TVGuide vs. "Old" Program Guide

Dale,

I know things change, but at the moment, the "New" TV Guide is a poor replacement for the "old" programing guide at this time.

As an example the new programing guide doesn't give me a description of the content or the last air date and it doesn't filter out all the standard def programing.

I know it took a lot of work to get the bugs out of the old programing guide. Are we going to have to go through that again? I hope not.

For me the old programing guide was something unique to HDTV Magazine. But at the moment my Dish Network Electronic Guide seems to have the edge over the new HDTV Magazine programing guide.

Let's all hope that the "New" HDTV programing guide can be brought up to and become equal or better than the old programing guide in the not to distant future.

HDTVJim

I wondered why I could no longer find the program guide. Now I find it's become a pay feature. With the comments on the quality I can't see paying even a couple dollars a month to view an inferior product as I already have two other subscriptions that provide guides with out charging for them and they are better than what I've seen from the TVguide.

I'm with hdtvJim all the way on this. His comment, 'the "New" TV Guide is a poor replacement for the "old" programing guide' is a masterpiece of understatement.

Dale wrote:
> whatever features and services we had with the old vendor we can soon-enough have with TVGuide. <

I don't understand this comment. The only 'features and services' you got from the old vendor was raw guide data. They didn't provide any of the special features on the web site... that was all Shane's work. This makes it sound like you can get a data feed from them (TVG), instead of TMS, and just put your old pages back up again. Which would be a great thing. However...

> they assure me that they will incorporate your good recommendations into their product and meet their own goal of making TVGuide the superior product among all others. <

this sounds like they plan to re-implement the wheel themselves, all over again. I'm not sure what the point is? As I wrote to Shane (private correspondence) earlier this month:

I know you put a lot of work into your system, to not only make it the best, but also provide unique capabilities, available no-where else. Where else can I find instantaneous info popups, just by hovering over a program? Nowhere. It's click, and wait, which can take 10x+ as long to get the info you want. Or an 8-hour grid (on my 1920x1200 screen)? Or the ability to pop up a full 2-week view for any channel? Or mixing channels from multiple sources all on a unified grid?

Or what I relied on the most, the Movie Guide, to generate listings of any selected set of channels, and type of content, sorted by Title or Date. This mechanism to access a database of info (subset, sort, etc.) was really "cruising through an information space", and a big aid in managing information complexity. Or all the customizability you provided (profile editing)? Even original air-date info on the popups? All gone now.

> They do need your feedback in order to know what you want and how you want it. <

That's not hard at all. Just look at what HDTV Magazine already had. I hate to get all technical, but... Duh! Do they really need US to tell them what was good about it?

The main thing that ANY guide will need to be both useful and competitive in today's marketplace is to provide information in a variety of views that make it simple to find or discover the information we need, faster and easier. The basic grid is fine for starters, but HDTV Magazine augmented that with automatic info hover-pops(tm) with (nearly) everything you'd need to know for a particular show. (You did have to click on it to see Future Airings.) A "Channel-View", with all the shows for a particular channel for 2-weeks was a bonus we already had (though it lacked the auto-popup feature in that context.) The direct links to IMDB for extended movie info were great.

A "Vertical view", to complement the current Horizontal view could be very useful at times. And other ways to eliminate or minimize scrolling (e.g. a "What's On Now" view, with a multicolumn listing of all channels on one page, right now, so no scrolling is required). The ability to highlight HD, or hide SD items completely is a no-brainer. Plus new ways to browse and find information in the vast number of stations we have available today, from a variety of sources (some of us have satellite, cable, AND OTA sources... all fully supported in the "old" guide). The Movie Guide was a unique start on being able to mine and present program information in a truly useful fashion, generating listings of a specified channel or set of channels, with subsets of programming types (movies, episodic, sporting events, etc.), sorted by Title (with all extra airings on the side), or by Time (with all airings inline), etc. Ways to explore and link between shows by relationships (additional airings, specific genres, particular actors, etc.) would make for powerful assistants.

