BBC3 insults viewers once again with DOG **** reply

In message , Adrian
writes
maffster wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:18 pm, Mike Henry
wrote:
In
,



maffster wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:00 pm, Mike Henry
wrote:
In
,

maffster wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:21 pm, " wrote:
Ah, they've got a formula letter for complaints about DOGs.
Here's something to keep BBC researchers busy. They have so many
complaints about the logo they have a standard reply to them. To
balance that, how many people have written in praising the new
look? Before they changed the design, how many viewers wrote in
expressing a desire for a new DOG?

Phil

I love that kind of thinking. Nobody has asked for change, so
lets not give it to them...

Non sequitur.

"Nobody has asked for things to be made worse, but we will
regardless, and we'll ignore all the complaints" is what has
happened.

If the re-branding of BBC3 is to raise it's viewing figures, that
will secure the position of the channel, and may result in funding
for further programming and increased content (rather than just
endless re- runs of 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps). This
will benefit the audience.

That is very tenuous, but even if we go along with that logic,
branding and awareness can and should be done without devaluing and
defacing the very thing which is being promoted. Ie, between
programmes not on top of them. Like BBC1 and BBC2 have done for
decades.

The slight announce to some of a DOG in the corner of
the screen is a shame for them, but a plus for the rest of us.

A plus? The annoyance is a good thing? Pull the other one. Who sees
it and thinks "that's great, this would have been worse without it"?

Your reply to Phil was, and remains, a non sequitur.

Of course it is a non sequitur because it doesn't agree with your
point of view.
The plus is the effect it has in the long term not in the short term
to few people who go around sticking silver foil to their TV sets when
most people seem to be able to ignore it.

Are you one of the pratts that put this crap on people's screens? If things
get much worse I will refuse to pay any licence.

Why not compromise, and offer to only pay a proportion of the fee, ie
proportional to the number of BBC channels without DOGs?
--
Ian

"maffster" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 4:02 pm, Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , ChrisM
writes

In message
,
maffster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

On Mar 13, 9:21 pm, " wrote:
On 13 Mar, 18:04, "Agamemnon" wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you
have had to wait on this occasion.

The re-vamp of BBC Three gave us the opportunity to refresh our
image. Our logo had not been changed since the channel's launch
five years ago. The logo and branding changes were part of a number
of big changes to the channel. Our BBC logos work to make sure our
channels and services stand out among media brands and are
appealing to their target audiences on TV and online.

We took the decision to re-vamp the channel with a solid pink 100%
brightness logo otherwise know as a DOG (digital on - screen
graphic) . The colour pink was chosen because it is warm, vibrant
and an alive colour to match the channel's image. The logo was then
reduced to 70% transparency, which was one of the levels previously
used by BBC Three. This level was agreed after consultations with
BBC TV operations, as we are aware of issues of screen burn to some
sets caused by solid logos. The BBC Three logo is brighter than
other BBC logos, but our digital competitors use bright
logos and colour for their on - screen branding . This is the norm
among youth channels.

Thank you once again for contacting us.

Regards

BBC Complaints
__________________________________________

Ah, they've got a formula letter for complaints about DOGs. Here's
something to keep BBC researchers busy. They have so many complaints
about the logo they have a standard reply to them. To balance that,
how many people have written in praising the new look? Before they
changed the design, how many viewers wrote in expressing a desire for
a new DOG?

Phil

I love that kind of thinking. Nobody has asked for change, so lets not
give it to them...
Henry Ford is quoted as saying "If I'd asked people what they wanted,
they would have asked for a better horse".
Mind you the motor car kills thousands of people each year and
pollutes the atmosphere like nobody's business and if they didn't
exist Jeremy Clarkson would never have got on TV, so perhaps it would
have been better if Ford had asked people and given them a better
horse!

Not really a valid comparison!
I'm struggling to see the introduction of a new DOG (or DOGs in general,
come to that) as a technological advance...

I there were two channels, simultaneously carrying the same programme,
and one carried a DOG while the other one didn't, which one would you
watch? [No prizes.]


If I knew the channel was there do you mean?

Branding is important, it affects viewing figures (when done well) to
the positive. Increase in figures means increase in funding, which
should mean better programming.

