Tv Times

What's not currently on the box
User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by stearn »

Why don't they need to?

Yes the discs do aid the interest in the history of the magazine and the programmes, and yes, if the material isn't made available, no-one is making anything from it, but the current availability does harm the possibility of the material being made available in the future - why would a publisher bother to invest money in creating a nice shiny database if they couldn't make their money back because someone decided to make a quick buck on ebay from something they don't own.

I have to admit I bought the TV Times discs from the chap who did the original scanning - and had a lengthy discussion about how he went about it, the specs etc., but I saw a more recent disc with bits tacked on and the quality was awful with the person doing the scanning not knowing a thing about files, and they had the cheek to actually lock the PDFs, and mark the discs up as though they owned the content - stating other sellers were simply stealing their hard work (at least, the hard work they stole from someone else, for something they didn't own the copyright for, and were moaning that they didn't make enough of a profit from - I mean a 10p DVD, letter postage and a envelope cost, all for £3.99).

IPC own the TV Times archive, and they are a very big publisher. They have also licensed the archive and will be backing up the digital archive with their legal team from what I understand, so there is some movement after all this time. It won't put the genie back in the bottle, but hopefully it will allow the licensee to create a viable archive with decent scans that will do more for generating interest in archive TV than some selfish ebay sellers. http://www.ipcmedia.com/

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

I think the guy who did the original scanning was charging £25 per disc so he did ok out of it but once various other people started selling copies the price dropped. And he locked every single issue on the discs .
I have some of the more recent discs and some of the original discs from a few years back and I find the more recent scans to be better than the original ones which seem a bit darker than the more recent ones . The extra scans not on the original discs look ok but it appears some were done on an A4 scanner so part of the image was cropped although the more recent ones are ok.
There were various sellers doing copies and I think 2 or 3 were actually the same person . I got one of their discs and in an attempt to edit the name of the other seller out they ended up sending a disc with just one year on it
There is an ebay seller on there now who seems to have split /combined the discs into different years but their listings are a bit confusing and it looks like some years are duplicated -pricey too at £5.99 a go.

It was actually the same guy who did the original TVT discs that listed some of the RT discs last year aswell , placing watermarks on many of the pages as if he owned the content and I found some of his listings quite amusing as once someone started selling copies he made some kind of stroppy content saying that because people were selling copies on the cheap he wouldn't list anymore.

Can we really see IPC putting TV TImes scans onto disc ? It must be at the bottom of their "to do" pile surely ?
That link shows they don't do comics anymore - I wonder if they would be interested in making some of their comics available.
Fleetway is another good one .

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by JWG »

We could never afford the listings mags when I was a kid; used to rely on the Daily Express.
Out of interest,was there anything about the TVT that made it more disposable such as competitions? Cutting a page or two out can make a magazine seem damaged and worthless.

RobinCarmody
625 lines
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by RobinCarmody »

David Savage wrote:Thanks for your thoughts on circulation figures and hoarding, Nick. I suppose you also have to weigh in the factor that many people used to be quite snobbish about ITV and, by extension, TV Times.
Indeed. ITV was widely, and wrongly, perceived to be what it actually has become since. Now we have huge numbers of people who'd once have dismissed 1970s ITV happily watching channels which have gone far, far beyond what ITV was wrongly imagined to be back then. One of Thatcher's many legacies ... and you have written yourself, and quite eloquently, of the frustration that living in this country brings, of being caught between the old-fashioned snobbery of then and the inverted snobbery of now, and the sense that one extreme or the other is, tragically, unavoidable here because of our history, that a balanced avoidance of both may be impossible.

Speculation: might it be that many core ITV viewers and TV Times readers back then simply had less time, space and money to keep things? Collecting has always been essentially a middle-class pastime, a luxury for those who don't have to keep the wolf from the door, which would naturally have favoured Radio Times. Popular, mass-circulation newspapers probably don't have as many second-hand copies doing the rounds, at least of "ordinary" editions, in line with their relative circulation at the time as broadsheets do - there might be more old Daily Mirrors than Daily Telegraphs in private collections, but surely not as great a lead as the Mirror had over the Telegraph when it had "the biggest daily sale on Earth". If you see what I mean.

