FiveUS dog

In article ,
says...
Dominic Shields wrote:
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 ?

Your argument makes no sense at all. DOGs are not one of those annoying
things that 'just are', like wasps, rainy English weather or herpes.

But like herpes, DOGs are unwelcome, spread all over the place and are a real
bugger to get rid of
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1120 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article ,
says...
"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

Yeah, but this is Time To Burn we're talking about here. The resident usenet
troll who talks more ******** than Russell T Davies with his mouth full
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1120 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article . com,
says...
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?

If Torchwood had been worth watching, and wasn't the complete ****e I was
expecting from RTD, I'd have stuck with the BBC2 repeat.

I started a thread about it on here. Apparently, POV will have a word with
BBC3 over it, but who knows if anything will happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofv...thread=3602482

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!

Do they and ITV2 use the same processing algorithms?
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1120 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In article ,
says...
"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?



Yeah, and it's always closed - like his mind.
--

Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1120 DVDs, 338 games, 264 CDs, 108 cinema films, 34 concerts, videos & news
/* scarface (xbox), echo & bunnymen, f.e.a.r., level 42, batman returns

New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
DVDfever Youtube Channel - http://youtube.com/user/DVDfever

In message . com, Time
To Burn writes

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).

How about next time you go to the cinema, there's a DOG in the top
corner of the screen saying in big letters "UCI" "ODEON" or whatever,
just to increase your awareness of which cinema you're in. Or how about
20 minutes from the end of the film a banner comes across the top of the
screen saying something like "Coming next week Harry Potter 10" or
whatever? Is that any different?

Or how about next time you've got the radio on and all through the
record that's playing, in the background you get "Radio 1" repeated at a
low volume, just to increase your awareness of which station your
listening to. In fact I'd say that was more important than a DOG on a TV
channel, after all, unless you've got an RDS or DAB radio how are you
going to know what station you're listening to if you're just scanning
through the all the stations for something you like?
--
Sean Black

"Sean Black" wrote in message
...

How about next time you go to the cinema, there's a DOG in the top corner
of the screen saying in big letters "UCI" "ODEON" or whatever, just to
increase your awareness of which cinema you're in. Or how about 20 minutes
from the end of the film a banner comes across the top of the screen
saying something like "Coming next week Harry Potter 10" or whatever? Is
that any different?

Or how about next time you've got the radio on and all through the record
that's playing, in the background you get "Radio 1" repeated at a low
volume, just to increase your awareness of which station your listening
to. In fact I'd say that was more important than a DOG on a TV channel,
after all, unless you've got an RDS or DAB radio how are you going to know
what station you're listening to if you're just scanning through the all
the stations for something you like?
--
Sean Black

Damn! Just realised the book I am reading has a DOG all the way through, at
the top of each page!!!!! ;0)

Maybe we could get this extended further into society. All politicians
will have a DOG detailing their Name and Party tattooed on their foreheads.

J

Sean Black wrote:
In message . com, Time
To Burn writes

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).

How about next time you go to the cinema, there's a DOG in the top
corner of the screen saying in big letters "UCI" "ODEON" or whatever,
just to increase your awareness of which cinema you're in. Or how about
20 minutes from the end of the film a banner comes across the top of the
screen saying something like "Coming next week Harry Potter 10" or
whatever? Is that any different?

You're deliberately not listening to what I'm saying, and coming up
with ridiculous arguments that sound good, but in fact aren't analogous
at all. But I'll shoot it down anyway; travelling to a particular
cinema quite obviously requires much more awareness of where you are,
than navigating to a high-numbered minority channel on a digital TV EPG
(unless you travelled to some kind of multi-cinema complex, where there
are many (e.g. 10+) competing cinema chains all next to each other, in
which case you could perhaps, conceivably, not be aware of which
particular one you had gone to - I don't know of any such complexes).

"Coming next week" information already exists in the form of pre-film
trailers; these work on their own for cinema, rather than TV, because
at the cinema people are much more likely to be seated and watching
before the film begins.

Banners towards the end of the film, and talking over credits aren't
required because they have no need to keep people watching for
something that's appearing straight after the film (although I suppose
they could conceivably want to inform people about another film that's
about to start on another screen).

Or how about next time you've got the radio on and all through the
record that's playing, in the background you get "Radio 1" repeated at a
low volume, just to increase your awareness of which station your
listening to. In fact I'd say that was more important than a DOG on a TV
channel, after all, unless you've got an RDS or DAB radio how are you
going to know what station you're listening to if you're just scanning
through the all the stations for something you like?

You clearly don't listen to Radio 1 very much, the station name must be
mentioned at least once every five minutes.

TTB

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:47:53 +0100, Dom Robinson
wrote:

Why? have you only got one eye?



Yeah, and it's always closed - like his mind.

Oh come on. Attacking people's arguments is fine. Attacking
people is not.

Time To Burn wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:
[snip]
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.
[snip]

Indeed. As I've said before, old viewing habits die hard.

Rubbish! Within less than a week of having the Pace Twin, "live TV"
became irrelevant for us. Often we watch something "nearly live",
sometimes we watch something recorded some time in the past
week/month/(and occasionally)year.

Why should we, or would we, place our Saturday evenings around the BBC
One schedule?

