The other day I ran in for one and they don't even have them anymore...

 

[Apollo79]

> > > In the Wal Marts in my area the larger issues are no
> > longer
> > > on every aisle like the smaller issues were. Now they
> are
> > on
> > > only certain aisles in the same areas where the
> celebrity
> > > gossip magazines and tabloids are. In some other stores
> I
> > > haven't seen the larger issues at all. Another problem
> is
> > > that the distributor in the area has made no effort to
> get
> >
> > > TV Guide out on time ever since it switched to putting
> the
> >
> > > new issues out on Thursdays. Now even though the new
> > issues
> > > have switched to Mondays again, they still run as much
> as
> > a
> > > week late and parts of the schedules are useless as a
> > > result. I know that this isn't TV Guide's fault, but it
> > > definitely has to be hurting their sales.
> >
> > Good. Serves them right.
>
> I used to be able to get them at 7-11. The other day I ran
> in for one and they don't even have them anymore...
>

It's not a big loss that TV Guide isn't available in all the places it once was. TV Guide just blends in with the rest of the magazines that do a much better job at covering the same stuff TV Guide is trying to do. It's too bad that what was once a great publication turned into absolute rubbish! You got to hand it to those responsible for all the changes over the years. They certainly don't have a clue about what they're doing.

Getting rid of local listings altogether is just the final nail in the coffin for a magazine that has been in a downward spiral ever since they started chopping up the features that made TV Guide great (industry news, channel legend, 24 hour listings with only prime time being in grid form). I can honestly say that until they revert back to the way they were, I will never buy another TV Guide ever!

 

[FightingIrish]

> My thoughts exactly!! "Lose those confusing TV listings"
> LOL!
>
> Hey, why not lose the entire magazine? It's like
> complaining that Motor Trend would be great without those
> pesky articles.
>
> I hope they paid that actress really well - she came off
> looking like such an dumb airhead!

Gee, Playboy is a really great magazine. Though I wish they'd get rid of all those nudie pictures.<P ID="signature">______________
The Liberal Talk Radio Update</P>