I don't see the need for taking sides on this matter, though, but maybe that's because I view it with the distanced objectivity of having come to that era second-hand, as it were. I can get things of value from a Radio Times and a TV Times depending on how I'm feeling and what I want at that moment, just as I can get things of value from Britten and T. Rex depending on how I'm feeling and what I want at that moment. The real difference is between the broadcasting ethos in which each had a distinct place and the one that exists now. And TV Times of the 70s indeed has plenty of sociologically revealing stuff, like a January 1976 Howard Schuman interview I was quoting at length on Facebook last week because it sums up how the Left had, by then, no more faith in the enabling state than the Right.

RobinCarmody
625 lines
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by RobinCarmody »

JWG wrote:Out of interest,was there anything about the TVT that made it more disposable such as competitions?
It did run them at a time when Radio Times basically never did, yes, and maybe more pages that readers might have cut out for non-broadcasting-related reasons. But see the class thing I've mentioned above - that's rarely out of the picture in this country, alas.

Brock
HD
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by Brock »

JWG wrote:I wonder how many households just took the Radio Times for the,uh,radio times?
Certainly that's the main reason why my father bought it. If you wanted detailed listings for Radio 3 and Radio 4 there was nowhere else to get them (and still isn't in print). He rarely bothered with the TV Times because he didn't watch ITV much, and there were reasonably good listings in the newspaper anyway.

The Radio Times was much better value as a listings magazine - it was the same price as the TV Times, and gave you two TV channels, four national radio networks and local radio. TV Times gave you a single TV channel and nothing else until Channel 4 came along. (Although I do recall once seeing Capital Radio listings in the London edition, but it seemed to be a one-off.)
4 million 'radio only' licences in 1960,bit over 2 million in 1970,according to That Site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television ... istorical)
We weren't a "radio only" household by any means. I'd imagine there must have been quite a few other households that were content to rely on the newspaper for TV listings and bought the Radio Times primarily for the radio listings.

When I went on to university in the 1980s I had a radio but no TV, so I only bought the Radio Times. Of course the radio licence was long since gone by then.

User avatar
Simon Coward
D-MAC
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by Simon Coward »

RobinCarmody wrote:Speculation: might it be that many core ITV viewers and TV Times readers back then simply had less time, space and money to keep things? Collecting has always been essentially a middle-class pastime, a luxury for those who don't have to keep the wolf from the door, which would naturally have favoured Radio Times.
Given that the figures quoted earlier in this thread indicate that there wasn't a huge gap in the sales figures of the two magazines by 1980, it would be interesting to know what proportion of people who bought one magazine also bought the other. And whether people who did take both were more likely to keep just the Radio Times afterwards. Or whether the RT savers were more likely to be those who didn't buy TVT in the first place.

I can certainly envisage space being an issue in collecting them in which case, as you suggest, this might favour the middle class buyers, but if you were seriously worried about keeping the wolf from the door the issue (no pun intended) would surely be whether or not you bought either magazine more than whether or not you retained them afterwards.

Of course, the domestic preserving of radio recordings pre-dates TVs equivalent by more than a couple of decades and the desire to retain the magazines which not only listed these programmes but occasionally contained features about them might have also played a small part.
We all have to eat a peck of dirt before we die.

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by stearn »

deltavega wrote:I think the guy who did the original scanning was charging £25 per disc so he did ok out of it but once various other people started selling copies the price dropped. And he locked every single issue on the discs .
There is an ebay seller on there now who seems to have split /combined the discs into different years but their listings are a bit confusing and it looks like some years are duplicated -pricey too at £5.99 a go.
I think this sums things up really - £320 too much for 30 copies of the actual mag, £5.99 too much for a disc full of scans, and 100 copies borrowed from a collector which remain best part unscanned because it is a tedious process. Basically the desire to have the information available is only if it is dirt cheap.

50s and 60s copies of TVT go for around £25, more if there is special interest, and even if you assume the 70s and 80s go for a tenner a throw, I would guess that you were looking at somewhere close to £30K to get a complete run to the end of 89. Factor in all the scanning time - the originals were done at print quality, but the discs were low resolution PDFs produced from those - and I would guess you have a years worth of work, full-time, on professional kit (£10K for the scanner!), probably 2 or 3 years on a basic A3 flatbed scanner.