PROVE IT! Prove that defacing a TV programme and annoying people increases
the number of viewers. Common since tells you that is does not.

If I don't like a particular brand that from its appearance tells me the
product is a load of ****e then I won't but it. The branding of BBC3 tells
me its ****e. I WILL NOT WATCH IT! When Channel 5 first came on air I didn't
watch is because of the DOG ****. When it was removed I started to watch it
but not the DOG **** has been plastered all over the screen again I have not
watched it at all, NOT ONCE! Not even five minutes. I haven't watched FiveUS
or FiveLife either because at the gigantic DOGs which take up 1/4 of the
screen. The Virgin1 DOG looks like an erect penis branded by Coca-Cola and I
have not watched even one second of that channel because of the DOG. Nor
have I watched a second of Dave, and the primary reason for that is the
branding. Even if it did not have DOG **** defacing the programmes I refuse
to watch a channel called Dave.

Branding additional to the programmes themselves turns people off because it
either counteracts or negates the brand of what is shown and therefore
drives people away from the product. This has been known to TV and the
advertising industry people since the 1950's and is the reason why DOG are
not carried on Adverts. Branding of TV channels should avoided at all times
and if it can't be it should kept to a minimum and only shown between
programmes and then only for as short a time as possible in order to attract
as many viewers as possible and keep them watching.

When BBC2 changed it's ident from the word "TWO" to the exploits of
the animated number 2 it's audience share increased. The channel
changed it's image, and with it part of its audience to the better.

POPPYCOCK! BBC2 did NOT display the new "2" logo during every single
programme. The reason for BBC2's increased audience share was the rise and
rise of Red Dwarf which was getting 8 million viewers and was the stations
highest rating show and the improvement of ST TNG after Season 3, then DS9
and Voyager which were the stations second highest rating shows after Red
Dwarf and when that was not on, The Simpsons. It had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
do with branding. It was about programmes.

If you claim that it was branding then it was the re-branding of BBC2 in
2000 with exactly the same "2" logo as before but with different films which
drove away all of BBC2's viewers from that time on, but everyone knows that
this is not true nor was it true back in 1990 the last time BBC2 was
rebranding. Branding had nothing to do with the stations audience share.
BBC2's share fell to nothing because it lost The Simpson's and Star Trek to
Channel 4, and Red Dwarf was canceled and it was THESE PROGRAMMES and THESE
ALONE that brought in almost all of BBC2's viewers. When the programmes
moved the viewers moved with them or just left.

Now explain why Sky wanted to keep premiership football all to itself. Do
you thing people would watch Sky Sports because of it's brand if it only
showed 2nd, 3rd and 4th division football? NO!

One assumes that the BBC have targeted a different audience than us
moaning sci-fi nerds with their rebranding of THREE. If a few odd

In which case the have SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT because given that their
highest ever rating programmes ever are Torchwood, Doctor Who and Heroes
science fiction fans are the primary audience that they should be targeting
and WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH DOG **** COVERING OUR SCREENS!

balls no longer watch and there is an increase in the target audience
(that out ways the moaners) then the new pink DOG will be success.

With Torchwood, Doctor Who and Heroes and other so-called "nerdy" programs
like Little Britain and before these Robot Wars being their staple they will
have NO VIEWERS LEFT AT ALL if they carry on like that!!!! Wake up and smell
the coffee.

I would also guess that they did some analysis of their target
audience before making the change, and tested out the new logo and

BULL****! They did no analysis of their target audience at all. They
completely ignored us even though they know that last time they put a new
DOG on Doctor Who they were inundated with thousands of complaints from
their target audience telling them to get rid of it or they would not watch.

idents to check that they would appeal to them. I would guess too
that this feedback was positive.
Positive focused comments probably out way some negative comments from
people who are not in their target audience...

POPPYCOCK. BBC3 is run by a bunch of IGNORANTS. The did no research at all.
The just copied downmarket US local (analogue) TV channels and ITV without
any kind of understanding of the product, the market or the consumer! Had
they done research it would have told them that they would have got more
viewers with the DOGs or the Title Shrinkers.

