FiveUS dog

Heracles Pollux wrote:

"Qatar Airlines Passanger" wrote in message
...
I like it, its's really clear and easy to see, I wish more channels would
use them because there are so many channels these days, it could be a
little
bigger and bolder IMO, and still remaiin unobtrusive, well done channel 5!


And there is someone who fails to understand 21st century "long tail"
economics (of giving your customers what they want).

Nah, I think he's taking the **** :O)
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

In message , Paul Heslop
writes

What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

It may seem innocuous but think of it like noise pollution or light
pollution. It's the kind of stuff people keep quiet about until,
whoops there's so much of it you can't concentrate. We're not stupid,
and I doubt even the stupid need a badge in the corner of the picture
to tell them what channel they're on.



Does anyone actually care what channel they are watching? I know I
don't, all I'm interested in is the programme. If I want to watch, for
example CSI or something, I really don't care if I watch it on Five,
Five US, Living, Living+1 or whatever channel that happens to show it.
If I'm that desperate to find the name of the channel, for some strange
reason, it's a simple button press away.

Neither do I need to know what's "Coming Next" or that the episode is
"All New" if I'm that bothered, it's very easy to find out for myself,
with very little effort.

I'm sure years ago people used to watch channels, in the long-past days
before remote controls and PVRs, when you actually had to get up off
your arse to change channel, not any more though. How many people
actually sit down and say "I'm going to watch ITV tonight" (well maybe
using ITV as en example is a bit of a stretch ;-) ) and then sit and
solely watch whatever crap they decide to put on, even sitting through
one or two shows they don't particularly like to await one they do?
--
Sean Black

Agamemnon wrote:
My advice is DON'T WATCH IT, tell your friends and family not to watch it
and ask them to tell their friends and their friends friends and their
friends friends not to watch it and pass the message on and lets see how
long Channel 5 continues to insult the intelligence of their audience, when
they no longer have one.

We're talking about FiveUS.

I'm fairly confident that, unless I tell them about it, no one I know
will even notice the channel exists, never mind watch it!

Cheers,
David.

In article ,
Sean Black wrote:


Does anyone actually care what channel they are watching? I know I
don't, all I'm interested in is the programme.

However, the operators of the channels are very interested since they sell
advertising and the rates for this will depend on the number of viewers
expected. So they want 'brand loyalty'. They also hope that the DOG will
impress itself on the viewers who get sampled, by pollster, so they will
know what channel they wee watching even if thy can't remember the name of
the programme.

I remember a "Peanuts" cartoon some years ago when Snoopy was asked by
Charlie Brown: "What are you watching?", "What's it about?".
"Stop trying to make me think when I'm watching television!"

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , Edster
writes
Dominic Shields wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a corner of
the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

The difference is, widescreen TV isn't getting thinner and thinner all
the time. The TV companies started with small logos in the corner,
then the logos got bigger, then they started adding other advertising
messages across the top of the screen. Now you have animated graphics
popping up over the top of programmes to advertise something else.
That's all on top of the "red dot" stuff, which is far from just being
a dot and often takes up more space than the logo. All that is because
of you and people like you. Do you think it will stop there, or do you
think it will increase as they think of some new way to put people off
watching their TV stations?

As if the red dot on it's own wasn't bad enough, half the time, next to
the dot itself, you get "Press Red" or "Big Brother Live" or something.
--
Sean Black

"Sean Black" wrote in message
...
In article , Edster
writes
Dominic Shields wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:52 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Dominic Shields wrote:
What is the issue with DOGs ? I've seen people moaning about them in
this group for ages and kept quiet up to now, I'm struggling to see
how something so innocuous causes so much angst.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Do you find DOGs useful (rather than merely inoffensive)?

2) If you bought a new TV, would you complain to the retailer if a
corner of
the picture was marred by dead or stuck pixels?


1. Lots of things aren't useful or useless - they just are, I go with
the flow and chill out - choose your battles wisely as they say - for
instance I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.

2. Yes but is that the same thing ?

The difference is, widescreen TV isn't getting thinner and thinner all
the time. The TV companies started with small logos in the corner,
then the logos got bigger, then they started adding other advertising
messages across the top of the screen. Now you have animated graphics
popping up over the top of programmes to advertise something else.
That's all on top of the "red dot" stuff, which is far from just being
a dot and often takes up more space than the logo. All that is because
of you and people like you. Do you think it will stop there, or do you
think it will increase as they think of some new way to put people off
watching their TV stations?

As if the red dot on it's own wasn't bad enough, half the time, next to
the dot itself, you get "Press Red" or "Big Brother Live" or something.

Although the red dot can be a pain, it can be got rid of and it is mostly
right in the top right corner. The trouble with the DOGs is on widescreen
they appear someway in from the left hand side, they go further down the
screen and are often in the middle of actual programme content of
importance.

--
Paul Schofield

Paul Schofield wrote:
However whilst watching Torchwood last night the BBC logo appeared right in
the middle of Capt Jack's forehead spoiling the scene and distracting me
from the contents of the show. I suspect after a few such occurrences one's
ability to tolerate these unnecessary additions will quickly reduce to
zero - hence the angst you see from so many people on here.

Indeed.