I can't remember how many issues the original 7 discs contained, but it wasn't a complete set by any means, and at nearly £200 for that set of discs, the price was presumably set to cover the cost of buying and scanning the material to break even, but even so that would mean that 150 full sets (or over 1000 individual discs) would be required to break even on the costs, and not factor in anything towards the effort. So did he really do OK?

For every one you sell you take the chance that someone will begrudge paying £25 and copy and list it undercutting you, so the chances of breaking even are remote. Now that they are the extortionate price of £5.99 a disc from one seller you can perhaps see why there is no incentive to bother making archive material available as it is unlikely you would cover costs and you are opening up a lot of demands for a slice of the pie in royalties for re-use - to be paid from a very overdrawn 'profit' account. I don't like or agree with a lot of copyright law, but there are far too many people who are happy to leech off of others work satisfying themselves with the argument that it's not as if anyone is actually losing income they would otherwise earn.

As an exercise I applied current heritage scanning rates to my estimates of a TV Times archive (assuming one regional edition), and came up with a figure close to £250K with web hosting and database construction costs on top of this. It doesn't account for ongoing maintenance either, which may be a part-time position akin to the Head of Heritage at the Radio Times, but still with a finite cost, legal advice for claims, and a sinking fund to settle any of those claims. If you use the same sort of pricing model as say the broadsheet archives or The Stage, you will need a lot of subscribers at around a fiver a day to cover the costs, and you will have had to fork out a huge amount before the event. Perhaps that answers the question why IPC wouldn't really consider bothering with comics or even something like Look-In and have chosen to license out TVTimes, and perhaps it goes some way to explaining why RT are defending their title - as you say, the scans are there and paid for, so there is only a small, but non-trivial, step to making an archive available, but it will have to be viable, more so now that RT is not part of the BBC but owned by a private equity group.

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

£320 seems way over the top for those 30 issues based on the prices I see similar issues usually being sold for.
£5.99 is a high price in comparison to other ebay sellers with similar discs currently listed for £3.49 and as the opening post showed , one seller offered the whole lot of multiple discs for around a fiver which seems odd as postage and costs would mean they were making virtually nothing from those.
The borrowed issues are on loan from someone who prefers not to handle their issues and wants them on disc but they were happy to let me do the scanning knowing the time involved is considerable . I'll get there in the end but I don't want to sit for days on end scanning which is why it's taking time as I only do an issue every so often.

But your viewpoint is confusing. On the one hand you offer in depth justification for the original scanner who's rights to the original material are as non existent as anybody else , yet you don't seem happy with the "selfish ebay sellers" who make the material available to a far wider audience at a much cheaper price .
The currently available discs have around 150 more issues than those first available from the original scanner.

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by stearn »

deltavega wrote:But your viewpoint is confusing. On the one hand you offer in depth justification for the original scanner who's rights to the original material are as non existent as anybody else , yet you don't seem happy with the "selfish ebay sellers" who make the material available to a far wider audience at a much cheaper price .
The currently available discs have around 150 more issues than those first available from the original scanner.
No justification of the original scanner - it wasn't his material to sell - simply a breakdown of the work involved and some guesswork costs to give you an idea that £3.49/£5.99 a disc is not a viable option unless you have ripped someone else's work off and hold no regard for copyright. Even what the original scanner was charging, and that was ignoring royalties, was hardly correctly valuing the archive. Let's be clear, the ebay sellers are not some altruistic bunch who want the material to be seen by a wider audience, they are leeches who want to make a fast buck off of someone else's work, whether it is TV Times, Look-In or the vast number of comics out there that have been scanned by an altruistic bunch of genuine fans who offer material up for nothing (wrongly I might add, as it is still under copyright) only to see it exploited.

With your comment that £5.99 was too much, indeed the cost of the original magazines was too much, you seem to err on the side of wanting something for nothing. I was surprised by this as surely as someone who had three boxes of magazines to scan to supplement what is available on the discs, you would put some value on your time/work. Perhaps you do and and the mere possibility of getting £3.49 a disc leaves you in a similar position to the original seller who was undercut virtually immediately, and the archive owners where so little value is placed on the archive that it isn't commercially viable to bother with digitisation.

