BBC3 DOGS
 

Pyriform wrote:

Geoff Winkless wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation. I'll
spell it out.

"simple logic"? there is no logic in your argument, you might rather
say it's a pragma that marketing people have pushed into the
collective consciousness.

Your argument has no logical progression: you give a
correlation:causation argument - "people identify these channels, and
they watch a lot of them, therefore if we get people to identify our
channel they will watch more of it"

Oh, well played!

Oh, **** off!

Much better than what I was about to write.

Now that I can believe.

But a lot more polite, too...

Interesting. I happen to value your normally very informed, balanced
and constructive newsgroup contributions very highly. How quickly it
all goes out the window to make way for unconstructive, illogical,
unreasoned nonsense and vitriol (and slapping the backs of others in
the great DOG circle-jerk who peddle the same) when talking about DOGs.
Even a "me too!" thrown in below for good measure.

Cite the research that shows that people identify with channels better
through DOGs as opposed to (say) channel ID chunks at the beginning /
end of programmes and your reasoning will be marginally more valid
than just marketing hyperbole. You still then need to prove that
identifying with a channel actually makes you more likely to watch a
programme on that channel, which is a leap of faith with which I have a
serious
problem.

Exactly.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"BrianH" wrote in message
...
Pyriform wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:
"Time To Burn" writes:
It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:
"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to
ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a
BBC service."
How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.
This has been covered many times before.
Only in the sense that everyone else hates them, but you (and certain TV
executives) believe that DOGs are justified because they establish some
kind of conditioned response in the viewer: they select a particular
channel in the expectation that they will receive televisual
gratification.

I say you are wrong, and that you have no research to prove it. It is
merely a whimsical executive fantasy, predicated on the idea that the
average viewer has the intellect of a laboratory rat.

Surely the real reason for the now globally ubiquitous screen logo is
simply an attempt to imprint a watermark and thereby dissuade commercial
copying. Or am I missing something here?


I can't seriously imagine ITV would want to "copy" BBC THWEE or BBC FLAWs
off-air feed.

I can't imagine some broadcaster would want to off-air copy the **** running
on ITVx or procure a movie from ITVx off-air.

Surely it would be easier to copy a DVD? ;-O

Is broadcaster piracy really such a threat and does it actually exist in the
UK?

I think not.



The other factor is that UK broadcasting is still heavily unionised and
regulated. To play 30 seconds of music entitles the music rights holder to a
small fee on every play. Every appearance of an actor entitles the said
actor of a royalty fee.

DOG or not, these parties are not going to let their content go out without
PACT, Equity, or their agents collecting their fees. The more money at
stake, the more fuss and effort they will go to protect their actual revenue
streams.

So again, where is this supposed "off-air" piracy, and how does the DOG
prevent copying?




Also why the "top left"?

http://forum.logofreetv.org/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=906

They know that the top-left is the most prominent position.

Would copy protection require "the most dominant position" of the screen
when the bottom right would be equally valid.




It looks like nothing much more than marketing witchcraft, from a pool of
people thinking the equivalent of "the world is flat because one does not
fall off the edge", because is it nothing more than marketing dogma and
"belief" on the part of a very small number of unaccountable boneheads.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Time To Burn wrote:

You haven't addressed my point - moving a programme from BBC2 to BBC1
is considered "promotion", and the same programme is very likely to
achieve higher viewing figures on BBC1 than it did on BBC2 (surely you
don't dispute *that*). How else can this be explained other than that
people simply prefer to watch BBC1 rather than BBC2?

Because people assume that BBC1 will contain the kind of programmes they
like to watch. They know that BBC2 contains esoteric, thought-provoking
programmes which they don't like.

You're implying that you think the channel on which a programme is
shown is a complete irrelevance. That's just ridiculous.

No it's not. I watch programmes based on the programme itself and have
not watched based on channel for some years - since I got a multichannel
system and a TiVo to go with it. I'm not suggesting that everyone else
does the same but the simple fact is that no-one actually knows.

Do you think Eastenders would enjoy equally high viewing figures in multi-channel households if it were to move to Living?

Yes, I do.

I doubt it,

Good for you. Unfortunately that doesn't make a logical argument.

and I also think
that a new "random soap" debuting on ITV or BBC1 would achieve much
higher viewing figures than it would were it debuting on Living.

That's probably true. Does that have anything to do with the knowledge
of the channel or the expected quality of programmes made by Living vs
the BBC?

Geoff Winkless wrote:
Cite the research that shows that people identify with channels better
through DOGs as opposed to (say) channel ID chunks at the beginning /
end of programmes and your reasoning will be marginally more valid than
just marketing hyperbole.

Why does this require research? Am I the only one to whom it is quite
obvious

Well that's ok then, if you think it's obvious then it must be true.

IMO recognising a channel as a previous provider of "televisual
gratification" makes it more likely you'll stop by that channel in
future while channel-hopping, checking the TV guide or surfing EPG
listings, rather than just pass it by like the possibly hundreds of
others. What is your problem with that?

It's "IMO" again. You're not giving any evidence to back up your opinions.

On the other hand we don't need to cite anything because we argue mainly
from the point of view that a lot of people are annoyed by DOGs. That's
self-evident because of the number of annoyed people posting to the thread.

The only thing that is self-evident is that some posters to this thread
are annoyed by DOGs. I very much doubt whether the level of annoyance
amongst the wider viewing public is as high as you think.

I didn't say anything about the level of annoyance among the wider
viewing public, so stop setting up straw men.

Once again, show me scientific evidence that DOGs improve the
recognition of a channel over other methods and then show that channel
recognition improves the viewing figures and you can claim to have some
sort of logical high-ground.