The problem is that TVG (and most others) are inside a box (the grid), and need to start thinking outside the box. I (and others) could suggest numerous innovative and unique and, frankly, logical extrapolations. [And TVG would probably go and patent them, and sue everyone else into paying royaltes on them. Recall that TVG (GemStar) is the one who "invented" the grid-view, aka, ran to the Patent Office before anyone realized there was any reason to concern themselves with anything so blatently obvious. And the reason why you won't find a grid on a TiVo. Thank goodness they didn't patent "the List"... what a concept!]

hdtvJim really nailed it on the head with his comment:
> I know it took a lot of work to get the bugs out of the old programing guide. Are we going to have to go through that again? <

If so (and it certainly sounds like it), why expend the effort? There are numerous other sources readily available (Excite, Zap2It, TitanTV, etc.) and ALL of them exist right now, and ALL are superior to the lame TVG variant that's currently on the HDTV Magazine site. These examples have been available for a long time, and if TVG really had a commitment to "making TVGuide the superior product among all others", they wouldn't be bringing up the rear in this race, this late in the game.

As much as I respect both Dale and Shane, and value HDTV Magazine, (and in spite of the untold hours I spent during the last 3 years on the "old guide" doing exactly what Dale is soliciting on the new one), I just don't see the point. Unless TVG can leverage off the fine work that Shane already did, and take advantage of what was accomplished there, it would make more sense to me to just scrap the Guide completely. That's just one man's opinion, and I appreciate having the open Forum here to express it in, even though I'm sure it's not what anyone wants to hear.

- Tim

A $50,000 per year cash loss for the last three years forced us out of the raw data contract with Tribune Media Services. There are only two guide providers that can hope to meet your demands. One is Tribune and the other TVGuide. Each have different business models. Tribune relies upon payment from every site they serve on an ala carte basis while TVGuide places templates upon affiliate sites and lives on the accumulated advertising. After 3 years and $100,000 ++ of losses it was clear that our readers would never support the Tribune model. There are numerous ways to find your programming from your local newspapers and your service providers. Rather than growing as a constant percentage of newly installed sets our revenue and total users shrank every year. There has never been enough page views for advertising to coming even close to paying for it.

While it would be convenient for us to market (or even give) Shane's excellent software to TVGuide so that the familiar HDTV Magazine guide configuration would appear as before. But the data from TVGuide (which could be purchased separately as with Tribune) is not compatible. Field names and other descriptors differ and this makes a rewriting of our code a must if it is to be usable. Shane may want to step in here with more technical information to help both you and I understand why they cannot just use our software and dump data into it as we had in the past.

The good news is that it is still early in this transition from Tribune to TVGuide and TVGuide has expressed a strong desire and commitment to provide all what you loved about our Tribune powered guide. I have suggested in my last memo that you readers express your wants and ideas to us and we pass them on to TVGuide for consideration and inclusion. That is so we may use your voice in effecting this transformation of TVGuide. Using your voice is vastly superior to any constant badgering by Shane and myself asking incessantly for still another change. I sent over 15 separate requests for changes today all under the authorship of you readers and not one stone was placed under the saddle in the process. They accepted it graciously as coming from their all-important and essential consumers and not from some egoist trying to look good. The wheel may be reinvented, as you suggested, but I think we will see the forces of evolution making improvements over our last model. Give it some time. It took Shane nearly five years to bring us the first grid guide.

One last thing: Do I wish that the original guide had sold a sufficient number of subscriptions to break even or more? Of course I did as well did Shane. But no matter what attractions we put in our offering we realized less and less for our efforts. When a market isn't there, it just isn't there. I still have a nagging feeling that our guide was simply not properly discovered and I have foreseen the day of millions of media rooms that will have separate screens for different functions and one of those functions could well be the Internet supplied display of our superior guide. But that belief is still in the making rather than confirmed by dollars and cents.

Dale

I am one of your first subscribers ...going back to 2000 (I think). I paid $35 for a lifetime subscription which was your rate back then. Your associate (a fellow named "Howard") and you assured me that no matter what, my charter subscription would be honored. Well, it was not and I dropped out. I do not know what happened internally at your organization, but it left many of your loyal subscribers wondering how and who comes up with your business models. We were never told the details. I hope history is not repeating itself. Something is wrong in the front office.