As I have said before, I come from a different angle. I have permission to digitise for personal use, so the time and expense involved is largely immaterial, but I do still have an eye on the value of the work, and all the scanning I do is print quality and heritage standard, future proofing it. I won't resort to touting it on disc on ebay for a few quid, but work with archive owners to see if there is a possibility of making it commercially available. I have gone further and make some material that was officially cleared available free of charge on my website (at bandwidth costs to myself), so can count myself among the few who want to see material available to a wider audience, make the effort, and hope for the (very) occasional donation to cover some of the costs.

To answer an earlier point, no archive is likely to make material available on disc (unless locked down with propriety formats - National Geographic, New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Playboy which have made the archives redundant after one or two OS changes) as it is too easy to rip the discs off. Any sensible archive will make the material available behind a paywall. Material can be gleaned, but it takes a bit more effort, would be harder to sell on, and if the pricing model is set at the right level, there is little incentive.

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

stearn wrote:
deltavega wrote: With your comment that £5.99 was too much, indeed the cost of the original magazines was too much, you seem to err on the side of wanting something for nothing. I was surprised by this as surely as someone who had three boxes of magazines to scan to supplement what is available on the discs, you would put some value on your time/work.
I never said the cost of either was too much per se.
I consider both pricey in comparison with similar items already on sale or previously sold.

I do indeed realise the time involved in the scanning but I can't charge him for it so I'm happy to do it in order to get closer to a complete run of the TVT although the wealth of regional editions means I doubt that will happen. Many issues I'm doing are just other regions for issues already included on the dvd''s so with those I usually only scan the listings . Alternatively that is what the original scanner has sometimes done so in those cases I would do the articles too.
I think it's worth noting that the additional scans don't all come from the same source . Some are disappointing quality at a "better than nothing" level ( notably a TV World with The Avengers on the cover) while most of the extra ones seem on par with the originals bar some 60's ones poorly scanned and in some cases pages chopped in half ( an annoying habit the original scanner did sometimes too - specially with his Radio Times Xmas issues).

Looks like Andyrw will have another lot of 80's issues to buy this weekend .

RobinCarmody
625 lines
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by RobinCarmody »

Brock wrote:TV Times gave you a single TV channel and nothing else until Channel 4 came along. (Although I do recall once seeing Capital Radio listings in the London edition, but it seemed to be a one-off.)
Yes, the London TV Times briefly did this in 1983. I don't have any such editions myself but can remember seeing them at Westminster library. It was actually a slight off-period for Capital, when they'd started skewing older during daytime but found both Radio 1 and a new wave of unlicensed stations taking much of the younger audience, and realised that the "housewife" audience other ILR stations mainly went for wasn't so dominant in London. Maybe they put their listings in TV Times so as to rectify this decline, for their listings to be available in advance alongside TV programmes as Radio 1 and 2 listings were. As it turned out, they recovered by the mid-1980s through aiming younger again and taking an increased influence from those pirate stations (the sudden, Fluff-esque reinvention of Mike Allen, etc).

Capital FM and Capital Gold listings returned to the London TV Times around 1992, but listings deregulation had taken effect by then of course and the ties between ITV and ILR had been effectively broken, indeed TV Times itself had been sold and they could list whatever they wanted.

RobinCarmody
625 lines
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:53 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by RobinCarmody »

Simon Coward wrote:Given that the figures quoted earlier in this thread indicate that there wasn't a huge gap in the sales figures of the two magazines by 1980, it would be interesting to know what proportion of people who bought one magazine also bought the other. And whether people who did take both were more likely to keep just the Radio Times afterwards. Or whether the RT savers were more likely to be those who didn't buy TVT in the first place.

I can certainly envisage space being an issue in collecting them in which case, as you suggest, this might favour the middle class buyers, but if you were seriously worried about keeping the wolf from the door the issue (no pun intended) would surely be whether or not you bought either magazine more than whether or not you retained them afterwards.

Of course, the domestic preserving of radio recordings pre-dates TVs equivalent by more than a couple of decades and the desire to retain the magazines which not only listed these programmes but occasionally contained features about them might have also played a small part.
My use of "wolf from the door" was exaggerated, I'll admit.

It's quite hard, at this distance, to ascertain how the demographics would have gone. All we can do really is make educated guesses based on what we know about the wider culture at that time.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by Simon36 »

Blimey this thread didn't pan out as expected,

To come back to my original post, were the format changes all tied in to editor changes? The wide columned housewifey listings ended in 1981 and turned into those gorgeous ones with lovely fonts, then they all went very harrow in about 1988. The period from about 1982-86 saw much more emphasis on the programmes themselves: lavish week ahead features and features forcused on the programmes not tittle tattle. I wonder who masterminded that?