Personally I'm not normally bothered enough by DOGs to engage in these
kind of discussions, (while DOGs do annoy me I have better things to
argue the toss about); what annoyed me more is your assertion that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is being illogical since you've given
such a reasoned and logical argument, while in fact your argument is
neither reasoned nor logical.

Geoff

BBC3 DOGS
 

Time To Burn wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Geoff Winkless wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation.
I'll spell it out.

"simple logic"? there is no logic in your argument, you might rather
say it's a pragma that marketing people have pushed into the
collective consciousness.

Your argument has no logical progression: you give a
correlation:causation argument - "people identify these channels,
and they watch a lot of them, therefore if we get people to
identify our channel they will watch more of it"

Oh, well played!

Oh, **** off!

I was pleased with his reply because I'd started one earlier but lost the
will to live halfway through. When that happens I usually delete it and
forget the whole thing or come back to it later. When I looked again, there
was already a reply that articulated exactly what I wanted to say. In
general, I share your dislike of "me too" postings, but I felt moved to
endorse his reasoning. But yes, my reply does look a bit lame in
hindsight...

The fact remains that you do not have any evidence with which to back your
assertions. So whilst my response to DOGs is certainly partly emotional (I
hate the wretched things), I maintain that my reasoning is perfectly sound.
If you had the evidence, I would still hate DOGs, but I would accept your
claims regarding their purpose.

BBC3 DOGS
 

BrianH wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:
"Time To Burn" writes:
It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:
"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to
ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a
BBC service."
How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which
station is transmitting it.
This has been covered many times before.
Only in the sense that everyone else hates them, but you (and
certain TV executives) believe that DOGs are justified because they
establish some kind of conditioned response in the viewer: they
select a particular channel in the expectation that they will
receive televisual gratification. I say you are wrong, and that you have
no research to prove it. It
is merely a whimsical executive fantasy, predicated on the idea that
the average viewer has the intellect of a laboratory rat.

Surely the real reason for the now globally ubiquitous
screen logo is simply an attempt to imprint a watermark and
thereby dissuade commercial copying. Or am I missing
something here?

Yes, you are missing the fact that anyone who wants to do this would usually
have other non-defaced sources for the material, or would simply remove the
logo using technological means.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Geoff Winkless wrote:

Once again, show me scientific evidence that DOGs improve the
recognition of a channel over other methods

I have no evidence for this, I am merely suggesting that it does, and I
have explained why I think that.

then show that channel
recognition improves the viewing figures and you can claim to have some
sort of logical high-ground.

I have no evidence for this either, I am suggesting that it does, and
again I have explained why I think that.

Personally I'm not normally bothered enough by DOGs to engage in these
kind of discussions, (while DOGs do annoy me I have better things to
argue the toss about); what annoyed me more is your assertion that
anyone who doesn't agree with you is being illogical since you've given
such a reasoned and logical argument, while in fact your argument is
neither reasoned nor logical.

All I am doing is offering some alternative thinking to those who
automatically dismiss DOGs while seemingly refusing to consider the
reasoning behind their continued existance.

And I am certainly not the only person in this thread to give their
opinion without evidence and without explicitly saying that it's their
opinion.

However, I concede it is wrong to describe somebody who dismisses my
opinion without explanation as illogical; but it would be nice to hear
the reasons why they disagree.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Stephen Henson wrote:
Interestingly "The Ashes" higlights on BBC2 carried a small logo.

Was it to help hide the blurring-out of the host station's logo?

--
MJR/slef

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Time To Burn" wrote:

All I am doing is offering some alternative thinking to those who
automatically dismiss DOGs while seemingly refusing to consider the
reasoning behind their continued existance.

It might well be part of the reasoning behind the continuing existence
of DOGs - but my experience is that the reasoning power of marketeers
has a huge hole where "overdoing it" is concerned.

I've asked many people for their opinion about DOGs and it varies from
indifference (because they don't see them after a while) to hating them
like poison. I've never met somebody that found DOGs to be helpful.

--
Dave Farrance

BBC3 DOGS
 

Dave Farrance wrote:
"Time To Burn" wrote:

All I am doing is offering some alternative thinking to those who
automatically dismiss DOGs while seemingly refusing to consider the
reasoning behind their continued existance.

It might well be part of the reasoning behind the continuing existence
of DOGs - but my experience is that the reasoning power of marketeers
has a huge hole where "overdoing it" is concerned.

I've asked many people for their opinion about DOGs and it varies from
indifference (because they don't see them after a while) to hating
them like poison. I've never met somebody that found DOGs to be
helpful.

Likewise. The different filters people apply to their senses are quite
interesting. For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences. After I'd noticed the first few, I started keeping
a count in my notebook. Since nothing else he was saying was of any interest
at all, this provided me with a very satisfying diversion. At the first
coffee break, I mentioned this to the other attendees. About half of them
hadn't noticed anything odd about his speech, despite the fact that my data
showed he was running at around thirty random "to it"s an hour. They had
simply filtered out the noise (I'm surprised they were left with any signal,
but that's by the way). Of course, everyone paid far closer attention
*after* the coffee break, and we were able to crosscheck our "to it"
counts...

BBC3 DOGS
 

On 8 Jan 2007 09:38:46 -0800, Time To Burn wrote:

snip

The only thing that is self-evident is that some posters to this thread
are annoyed by DOGs. I very much doubt whether the level of annoyance
amongst the wider viewing public is as high as you think.


All very valid - except that the vast majority are still watching analog with
no DOGS.............

--

Regards

Dave Saville

NB Remove -nospam for good email address