Y'know, the words "Final Notice" lose their meaning after a while...

[jducoeur]

I am very amused that, after *months* of TV Guide warning me that this is "my very last chance to renew!" and "my subscription is about to expire!", they're still sending it to me. Methinks they aren't negotiating from a position of power here. (I do wonder how many subscriptions they've lost since their big makeover...)

Comments

[fitzw.livejournal.com]

(I do wonder how many subscriptions they've lost since their big makeover...)

Well, ours, for one...

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

"Final Notice!"

You promise? Really?

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

Heh. I love the new TVGuide so I guess Beauty. Eye. Beholder.

[johno.livejournal.com]

Several years ago, we mistakenly subscribed twice for 3-years.

They gladly took our money, and gave us 6+ year subscription, rather then 2 3-year subscriptions.

They were sending us renewal notices for nearly 2 years, before our subscription finally ran out. Just before the new format hit the stores.

Makeover?

[metageek.livejournal.com]

What's the big makeover? Between not watching much TV, and having listings online, I haven't noticed.

Re: Makeover?

[jducoeur]

It's been happening gradually over the past couple of years. Some bright idiot at TV Guide apparently decided that, with the proliferation of channels on cable today, they couldn't keep up with local listings and so they shouldn't try. So first they cut the magazine way back, to just the core stations, and dropped most of the listing details. And then the second step was to turn TV Guide into a glossy magazine, focused on articles and ads, with almost no program grid at all.

Of course, much of the readership (including us) had been buying the thing almost entirely *for* the program grid -- it might have been incomplete, but it was a good deal more convenient much of the time than looking stuff up online. After the format switch, though, there's simply no reason to bother with the silly thing. Only reason I didn't pro-actively cancel the service was that it was more work than it was worth...

Re: Makeover?

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Some bright idiot at TV Guide apparently decided that, with the proliferation of channels on cable today, they couldn't keep up with local listings and so they shouldn't try.

Boggle. And couldn't they...ah. They couldn't get datafeeds from the cable companies, because the cable companies are now their competitors: with digital cable, or Comcast's DVR-in-the-network service, you can get a program guide that's actually useful, so TV Guide becomes a reason for people to stick with analog cable.

Re: Makeover?

[jducoeur]

Actually, I think it's more a matter of the physical issues involved. With cable systems getting more complex and divergent, they were needing to print many variant editions for localities. And the hundreds of channels meant that it became prohibitively expensive to print a comprehensive guide. (At least, that's my guess of why they decided to change it.)

It is a good example that sometimes the problems introduced by modern tech require modern-tech solutions...

Ditto

[ohsusana.livejournal.com]

National Geographic starts sending renewal notices with increased urgency about a month after I resubscribe.

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.