FiveUS dog

Time To Burn wrote:
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.

The question for the broadcasters, surely, is whether what the "tech
savvy" class of viewer is doing now is going to stay niche (like
{struggles for an example} minidisc users!?), or if this is the start
of the future (like {easy example} the internet).

The people who use PVRs now may be about as important as people who
used bulletin boards in the 1980s. Yet 20 years later, here we are, and
no one is ignoring the internet!

My bet (and the broadcaster's bet, if you talk to them) is that no one
will ignore cheap, easy to use PVRs; VOD; downloading etc etc.

That doesn't help my argument against DOGs, but it does help my
argument against "old habits die hard". It's just not true. For
example, it was dead easy to bin all those "truprint" envelopes when I
bought a digital camera and never send a 35mm film off to be developed
ever again! Half the country are doing the same thing. I'm fairly sure
that half the country are going to stop watching live TV when they have
cheap, usable alternatives.

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

Is the right answer.

Well, obviously. But why should the BBC?

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.

I know - doesn't (shouldn't?) the BBC exist to serve minorities?

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.

Unless it's how everyone will do things in the future.
(Or at least an indication that the way "everyone" does things now is
on the way out).

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.

I think we all know the biggest reason. It's corporate branding.
They're mad about it. It's ingrained in the new BBC culture. You and I
can discuss possible "logical" reasons, but the biggest reason is
"ego". It has nothing to do with the viewers. You can't honestly
believe more people watch The Proms on BBC Four when they stick "BBC
FOUR" in the top left hand corner? I don't think even the BBC believe
that.

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.

Mind you - you're on dangerous territory here. It would be a brave man
who claimed that _everything_ done, even in the commercial world, was
done for sound logical business reasons, and that nothing was ever done
"because everyone else does" or "because someone in the organisation
feels like it / can justify their existence by doing it". The world is
rarely logical, because we're not 100% logical, rational beings.

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

Cheers,
David.

On 25 Oct 2006 02:19:50 -0700, "Time To Burn"
wrote:

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).

This is irrelevant. Modern digital AV material is quite capable of
carrying metadata, and usually does. All the information anybody could
ever want to know about a broadcast could easily be available to
anyone who wants it without bothering anybody else. The reason for the
broadcasters forcing it upon us in the form of screenclutter is
nothing to do with our interests, but theirs. They won't listen unless
we switch off.

Rod.

wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:
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.

The question for the broadcasters, surely, is whether what the "tech
savvy" class of viewer is doing now is going to stay niche (like
{struggles for an example} minidisc users!?), or if this is the start
of the future (like {easy example} the internet).

The people who use PVRs now may be about as important as people who
used bulletin boards in the 1980s. Yet 20 years later, here we are, and
no one is ignoring the internet!

My bet (and the broadcaster's bet, if you talk to them) is that no one
will ignore cheap, easy to use PVRs; VOD; downloading etc etc.

Agree, agree, agree.

That doesn't help my argument against DOGs, but it does help my
argument against "old habits die hard".

No it doesn't! "Old habits die hard", doesn't mean they will never
change at all. And the 20 years later you talked about earlier
certainly counts as "dying hard" in my book.

I think coercing the masses away from the traditional TV delivery
method of "appointment-to-view" is going to be a very, very gradual
process. Until then, expect the traditional methods of attracting
viewers to stay put; that means scheduling top-rating shows at
primetime on flagship channels, "Coming Next" banners to keep viewers
from switching over, and DOGs on minority channels for the reasons I've
explained already.

If the future was here already, not only could you scrap DOGs and
"Coming Nexts", you could also move Coronation Street to 3.30am without
expecting any hit in ratings, because everyone's PVRs would find it
regardless of transmission time!

It's just not true. For
example, it was dead easy to bin all those "truprint" envelopes when I
bought a digital camera and never send a 35mm film off to be developed
ever again! Half the country are doing the same thing. I'm fairly sure
that half the country are going to stop watching live TV when they have
cheap, usable alternatives.

Presumably you're not counting Sky+ as "usable" here. In that case the
fact that most DVRs are Sky+ would seem to extend the dying-hard period
even longer, until most people replace them with one that is easier to
use.

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

Is the right answer.

