Sounds like a common sense decision
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes but
no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being able to
skim through them.

Will there be a ruling next that every time I walk past an advertising
hoarding I must stop and look at the advert, and that I must not turn over
two pages in a magazine to avoid an advert?

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to be
advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore anything that
you don't want to see.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely counter
productive.
Brian

--
From the laptop of

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

Will there be a ruling next that every time I walk past an advertising
hoarding I must stop and look at the advert, and that I must not turn over
two pages in a magazine to avoid an advert?

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to be
advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore anything
that you don't want to see.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:43:53 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely counter
productive.
Brian

It would be difficult to believe that all that money has been spend
over all these years with no empirical evidence of success. Most
companies try to cut costs if they can and if advertising did not work
I think that is a cost that would soon be cut.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes as
well. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely counter
productive.

I agree. All that adverts make me do is to add more and more products to my
mental list of "don't buy this because the advert ****es me off". Indeed
they may make me think "I need to buy a product X, but buy anything *except*
brand Y of it". Which is probably not what makers of brand Y want from their
advert :-)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to the
end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:43:53 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely counter
productive.
Brian

It would be difficult to believe that all that money has been spend
over all these years with no empirical evidence of success. Most
companies try to cut costs if they can and if advertising did not work
I think that is a cost that would soon be cut.

20+ years ago I worked for BT.

Apparently there would be a spike in call volume immediately when a BT ad
was shown on the TV.

So there are people collecting empirical evidence that they are successful.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes
as
well. :-)

So that's no Simpsons, Family Guy, Glee. All programs that I am led to
believe are popular and watched by millions of people (even if not by me)

tim

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes as
well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the names of
the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that country
people watch Fox for lack of anything better.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:19:46 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Well, its much like other things. They all think adverts make us buy
stuff, in the sense that idiots can be convinced of anything, maybe
they
are correct, but once the said ads **** you off they are surely
counter
productive.

I agree. All that adverts make me do is to add more and more products to
my
mental list of "don't buy this because the advert ****es me off". Indeed
they may make me think "I need to buy a product X, but buy anything
*except*
brand Y of it". Which is probably not what makers of brand Y want from
their
advert :-)
Perle De Lait Yogurt ,Passed someone marketing it and giving away
samples yesterday. "Would you like to try some" "No thank you, your
advert with the laughing tart at the end getting orgasmic over
fermenting milk irritates me."
Will never get back to anyone of course but I felt better.
That commercial is screen smashing material.

ALL modern commercials are screen-smashing material by the very nature of
the fact that they are trying to induce me to buy something.

A few older commercials like the one for Smash "And then they smash them all
to bits with their metal implements" have stood the test of time, but the
majority are inane and aimed at people with a negative IQ: they make the
elementary mistake of selling the sizzle instead of the sausage - all style
and no substance.

"Chips or Daddy? Daddy or chips?" is a case in point - it features a twee
five-year-old which only make it worse.

Does anyone else remember adverts and maybe even the type of product they
are selling, but not the brand? Unless they are being made by the Toothpaste
Marketing Board or the Chip Marketing Board then they have failed in that I
may end up buying the right product but a different brand :-)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want to
be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their right
mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper might find
they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the Fox programmes
as
well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the names of
the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that country
people watch Fox for lack of anything better.

Having watched a bit of TV in America I've yet to see anything worth the
electrons to power the TV. And American TV networks haven't got the idea of
"End of Part One" and "Part Two" captions or even break bumpers - anything
that gives the viewer some way of distinguishing programme from advert. And
they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of opening titles and
then going an advert break within literally a minute of starting the
programme.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article ,
NY writes:
Having watched a bit of TV in America I've yet to see anything
worth the electrons to power the TV. And American TV networks
haven't got the idea of "End of Part One" and "Part Two" captions
or even break bumpers - anything that gives the viewer some way
of distinguishing programme from advert.

Which makes one wonder, if even a human has trouble in quickly
distinguishing the two, how this ad-skipper gizmo is going to manage it.

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute of starting the programme.