As for those die-hard people who own the only "real" PVR, Tivo, they
really do have no concept of channels or schedules. This is simple fact
- try talking to them. Since we don't have a "real" PVR (fairer to call
it a DVR, I think), I do still know about channels and schedules
because I have to call them up in the EPG to set them! If I didn't, I
wouldn't - or at least wouldn't care.

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.

Yes, that's true. I'm sure plenty of people have DVRs and use them
like, well, digital VCRs. Maybe many don't use chase play (quite buggy
on a few models out there), struggle with the EPG, and of course none
of them have the Tivo functionality of getting programmes picked out
for them automatically.

Remember the most popular DVR is Sky+, while many self proclaimed
intelligent people wouldn't touch Sky with a barge pole. So it's
possible that many people with DVRs are also technologically
illiterate. I don't know - I'm just guessing.

However, your suggestion that people who have good PVRs/DVRs and know
how to use them _still_ watch most TV live on a few favourite channels
is nonesense. Some may still watch a few favourite channels (due to the
content!), but they don't watch them live!

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.

So, in short, we annoy the clever people in order to stick in the mind
of the stupid ones?

As you might guess, that strategy doesn't work in our house! DOGed
channels get watch less, not more.

Whereas, if I stumble across a good programme somehow (usually via the
EPG), I'll make a mental note that such-and-such a channel has shown
something that I like, and may well do so in the future. I might add it
to favourite channels.


The reason the BBC DOGs content it is quite simple. They are scared of
not being noticed. Quite sad really! They couldn't care less about the
people who know they're watching the BBC. These people might well be
annoyed by the logo, but the number who will actually switch off is
quite small. They're worried about people who don't know they're
watching the BBC, and hence don't see any value in the BBC and would
(in theory) oppose charter renewal.

The answer, of course, would be a strong secure BBC that produced high
quality output, and didn't need to care whether people realised they
were watching the BBC or not. Not a weak, paranoid BBC which feels the
need to daub graffiti everywhere in order to get itself noticed.


As for the commercial channels... they'll do what they like. Most of
the content is so dire, and the picture quality so poor, that a logo is
hardly going to make them less watchable for me. So why would they
bother to remove it, when the lowest common denominator they're chasing
clearly don't care?

(Unless, of course, they want to aspire to be just a little upmarket.
Do think you ITV will take the lead? ;-) )

Cheers,
David.

wrote:

Yes, that's true. I'm sure plenty of people have DVRs and use them
like, well, digital VCRs. Maybe many don't use chase play (quite buggy
on a few models out there), struggle with the EPG, and of course none
of them have the Tivo functionality of getting programmes picked out
for them automatically.

Remember the most popular DVR is Sky+, while many self proclaimed
intelligent people wouldn't touch Sky with a barge pole. So it's
possible that many people with DVRs are also technologically
illiterate. I don't know - I'm just guessing.

I agree completely.

However, your suggestion that people who have good PVRs/DVRs and know
how to use them _still_ watch most TV live on a few favourite channels
is nonesense.

I never suggested that.

Some may still watch a few favourite channels (due to the
content!), but they don't watch them live!

Quite! I am acknowledging that there is a more tech-savvy class of
viewer whose vewing habits have been revolutionised by their PVRs.
However, as you appear to accept above, they are still so vastly
outnumbered by the others who either don't have a PVR, or have one and
only use them on an occasional basis, as they did with their VCR, and
as such this minority isn't really worth bothering about.

So, in short, we annoy the clever people in order to stick in the mind
of the stupid ones?

Is the right answer.

As you might guess, that strategy doesn't work in our house! DOGed
channels get watch less, not more.

I don't think the broadcasters care, because you're in the extreme
minority.

Whereas, if I stumble across a good programme somehow (usually via the
EPG), I'll make a mental note that such-and-such a channel has shown
something that I like, and may well do so in the future. I might add it
to favourite channels.

Well, good for you. But I really don't think there's any point
discussing the wondrous viewing habits of people on this newsgroup any
further in this thread; we've already established that people here are
"power viewers", and as such are in the minority compared to non PVR
owners, and the tech illiterate Sky Plussers you described above.
Which, in turn, means that they don't really matter that much in the
grand scheme of attracting viewers to a channel.

The reason the BBC DOGs content it is quite simple. They are scared of
not being noticed. Quite sad really! They couldn't care less about the
people who know they're watching the BBC. These people might well be
annoyed by the logo, but the number who will actually switch off is
quite small. They're worried about people who don't know they're
watching the BBC, and hence don't see any value in the BBC and would
(in theory) oppose charter renewal.

The answer, of course, would be a strong secure BBC that produced high
quality output, and didn't need to care whether people realised they
were watching the BBC or not. Not a weak, paranoid BBC which feels the
need to daub graffiti everywhere in order to get itself noticed.

I think you're right to an extent... but ISTM that there must be a
reason the BBC keep logos even on channels that aren't targeted at the
lowest common denominator (e.g. BBC4). The only possible reasons are
a) the BBC hate you, or b) they work well.

As for the commercial channels... they'll do what they like. Most of
the content is so dire, and the picture quality so poor, that a logo is
hardly going to make them less watchable for me. So why would they
bother to remove it, when the lowest common denominator they're chasing
clearly don't care?

Sure, but it's not just there to decorate/irritate for the sake of it!
It must serve a purpose to the broadcaster.

Anyway, great to hear some sense being talked on this issue at last.

TTB