Well, obviously. But why should the BBC?

I'll answer the question "why should broadcasters in general..."

annoy the clever people in order to stick in the mind
of the stupid ones?

and that is because the number of viewers whose awareness of their
channel is raised by the DOG, and return there in future as a result,
vastly outnumbers those who will actively avoid the channel as a result
- therefore it makes sense to use it.

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.

I know - doesn't (shouldn't?) the BBC exist to serve minorities?

Obviously not at the expense of an effective way of sticking in the
minds of everyone else.

I don't have much to say about the "public service broadcaster" subject
really. I'd like to steer away from the BBC-specific angle to this
issue (this thread is about FiveUS after all!) and concentrate on the
valid reasons why broadcasters use DOGs, if possible.

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.

Unless it's how everyone will do things in the future.

Why does the fact that logos won't serve the same purpose in the future
affect their usefulness and whether they should be used now?

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.

I think we all know the biggest reason. It's corporate branding.
They're mad about it. It's ingrained in the new BBC culture. You and I
can discuss possible "logical" reasons, but the biggest reason is
"ego". It has nothing to do with the viewers.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, sorry.

You can't honestly
believe more people watch The Proms on BBC Four when they stick "BBC
FOUR" in the top left hand corner?

I think in the long term, more people will be likely to return there in
the future after having done so, as a result of the DOG.

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.

Mind you - you're on dangerous territory here. It would be a brave man
who claimed that _everything_ done, even in the commercial world, was
done for sound logical business reasons, and that nothing was ever done
"because everyone else does" or "because someone in the organisation
feels like it / can justify their existence by doing it". The world is
rarely logical, because we're not 100% logical, rational beings.

Sure. But I'm not so paranoid as to believe that pretty much every
satellite/digital (and even some terrestrial) broadcaster in the world
uses logos and has done so for decades, for no sound logical reason,
and just to **** people off.

TTB

In message .com, Time
To Burn writes

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).

If you know the channel the particular programme is on, you simply type
in the channel number or look it up in the EPG. If you're simply surfing
channels looking for something to watch, the channel name, number and
programme name all appear on screen for a few seconds with each channel,
so no need for a DOG.

"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).

If people watch channels and not programmes as you suggest, the coming
next banners or voice-overs are irrelevant as people will tune in to,
say ITV for example and happily sit and watch whatever comes on. So no
need for any of that crap. Also on Sky at least, on the banner that
comes up with each channel change, it not only tells you what is on now,
but also what is on next, so once again irrelevant.

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.

Fortunately, I've not had the "pleasure" of listening to Radio 1 for at
least the last 15 years :-)
--
Sean Black

The people who use PVRs now may be about as important as people who
used bulletin boards in the 1980s. Yet 20 years later, here we are, and
no one is ignoring the internet!

[snip]

That doesn't help my argument against DOGs, but it does help my
argument against "old habits die hard".

No it doesn't! "Old habits die hard", doesn't mean they will never
change at all. And the 20 years later you talked about earlier
certainly counts as "dying hard" in my book.

But, as I suggested elsewhere, it took 20 years for the technology to
become widely available.

_When_ the technology is available and people understand it, old habits
change overnight. We humans are amazingly adaptable.

email, web, mobile phones, text messages, digital cameras, etc etc.
Each seemed to go from niche to mass market in a matter of months.
(Though each had been niche for years, if not decades).

I think coercing the masses away from the traditional TV delivery
method of "appointment-to-view" is going to be a very, very gradual
process. Until then, expect the traditional methods of attracting
viewers to stay put; that means scheduling top-rating shows at
primetime on flagship channels, "Coming Next" banners to keep viewers
from switching over, and DOGs on minority channels for the reasons I've
explained already.

Of course, apart from scheduling, none of those things are traditional
at all. They didn't exist on terrestrial TV ten or so years ago. The
nearest thing you got to a coming next banner or crashed title was a
continuity announcer gentling fading the music of the closing titles
down (after a suitable period to enjoy the music and reflect on the
programme!) to mention what was coming next.

If the future was here already, not only could you scrap DOGs and
"Coming Nexts", you could also move Coronation Street to 3.30am without
expecting any hit in ratings, because everyone's PVRs would find it
regardless of transmission time!