Presumably they show the minimum amount of the programme that they think
will grab the viewer's interest enough for them to sit through the
subsequent ad break.
--
John Hall

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Attributed to the Commander of Japan's Submarine Forces in WW2

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a minute
of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of advertising on
the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert break before the
start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening, another advert break and
then the title sequence It's one reason that I didn't bother with the
channel again for a long time.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to the
end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

It's unclear whether it does that, or whether it just allows you to skip a
predetermined length - maybe commercial breaks are always the same length in
US.

"And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely -
rather than fast-forwarding through them - at the press of a button."

If it were completely automatic you wouldn't need to press a button.

--
Max Demian

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to the
end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

It's unclear whether it does that, or whether it just allows you to skip a
predetermined length - maybe commercial breaks are always the same length
in US.

"And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely -
rather than fast-forwarding through them - at the press of a button."

If it were completely automatic you wouldn't need to press a button.

Surely the button referred to is the one which selects whether you want to
use the Autohop feature or not? Once selected, it then operates completely
automatically.

V

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a minute
of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of advertising on
the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert break before the
start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening, another advert break and
then the title sequence It's one reason that I didn't bother with the
channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Exactly whereabouts in the programme was this?

--
Max Demian

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Victor Delta" wrote in message
...
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between programmes
but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them without being
able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to
the end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

It's unclear whether it does that, or whether it just allows you to skip
a predetermined length - maybe commercial breaks are always the same
length in US.

"And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely -
rather than fast-forwarding through them - at the press of a button."

If it were completely automatic you wouldn't need to press a button.

Surely the button referred to is the one which selects whether you want to
use the Autohop feature or not? Once selected, it then operates completely
automatically.

That's not how I read it. I would have thought it would be a menu option or
similar if it was something you just had to activate.

As described it just sounds like what I can do with my Humax - I have one
button that skips forward one minute, and another that skips back 7 seconds
if I've gone too far (both configurable) - useful, but hardly automatic
ad-skipping.

--
Max Demian

--
Max Demian

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want
to be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their
right mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper
might find they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the
Fox programmes as well. :-)

So that's no Simpsons, Family Guy, Glee. All programs that I am led to
believe are popular and watched by millions of people (even if not by me)

I've also been led to believe that. But I've also been led to believe they
also appear on channels other that Fox. Like yourself, though, I don't
watch the programs, so am relying on having, I think, noticed them listed
on DTTV channels.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , John Hall
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT want
to be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you can ignore
anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in their
right mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the hopper
might find they sold more recorders if they could be set to skip the
Fox programmes as well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the names of
the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that country
people watch Fox for lack of anything better.

Seen from the other side of the pond, my impression that people watch Fox
News because they don't want their ideas to be undermined by being exposed
to reality. However since I don't watch the relevant stations I'm only
being guided by what others report and having noticed what crap appears
here from related organisations. (Plus having seen how awful US TV was some
decades ago.) So maybe Fox News is wonderful and all the criticism is a
jealous fantasy put about by other media.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , NY
wrote:


Having watched a bit of TV in America I've yet to see anything worth the
electrons to power the TV. And American TV networks haven't got the
idea of "End of Part One" and "Part Two" captions or even break bumpers
- anything that gives the viewer some way of distinguishing programme
from advert. And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a minute
of starting the programme.

Many years ago I went on my first trip to the USA. My into to their TV was
seeing that the 'Superman' film was on TV. (That shows you how long ago
this was! :-) )

I was surprised to see the film was three and a half hours long. But it was
put on whilst we were playing pool. As per the above I was then surprised
that they had the intro credits, then a load of ads, then five mins of
film, then a load of ads. Ad nauseam, as PE say.

I was a waste of time to try watching the film. So we just played pool. The
earthquake during the game was more interesting. :-)

I later spent some weeks in Kansas. After about 5 mins to check, I gave up
any idea that TV there was ever worth watching. I started to understand how
and why so many Americans seem to equate 'World' with 'USA' in their
thinking as there was almost nothing from outside the USA that said much.