SgtPepper
625 lines
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:37 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by SgtPepper »

Simon36 wrote:Blimey this thread didn't pan out as expected,

To come back to my original post, were the format changes all tied in to editor changes? The wide columned housewifey listings ended in 1981 and turned into those gorgeous ones with lovely fonts, then they all went very harrow in about 1988. The period from about 1982-86 saw much more emphasis on the programmes themselves: lavish week ahead features and features forcused on the programmes not tittle tattle. I wonder who masterminded that?
In 1982 a wise bod knew that 25 years later they were going to be scanned and sold on illegal mass produced DVD's, so he decided they needed to be prettier.

Steve Williams
625 lines
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:49 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by Steve Williams »

Simon36 wrote:To come back to my original post, were the format changes all tied in to editor changes? The wide columned housewifey listings ended in 1981 and turned into those gorgeous ones with lovely fonts, then they all went very harrow in about 1988. The period from about 1982-86 saw much more emphasis on the programmes themselves: lavish week ahead features and features forcused on the programmes not tittle tattle. I wonder who masterminded that?
I've got a decent run of TVTs from 1981-84 (the only time I've ever bought them in bulk, alongside the equivalent Radio Times, from a small ad in the Daily Post a decade ago) and in an issue in mid-1981 there's actually a news item to announce that a Mr Anthony Peagam is the new editor of TV Times. So presumably the major revamp in the autumn of 1981 was his idea, when it formally changed its name to TV Times Magazine and introduced that florid font.

User avatar
stearn
Committee
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by stearn »

This was a mock up of the new style magazine:

Image

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: Tv Times

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

JWG wrote:I wonder how many households just took the Radio Times for the,uh,radio times?

4 million 'radio only' licences in 1960,bit over 2 million in 1970,according to That Site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television ... istorical)
Ah, I've liked that page ever since I created it!
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: Tv Times

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

doubleM wrote:Major reference libraries (in the big cities at least) would certainly take both Radio Times and TV Times e.g. Birmingham, Manchester, Westminster.

In the case of Westminster Reference Library .. the TV Times were bound in red volumes and Radio Times in green. In the early 2000s, the coverage on the shelves were from 1980 onwards but the 70s and earlier editions were kept in a store but could be retrieved on request.

The 1970s TVTs could be manually handled for photocopying on the public machines .. but this was not allowed for the Radio Times - you had to read and take notes. Hardly surprising as the quality of the paper used in the 70s (and indeed right onto the mid 80s) for RT was appalling - worse than newspapers of the day, yellowy, thin and not lacking in 'grain' and they would stick together when a colour photo was used for advertising etc. The TVT paper in comparison was glossy, quality heaven and certainly 25 years later was in excellent nick!
I think I must have been amongst the last who got to photocopy the RTs at Westminster. Sadly, a fair few had suffered at the hands of the Phantom Razor Blade Bastards. Even my own copies of early-80s issues suffer from the "sticky colour pages syndrome."
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: Tv Times

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

deltavega wrote:
Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
deltavega wrote:A regular edition of the TV Times from the early to mid 70's can often fetch up to 10 times the price that an RT will go for on ebay .
I would think that that's only true because less people kept copies of TVT, on top of the fact that it had a much lower circulation than the RT to begin with. Certainly when I used to do book fairs in the 1980s and 1990s, the ratio on sale seemed to be about 5-to-1 if not more. The same week's TVT may command a higher price these days compared to the equivalent RT, but for reasons of scarcity, not quality.
Not sure how anyone can look at a TV TImes of the 70's and say the RT is better quality .
I would say its quality by a mile because as you can see from other opinions the RT issues of that era are as dull as ditchwater in comparison to the TVT .
The scans of TV Times make for interesting reading but Radio Times of the 70's - in general are as captivating now as they were when they came out .
Thanks for totally ignoring the points I made in favour of labouring with the one you want to push.
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

User avatar
Nick Cooper 625
D-MAC
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:42 am
Location: Hither Green, London
Contact:

Re: Tv Times

Post by Nick Cooper 625 »

deltavega wrote:RT issues may be easier to get but people generally don't want them because they are dull in comparison.
Doesn't it ever occur to you that people buy old listings magazines because of the listings in them, rather than them being a "good read" in general?
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." [Wells]

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by JWG »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
JWG wrote:I wonder how many households just took the Radio Times for the,uh,radio times?

