Comments on: Hey, CW: Who’d You Piss Off?

By: abcohen

abcohen — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:14:16 +0000

I agree TV Guide is done with… EW should just add another 5 pages to it and cover the primetime schedule

I also think that with the rise of DVR and cable guides everyone has put the magazine down…

but still makes you wonder how the CW will move forward with its great programming (supernatural, gossip girl, and the soon to be played out Smallville)

By: Mel

Mel — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:46:23 +0000

I’ve read two reasons supposedly given by somebody associated w/ TV Guide:

The CW is a Marginal Network
–Marginal Network? Um – maybe – but Ion, (WTH is Ion?) MynetworkTV, BloombergTV, G4, WE are all still listed — so uh– no, I call B.S. on that reason.

Not enough space in the listings
– Not enough space? Um – 81 channels in the online listings — 80 in the print version — how much ’space’ are you saving? Also see above still listed networks taking up valuable ’space’. I call B.S. on that reason too.

So what’s up with this? Is the CW not buying enough advertising? Far be it from me to laud the CW’s advertising practices, but that’s B.S. too.
TV Guide’s very own online poll — five of their Top Ten Favorite Shows — are — you guessed it — CW shows. Their very own readers pick CW shows as their favorites. Supernatural, One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl, 90210, and America’s Next Top Model.

No wonder the magazine has got a death rattle in its throat.
Ausiello was smart to bail.

By: Alanna

Alanna — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:11:32 +0000

I agree…this looks worse for TV GUIDE than CW…what type of TV GUIDE are you if ur removing the schedule of an entire network???

NOt that I ever read TV guide (except online sometimes)….but now I definitely WONT both on print or online!

By: John

John — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:14:08 +0000

I stopped reading the TV Guide when I got DirecTV. The number of channels I was interested in and not covered by the magazine made it useless.

It is even less relevant today.

By: Adela P.

Adela P. — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:35:30 +0000

I completely agree with Jonah’s comments. I was under the assumption that TV Guide lists ALL networks, when did this suddenly turn sour? Some things are just not meant to be understood, I guess. I’ll stick to TV Addict, thanks.

By: kimerz

kimerz — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:12:56 +0000

I noticed that last week and rejoiced that I can finally cancel my subscription.

By: Jonah

Jonah — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:06:49 +0000

TV Guide? You mean that crapsheet my grandma used to read? Is that thing still published? If so, who in the world would ever subscribe to it, much less buy it on a newsstand? Ausiello got out while the gettin’ was good. If the management of the so-called “guide for TV” fails to include the one network that anyone under 30 is interested in, then good luck with your aging demo. Who’s gonna buy an ad in that biased crap?

By: Kaly

Kaly — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:23:08 +0000

Yeah this is very odd. I’m not sure how TVGuide can be considered a credible source of info if it leaves entire networks off it’s grid. That’s just bizarre.

By: Forrester

Forrester — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:42:18 +0000

I think this speaks more poorly about TV Guide than about The CW. I mean, if the listings are not accurate then what’s the point?

By: Tim G.

Tim G. — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:04:31 +0000

Who cares about TV Guide anymore? Ausiello & the podcast were the only reasons why people still read the mag or visited the site.