But of course it may be different nowdays.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 11/11/2012 01:19, Ian wrote:

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

I've seen similar on other UK channels where the screen is split 5
minutes towards the end of a programme to show a trailer (without sound)
of the following programme.

Although now toned down, the BBC are using children's TV to get the kids
used large animated DOGs and voice overs during programmes.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On 11/11/2012 09:28, Max Demian wrote:

As described it just sounds like what I can do with my Humax - I have one
button that skips forward one minute, and another that skips back 7 seconds
if I've gone too far (both configurable) - useful, but hardly automatic
ad-skipping.


A very useful feature and similar to what I have on my Topfield PVR
Red = jump forward 2 minutes
Green = jump forwards 1 minute
Yellow = jump forward 30 seconds
Blue = jump back 15 seconds
--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
I was surprised to see the film was three and a half hours long. But it
was
put on whilst we were playing pool. As per the above I was then surprised
that they had the intro credits, then a load of ads, then five mins of
film, then a load of ads. Ad nauseam, as PE say.

Crap. I wonder what rules American TV channels have to comply with,
equivalent to the old IBA rules that dictated maximum number of breaks,
minimum length of programme between breaks and maximum length of breaks per
screen hour.

Advertising is a necessary evil. If they approached it with the attitude "we
don't like it either, but it's the only way to pay the bills" then that
would be better. In other words, have as much of the advertising between
rather than within porogrammes and have the small number of long breaks
rather than a large number of short breaks. And FFS use very clear "End of
Part One" and "Part Two" captions to distinguish clearly between ignorable
adverts and watchable programmes. And don't be tempted to bend these rules
just because it allows you to bring in more money.

I've not seen an advert on TV for years: I record almost everything and
watch it later, and I skim through the adverts, stopping only to identify
the start and end of them so I can remove them with VideoRedo.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a minute
of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of advertising on
the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert break before the
start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening, another advert break and
then the title sequence It's one reason that I didn't bother with the
channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Exactly whereabouts in the programme was this?

There were 3 or 4 mins to go when it appeared.

It is or was quite common for this to happen when the credits started to
roll, but to actually interrupt the climax of the programme was
exceptional.

They also used to insert an animated character on-screen during
programmes to promote new series.

These would appear in all programmes for weeks ahead of the series
launch.

I've recently seen some channels ending the break with a promo for the
programme that's on.

Media gradiots rule.
--
Ian

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Victor Delta" wrote in message
...
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote in message
...

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

Companies may force me to receive adverts within and between
programmes but no-one should be able to force me to sit through them
without being able to skim through them.

but it's not trying to do that

It's trying to stop a system that allows you to automatically jump to
the end of them without (you) knowing where that end is

It's unclear whether it does that, or whether it just allows you to skip
a predetermined length - maybe commercial breaks are always the same
length in US.

"And the Autohop feature lets viewers skip advertisements completely -
rather than fast-forwarding through them - at the press of a button."

If it were completely automatic you wouldn't need to press a button.

Surely the button referred to is the one which selects whether you want
to use the Autohop feature or not? Once selected, it then operates
completely automatically.

That's not how I read it. I would have thought it would be a menu option
or similar if it was something you just had to activate.

As described it just sounds like what I can do with my Humax - I have one
button that skips forward one minute, and another that skips back 7
seconds if I've gone too far (both configurable) - useful, but hardly
automatic ad-skipping.

--
Max Demian

--
Max Demian

My Panasonic does the job very nicely thank you. It automatically places a
marker at the beginning and end of each advert break, then pressing the
"Skip" button at the start of the break will take it automatically to the
precise end of the break regardless of its length. Sure it's not perfect, it
makes mistakes sometimes but they are rare enough to remind me what a good
job it usually does.

Allan

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

NY wrote:

I've not seen an advert on TV for years: I record almost everything and
watch it later, and I skim through the adverts,

Me too. Indeed, when comedic references to them are made, I find
myself completely in the dark.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:52:03 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , John Hall
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:
In article , NY
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20251723

What does it take to send a message to big companies "I do NOT
want to be advertised at"? It is a fundamental right that you
can ignore anything that you don't want to see.