4 million 'radio only' licences in 1960,bit over 2 million in 1970,according to That Site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television ... istorical)
Ah, I've liked that page ever since I created it!
Thanks for all the hard work,Nick.Apologies if I sounded snide; I was trying to anticipate reactions about the source.
I'd expected to find the figures here http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/ but they only give a selection up to 1949.

User avatar
Simon36
HD
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by Simon36 »

Does anyone know many TVTIMES EXTRA editions were done? I remember a Crossroads one in about 1981, and also my Nan had a Coronation Street one which had a picture of Ena Sharples and various others on dodgems on the cover: I don't recall it having the TV Times logo anywhere on it though. If memory serves there was also an Upstairs Downstairs and A Family at War one, though I may be misremembering this...

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by JWG »

Emmerdale. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Searc ... imes+extra

The Cookery Book one sounds a bit dubious.

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by JWG »

Simon36 wrote:Blimey this thread didn't pan out as expected,

To come back to my original post, were the format changes all tied in to editor changes? The wide columned housewifey listings ended in 1981 and turned into those gorgeous ones with lovely fonts, then they all went very harrow in about 1988. The period from about 1982-86 saw much more emphasis on the programmes themselves: lavish week ahead features and features forcused on the programmes not tittle tattle. I wonder who masterminded that?
As an outsider on this,I'm wondering to what extent any relaunch/revamp might be linked to new technology.Did new technologies give longer or shorter lead-in times for listing information? Were older member of the editorial team edged out because it was felt that they couldn't handle the changes?
Promoting the magazine wouldn't have been hindered by:
'Those Wonderful TV Times' 1976-78.
'The TV Times Awards' 1975-80.
'TV Times Top 10' 1977-78.

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
deltavega wrote:RT issues may be easier to get but people generally don't want them because they are dull in comparison.
Doesn't it ever occur to you that people buy old listings magazines because of the listings in them, rather than them being a "good read" in general?
As that's the reason I've been buying them for the best part of 20 years .....
And from 1968 onwards the TVT became very interesting with the addition of the regional variations , another reason I find the RT quite dull in comparison although the BBC listings themselves are nearly always of interest even when both channels barely managed 12 hours a day of tv broadcasts between them

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

Nick Cooper 625 wrote: Not sure how anyone can look at a TV TImes of the 70's and say the RT is better quality .
I would say its quality by a mile because as you can see from other opinions the RT issues of that era are as dull as ditchwater in comparison to the TVT .
The scans of TV Times make for interesting reading but Radio Times of the 70's - in general are as captivating now as they were when they came out .
Thanks for totally ignoring the points I made in favour of labouring with the one you want to push.[/quote]

You're welcome. They spoke for themselves and didn't need a response . Neither your view or mine have any basis other than opinion

ayrshireman
625 lines
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: Tv Times

Post by ayrshireman »

And TV Times of the 70s indeed has plenty of sociologically revealing stuff, like a January 1976 Howard Schuman interview I was quoting at length on Facebook last week because it sums up how the Left had, by then, no more faith in the enabling state than the Right
Your reference to your Facebook page has got me thinking: I wonder how many forum members are Scots?.

(on that note, I have a couple of minor friendly, well friendlyish lol, bones to pick with you regarding your comments on FB on Scotland/the Scots, I am happy to discuss them via here or PM)

deltavega
405 lines
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:56 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by deltavega »

Simon36 wrote:Does anyone know many TVTIMES EXTRA editions were done? I remember a Crossroads one in about 1981, and also my Nan had a Coronation Street one which had a picture of Ena Sharples and various others on dodgems on the cover: I don't recall it having the TV Times logo anywhere on it though. If memory serves there was also an Upstairs Downstairs and A Family at War one, though I may be misremembering this...
I don't think they were always given that name . The early ones were IIRC. There were a few of the Xmas specials and there were several Crossroads / Corrie ones .
I have On the Buses , Roger Moore, New Avengers , Edward the 7th , Family At War . There were more including Clayhanger I think

JWG
D-MAC
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Tv Times

Post by JWG »


Post Reply