Well, maybe. Even if most people have PVRs, they'll still be some
concept of prime time, even if it's less relevant. Just like there's
still a postal service now we have email, land lines now we have
mobiles etc etc.

It's just not true. For
example, it was dead easy to bin all those "truprint" envelopes when I
bought a digital camera and never send a 35mm film off to be developed
ever again! Half the country are doing the same thing. I'm fairly sure
that half the country are going to stop watching live TV when they have
cheap, usable alternatives.

Presumably you're not counting Sky+ as "usable" here.

I don't know - I've never used it.

I don't have much to say about the "public service broadcaster" subject
really. I'd like to steer away from the BBC-specific angle to this
issue (this thread is about FiveUS after all!) and concentrate on the
valid reasons why broadcasters use DOGs, if possible.

Usenet threads must stay strictly on topic?!

The BBC example interests me because I think they're the last people
who _should_ be using DOGs, and they provide most of the output I
watch.

The five example is interesting because of course Channel Five (rather
than FiveUS etc) _dropped_ their DOG. I wonder why? (He asked,
cheekily).

I think we all know the biggest reason. It's corporate branding.
They're mad about it. It's ingrained in the new BBC culture. You and I
can discuss possible "logical" reasons, but the biggest reason is
"ego". It has nothing to do with the viewers.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, sorry.

Hardly a conspiracy theory - the (desperate) need for BBC brand
recognition on all output is explained in various BBC documents
available on their production website.

The specific channel controllers who have taken the personal decision
to brand _their_ (surely our?) channels are also well known, as are
their opinions. You can read the sad and sorry story at
http://logofreetv.org/

You can't honestly
believe more people watch The Proms on BBC Four when they stick "BBC
FOUR" in the top left hand corner?

I think in the long term, more people will be likely to return there in
the future after having done so, as a result of the DOG.

I think you're wrong.

I can't give you any better reason for my belief than the fact that
some of the Proms on BBC Four are too "highbrow" or "obscure" for me,
yet I'm perfectly able to recall BBC Four itself, and the fact that the
last three weeks of the Proms were shown on that channel. Are you
suggesting a significant number of the target audience are so
dramatically less intelligent than myself that they benefited from
having "BBC Four" displayed on the screen all the time?! I find that
hard to believe.

I'll tell you what certainly does make _me_ more likely to return there
in the future. A trailer adjacent to the programme that trails
something which looks interesting.

It seems to me that it must work for other people too, because there's
no channel that fails to make use of this, and people (in general -
friends, family, colleagues) sometimes mention things which are coming
(or coming back) because they've seen a trailer.

This works for the kind of channels you think may "benefit" from DOGs.
From Channel Five to BBC Four, the most prominent "headline" broadcasts
(which are likely to bring in people who don't normally watch the
channel) are surrounded by copious trails for the best that channel has
to offer.

Sure. But I'm not so paranoid as to believe that pretty much every
satellite/digital (and even some terrestrial) broadcaster in the world
uses logos and has done so for decades, for no sound logical reason,
and just to **** people off.

Decades? You mean on out-of-date analogue broadcast systems when it
wasn't always easy (or even possible!) to know which channel you were
watching until an ad break? It's obvious why they were used - so people
knew which channel they were watching _when_there_was_no_other_way!!!

We avoided this in the UK because we had so few channels!

Why are they still there in other countries? (Note: not all countries,
not all channels. Some HBO channels are the most notable exceptions I
know of). Some still have analogue broadcasting (on satellite or cable,
if not (soon) via terrestrial). Most retain them because they hope to
gain some of the benefits you describe, and because viewers have become
used to them historically.


Let's not get distracted with other countries. We have a (historically)
regulated market here in the UK which (historically) hasn't had DOGs on
public service / terrestrial channels.

You make the case that DOGs bring more benefit than detriment to
broadcasters, because so few people actually switch off, while some
benefits (real or perceived - both help share prices!) can be had.

So what? I know we've destroyed it recently, but we did have a
carefully regulated commercial broadcasting sector in the UK. If you
want a sensible debate, let's talk about the way things should be. It
should still be carefully regulated. It should exist for the dual
purposes of providing profitable business opportunities and serving the
viewers. Given that it's _our_ spectrum that the government (through
OfCom) licenses out on our behalf, we deserve to be served.