Presumably not a problem in practice in this case as no-one in
their right mind would watch Fox anyway. In fact the makers of the
hopper might find they sold more recorders if they could be set to
skip the Fox programmes as well. :-)

This court case was presumably in America, though, going by the
names of the other TV companies mentioned. It might be that in that
country people watch Fox for lack of anything better.

Seen from the other side of the pond, my impression that people watch
Fox News because they don't want their ideas to be undermined by
being exposed to reality. However since I don't watch the relevant
stations I'm only being guided by what others report and having
noticed what crap appears here from related organisations. (Plus
having seen how awful US TV was some decades ago.) So maybe Fox News
is wonderful and all the criticism is a jealous fantasy put about by
other media.

Slainte,

Jim


Have no fear, it is still as bad as you remember. Well, it was two years
ago, when we left there.
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:58:13 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , NY
wrote:


Having watched a bit of TV in America I've yet to see anything
worth the electrons to power the TV. And American TV networks
haven't got the idea of "End of Part One" and "Part Two" captions
or even break bumpers
- anything that gives the viewer some way of distinguishing
programme from advert. And they have this stupid idea of showing a
few seconds of opening titles and then going an advert break within
literally a minute of starting the programme.

Many years ago I went on my first trip to the USA. My into to their
TV was seeing that the 'Superman' film was on TV. (That shows you how
long ago this was! :-) )

I was surprised to see the film was three and a half hours long. But
it was put on whilst we were playing pool. As per the above I was
then surprised that they had the intro credits, then a load of ads,
then five mins of film, then a load of ads. Ad nauseam, as PE say.

I was a waste of time to try watching the film. So we just played
pool. The earthquake during the game was more interesting. :-)

I later spent some weeks in Kansas. After about 5 mins to check, I
gave up any idea that TV there was ever worth watching. I started to
understand how and why so many Americans seem to equate 'World' with
'USA' in their thinking as there was almost nothing from outside the
USA that said much.

But of course it may be different nowdays.

Slainte,

Jim


No it's not. They still don't even acknowledge Canada as a country, and
it's right next door. And very large. Many prominent people in North
American News and Entertainment come from Canada, but make more money in
the US, and hardly any Americans know that they are actually Canadian.

--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:19:20 +0000
Ian wrote:

In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of
advertising on the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert
break before the start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening,
another advert break and then the title sequence It's one reason
that I didn't bother with the channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it
is almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

It also seems to be a rule that all credits are squeezed down to a size
that makes them impossible to read, and often speeded up as well. I see
the same thing back here in the UK, but thankfully, not as bad (yet).
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:36:15 +0000, Davey wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:19:20 +0000
Ian wrote:

In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of
advertising on the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert
break before the start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening,
another advert break and then the title sequence It's one reason
that I didn't bother with the channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it
is almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

It also seems to be a rule that all credits are squeezed down to a size
that makes them impossible to read, and often speeded up as well. I see
the same thing back here in the UK, but thankfully, not as bad (yet).

An explanation I've seen is that they don't really want to show the
credits but are forced to "for legal reasons", and that credits are of
no interest to viewers. It is similar with copyright dates. Someone once
asked why these are in roman numerals rather than ordinary digits so
that people could understand them. The "explanation" was that copyright
dates are not for viewers, they are only there for legal reasons.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Max Demian
writes
"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally a
minute
of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of advertising on
the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK. Advert break before the
start of programme, 60 seconds of an opening, another advert break and
then the title sequence It's one reason that I didn't bother with the
channel again for a long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt for
programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because it is
almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Exactly whereabouts in the programme was this?

There were 3 or 4 mins to go when it appeared.

It is or was quite common for this to happen when the credits started to
roll, but to actually interrupt the climax of the programme was
exceptional.

They also used to insert an animated character on-screen during programmes
to promote new series.


Yesterday use to frequently inset a voiceover for the next program before
the previous one had finished.

Bloody annoying

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:29:53 +0100
Martin wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:13:33 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:36:15 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:19:20 +0000
Ian wrote:

In message , alan
writes
On 10/11/2012 20:10, NY wrote:

And they have this stupid idea of showing a few seconds of
opening titles and then going an advert break within literally
a minute of starting the programme.