I would like to see a way to get what I was getting before. I was getting a daily email with only the channels I selected and it was restricted to HD programming. It's that simple. When I look at TV Guide I don't see any indication that a program is in HD - so that's the first problem. Then there is the matter of customization - the ability to select only the channels I want.

Thanks,
Jim Richards

fmaia 25 Oct 2007 06:24 am

I am one of your first subscribers ...going back to 2000 (I think). I paid $35 for a lifetime subscription which was your rate back then. Your associate (a fellow named "Howard") and you assured me that no matter what, my charter subscription would be honored. Well, it was not and I dropped out. I do not know what happened internally at your organization, but it left many of your loyal subscribers wondering how and who comes up with your business models. We were never told the details. I hope history is not repeating itself. Something is wrong in the front office.

:roll:

Dale,

I too am a long time reader and lifetime subscriber. This guy (or girl) has obviously never run a business of their own. Business models change, and you are not a charity. If he came on board in 2000, he got his money's worth many times over before he was ever asked for any additional money to keep your services going. I have been more than happy to ante up the modest additional fees that you have requested over the years, as the information that I have gotten has been been worth every penny of it.

Keep on doing what you are doing, and do what you have to do to stay in business. I am guessing that most of us long-timers are with you 100%.

Randy Botnick

Dale,
I've already reported to Shane that the new guide, for some reason, doesn't work at all with my browser (Internet Explorer 6.0, SP2). That is, when I input my Zip code and provider info, it comes back with a blank screen (actually the Zip/provider input screen).

I'd be happy to provide input on the product if I can see it! :wink:

Brad

From another long-time 'life-time' subscriber, happy to contribute every year...

I couldn't agree more with Randy about the necessary business model changes over the years. Frankly, I was impressed that you guys stuck with the goal... to provide (and in some cases, access to) the best HDTV information & guidance available. I have quite an HDTV investment, based in no small part to information from the magazine and it's subscribers. And, I'm happy with the result (not sure I'm done yet, so I'll continue to look to you all). Thanks to everyone.

HDTV Magazine continues to be much more than a Program Guide.

I can also say that I miss most of the same guide features already mentioned:

My control over the channels displayed, including the order.
The additional detailed program information (is it HD, first-run date, etc.).
The multi-week look-ahead for movies / programs.
I hope you can effect these changes to the new guide (I no longer use it as it is today).

I really don't know how to respond to this because you are certainly right--we did offer such a bargain. And, to my knowledge, you have everything you paid for (some of it now with less restricted access) and with the improvements coming in TVGuide it shall be all what we can do, at least at present. But I must tell you that I am in a bit of pain over your letter.