I don't think anyone has ever successfully argued that DOGs do more
good than harm for viewers.* If you disagree, I like to hear your
arguments.

You may well disagree that broadcasting should be regulated for the
benefit of viewers. That's fine - it's a big philosophical and
political argument. However, if you do accept some regulation of
broadcasting for the benefit of viewers, why not regulate (ban!) DOGs,
at least on terrestrial, for the benefit of viewers?

Cheers,
David.


* Except, and I don't buy this but it's the least daft argument I've
heard, for kid's channels which parents use to baby sit their children.
The argument is that said parents want to be able to see at a glance
from the hallway that baby hasn't changed channel, and the big bright
logo enables this functionality. I'd enable the functionality of having
said baby put up for adoption, said parent put into jail, and said TV
station closed down, but that's just the kind of woolly minded liberal
that I am ;-). (there's humour there, not a policy statement. I add
that because you are not a regular here, so might not know me!)

wrote:
The people who use PVRs now may be about as important as people who
used bulletin boards in the 1980s. Yet 20 years later, here we are, and
no one is ignoring the internet!

[snip]

That doesn't help my argument against DOGs, but it does help my
argument against "old habits die hard".

No it doesn't! "Old habits die hard", doesn't mean they will never
change at all. And the 20 years later you talked about earlier
certainly counts as "dying hard" in my book.

But, as I suggested elsewhere, it took 20 years for the technology to
become widely available.

_When_ the technology is available and people understand it, old habits
change overnight. We humans are amazingly adaptable.

email, web, mobile phones, text messages, digital cameras, etc etc.
Each seemed to go from niche to mass market in a matter of months.
(Though each had been niche for years, if not decades).

Alright. I put it to you that PVRs that revolutionise viewing habits
are still very much niche, and will continue to be so at least until
analogue switchoff is complete.

I think coercing the masses away from the traditional TV delivery
method of "appointment-to-view" is going to be a very, very gradual
process. Until then, expect the traditional methods of attracting
viewers to stay put; that means scheduling top-rating shows at
primetime on flagship channels, "Coming Next" banners to keep viewers
from switching over, and DOGs on minority channels for the reasons I've
explained already.

Of course, apart from scheduling, none of those things are traditional
at all. They didn't exist on terrestrial TV ten or so years ago.

Of course not, because ten or so years ago not so many households had
multi-channel television! You couldn't just act on impulse while doing
your weekly shop at Asda and pick up a box for £25 which gave you 30
or so channels.

And yet people still can't understand why broadcasters' stock replies
for DOG enquiries refer to "the increasingly multi-channel
environment"?

It's just not true. For
example, it was dead easy to bin all those "truprint" envelopes when I
bought a digital camera and never send a 35mm film off to be developed
ever again! Half the country are doing the same thing. I'm fairly sure
that half the country are going to stop watching live TV when they have
cheap, usable alternatives.

Presumably you're not counting Sky+ as "usable" here.

I don't know - I've never used it.

Me neither, but I've previously posted a link to a Guardian article (I
can dig the link out again if necessary) which presents findings which
state that most viewing in Sky+ households is still live as broadcast.
It either says something about the viewers, or the equipment.

I don't have much to say about the "public service broadcaster" subject
really. I'd like to steer away from the BBC-specific angle to this
issue (this thread is about FiveUS after all!) and concentrate on the
valid reasons why broadcasters use DOGs, if possible.

Usenet threads must stay strictly on topic?!

The BBC example interests me because I think they're the last people
who _should_ be using DOGs, and they provide most of the output I
watch.

The five example is interesting because of course Channel Five (rather
than FiveUS etc) _dropped_ their DOG. I wonder why? (He asked,
cheekily).

I guess it's all about making the move from niche to mainstream. They
no longer have to convince people to look at the Channel 5 schedules
when planning their viewing, people now just check it as a matter of
course (helped of course by a) the fact that it's up there in a large
column in the newspaper, next to the other big four, and b) it's at a
premium spot on digital EPGs, and most analogue viewers who will ever
be able to watch it have already tuned it into number 5. So it's by no
means the same issue as FiveUS).

