• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

TV Guide news

B

bpatrick

Some of the guys on the TV Guide collectors'
discussion board have e-mailed me that Gemstar
is reporting a 38% increase in sales since the
overhaul of TV Guide. The 99-cent cover price
may have something to do with this. But Gemstar's
spokespeople believe the public is happy with the
magazine's new look. TV Guide ranks seventh in
circulation among all magazines (I remember when
it was first).

Any info or thoughts?
 
> Some of the guys on the TV Guide collectors'
> discussion board have e-mailed me that Gemstar
> is reporting a 38% increase in sales since the
> overhaul of TV Guide. The 99-cent cover price
> may have something to do with this. But Gemstar's
> spokespeople believe the public is happy with the
> magazine's new look. TV Guide ranks seventh in
> circulation among all magazines (I remember when
> it was first).
>
> Any info or thoughts?

Probably it’s a curiosity factor. People are picking it up at the check out stand. I have noticed that, so far, at my neighborhood super marker it doesn’t have a slot for the new sized TV Guide. They use space from some other magazine. I still receive it for 25 cents an issue by subscription. If they raise it at renewal time then I’ll stop getting it. It’s not worth more than 25 cents to me.
 
They don't even show local or other cities such as Austin,Corpus,Rio Grande Valley listings anymore and besides that they want to become People Magazine and Entertainment Weekly at the same time.

I get much better service from the San Antonio Express Sunday TV Guide that comes in the paper even though their grids are horrible.
 
> They don't even show local or other cities such as
> Austin,Corpus,Rio Grande Valley listings anymore and besides
> that they want to become People Magazine and Entertainment
> Weekly at the same time.

I'm pretty sure that's the point. They want to be a gossip magazine, not a television guide.

I'm sure they will come up with some excuse to do away with the minimal listings eventually.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
>
>
>
> Any info or thoughts?
> I subscribe to TV Guide and liked it better when it offered
the local listings. this new version just don't cut it at all.
 
TV Guide is worthless without the local listings. That is why people got it.
 
K.M. Richards writes:

> I'm sure they will come up with some excuse to do away with
> the minimal listings eventually.

If they restore comprehensive local program listings, TV Guide will be around for many more years to come. Otherwise, they probably won't live to see 2007.
 
I don't see them ever restoring the local listings -- that ship has sailed. (They got rid of the infrastructure, and it would cost too much to bring it back.) Hopefully they'll at least start providing more comprehensive national listings.


> K.M. Richards writes:
>
> > I'm sure they will come up with some excuse to do away
> with
> > the minimal listings eventually.
>
> If they restore comprehensive local program listings, TV
> Guide will be around for many more years to come. Otherwise,
> they probably won't live to see 2007.
>
 
> TV Guide is worthless without the local listings. That is
> why people got it.

And that statement is contrary to their increased sales.

Reality: The retooling of TV Guide into a gossip magazine has been successful, and we are all going to have to move on now. <P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
> I don't see them ever restoring the local listings -- that
> ship has sailed. (They got rid of the infrastructure, and it
> would cost too much to bring it back.) Hopefully they'll at
> least start providing more comprehensive national listings.
>
>
> > K.M. Richards writes:
> >
> > > I'm sure they will come up with some excuse to do away
> > with
> > > the minimal listings eventually.
> >
> > If they restore comprehensive local program listings, TV
> > Guide will be around for many more years to come.
> Otherwise,
> > they probably won't live to see 2007.
> >
>
I should point out something I just learned from a couple
of people posting to TV Guide's discussion site: these increased
sales reflect NEWSSTAND (supermarket checkout lines, etc.) sales,
not necessarily new subscriptions. And the single-copy price is
going to jump to $1.99, possibly as early as this week.

Frankly, I think the old digest-size TV Guide was not worth the
$2.49 single-copy price, not with the truncated daytime and nonexistent
overnight listings (not to mention the removal of the channel charts),
plus few really informative articles (I'm sorry, folks, I know times
change, but I prefer the TV Guide of the 1950s-early 1980s).

But neither do I care for another People-style pictures-and-gossip
magazine. I know other people do, but that's just me. Nevertheless,
I also think we're stuck with the new TV Guide and will have to
depend on local newspapers, titantv.com, zap2it.com, etc., for our
listings.
 
>
> If they restore comprehensive local program listings, TV
> Guide will be around for many more years to come. Otherwise,
> they probably won't live to see 2007.
>
Completely off base. Sales were free falling with the local listings still in place. Whether or not the new format will turn things around or not remains to be seen; however, the demise of the magazine was *assured* in its previous form. TV Guide's time as a listings-based publication had passed, probably long before they actually pulled the plug, but nevertheless, it was over.
 
There is something else, besides the elimination of local listings, that I think has really hurt TV Guide.

For it's first four-and-a-half decades or so, TV Guide had excellent, in-depth, and intelligent articles about the television industry, written in a way that ordinary viewers could understand. Even the celebrity profiles were pieces of well-written journalism that in quality were many rungs above what People magazine (and many, many, many rungs above the tabloids) would publish.

These kinds of articles have vanished in the last few years.

While I still believe that restoration of local listings can help TV Guide, a return to the kind of articles that the magazine was known for over the course of so many years would also help, whether or not local program listings return.
 
> There is something else, besides the elimination of local
> listings, that I think has really hurt TV Guide.
>
> For it's first four-and-a-half decades or so, TV Guide had
> excellent, in-depth, and intelligent articles about the
> television industry, written in a way that ordinary viewers
> could understand. Even the celebrity profiles were pieces of
> well-written journalism that in quality were many rungs
> above what People magazine (and many, many, many rungs above
> the tabloids) would publish.
>
> These kinds of articles have vanished in the last few years.
>
>
> While I still believe that restoration of local listings can
> help TV Guide, a return to the kind of articles that the
> magazine was known for over the course of so many years
> would also help, whether or not local program listings
> return.
>
Amen to that! That's one reason I prefer the TV Guide of
roughly 1953-1985, besides the program listings. I received
almost a formal education on how the industry works from
reading TV Guide articles when I was growing up.

Unfortunately, people today seem to have neither the time
nor the attention span to read articles of the kind that
used to appear in TV Guide. And I suppose most people
don't really care about "the business behind the box."
So I think we're stuck with TV Guide as is. Pity.
 
> Reality: The retooling of TV Guide into a
> gossip magazine has been successful, and we
> are all going to have to move on now.

Geez KM, the next thing you and David will be
telling us is that the oldies format on radio
is dead!

;-)
 
> >
> Amen to that! That's one reason I prefer the TV Guide of
> roughly 1953-1985, besides the program listings. I received
>
> almost a formal education on how the industry works from
> reading TV Guide articles when I was growing up.
>
> Unfortunately, people today seem to have neither the time
> nor the attention span to read articles of the kind that
> used to appear in TV Guide. And I suppose most people
> don't really care about "the business behind the box."
> So I think we're stuck with TV Guide as is. Pity.
>

In addition to the time and attention span reasons, I'd add that the novelty has gradually worn off over the years. How the business works really doesn't interest people so much any more--we're in a "been there, done that" phase.

We're in a more celebrity-driven world now, and trying to "put the genie back in the bottle" isn't going to happen. TV Guide is trying to stay alive by adapting to reality. I don't fault those business decisions.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom