BBC3 DOGS

On 8 Jan 2007 09:38:46 -0800, Time To Burn wrote:

*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.
snip

So why does this not apply to radio? They seem to manage with station ID at
decent intervals. Maybe they should be saying "radio2 radio 2" in the
background?

--

Regards

Dave Saville

NB Remove -nospam for good email address

Time To Burn wrote:
snip
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.

I'm sure the vast majority of the population are annoyed by DOGs. I
personally will not watch any channel that uses them. The people that claim
that the majority of viewers fid them usefull are quite simply liars.

Dave Saville wrote:

On 8 Jan 2007 09:38:46 -0800, Time To Burn wrote:

*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.
snip

So why does this not apply to radio? They seem to manage with station ID at
decent intervals. Maybe they should be saying "radio2 radio 2" in the
background?

don't give them ideas!

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

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
Time To Burn wrote:
snip
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.

I'm sure the vast majority of the population are annoyed by DOGs. I
personally will not watch any channel that uses them. The people that
claim
that the majority of viewers fid them usefull are quite simply liars.





More than 60% of multi-channel viewing is of logo-free content last time I
calculated the stats/share.

Pyriform wrote:
For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences.

*lol*

I had a lecturer who used to do that with "right". I think the record
was over a hundred.

Geoff

In article , Geoff Winkless wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences.

*lol*

I had a lecturer who used to do that with "right". I think the record
was over a hundred.

We had a teacher at school who used the word "therefore" in nearly every sentence
he uttered. I think everyone who's ever been in a teaching establishment of any
sort must have encountered at least one character like this. Once you've noticed
their particular verbal tic, you can't *not* notice it, and your sole objective
from then on becomes keeping a tally, to the total neglect of whatever it is that
they're trying to teach you.

Rod.

"Pyriform" wrote:
... The different filters people apply to their senses are quite
interesting. For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences. ...

"To wit" probably - meaning "that is to say" or "namely". It's legalese
and *is* a bit unusual outside of that context.

--
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:
"Pyriform" wrote:
... The different filters people apply to their senses are quite
interesting. For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer
had some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the
words "to it" to many of his sentences. ...

"To wit" probably - meaning "that is to say" or "namely". It's
legalese and *is* a bit unusual outside of that context.

I don't think so, although of course it's impossible to be sure. He never
used it in an appropriate context to it. As far as I can recall, it always
went at the end of his sentences. I did once have a flying instructor who
put "there" at the end of most of his sentences, with his voice trailing off
as he said it - but that wasn't nearly as jarring. It just felt like a
substitute full stop, there...

Pyriform wrote:
BrianH wrote:
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?

Yes, you are missing the fact that anyone who wants to do this would usually
have other non-defaced sources for the material, or would simply remove the
logo using technological means.

Point taken, but I meant a "weak attempt ... [to] dissuade",
in particular amateur efforts rather than professional
studios. After all, there are some VERY amateur film
recordings for sale in far eastern markets; I remember
watching one awful pirated one that had been made in a
cinema with head silhouettes appearing at the bottom of the
screen as people came and left their seats.

And are there really "other non-defaced sources" so easily
accessed as a digital satellite FTA source, for example? I'm
thinking of some of the more prestigious BBC productions.

Anyway, I still think that copyright protection is a more
credible reason than the risible official ones given, that
of brand identification, or worse, that the public finds it
useful for identification.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Geoff Winkless wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
For example, I once went on a course where the lecturer had
some kind of verbal tic that caused him to randomly append the words "to it"
to many of his sentences.

*lol*

I had a lecturer who used to do that with "right". I think the record
was over a hundred.

We had a teacher at school who used the word "therefore" in nearly every sentence
he uttered. I think everyone who's ever been in a teaching establishment of any
sort must have encountered at least one character like this. Once you've noticed
their particular verbal tic, you can't *not* notice it, and your sole objective
from then on becomes keeping a tally, to the total neglect of whatever it is that
they're trying to teach you.

But have you noted just how many times anyone interviewed
uses the verbal crutch "you know"? Usually lamely tailing
off a sentence when further descriptive powers desert them.
This has reached such proportions that even public figures
sprinkle their utterances with very liberal doses, sometimes
in every sentence, such that I believe the general audience
does indeed mentally filter it out, along with its
companion, "I mean" that appears almost as frequently.