TV Guide Magazine New and Improved

[MarcB]

Today I got in the mail that TV Guide Magazine wants me to come back as a subscriber. I haven't been a subscriber in more than 5 years? My last issue was some time before the switched to the large-size format. Not sure where they got my current address from. They'll give me 57 issues for $20.

They say it's new and improved.

Even More Listings - Late Night is back! Now every issue is packed with primetime, daytime, and late night listings. Plan your day, plan your night, or set your DVR for the week.

2 New Columns - For Classic TV lovers there's "Flashback" and for Industry Trend Watchers there "The Biz"

And more and more and more.

Yeah. I wouldn't subscribe to that rag unless they went back to listing my local channels. If I wanted to waste $20 (which I don't because I don't have a job and need all the money I can get) I would take a $20 bill and light it on fire.

 

[LKellerIII]

I haven't subscribed since the early 90s. TV Guide is doomed for the same reason that most daily newspapers and news magazines are doomed. We can get all the information on the internet or on the TV itself for free...or for no additional charge, in any case.

 

[DToTheJ]

If I wanted to waste $20... I would take a $20 bill and light it on fire.

Or purchase an hour of airtime on a local radio station, playing the likes of Mr. Vegas' "Heads High" and reading "weird news stories" between each record... But I digress... ;D

As for the subject at hand, allow me to direct everyone to this thread on the Classic TV board:
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=168789.0

 

[therealjm12]

If TV Guide were to go "retro" I might consider the $20 for 57 weeks. I would want a return to local listings plus the improvements they claimed they have made. To me, the TV guide sitting on the end table would be be more convenient than running to the computer to check listings. I stopped subscribing as soon as they dropped the local listings. People in my family had subscribed to TV Guide since the 50's.

 

[quadraphonic]

Frank Costanza will believe it when he sees it.

 

[crainbebo]

Get rid of that ****** entertanment/celebrity junk and put my local channels back in the magazine. Also, put back the Prevue Guide. This TV Guide Network is one of the worst pieces of **** I've ever seen. UGLY BETTY RERUNS? You are kidding me!

-crainbebo

 

[imhomerjay]

Well, if one wants to guarantee immediate bankruptcy, that would be a way to go.

 

[kenrayc]

I was a subscriber of TV guide up to the point the local listings were dropped. I won't go back.

 

[imhomerjay]

And there had loooooong since stopped being enough subscribers to pay for the cost of those local listings, hence they had to be dropped.

 

[rjoc]

I actually looked for a copy at a couple of local stores and couldn't find it...The TV Guide Channel on our local TimeWarner Cable is terrible and inaccurate. It shows two Canadian channels that aren't even on our system! I stick with zap2it.com

 

[bpatrick]

And there had loooooong since stopped being enough subscribers to pay for the cost of those local listings, hence they had to be dropped.

Especially after the single-copy price hit $2.99 and TV Guide also started cutting the listings (grids for Monday-Friday daytime,
full listings only from 5 to 11 PM, grids for post-11 PM and then only for the primary--white on black channel symbols--stations),
and Saturday and Sunday listings from 9 AM. People found it cheaper to go to their newspaper weekend inserts, although some of those have been discontinued as well.

I don't look for TV Guide to restore local listings, either.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I was a subscriber of TV guide up to the point the local listings were dropped. I won't go back.

Same for me. I pay $30 a year for my local paper to deliver me their listings on Saturday. I wish that $30 was part of the cost of that paper that just keeps going up.

 

[azumanga]

And there had loooooong since stopped being enough subscribers to pay for the cost of those local listings, hence they had to be dropped.

In my opinion, it was the aforementioned tinkering of TVG's listings that caused a drop in subscribers. Ever since they started messing with the listings during their final year, I refuse to even touch a TVG.

Paper listings still have value, as not everyone has EPGs or the internet, and some prople who do don't have the patience to spend minutes looking ahead, when it could take seconds consulting a paper guide. And you don't have to list every channel under the sun either -- just the popular channels.

 

[imhomerjay]

The first problem was not enough people don't have the Internet and/or IPGs to make the cost workable. The minute I first saw the IPG (wayyyyy back when) in a demo, I saw the writing on the wall for the magazine. It was just a matter of the when at that point--i.e., when the owners would say enough is enough and stop bleeding money.

The second problem was the explosion of channels meant everything was someone's favorite. Picking which channels to put in even back then was a tricky enough balancing act; doing it today would be more so. Sure, not including "channel X" might actually only cost you a few subs who aren't willing to pay for something that excludes one of the channels they watch. But you start adding up those few subscribers with those who have zero need for a paper guide in an electronic world, and those figures quickly grow to unsustainable level.

It wasn't one single factor that led to the end, but the end was inevitable. You can't spend the insane amount for newsprint for all those editions, even with trying to cut corners every which way possible to save pages (and trust me, someone complained about every single solitary effort that was made). The tinkering was the symptom, not the disease; it was a way to try to squeeze some profit out where there was something left.