BBC3 DOGS
 

The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single bloody
programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood Prince
of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch something else
instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany but
the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in
:

The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
bloody programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
something else instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.



Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

Judy

BBC3 DOGS
 

Judy Booth wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in
:

The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
bloody programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
something else instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.



Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

Judy

You could wish.
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

BBC3 DOGS
 

Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying they
will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people
are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing
this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows the mentality
that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root out all
the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up against a
wall, and have them shot.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Agamemnon wrote:
The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
bloody programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
something else instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.


How I agree with Agamemnon on this. The use of these utterly useless
dogs has been the ruin of digital television. In fact I have stopped
watching an awful lot of TV these days as I just find them so irritating.

Frankly I have written and complained on more than one occasion - all to
no effect. There have been several petitions and campaigns organised to
rid us of this nuisance."What Satellite" magazine organised one for
instance. All proved to be useless, and not one sensible answer to the
objections raised was, to my knowledge received from the broadcasters
involved. Just unsupported comments that the 'viewers' liked them, or
some twee marketing talk about the modern need for branding. The current
level of thinking by those who run TV these days it that these 'Dogs'
assist somehow in 'station branding', rather like a designer label on a
pair of jeans does. Sad that their intellectual level should be such
that they would actually believe such nonsense. The only effective
branding comes through quality programming, and nothing else.

Why does the BBC use dogs? Well their official explanation may be found
he- http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news...31/16746.shtml

Those interested in understanding this issue better may be interested in
visiting two excellent web sites dedicated to the subject. They a-

http://www.saynotologos.co.uk/

http://logofreetv.org/

Incidentally, a visit to the logofree TV forum is well worth a look - at
least you will know that you are not alone in your irritation with the
all pervasive 'dogs'.

One word of encouragement though. During my last trip to the US I
noticed that, in Los Angeles at least, there had been a considerable
decline in the use of 'dogs' on American TV. TCM, for instance, only had
their dog on screen for around 10-15 seconds following each advertising
break and then removed it. Several Channels were 'dogless' and others
were using them in a much lower key way than previously. Perhaps they
realised that one of the reasons for the declining TV audience may, at
least in part, be due to the impaired enjoyment these 'dogs' have on
one's viewing pleasure.

Well, as for me, I stopped subscribing to Sky because of the on-screen
junk, and placed my Digibox in the dustbin.

Anyway, that's my two-pennorth for what it's worth.

Regards
MLJMAN

BBC3 DOGS
 

In article ,
says...
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying they
will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people
are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing
this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows the mentality
that underlies their imposition.


They are presumably adhering to the old adage that a lie if repeated
often enough will eventually be accepted as the truth. They want to
establish is as "just the way things are" and thus beyond question.

This is similar to DJs talking over the intros and ends of music,
announcers talking over mutilated (squashed, sqeezed or just cut) end
credits and the now+next crap stuffed on the last couple of minutes of
many programs.

Interestingly "The Ashes" higlights on BBC2 carried a small logo.

There is the (plausible) conspiracy theory that this is solely to brand
recordings though you wont get any executives to admit to that.

Wonder if anyone can find a "smoking gun" of a memo from the rights
holders who will charge less if this garbage is present?

Steve.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...
The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
bloody programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
something else instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany but
the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.



I will not PAY the BBC whilst it places DOG **** on my picture.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Judy Booth" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in
:

The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
bloody programme including FILMS.

I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
something else instead or nothing at all.

The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.



Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.


Judy

BBC3 DOGS
 

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"
wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000 people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people. Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

What does green crayon do to the multiplier?

BBC3 DOGS
 

Heracles Pollux wrote:
I will not PAY the BBC whilst it places DOG **** on my picture.

Yes, but that's because you are yourself an especially malodorous thieving
piece of ****. For the uninitiated, here is a list (not exhaustive) of
Bollux's previously professed reasons for not paying his licence fee:

1) He's a patriotic Englishman fighting to free the nation from the tyranny
of the BBC - a sort of latter-day resistance fighter.

2) Many of the TV channels use DOGs. He hates DOGs, and he's not paying for
them.

3) He doesn't watch the BBC anyway.

4) He does watch the BBC, but it's mostly crap and he's not paying for it.
And it has DOGs.

5) He only watches recorded TV so he doesn't need a licence.

6) They can't catch him anyway.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen and
my brain is too much to bear.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with the
person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome to
write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject. However
this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of subjects.
As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform their
roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs staff
to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication is
broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can be
briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice





=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins


They really are a charming lot !

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying they
will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people
are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing
this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows the mentality
that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root out
all
the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up against a
wall, and have them shot.

Luddite
Joe

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen and
my brain is too much to bear.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with the
person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome to
write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject. However
this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of subjects.
As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform their
roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs staff
to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication is
broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can be
briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice





=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins


They really are a charming lot !

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Hawkins" wrote in message
...

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen
and my brain is too much to bear.

Its also subliminal advertising so is technically illegal.


A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with
the person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome
to write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject.
However this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint
about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of
subjects. As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform
their roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs
staff to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication
is broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can
be briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

TOSSER


regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice





=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins


They really are a charming lot !

BBC3 DOGS
 

Joe wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:
Judy Booth wrote:
Have you tried complaining to the BBC about [DOGs]? I'm not saying
they will change things based on a single complaint, but if enough
people are unhappy about this and tell them so, then they may stop
doing this.

Not a chance. Their standard response is that they have research
showing that people like them. This is a lie, obviously, but shows
the mentality that underlies their imposition.

The only way to put an end to these territorial ****ings is to root
out all the TV executives who think they are a good idea, line them up
against a wall, and have them shot.

Luddite

A man clearly unfamiliar with the meaning of that epithet...

Either that, or a man whose cerebral faculties have become so atrophied by
years of watching mindless drivel that he has been rendered incapable of
remembering what channel he is watching...

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Hawkins" wrote in message
...

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:31:57 -0000, "Agamemnon"

wrote:

|
|"Judy Booth" wrote in message
. 4...
| "Agamemnon" wrote in
| :
|
| The SCUM controlling BBC3 have now began placing DOGS on every single
| bloody programme including FILMS.
|
| I will not put up with this any longer. I refuse to watch Robin Hood
| Prince of Thieves while it is being defaced by a DOG, and will witch
| something else instead or nothing at all.
|
| The BBC3 staff can all go and jump in the sea, after all its Epiphany
| but the BBC seem to have forgotten all about that as well.
|
|
|
| Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
| change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
| unhappy
| about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.
|
|Yes. They are complete tossesrs and won't listen.

Clearly you are not "enough people".
If you write a *paper* letter AFAIK Aunty used to treat you as 1000
people.
Emails probably have a lower multiplier.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Anybody feel like contacting Advertising Standards with a complaint ?

After all the DOGS are a form of advertising which must far exceed what is
permitted for third party adverts. To appear briefly at programme change
overs would be acceptable but to have them burning a hole in the screen
and my brain is too much to bear.

A while back I did enter into correspondence with the BBC. To say I was a
bit upset is to put it mildly. Because I asked for the source of the
statistics that viewers liked the DOGS and also to be put in touch with
the person or committee who authorised the DOGS I was told I was welcome
to write to the BBC on any subject but this !!!

Some of the correspondence with the BBC

Dear Mr Hawkins

Thank you for your email.

I recognise that you don't agree the policy on DOGs, and I won't bore you
with repetition or further statements or arguments on the subject.
However this contact - as previous ones were, is logged as a complaint
about DOGs.

The BBC gets a great many items of correspondence on a variety of
subjects. As this is too great for senior management to answer and perform
their roles, the BBC in common with many other large organisations employs
staff to answer such letters, emails and phone calls. Such communication
is broken down into types and subjects, and thus anyone within the BBC can
be briefed on the feedback received on any subject.

I do feel there is little to be gained from further discussion on this
particular point, and accordingly we may not respond to further
communication on this issue. You are of course free to write on other
subjects.

regards Martyn Culling
Co-ordinating Engineer
BBC Reception Advice





=============================================
From :
Date : TUE 11/03/03 18:40
Subject : [Case 224171] On Screen Graphics
Vis Ref : 224171:562664
=============================================
Thank you for your further reply.
I asked four specific questions in my last email. Your reply did not
address any of them. Would you please escalate our correspondence to
someone in authority who is in a position to answer straight forward
queries and not issue non replies.

Two further questions:- Are any statistics compiled concerning the
numbers pro and anti DOGS on a continuing basis and what do they
reveal?
How would the BBC respond to the
proposal that there should be a 7pm to 7am ban on continuous DOGS.

R W Hawkins


They really are a charming lot !






I've had the same from the Martyn Culling tosser.

The fact that I've complained about the BBC's DOGs for 8 years and the
problem has not been resolved leaves me feeling fully justified in no longer
paying for their services which I do not want nor accept.

**** 'em if that's their attitude to their fee paying customers.

I wish them good luck in dealing with the general public when they lose
their right to use coercion.

BBC3 DOGS
 

Pyriform wrote:

Their standard response is that they have research showing
that people like them. This is a lie, obviously

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." (from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/news...1/16746.shtml).

HTH

BBC3 DOGS
 

"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.

Anyway, with my DTT box when I change channels the decoder puts both
station and programme information on screen for a few seconds. I
believe that this is normal practice for all digital TV decoders. If
ever I want to check which channel I am watching, I can just look down
slightly and see the channel number displayed on the decoder or press
the 'i' button on the remote which not only shows the channel but also
details of the current programme.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Judy Booth" wrote in message
...


Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

The BBC must have bucket loads of complaints and by keeping the DOGs going
you can see what they think about the viewers.

I guess when anologue goes they will be on BBC 1 and 2 as well.
(same goes for ITV1, CH4 ans FIVE.)
--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

BBC3 DOGS
 

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. The greater the viewer's
awareness of which station is broadcasting the programmes they want to
watch, the more likely they are to return there in future (particularly
for minority stations). More viewers returning to the station means
greater advertising revenues, which can be spent on even more
programmes the viewers want to watch.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"David" wrote in message
...

"Judy Booth" wrote in message
...


Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

The BBC must have bucket loads of complaints and by keeping the DOGs going
you can see what they think about the viewers.

I guess when anologue goes they will be on BBC 1 and 2 as well.
(same goes for ITV1, CH4 ans FIVE.)
--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group



An interesting point. Will that be at the start of DSO or end? That could
happen anytime now up to 2012.

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense to
distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the top
of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and stupid
decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense
to distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the top
of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and stupid
decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

Well time will tell, but I think they will think it an improvement.
Also I think Signing for the deaf will increase too.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

BBC3 DOGS
 

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.

BBC3 DOGS
 

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.

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.

Everybody knows that the BBC and ITV, for instance, put their most
popular programmes on BBC1 and ITV1, and moving a programme from BBC2
to BBC1 is considered "promotion". Why do you think that is?

I think it's because when viewers switch on their TV, in general they
will head straight to BBC1 and ITV1 over any other channel...

in the expectation that they will receive televisual gratification.

Why BBC1 and ITV1? Because they have a unique advantage in that they
have been the only options for a long time and so most viewers are well
aware of them.

However, there may be other channels in the depths of the EPG that will
offer similar gratification. Such channels have never enjoyed the
ubiquity of the BBC and ITV. Therefore the awareness of these channels
has to be created manually, i.e. by exposing the viewer to the brand
identity at every possible opportunity.

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.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

BBC3 DOGS
 

"David" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense
to distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the
top of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and
stupid decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

Well time will tell, but I think they will think it an improvement.
Also I think Signing for the deaf will increase too.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group




Amid the current buzz/wank words of "Interactive TV", "User Generated
Content", "Audience Participation", and "BBC shareholders", isn't amazing
how little say the audience actually has! ;-)

BBC3 DOGS
 

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"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

IMO it's more likely that people watch BBC1 and ITV1 because they know
the _programmes_ as they've been watching them for the last 30 years.
I'm more likely to watch Eastenders than some random soap on Living, but
then I'm also much more likely to watch Eastenders than some other
random soap on ITV, BBC1 or whatever.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

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.

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.

Geoff

BBC3 DOGS
 

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! Much better than what I was about to write. But a lot more
polite, too...

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
 

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"

*Sigh* I have cited the reasons why "identification, recognition and
awareness = tuning in again in future" so many times before... however
they are included again below, just for you.

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

IMO it's more likely that people watch BBC1 and ITV1 because they know
the _programmes_ as they've been watching them for the last 30 years.
I'm more likely to watch Eastenders than some random soap on Living, but
then I'm also much more likely to watch Eastenders than some other
random soap on ITV, BBC1 or whatever.

You're implying that you think the channel on which a programme is
shown is a complete irrelevance. That's just ridiculous. Do you think
Eastenders would enjoy equally high viewing figures in multi-channel
households if it were to move to Living? I doubt it, 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.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

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 that a few seconds of ident at the start of a programme will
prove much less of a reminder of a channel's identity than constant
identification throughout? And forget having idents at the end - just
take a trip to your local cinema to see those asses lift off seats the
moment the credits start rolling.

Allow me to pre-empt the inevitable half-wit piping up with "but if I
want to know what channel I'm watching I can press the info
button!!!!". The whole idea is to make damn sure you know what channel
you're watching at all times. *Especially* if you don't care.

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.

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?

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.

BBC3 DOGS
 

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?

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