BBC3 DOGS

Graham Murray wrote:

"Time To Burn" writes:

It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:

"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to ensure
that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC
service."

How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.

This has been covered many times before. The greater the viewer's
awareness of which station is broadcasting the programmes they want to
watch, the more likely they are to return there in future (particularly
for minority stations). More viewers returning to the station means
greater advertising revenues, which can be spent on even more
programmes the viewers want to watch.

"David" wrote in message
...

"Judy Booth" wrote in message
...


Have you tried complaining to the BBC about this? I'm not saying they
will
change things based on a single complaint, but if enough people are
unhappy
about this and tell them so, then they may stop doing this.

The BBC must have bucket loads of complaints and by keeping the DOGs going
you can see what they think about the viewers.

I guess when anologue goes they will be on BBC 1 and 2 as well.
(same goes for ITV1, CH4 ans FIVE.)
--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group



An interesting point. Will that be at the start of DSO or end? That could
happen anytime now up to 2012.

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense to
distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the top
of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and stupid
decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense
to distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the top
of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and stupid
decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

Well time will tell, but I think they will think it an improvement.
Also I think Signing for the deaf will increase too.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

Time To Burn wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:

"Time To Burn" writes:

It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:

"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to
ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a
BBC service."

How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.

This has been covered many times before.

Only in the sense that everyone else hates them, but you (and certain TV
executives) believe that DOGs are justified because they establish some kind
of conditioned response in the viewer: they select a particular channel in
the expectation that they will receive televisual gratification.

I say you are wrong, and that you have no research to prove it. It is merely
a whimsical executive fantasy, predicated on the idea that the average
viewer has the intellect of a laboratory rat.

Pyriform wrote:

Time To Burn wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:

"Time To Burn" writes:

It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:

"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to
ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a
BBC service."

How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.

This has been covered many times before.

Only in the sense that everyone else hates them, but you (and certain TV
executives) believe that DOGs are justified because they establish some kind
of conditioned response in the viewer: they select a particular channel in
the expectation that they will receive televisual gratification.

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation. I'll
spell it out.

Everybody knows that the BBC and ITV, for instance, put their most
popular programmes on BBC1 and ITV1, and moving a programme from BBC2
to BBC1 is considered "promotion". Why do you think that is?

I think it's because when viewers switch on their TV, in general they
will head straight to BBC1 and ITV1 over any other channel...

in the expectation that they will receive televisual gratification.

Why BBC1 and ITV1? Because they have a unique advantage in that they
have been the only options for a long time and so most viewers are well
aware of them.

However, there may be other channels in the depths of the EPG that will
offer similar gratification. Such channels have never enjoyed the
ubiquity of the BBC and ITV. Therefore the awareness of these channels
has to be created manually, i.e. by exposing the viewer to the brand
identity at every possible opportunity.

I say you are wrong, and that you have no research to prove it. It is merely
a whimsical executive fantasy, predicated on the idea that the average
viewer has the intellect of a laboratory rat.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

"David" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...

I personally doubt they would DOG the primary 5 channels. It makes sense
to distinguish these from what is so obviously the trash that is anything
digital.

On the other hand, given the sort of grade of people that float to the
top of TV companies, particularly the BBC, no form of down-market and
stupid decisions can be discounted by these philistines.

Well time will tell, but I think they will think it an improvement.
Also I think Signing for the deaf will increase too.

--
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group




Amid the current buzz/wank words of "Interactive TV", "User Generated
Content", "Audience Participation", and "BBC shareholders", isn't amazing
how little say the audience actually has! ;-)

Time To Burn wrote:

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation. I'll
spell it out.

"simple logic"? there is no logic in your argument, you might rather say
it's a pragma that marketing people have pushed into the collective
consciousness.

Your argument has no logical progression: you give a
correlation:causation argument - "people identify these channels, and
they watch a lot of them, therefore if we get people to identify our
channel they will watch more of it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

IMO it's more likely that people watch BBC1 and ITV1 because they know
the _programmes_ as they've been watching them for the last 30 years.
I'm more likely to watch Eastenders than some random soap on Living, but
then I'm also much more likely to watch Eastenders than some other
random soap on ITV, BBC1 or whatever.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

Cite the research that shows that people identify with channels better
through DOGs as opposed to (say) channel ID chunks at the beginning /
end of programmes and your reasoning will be marginally more valid than
just marketing hyperbole. You still then need to prove that identifying
with a channel actually makes you more likely to watch a programme on
that channel, which is a leap of faith with which I have a serious problem.

On the other hand we don't need to cite anything because we argue mainly
from the point of view that a lot of people are annoyed by DOGs. That's
self-evident because of the number of annoyed people posting to the thread.

Geoff

Geoff Winkless wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation. I'll
spell it out.