A little over 27 years ago I saw a small article about HDTV in an obscure publication. It occurred to me as I digested the concept of just what HD is that it would be a tremendous addition to our lives...if only it could find a way to get established. It took no brilliance on my part to see that you don't start a new standard as ubiquitous as television easily considering the fact that you must replace the existing standard that is not broken, not running out of resources (like oil) , and is completely without public knowledge, support or demand. I contacted Sony and CBS and the ATSC (all were mentioned in the short article) and after extensive talks with each was left with the distinct impression that HDTV would be forever relegated to international co-productions--it would be a lower cost means for creating archival assured programming without using film. It was not that film is more expensive as a medium but the film unions were much stronger than the TV unions and so Joe Flaherty from CBS wanted an electronic equivalent to film so the leaner/cheaper TV unions could be used. Then producers could still have archival value in their production and it would not become shortly obsolete. That was the Desilu formula (used film cameras instead of video) and all the TV producers of that time adopted that strategy. Filming cost for this archival quality was handed off to the networks. The only way out was to have a lower cost alternative and that was electronic production using video unions. This still to-be-proven cost saving scheme was the ONLY driving force in HD for years, if you don't count the Japanese government's bazzarr influence. The direction and marching orders for the international technical community was to put an electronic production standard together equal in archival value to film. There was no consideration in the mid 1980s for ANY broadcasting of HDTV and few thought it would ever stand a chance in the free marketplace. There simply was too much bandwidth involved. But I am stubborn sort and at the 1985 National Association of Broadcasters convention I launched along side a demonstration of HDTV the HDTV Newsletter as a means for communicating a new message about HDTV, i.e., that it would be spectacular for the homes of the world and socially speaking worth any effort that was needed to make it happen. Little did I know just what that effort would entail nor how much it would cost us. The newsletter was a success with about 120 (sold for $200 a year) subscribers coming from the NAB exposure and it climbed steadily to about 600 at its peak (at $400 year then). That 600 subscribers were all from the major companies (plus some onlookers) who had or potentially could have anything to do with HDTV. The audience never grew beyond that. The Newsletter was a serious work that embraced every aspect of the industry and all the tangential relationships that a broadcast system has to be engaged with in order to be whole. My challenge was to get my arms around the big picture--all of the parts of the industry-- and lead it as a body where I could to the conclusion that the consumer would embrace and support it and forever be a beneficiary of our labor. To retain credibility I had to deliver the newsletter (40 pages on average a month) without error (every word I published was researched by contacting the leading authority or authorities on the topic--no hearsay, no rumors, only facts). In the course of nine years I interviewed and talked (often daily) with all of those around the world who you will come to know as history of the era is written. I was connected to every one who had anything to do with HDTV getting to your home. Believe me, there were legions of naysayers in high positions who thought it would never get to there. Even Joe Flaherty from CBS--called the father of HDTV--said in a Washington conference in 1987 that we would all be flying to work in aero-cars before there would be digital transmission (which proved to be a necessity in transmitting HDTV). I am pleased that a few in the industry have given me some credit for pulling it together, for that was the mission of the Newsletter. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association tagged me as the spiritual head of the HDTV movement. I think that is a title to be shared with several, certainly Dick Wiley, former FCC Chairman who shepherded the standard setting process for broadcasting along with pioneer David Niles, who, as an independent, invested in the first production equipment and made the first commercial programs in the HD format, and clearly Joe Flsherty, an amazing human being if ever there was one. My Newsletter readers came to follow my view that a world with HDTV in the consumer's home is a better world. That made it a moral issue more than entirely a financial one, though you would never hear that heresy publicly stated from those who managed the money. Privately it was recognized that we had best take advantage of a confluence of technical breakthroughs as that window might never come open in such a way as it was again.

These socially relevant concepts with the moral imperative is the only thing that carried the movement forward since making money outside of the production realm could not be expected for years and years to come. Even with a perfect motivation or incentive how do you overcome quickly the "chicken and egg" dilemma at the consumer level? Money managers the world over rebelled at the notion of taking HDTV beyond that of being a production tool. The New York Times editorialized, as did hundreds of other publications, that HDTV was dead on arrival since there was no economic incentives and MIT "proved" that the public would not support it with a now-famous (flawed) "consumer test and study" done in a Boston shopping mall. For years there was no hint that spectrum could be conserved using HD much less being the liberator of spectrum, as is the case today. That spectrum efficiency incentive didn't show itself until digital transmission was a proven thing by General Instruments in 1992. The only incentive that had any drive in it was a kind of paranoia that had infected broadcasters when they contemplated what might happen to them if HDTV took off in an alternative medium (not so sensitive to bandwidth expansion). That competitive jitter caused them to put up some protection money and to petition the FCC to halt any give-away of their coveted broadcast spectrum until is was figured out what they had to do to compete. None of the incentives being talked about in those days had enough power to prime the enormous HDTV pump that was later primed with tens of billions of high risk dollars from confused and dazed manufacturers. They finally saw themselves as being led to a chopping black in a trap that was not of their own making. (Manufacturers were generally oblivious to HDTV until a trade show in Europe caught their attention. There were some VERY bleak days and weeks and months in which HDTV moved onward only due to a voluntary core of believers, most working under Dick Wiley's leadership in getting a standard for terrestrial broadcasting built and tested. To be sure there were engineers galore who were on some payroll with their large companies. They attended meetings and argued for positions that favored the companies paying them, but they had very little to do with causing any full scale market development for HDTV sets and HD signals providers. Every company worth its public salt must have a forward watch team looking for future trends that could either swamp them or provide opportunity. Those were the more passive of the bunch, however, and the proactive force for HDTV dwindled down to Joe Flaherty of CBS, Dick wiley, Gary Shipiro from CEA, Peter Fannon, ATTC, Larry Thorpe from Sony, myself and a few others of the "faithful" who were behind us. I tried everything to keep a positive attitude in the popular press and every time there was another RIP lead story about HDTV (there were many) I stepped up my promotions of HDTV in general and redoubled my efforts with the Newsletter. Over the years I made more than 55,000 phone calls as a reporter and published 5000 8 X 11 ten point type fully researched pages and penned 60 magazine articles for 10 or more magazines. I used leading questions to lead the thinking forward and by that method kept relevant what others in the press said was a sure failure--a bankrupt laboratory experiement. I would spend most of my time gathering information and then distributing that same information as soon as I could in my next phone calls in order to keep the ship from floundering from the negative tidal waves from the popular press reports. At mid-point my income was less than 40% of what I was spending to keep things going. Every time I relaxed or tried to conserve money the negative press took a greater toll on the spirits of those who had committed.

