« Topics
Inspector Sands13,820 posts since 25 Aug 2004

Of course, thanks Wicko. They are indeed the most recent examples of this infrequent practice.

I stand corrected, although I suppose those 3 are the exception that proves the rule. Incidentally I don't really count Wallace and Gromit as that's a still life model rather than a portrait
buster1,776 posts since 15 Mar 2006
London London
It is an odd one, especially given it's on Channel 4. Despite their new ownership they do still tend to stick to the BBC for covers.
Can only assume it sold rather well last year and they want to replicate that. Better than the year they put Wallace and Gromit on for no particular reason (than the usual repeats)!

That is a myth! They DID feature W&G in 2010 for a reason. They had teamed up with Royal Mail to launch a competition based around W&G because W&G were the subject of that years Christmas stamps. Plus ALL Wallace and Gromit films were being shown. After all, isn't The Snowman and the Snowdog a repeat too?

Well, just as tenuous a reason as this year then in that case. I don't remember the joint RT/Royal Mail competition particularly setting the world alight - probably more a case as with this year that the image would sell the magazine and they then needed a reason to justify it.
Whataday10,104 posts since 13 Sep 2001
HTV Wales Wales Today
Yes, thinking about it, they've obviously worked out that Christmas card images are what sells, no matter if the subject is relevant or not. Most people only buy the Radio Times at Christmas, and therefore if it contained a particular programme it could open it up to more competition between itself and the other mags.
VMPhil9,824 posts since 31 Mar 2005
Granada North West Today
The reason
Last year's Radio Times, which had The Snowman and the Snowdog on the front cover, sold 2.17m copies, up 3.4% on 2011

I liked the 2011 cover but you can see why last years had a wider appeal.

Yep that's what I was thinking. Must have been a popular cover or edition so they're hoping to replicate that again.