I think we all know the biggest reason. It's corporate branding.
They're mad about it. It's ingrained in the new BBC culture. You and I
can discuss possible "logical" reasons, but the biggest reason is
"ego". It has nothing to do with the viewers.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, sorry.

Hardly a conspiracy theory - the (desperate) need for BBC brand
recognition on all output is explained in various BBC documents
available on their production website.

I accept that they do put effort into corporate branding, but to
suggest that they do it "just because they can" is both ridiculous and
paranoid, particularly in the face of the reasons for wanting to build
awareness that I've already covered.

You can't honestly
believe more people watch The Proms on BBC Four when they stick "BBC
FOUR" in the top left hand corner?

I think in the long term, more people will be likely to return there in
the future after having done so, as a result of the DOG.

I think you're wrong.

I can't give you any better reason for my belief than the fact that
some of the Proms on BBC Four are too "highbrow" or "obscure" for me,
yet I'm perfectly able to recall BBC Four itself, and the fact that the
last three weeks of the Proms were shown on that channel. Are you
suggesting a significant number of the target audience are so
dramatically less intelligent than myself that they benefited from
having "BBC Four" displayed on the screen all the time?! I find that
hard to believe.

Substitute "less intelligent" for "less tech savvy" and the answer is
of course yes. What proportion of Proms viewers will be relatively
elderly, for example? This may be the first time many of them have
used that cheap Freeview box they got for Christmas last year!
Constant, unavoidable reinforcement of the channel name is IMO likely
to make them think to check what is on BBC Four in future.

I'll tell you what certainly does make _me_ more likely to return there
in the future. A trailer adjacent to the programme that trails
something which looks interesting.

It seems to me that it must work for other people too, because there's
no channel that fails to make use of this, and people (in general -
friends, family, colleagues) sometimes mention things which are coming
(or coming back) because they've seen a trailer.

You've just explained why many broadcasters use "Coming next" banners,
and others use "New series of XXX starts Sunday at 9pm" etc under the
DOG. Most people reach for the remote as soon as the credits start
rolling!

This works for the kind of channels you think may "benefit" from DOGs.
From Channel Five to BBC Four, the most prominent "headline" broadcasts
(which are likely to bring in people who don't normally watch the
channel) are surrounded by copious trails for the best that channel has
to offer.

Sure. But I'm not so paranoid as to believe that pretty much every
satellite/digital (and even some terrestrial) broadcaster in the world
uses logos and has done so for decades, for no sound logical reason,
and just to **** people off.

Decades? You mean on out-of-date analogue broadcast systems when it
wasn't always easy (or even possible!) to know which channel you were
watching until an ad break? It's obvious why they were used - so people
knew which channel they were watching _when_there_was_no_other_way!!!

Well, that's a bit spurious really. Teletext could identify the
channel in many cases, as could comparing the programme shown to what
the listings say should be on at that time. As I have said already
(stop me if I'm wrong) people don't care what channel they're watching!

I think the reasons I've stated applied in this case too. The more
channels there are, the more fragmented the audience is going to be
between them, and the more need for viewer awareness of channels (done
by branding and DOGs).

We avoided this in the UK because we had so few channels!

Indeed.

Why are they still there in other countries? (Note: not all countries,
not all channels. Some HBO channels are the most notable exceptions I
know of). Some still have analogue broadcasting (on satellite or cable,
if not (soon) via terrestrial). Most retain them because they hope to
gain some of the benefits you describe, and because viewers have become
used to them historically.


Let's not get distracted with other countries. We have a (historically)
regulated market here in the UK which (historically) hasn't had DOGs on
public service / terrestrial channels.

We historically haven't had DOGs on *analogue* terrestrial channels
(with the exception of early channel 5), because, as you said, we had
so few channels. The digital terrestrial domain is not "analogous", as
it were ;-)

You make the case that DOGs bring more benefit than detriment to
broadcasters, because so few people actually switch off, while some
benefits (real or perceived - both help share prices!) can be had.

That sums it up nicely! You're certainly the most intelligent Robinson
I've ever corresponded with on Usenet.

