I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

Luckily the advertising in this country is regulated, so at the moment
this
isn't possible - at least on the mainstream channels.

But then programme sponsorship never used to be allowed until the
commercial
operators put pressure on the regulators to change that.

Can someone explain the difference between Leerdammer paying for
advertisements
& paying for sponsorship of 'Midsomer Murders'?

Well it used to be the case that programmes couldn't, in any way whatsoever,
however tenuous, be linked to any company that is advertising a product.
There had to be a clear signpost where one ended and the other began. With
programme sponsorship, this is no longer the case as the sponsorship is
quite clearly linked to the programme. There are still limitations of what
can and can't be done with sponsorship. For example, religious, news and
current affairs programmes can't be sponsored, and there is a restriction on
duration.

Incidently, I wasn't saying that I necessarily object to sponsorship in this
form but that the rules were changed, after pressure from the broadcasters,
to allow it. There's no reason to suppose that sponsorship within programmes
couldn't, one day, also be allowed.

I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

current affairs programmes can't be sponsored
So that "A Current Affair is sponsored by Nissan" stuff is illegal?
And if it is, how come Nine can get away with it.

I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:30:33 +0100, "DB" wrote:


Luckily the advertising in this country is regulated, so at the moment
this
isn't possible - at least on the mainstream channels.

But then programme sponsorship never used to be allowed until the commercial
operators put pressure on the regulators to change that.

Can someone explain the difference between Leerdammer paying for advertisements
& paying for sponsorship of 'Midsomer Murders'?

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:12:27 GMT, Edster wrote:

"ant" wrote in message

Dave wrote:
Here in
the USA, the main channels have loads of commercials, and commercials
in the programmes themselves!

I was amazed at how much advertising there was on US tv. Cable was sold in
Australia partly on the idea that it had less/no ads. Well, go to the US and
then think twice about shelling out for cable/pay tv!

Has there been an increase in the amount of advertising on US TV? I'm
sure 1 hour shows used to last for 45 minutes without ads, now they
only last for 42 minutes.

I watched some old 'Smother Brothers' & 'Johnny Carson' shows my pal recorded in
the 60s & there was far less advertising, just 4 breaks per hour & no more than
currently on ITV.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

Jonathan Wilson wrote:
current affairs programmes can't be sponsored
So that "A Current Affair is sponsored by Nissan" stuff is illegal?
And if it is, how come Nine can get away with it.

This is a cross-posted thread, and I think you've just replied to a
discussion of the situation in the UK. Our UK correspondents have
presumably never had the pleasure of making Uncle Ray's acquaintance.

I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good
 

current affairs programmes can't be sponsored
So that "A Current Affair is sponsored by Nissan" stuff is illegal?

It would be in the UK.

What's a "DOG"? (was: I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good)
 

Dave Farrance wrote:
"Wolfgang Wildeblood" wrote:

We don't often get British newsgroups cross-posted into aus.tv so I
need to ask, what are these "DOGs" that several of you have disparaged?

Logos Such as Sky One, UK Gold etc.

You just mean the ordinary watermark style channel logo that's on
constantly? Do you have the animated logos over there yet?

Yes, and not yet.

Poor, deprived Pommies :-) I found a small picture of Seven's new logo
I was complaining about - imagine this guy in the corner of the screen,
jumping up and down, waving his arms at you:

http://www1.50years.tv/current/commo...lt/1000_45.jpg

What's a "DOG"? (was: I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good)
 

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:25:41 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" wrote:

We don't often get British newsgroups cross-posted into aus.tv so I
need to ask, what are these "DOGs" that several of you have disparaged?

Logos Such as Sky One, UK Gold etc.

You just mean the ordinary watermark style channel logo that's on
constantly? Do you have the animated logos over there yet?

Yes, and not yet. Stands for Digital Onscreen Graphic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_On-screen_Graphic

Digitally Originated Graphics is the correct term.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

What's a "DOG"? (was: I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good)
 

"Nigel Barker" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:25:41 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote:

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" wrote:

We don't often get British newsgroups cross-posted into aus.tv so I
need to ask, what are these "DOGs" that several of you have
disparaged?

Logos Such as Sky One, UK Gold etc.

You just mean the ordinary watermark style channel logo that's on
constantly? Do you have the animated logos over there yet?

Yes, and not yet. Stands for Digital Onscreen Graphic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_On-screen_Graphic

Digitally Originated Graphics is the correct term.

You'd better correct the wiki then.

--
Max Demian

What's a "DOG"? (was: I've seen the future of TV logos and it isn't good)
 

Nigel Barker wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:25:41 GMT, Dave Farrance wrote:
... Stands for Digital Onscreen Graphic. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_On-screen_Graphic

Digitally Originated Graphics is the correct term.

Oh. I've added a note to that page. Somebody else can sort out how it
fits in.

--
Dave Farrance