So far all of this work has cost me 27 years and a tad over 5 million dollars of my former assets, all gone now. I am 68 years old and I still put in 40 hours a week with no compensation what-so-ever. It just isn't there because readers think all of this is free and never give a thought to how it comes about. Advertising dollars coupled with the ending of the Tribune tribute (though they charged us another $20,000 cancellation free!!) may mean we are going to realize more than break even soon. Shane has also never drawn a dime from the Magazine and has devoted endless hours to it for our reader's sake...and to keep the industry aware that we are here supporting the movement without let up as long and as best we can. Jeff Hart (author of HDTV books and who heads University of Indiana's economics department) has said that the industry owes us a great debt of gratitude. Well, that is never going to happen because the CE industry has a very short memory as to who initiated what and it is not in their nature to be generous. They are among the most cut throat business people in the world and yet I still praise them for having delivered to us one amazing product after another crowned with HDTV. I am glad I did everything I did and I believe Shane feels that as well. I have had to fight numbing criticism from my own family, who watched with alarm my fortune vanish with each new promotion made in those treacherous days. It is not due to lack of advertising or making ourselves known or marketing that has resulted in the insufficient cash flow. William F. Buckley said it best. I paraphrase here: "Pioneers and those who advocate things seldom do it for money, nor could they." It is just not in the cards because you don't run these enterprises to make money. You do it out of a passionate calling to serve the greater good. Period. I did it because without further question I believe that HDTV, is at least an enhancement to life and its potential is so astonishing as to make science fiction appear tarnished. How much good does it have to do to humble a guy like me? It has been an entirely unique experience and very rare privilege to have worked for such a good cause--one that has so much potential for multiplying that good ad infinitum.

So, for the person and all people who are dissatisfied with what they got for their $35 lifetime payment, just send me your name and address to [email protected] and I will send you my personal check to refund your money. That is my low cost way of preserving my reputation, which is, thank God, still good.


Dale Cripps
Founder, HDTV Magazine

I wondered why I could no longer find the program guide. Now I find it's become a pay feature.

It is not a pay service. If there is anything on our site that indicates it is, please let me know so I can remove it. The "new" guide is located here, free to all:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/programming/guide.php

BTW, I'm just catching up on this thread, so this may be the first of several posts you'll see from me.

Thanks,

- Shane

While it would be convenient for us to market (or even give) Shane's excellent software to TVGuide so that the familiar HDTV Magazine guide configuration would appear as before. But the data from TVGuide (which could be purchased separately as with Tribune) is not compatible. Field names and other descriptors differ and this makes a rewriting of our code a must if it is to be usable. Shane may want to step in here with more technical information to help both you and I understand why they cannot just use our software and dump data into it as we had in the past.