"simple logic"? there is no logic in your argument, you might rather
say it's a pragma that marketing people have pushed into the
collective consciousness.

Your argument has no logical progression: you give a
correlation:causation argument - "people identify these channels, and
they watch a lot of them, therefore if we get people to identify our
channel they will watch more of it"

Oh, well played! Much better than what I was about to write. But a lot more
polite, too...

Cite the research that shows that people identify with channels better
through DOGs as opposed to (say) channel ID chunks at the beginning /
end of programmes and your reasoning will be marginally more valid
than just marketing hyperbole. You still then need to prove that
identifying with a channel actually makes you more likely to watch a
programme on that channel, which is a leap of faith with which I have a
serious
problem.

Exactly.

Geoff Winkless wrote:

Time To Burn wrote:

This is simple logic that most normal people can and do accept, but
many choose to simply dismiss without reason in this situation. I'll
spell it out.

"simple logic"? there is no logic in your argument, you might rather say
it's a pragma that marketing people have pushed into the collective
consciousness.

Your argument has no logical progression: you give a
correlation:causation argument - "people identify these channels, and
they watch a lot of them, therefore if we get people to identify our
channel they will watch more of it"

*Sigh* I have cited the reasons why "identification, recognition and
awareness = tuning in again in future" so many times before... however
they are included again below, just for you.

You haven't addressed my point - moving a programme from BBC2 to BBC1
is considered "promotion", and the same programme is very likely to
achieve higher viewing figures on BBC1 than it did on BBC2 (surely you
don't dispute *that*). How else can this be explained other than that
people simply prefer to watch BBC1 rather than BBC2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

IMO it's more likely that people watch BBC1 and ITV1 because they know
the _programmes_ as they've been watching them for the last 30 years.
I'm more likely to watch Eastenders than some random soap on Living, but
then I'm also much more likely to watch Eastenders than some other
random soap on ITV, BBC1 or whatever.

You're implying that you think the channel on which a programme is
shown is a complete irrelevance. That's just ridiculous. Do you think
Eastenders would enjoy equally high viewing figures in multi-channel
households if it were to move to Living? I doubt it, and I also think
that a new "random soap" debuting on ITV or BBC1 would achieve much
higher viewing figures than it would were it debuting on Living.

I say you can see perfectly well the reasoning behind my argument and
have nothing real to dismiss it with -- other than blind refusal to
accept DOGs. No amount of evidence whatsoever can convince the
unconvinceable.

Cite the research that shows that people identify with channels better
through DOGs as opposed to (say) channel ID chunks at the beginning /
end of programmes and your reasoning will be marginally more valid than
just marketing hyperbole.

Why does this require research? Am I the only one to whom it is quite
obvious that a few seconds of ident at the start of a programme will
prove much less of a reminder of a channel's identity than constant
identification throughout? And forget having idents at the end - just
take a trip to your local cinema to see those asses lift off seats the
moment the credits start rolling.

Allow me to pre-empt the inevitable half-wit piping up with "but if I
want to know what channel I'm watching I can press the info
button!!!!". The whole idea is to make damn sure you know what channel
you're watching at all times. *Especially* if you don't care.

You still then need to prove that identifying
with a channel actually makes you more likely to watch a programme on
that channel, which is a leap of faith with which I have a serious problem.

IMO recognising a channel as a previous provider of "televisual
gratification" makes it more likely you'll stop by that channel in
future while channel-hopping, checking the TV guide or surfing EPG
listings, rather than just pass it by like the possibly hundreds of
others. What is your problem with that?

On the other hand we don't need to cite anything because we argue mainly
from the point of view that a lot of people are annoyed by DOGs. That's
self-evident because of the number of annoyed people posting to the thread.

The only thing that is self-evident is that some posters to this thread
are annoyed by DOGs. I very much doubt whether the level of annoyance
amongst the wider viewing public is as high as you think.

Pyriform wrote:
Time To Burn wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:
"Time To Burn" writes:
It certainly is. Their standard response is in fact:
"as the number of channels grows, we believe it is important to
ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a
BBC service."
How many viewers care who the provider is? Surely what most people
care about is the programme that they want to watch not which station
is transmitting it.
This has been covered many times before.
Only in the sense that everyone else hates them, but you (and certain TV
executives) believe that DOGs are justified because they establish some kind
of conditioned response in the viewer: they select a particular channel in
the expectation that they will receive televisual gratification.

I say you are wrong, and that you have no research to prove it. It is merely
a whimsical executive fantasy, predicated on the idea that the average
viewer has the intellect of a laboratory rat.

Surely the real reason for the now globally ubiquitous
screen logo is simply an attempt to imprint a watermark and
thereby dissuade commercial copying. Or am I missing
something here?