I wonder how many people in future weeks are going to watch Torchwood
on BBC Two, rather than BBC Three, to avoid the DOGs?

Mind you, even when they dropped the DOGs from Dr Who on BBC Three, I
still tried to watch/record the BBC One outing because there were fewer
artefacts (high bitrate) - you could see this straight away in the
opening titles: clean looking on BBC One, YouTube-like blockiness on
BBC Three!

Cheers,
David.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:46:12 +0100, Sean Black
wrote:

Does anyone actually care what channel they are watching? I know I
don't, all I'm interested in is the programme. If I want to watch, for
example CSI or something, I really don't care if I watch it on Five,
Five US, Living, Living+1 or whatever channel that happens to show it.

Same here. I couldn't care less which channel has broadcast the
programme, because it is the programme itself I am watching. I don't
care about it any more than I care which bookshop sold me a book when
all I want to do is read it, and if I bought a book which had
advertising on every page, words scribbled out, and the contents and
index pages curtailed, I would take it back and complain.

If I find a television programme that looks interesting, I can type
its name in the search box in Digiguide and easily discover where and
when to find more of the same, and then just type the relevant numbers
into my disk recorder. I rarely watch programmes live, so I don't even
waste any of my time watching the adverts. The rest of the time my
television is switched off.

The programme planners and presentation departments all need to have a
framed notice on their walls saying "People don't watch channels -
they watch programmes".

I'm sure years ago people used to watch channels, in the long-past days
before remote controls and PVRs, when you actually had to get up off
your arse to change channel, not any more though.

Like the film industry, who still seem to think we all want to sit for
two and a half hours watching one of their programmes all the way
through without a break in a big room full of strangers with mobile
phones and crisp packets, the broadcasters are living in the past.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:46:12 +0100, Sean Black
wrote:

Does anyone actually care what channel they are watching? I know I
don't, all I'm interested in is the programme. If I want to watch, for
example CSI or something, I really don't care if I watch it on Five,
Five US, Living, Living+1 or whatever channel that happens to show it.

Same here. I couldn't care less which channel has broadcast the
programme, because it is the programme itself I am watching. I don't
care about it any more than I care which bookshop sold me a book when
all I want to do is read it, and if I bought a book which had
advertising on every page, words scribbled out, and the contents and
index pages curtailed, I would take it back and complain.

If I find a television programme that looks interesting, I can type
its name in the search box in Digiguide and easily discover where and
when to find more of the same, and then just type the relevant numbers
into my disk recorder. I rarely watch programmes live, so I don't even
waste any of my time watching the adverts. The rest of the time my
television is switched off.

You're in the minority. I've previously posted a link to a Guardian
article which presents statistics confirming that most PVR owners still
watch the majority of television live, as broadcast, in the traditional
manner. And I'd bet that the number of viewers who plan their viewing
by scanning the listings of their favourite channels in the
newspaper/Radio Times vastly exceeds the number who search Digiguide.

The programme planners and presentation departments all need to have a
framed notice on their walls saying "People don't watch channels -
they watch programmes".

Oh that old mantra which so many on here believe to be self evident, it
really isn't so. People consider some channels when planning their
viewing, and don't bother looking at others.

I'm sure years ago people used to watch channels, in the long-past days
before remote controls and PVRs, when you actually had to get up off
your arse to change channel, not any more though.

Like the film industry, who still seem to think we all want to sit for
two and a half hours watching one of their programmes all the way
through without a break in a big room full of strangers with mobile
phones and crisp packets, the broadcasters are living in the past.

You, and others on this newsgroup are living in a future which is not
yet here. Most average Joes are happy settling down to watch the
programmes they're used to, on the channels they're used to, at the
times they're used to.

TTB

Time To Burn wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
Same here. I couldn't care less which channel has broadcast the
programme, because it is the programme itself I am watching. I don't
care about it any more than I care which bookshop sold me a book when
all I want to do is read it, and if I bought a book which had
advertising on every page, words scribbled out, and the contents and
index pages curtailed, I would take it back and complain.

If I find a television programme that looks interesting, I can type
its name in the search box in Digiguide and easily discover where and
when to find more of the same, and then just type the relevant
numbers into my disk recorder. I rarely watch programmes live, so I
don't even waste any of my time watching the adverts. The rest of
the time my television is switched off.

You're in the minority. I've previously posted a link to a Guardian
article which presents statistics confirming that most PVR owners
still watch the majority of television live, as broadcast, in the
traditional manner. And I'd bet that the number of viewers who plan
their viewing by scanning the listings of their favourite channels in
the newspaper/Radio Times vastly exceeds the number who search
Digiguide.

I suspect you are right. I also suspect that people's viewing habits will
gradually change to adapt to the new technology, as they become more
familiar with the concept of EPGs, and as the EPGs themselves become richer
in metadata, making alternative ways of viewing easier. For most people,
this is all very new.

The programme planners and presentation departments all need to have
a framed notice on their walls saying "People don't watch channels -
they watch programmes".

Oh that old mantra which so many on here believe to be self evident,
it really isn't so. People consider some channels when planning their
viewing, and don't bother looking at others.

So the idea of a DOG is that it reinforces that behaviour, by
subsconsciously associating a programme with a particular channel?

Do you actually believe that? Does anyone believe that?