We don't like the new TV Guide, but...

[DrBear]

You'll notice that for all our griping, nobody is coming out with a magazine to replace it which would
-be reasonably* complete with reasonably* accurate local listings
-have well-researched, well-written articles rather than be a celeb parade
-be convenient, easily accessible and have good delivery service (a complaint I've heard a LOT about TVG)

Why? Probably because there doesn't seem to be a market for such a magazine; when you consider the niche interests that have their own publications (thanks to advertisers wanting to reach that niche), you'd think there would be a market.

However, the costs of compliling listings on a region-by-region basis, doing good articles instead of fluff, and getting it out in a timely manner just aren't being covered by the advertisers. If they're going to reach a mass audience, they're going to advertise on TV itself.

(*-reasonably in both cases referring to the fact that a. you can't list every channel on every system, because if you start listing every public access channel you would kill letter carriers, and that there's going to be a lead time and networks are willing to make last-second changes)

 

[Phillyradiogeek]

Thank you Dr. You are indeed correct about the trouble a new mag would cost. It wasn't easy to do what TVG did in its heyday, and it was only harder the last few years. Most of the everyday people there (myself included) did their very best every day to make the best magazine we could under corporate constraints and the constraints of the marketplace.

Despite all the valid theories about why the tradidtional TV Guide no longer exists, perhaps the most reasonable is simply--its time had come.

 

[HomerJay]

> Thank you Dr. You are indeed correct about the trouble a
> new mag would cost. It wasn't easy to do what TVG did in
> its heyday, and it was only harder the last few years. Most
> of the everyday people there (myself included) did their
> very best every day to make the best magazine we could under
> corporate constraints and the constraints of the
> marketplace.
>
> Despite all the valid theories about why the tradidtional TV
> Guide no longer exists, perhaps the most reasonable is
> simply--its time had come.
>
Satellite and digital cable rendered it obsolete. When there were maybe 2-3 dozen channels in the cable universe, sure, the book was thicker, but it could still maintain full listings without becoming impossibly cost prhibitive. But in a world of 200, 300 channels (or who knows what down the road) not to mention video on demand and the ability of DVRs to find a show no matter where it runs, the rising costs (newsprint isn't cheap) of production coupled with a dwindling number of people who found it useful, meant the handwriting was on the wall.

Like Phillyradio, I put my heart and soul into making it the best publication I could, through my own little contributions. I was as dedicated as they come, but even towards the end of my time there, the channel, website and interactive guide were clearly the wave of the future. Even then, we were "re-wiring" the thought process from "magazine first, everything else second" to an "all products" approach.

I can't imagine anyone being able to make a viable business model of running full listings for every channel. Even in my time, every additional page was costly (so yes, the channel listings charts in many cases had to go). Just in the past few months, I read about two more channels (and by no means do I mean to suggest they're the only new channels, just two I read about): Sprout and Logo. If you were TV Guide, would you list them? You can make a case that parents of toddlers would (as a generalization) find listings for their kids' favorite shows something that should be included, even though Sprout is new. In Logo's case, gay and lesbian viewers could argue rightly that the network should be included because it's one of the few channels programmed for that audience. Skip them and your guide is already incomplete (and not incomplete in the way skipping all music video channels or community access channels makes it). Include them, and you've added a large number of extra lines, likely a page or more for each network, in every single issue, and run up your cost.

While it's sad to see something that was so unique fade away, it's perhaps better to realize that what TV Guide was ABOUT--that is, the listings and information--lives on in new and exciting ways. Mr. Annenberg simply put that data together in the best format for its day; now the information needs to be packaged differently, but it's still being used.

 

[Phillyradiogeek]

> While it's sad to see something that was so unique fade
> away, it's perhaps better to realize that what TV Guide was
> ABOUT--that is, the listings and information--lives on in
> new and exciting ways. Mr. Annenberg simply put that data
> together in the best format for its day; now the information
> needs to be packaged differently, but it's still being used.
>

Exactly. The electronic products, especially the interactive guide, makes print listings almost needless (except for future planning purposes). TV Guide is doing very well as an electonic tool.

 

[SilentGreg]

> > While it's sad to see something that was so unique fade
> > away, it's perhaps better to realize that what TV Guide
> was
> > ABOUT--that is, the listings and information--lives on in
> > new and exciting ways. Mr. Annenberg simply put that data
>
> > together in the best format for its day; now the
> information
> > needs to be packaged differently, but it's still being
> used.
> >
>
> Exactly. The electronic products, especially the
> interactive guide, makes print listings almost needless
> (except for future planning purposes). TV Guide is doing
> very well as an electonic tool.

I remember when back in 1995 (ten freakin' years ago!) that a gallon of gasoline and a copy of the old TV Guide was 89 cents each (not together) where I live.

Those days are long gone and thanks to China, SUVs, and lack of refineries gasoline is where it is today and TV Guide is basically a channel that often annoys me. Especially when Joan Rivers and her daughter do the stupid awards show special where the listings are extremely small and the award show itself is stupid.

I so miss the '90s.

 

[Phillyradiogeek]

OK, your right about Joan and Melissa

Even a TV Guide booster like me isn't a fan of the Channel. The programs are annoying, and why watch the listings at the bottom when you have the interactive guide that can give you exactly the channel you want instantly?

 

[HomerJay]

> OK, your right about Joan and Melissa
>
> Even a TV Guide booster like me isn't a fan of the Channel.
> The programs are annoying, and why watch the listings at the
> bottom when you have the interactive guide that can give you
> exactly the channel you want instantly?
>
Channel? There's still a channel?

I haven't tuned to it since getting digital cable.