
Got the latest TV Guide magazine in the mail. Yes, somewhat embarassingly I subscribe and have done for years. Two reasons: I grew up with it and I signed on while they were making a ridiculously cheap offer (which I later renewed), during a period when I was watching an assload of movies on cable and found TV Guide truly useful in locating the channels and times when I could catch the flicks I wanted to see.
(Yes, it was overkill; I was taping movies off TV and later pretty much ended up tossing the tapes in the garbage when I had to move.)
Lesson learned: My subscription is now the sole reminder of those days and it will soon run out and won’t be renewed.
But this week the “new” TV Guide arrived and that offers an excuse to think about the magazine.
The change TV Guide made is a switch from digest form, which would sit by the TV like a disposable little reference book, into an Entertainment Weekly-ish slick (still focused on TV).
There was an article in the NY Times not too long ago about TV Guide’s falling fortunes and their hope that the “TV Guide Channel” - essentially scrolling listings accessible via cable TV with some inserted “programming” - might reintroduce the TV Guide brand to younger viewers who couldn’t care less about the magazine.
Some hope.
This drastic makeover is, it seems to me, the last ditch effort to pull TV Guide’s ass out of a fatal tailspin.
It’s too late. Subscriptions have apparently fallen off while the real death knell - a huge drop in ad revenue - is already ringing. The older audience which still subscribes has over the past couple of years seen a loss in whatever value TV Guide has left as a TV guide.
Cover stories have become breathless celeb-filled nonsense; certain favorites of the magazine staff are promoted ferociously issue after issue (Lost, anyone?); and most articles and reviews have been supplanted by dopey “bite-sized” bulletpoint lists, like “Cheers & Jeers” for good and bad TV stuff, with every comment reduced to one paragraph, snarky remarks of the witless sort of wit Entertainment Weekly has perfected.
TV Guide was never The New Yorker, of course, but I remember a few columnists and critcs - Judith Crist, for example - who actually seemed to have something to say. I remember an appreciation of the Archie Bunker character contributed by The New Yorker’s own Brendan Gill. No way they’d bother to print that today.
In the new Guide they’ve also decided to forego local TV listings in favor of national (corporate media) listings thereby eliminating the one unique function they performed. In fact, in a great many spots in the new magazine, they don’t bother giving info and instead refer the reader to their website for listings and details.
Last but certainly not least, the new version is ugly. While the digest version was hardly an award winner it was at least small enough to force the pages into some sort of consise layout. Now that pages are much bigger, the editors and designers have spread content out all over the place. But, aside from larger photos and more color, they seem to have no idea how they want to exploit this new space. There’s no continuity between departments, things are hard to find, and everything is a mess.
TV Guide has also followed most magazines in the unfortunate practice of eschewing illustration for publicity and file photos. Gone are the days when every issue featured the likes of Al Hirschfeld, Arnold Roth and others.
Take a look at this brand new monstrosity while you’re waiting in the supermarket line. You’ll wish Screamin’ James Wolcott was a TV critic again so you’d have some place to go for meaningful content.
On the other hand you can just turn the damn TV set off and toss the magazine in the garbage.
Tags: Culture by KevinWolf
2 Comments »