FiveUS dog

Pyriform wrote:
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.

Indeed. As I've said before, old viewing habits die hard. The time
and channel on which a programme is shown may not matter at all to the
advert-skipping bit-torrenting time-shifters on this newsgroup, but
they will continue to be key to those less tech-savvy viewers.

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?

*Ding*

A DOG provides a constant message, that the viewer can't ignore. It
must find its way into the mind somehow. It increases a viewer's
awareness of a channel (and if the viewer is enjoying watching a
programme on that channel, he will associate it with programmes he
enjoys).

Do you actually believe that? Does anyone believe that?

Of course. People on here are always bleating on about viewers "not
caring which channel a programme is on". And they're right. It's the
*broadcaster* who cares that the viewer knows where he is.

If a viewer doesn't care what channel he's stumbled on to in the high
tens on the Freeview EPG (or high hundreds on Sky/cable), how will he
find it again amongst all the others (multi-channel environment and all
that)? He's not going to press "info" or whatever, because he doesn't
care what channel he's on. And an abbreviated version of the name
flashing up on screen for three seconds after changing channel isn't
going to make much of an impact either. A DOG is just... there.
Always. So it must make some kind of impression if you're sitting
watching a programme for half an hour or whatever.

None of this would matter if most people always planned their viewing
by searching for the individual programmes they wanted to watch.

However, as you accepted above, most people only look at the listings
of their favourite channels when planning their viewing. That is to
say, people watch channels, not programmes.

A DOG helps a channel to become one of those that the viewer thinks to
check, rather than just skip over.

TTB

"Paul Heslop" wrote in message
...
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)
--

I think he should **** off!

"Time To Burn" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

A DOG helps a channel to become one of those that the viewer thinks to
check, rather than just skip over.

TTB

In my case a DOG makes me change to a channel without a dog or at least a
DOG that does not intrude on the programme I am watching, like the DOG on 5
useless does.
The pratts that run these Dog marketing excercises don't watch the channels
anyway, and most people with an ounce of sense already know what channel
they are watching, probably because they have read a programme guide in a
paper/online/or dtt epg.
I rarely watch live tv except for bbc, all the other progs i want to watch
are recorded and have adverts edited out.

In article ,
Edster wrote:
charles wrote in message

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.

That wouldn't explain why the BBC has them. They are funded by a
compulsory TV tax, so it makes no difference at all whether anyone
ever watches anything on the BBC or not.

Yes it does. The BBC needs to justify its use of the licence fee to the
Government. They need market survey results just like the other companies.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Heracles Pollux wrote:

"Paul Heslop" wrote in message
...
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)
--

I think he should **** off!

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

Sean Black wrote:

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.

I agree entirely, but brand seems to be all nowadays. They probably
pay consultants thousands to come up with this crap.

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.

It has always ****ed me off when they talk over the end of programs to
tell you about later things, so having picture disturbed AND vocal
pitches too is enough to really make me want to punch someone.

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

My wife is happy with her soaps, which she has set in her mind for
times etc, keeps her occupied when she wants from tea til about nine.
All other times are subject to random scanning around by me. I never
look at the badge in the corner unless I'm looking for something
particular and there are a few channels of similar ilk. Today was
damned confusing as I was setting up a video recorder and I had BBC2
with thunderbirds on... and on ch4 I had... Thunderbirds? Just getting
ready to retune when my son pointed out that they were both showing a
different thunderbirds thing at the same time!

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

charles wrote:

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.

the dog disappears between programs, it is only there during, and if
they really want to help it would be there during adds, which is when
most people start flicking between channels.

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


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

charles wrote:

In article ,
Edster wrote:
charles wrote in message

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.

That wouldn't explain why the BBC has them. They are funded by a
compulsory TV tax, so it makes no difference at all whether anyone
ever watches anything on the BBC or not.

Yes it does. The BBC needs to justify its use of the licence fee to the
Government. They need market survey results just like the other companies.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

so now their marketing results will show how many people they have
****ed off with their onscreen ****e
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Sean Black wrote:

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

WIN £6000 ETERTAINMENT SYSTEM!!!
--
Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

"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?


I think widescreen is mainly hype but having registered that
opinion I've let it go.


Why? have you only got one eye?


--
ThePunisher