So what? I know we've destroyed it recently, but we did have a
carefully regulated commercial broadcasting sector in the UK. If you
want a sensible debate, let's talk about the way things should be. It
should still be carefully regulated. It should exist for the dual
purposes of providing profitable business opportunities and serving the
viewers. Given that it's _our_ spectrum that the government (through
OfCom) licenses out on our behalf, we deserve to be served.

I don't think anyone has ever successfully argued that DOGs do more
good than harm for viewers.* If you disagree, I like to hear your
arguments.

IMO DOGs do more good than harm for broadcasters, as you put very
nicely above. Of course in the long term this benefits viewers - DOGs
create awareness of a channel and make viewers more likely to pay
attention to it in future. More viewers means you can charge
advertisers more money, which can be ploughed back into the channel,
for hopefully better programmes in future. As a wise man once said -
everyone's a winner(!!!!!!!!!!).

You may well disagree that broadcasting should be regulated for the
benefit of viewers. That's fine - it's a big philosophical and
political argument. However, if you do accept some regulation of
broadcasting for the benefit of viewers, why not regulate (ban!) DOGs,
at least on terrestrial, for the benefit of viewers?

Because it's a rather spurious thing to ban IMO, and it would be way,
way down my list. Most people don't care, and they bring benefits. As
to what I'd regulate instead? I'd rather reintroduce regional identity
on ITV, increase bitrates on all digital platforms (raise like a helium
balloon, anyone(?)), enforce standard digital EPGs on DSAT, make C4 and
C5 free-to-air on DSAT, reintroduce old-style teletext to DTT and
DSAT...

* Except, and I don't buy this but it's the least daft argument I've
heard, for kid's channels which parents use to baby sit their children.
The argument is that said parents want to be able to see at a glance
from the hallway that baby hasn't changed channel, and the big bright
logo enables this functionality.

LOL! Don't forget they can also serve to let you know whether your
widescreen TV is in the correct mode or not, depending on whether the
logo is right in the corner of the screen, or some distance in (doesn't
work on E4/E4+1) ;-)

(there's humour there, not a policy statement. I add
that because you are not a regular here, so might not know me!)

Long time lurker, occasional poster ;-)

TTB

In article ,
says...
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.

I see you've had a sense of humour bypass installed(!)
--

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...
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.

c) Branding. The people who make such decisions about logos are not the people
who watch the programmes. TV stations are more like marketing bods these days.
They're all losing a battle against declining viewers and (wrongly) think the
answer is to keep shouting louder than every other channel, which in their
world is by having more and more crappy logos on the screen.

And because some started doing it, so did more of them, until it gets so bad
on satellite TV that you can't move for them. Even BBC1, BBC2 and C4 tried
them on digital TV back in 1998 but got shouted down by the public.

All those channels that have logos are too scared NOT to have them because the
marketing bods at the respective channels think they'll lose market share as a
result. They won't, but rarely will they risk such a move.

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.

Branding, again.
--

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...
I don't think anyone has ever successfully argued that DOGs do more
good than harm for viewers.* If you disagree, I like to hear your
arguments.

IMO DOGs do more good than harm for broadcasters, as you put very
nicely above. Of course in the long term this benefits viewers - DOGs
create awareness of a channel and make viewers more likely to pay
attention to it in future. More viewers means you can charge
advertisers more money, which can be ploughed back into the channel,
for hopefully better programmes in future. As a wise man once said -
everyone's a winner(!!!!!!!!!!).

Ah, Tits To Burn is still peddling the same old trolling nonsense. David, I
wouldn't bother trying to reason with him. Do a search for all his previous
posts and you'll see exactly the same thing many times over, including the
same conclusion.

I once thought I was finally beginning to make him see sense but then he
immediately turned back to the way he was before. He's a marketing bod's wet
dream.
--

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:33:20 +0100, Edster wrote:

The reason for the
broadcasters forcing it upon us in the form of screenclutter is
nothing to do with our interests, but theirs. They won't listen unless
we switch off.

Rod.

Only if the advertisers notice.

The advertisers will eventually notice if they are not being paid
because their clients are not seeing any increase in sales. There is a
sort of feedback loop, albeit a very long-winded one.

Rod.