I think it was Dave (??) that tried the American style of
advertising on the first showing of 8 Simple Rules in the UK.
Advert break before the start of programme, 60 seconds of an
opening, another advert break and then the title sequence It's
one reason that I didn't bother with the channel again for a
long time.


I was glad to see the back of Virgin1 for their obvious contempt
for programme makers and viewers.

Here's a perfect example, a video I keep on Photobucket, because
it is almost beyond belief.

http://tinyurl.com/bce5ats

Have no fear, it is only a video, honest.

It also seems to be a rule that all credits are squeezed down to a
size that makes them impossible to read, and often speeded up as
well. I see the same thing back here in the UK, but thankfully, not
as bad (yet).

An explanation I've seen is that they don't really want to show the
credits but are forced to "for legal reasons", and that credits are
of no interest to viewers. It is similar with copyright dates.
Someone once asked why these are in roman numerals rather than
ordinary digits so that people could understand them. The
"explanation" was that copyright dates are not for viewers, they are
only there for legal reasons.

Long ago there was a strike or the threat of a strike, because the
BBC didn't show credits. Credits are of interest to the viewers, as
is the date when something was made.

Hear, Hear. The Radio Times is annoying, in that it often does not give
the date of a film or other production, nor does the 'Now and Next'
info.
My wife was in the industry at one time, and she wants to read the
credits. I also think that they should be watched. I always (used to,
when I went there) in cinemas waited until the credits had finished
before leaving.
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Who though would be able to get such a system to work considering the
lobby power of companies who feel the need to advertise.

Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just
wonder how long before the BBC can advertise.

There isn't that much difference between some BBC trailers (for BBC services
or BBC-related publications like Radio Times, rather than for programmes)
and the adverts that we are used to on all other channels.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , Davey
wrote:


Hear, Hear. The Radio Times is annoying, in that it often does not give
the date of a film or other production

I find it more annoying that they often simply list the incorrect
programme!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just wonder
how long before the BBC can advertise.

The day after Hell freezes over I suspect. If the BBC were officially allowed
to advertise, the last vaguely credible excuse for calling it a public service
and imposing a licence fee for it would be conspicuously gone. It would then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.

Rod.
--

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:16:53 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just wonder
how long before the BBC can advertise.

The day after Hell freezes over I suspect. If the BBC were officially allowed
to advertise, the last vaguely credible excuse for calling it a public service
and imposing a licence fee for it would be conspicuously gone. It would then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.

Rod.

Perhaps.

However, the Irish Republic has a TV licence system, similar to ours,
which funds that country's main public service broadcaster, RTE. RTE
also shows adverts.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:18:46 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Davey
wrote:


Hear, Hear. The Radio Times is annoying, in that it often does not
give the date of a film or other production

I find it more annoying that they often simply list the incorrect
programme!

Slainte,

Jim


That too! Although the case of the delayed 'Good Cop' was not Radio
Times' fault, but others are.
--
Davey.

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing
BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just
wonder
how long before the BBC can advertise.

The day after Hell freezes over I suspect. If the BBC were officially
allowed
to advertise, the last vaguely credible excuse for calling it a public
service
and imposing a licence fee for it would be conspicuously gone. It would
then
have to depend entirely on advertising, just like all the others.



Wasn't / isn't Channel 4 partly publicly funded?

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Who though would be able to get such a system to work considering the
lobby power of companies who feel the need to advertise.

Its interesting that the British public are now getting used to seeing BBC
programmes with ad breaks on Yesterday and other channels, and I just
wonder how long before the BBC can advertise.


It's a PITA watching BBC's programs on Yesterday, Especially when they have
cut them down to fit into an hours slot with adverts

tim

Sounds like a common sense decision
 

tim..... wrote:




It's a PITA watching BBC's programs on Yesterday, Especially when they
have cut them down to fit into an hours slot with adverts

A lot of BBC programmes are made to 50 minutes, to allow for them to
inflate to an hour when sold overseas.