If they have the same information, I can import it with just a little bit of effort to "re-map" their fields into the fields that we used to receive from Tribune. So that is not the issue.

The main issue is that I believe there are some fields that they might not have ... like a flag for each program indicating HD. So far everything I have seen is on a station basis only.

The other huge issue is that they do not carry information for Canadian stations. And we have a fairly large Canadian contingent ... since we were really the only program guide out there with that info.

- Shane

I am one of your first subscribers ...going back to 2000 (I think). I paid $35 for a lifetime subscription which was your rate back then. Your associate (a fellow named "Howard") and you assured me that no matter what, my charter subscription would be honored. Well, it was not and I dropped out. I do not know what happened internally at your organization, but it left many of your loyal subscribers wondering how and who comes up with your business models. We were never told the details. I hope history is not repeating itself. Something is wrong in the front office.

Hi fmaia,

It was never a secret what happened, and it was communicated in numerous ways, and to anyone who asked:

It was a bit more than a change in business model. Dale & company actually had to close their doors in January of 2005 due to their primary advertiser (Voom) going out of business with many thousands overdue to them. I approached Dale in February with a business plan and convinced him not to pack it in just yet. I'm simplifying, of course, but those are the basics.

History is not repeating itself. In fact, that's what we're trying to prevent.

Thanks,

- Shane

Gentlemen, while I understand your perfectly reasonable financial reasons for changing the guide, I, as well, must chime in with my disappointment. Unlike the new guide, the old guide was so convenient and informative.

I have an icon on my desktop, and with one click I could immediately get a guide of all my hi def channels, where it was quickly discernible which programs were in hi def, and which were not. Now I must put in my zip code, tell the guide which programmer I want, and then set up the guide to show only my hi def channels.

If I remember correctly, the old guide permitted me to chose how many hours the guide covered. I know I had mine set up to show 4 hours. The new one only covers 3 hours. On the old guide, hovering the cursor over a program provided immediate information about that program. Now a click is necessary. In addition, though I can't put my finger on exactly why, I find the new guide confusing (all the colors?) where the old one was logical, and easy to understand.

I've been a paid member for a number of years (annual renewal, not lifetime), and though I do subscribe to the daily newsletter, the primary reason I subscribed was your excellent guide. Frankly, I can get, at no charge, a guide similar to the current one elsewhere. I sincerely hope that you can improve the new guide to the point where it is as convenient and informative as the old one. If not, when my subscription is up (March '08 ), I seriously doubt I will be renewing.

Hoping to remain a longtime subscriber,

Jack

I'm fairly certain I know the answer, but let me ask anyway:

As we've shared above, and in direct emails to many of you, the cost of the data that fed the program guide and listing is roughly $60,000 annually. If we had 100 of you that were interested in the guide, then just to break even we'd have to charge $600/year for the service.

How many of you would be interested at that price?

Well of course you know the answer. No guide is worth $600 a year. But, that isn't really the question is it? The question is, is the new guide worth the price of subscription? Each of us must answer that question for ourselves.

The question is, is the new guide worth the price of subscription?

Perhaps this was not made clear: The new guide is available without subscription!

And I don't really expect anyone to be interested in paying $600/year for a program guide ... I wouldn't. But that is the reality we're facing, and I wanted to make sure that point was getting through.

Thanks,

- Shane

I wish you would have partnerned up with TitanTV.com. I think it is the best TV guide and I've been using it for years. I am connected to DirecTV, Comcast Cable, and receive over the air signals. TitanTV.com is accurate and up to date for all of the digital and analog stations I receive.

ZAP2it.com has a great free guide that you can customize. I use it for 4DTV and no one does C-band better than ZAP2it and it will show a HD icon.

If you go directly to TV guide's web site, their guide is very easy to customize.

In my opinion, the best guide for HD is TitianTV, it's not even close. Local HD channels including all sub channels and DVR control for many HD computer cards and DVHS machines. Separate tabs (screens) for digital, analog or satellite listings.

P.S. Dale, thanks for all your effort and dedication. Mike.