"maffster" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, "ChrisM" wrote:
In message
,
maffster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:


The awareness of Apple products has grown as a result. Sales of Apple
Macs have increased massively in the past couple of years. Apple
itself has won an award for Branding in the US this week: (http://
www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=20716).

ABSOLUTE TOSH!

The primary and only reason for the increased in Apple Mac sales in the last
couple of years is because of the Apple PC based Mac's. It has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with branding. NOTHING!

Branding is important to businesses. They create identity.

CRAP!

It's not branding that sells products. It's the product and its image that
sells it. If Sony put their logo on a piece of worthless crap then no one
would but it and Sony's market image would do down and people would
associate Sony with rubbish, therefore Sony ensures that it brings out
quality products and that's why people buy Sony as opposed to other makes.

The Beeb have given us enough time to notice the change and so have
now toned down the brightness. This may have been a direct result of
Agamemnon's letter or may have been part of the plan all along.

The point still stands: People do not like change (except from a
twenty when they've ordered a round at the pub).

When was the last time Coca-Cola changed its main logo in the past 100
years?

NEVER!

If BBC3 was any good then it would not need to change it's logo either.

People associate BBC3 with down market low quality CRAP and a primary reason
for this is the DOGs that are defacing its programmes. And because BBC3 has
an image of being CRAP people will not watch it not matter how many times
they change their logo. Removing the logo from programmes and getting rid of
the Title Shrinkers would improve the market image of BBC3 100 million times
more than changing the logo and Coca-Cola knows this as does Sony and
Mercades and BMW. No matter how many times they changed the name and logo,
Leyland/Austin Rover/Rover/etc. were associated with unreliable, over
priced, not enjoyable to drive, badly designed, badly fitted out, bad
specification RUBBISH! Because that is what they always produced whereas
their competitors even Skoda and Lada produced something better.

When was the last time that fizzy orange or lemonade was branded with the
Coca-Cola logo.

NEVER!

The Coca-Cola name will NOT sell fizzy orange or lemonade and Coca-Cola know
that because even though they produce Sprite, if they braded it with the
Coca-Cola logo instead of Sprite they would not sell a drop because
Coca-Cola has completely the wrong image.

If Techno was branded with the Motown label nobody would buy it because they
associate Motown with Blues and Soul music and similarly plastering the BBC3
logo over Torchwood is not going to sell Torchwood. Only Torchwood sells
Torchwood, NOT BBC3.

On 14 Mar, 19:05, maffster wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:18*pm, Mike Henry
wrote:





In ,

maffster wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:00*pm, Mike Henry
wrote:
In ,

maffster wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:21*pm, " wrote:
Ah, they've got a formula letter for complaints about DOGs. Here's
something to keep BBC researchers busy. They have so many complaints
about the logo they have a standard reply to them. To balance that,
how many people have written in praising the new look? Before they
changed the design, how many viewers wrote in expressing a desire for
a new DOG?

Phil

I love that kind of thinking. Nobody has asked for change, so lets not
give it to them...

Non sequitur.

"Nobody has asked for things to be made worse, but we will regardless, and
we'll ignore all the complaints" is what has happened.

If the re-branding of BBC3 is to raise it's viewing figures, that will
secure the position of the channel, and may result in funding for
further programming and increased content (rather than just endless re-
runs of 2 pints of lager and a packet of crisps). *This will benefit
the audience.

That is very tenuous, but even if we go along with that logic, branding
and awareness can and should be done without devaluing and defacing the
very thing which is being promoted. Ie, between programmes not on top of
them. Like BBC1 and BBC2 have done for decades.

The slight announce to some of a DOG in the corner of
the screen is a shame for them, but a plus for the rest of us.

A plus? The annoyance is a good thing? Pull the other one. Who sees it and
thinks "that's great, this would have been worse without it"?

Your reply to Phil was, and remains, a non sequitur.

Of course it is a non sequitur because it doesn't agree with your
point of view.

This is also a non sequitur...

The plus is the effect it has in the long term not in the short term
to few people who go around sticking silver foil to their TV sets when
most people seem to be able to ignore it.

You're right, most people are able to ignore it. Begging the question,
of course: what's the point? If the best defence of the DOGs you can
offer is that people are able to pretend it's not there, what useful
purpose can it possibly serve? How do viewers possibly benefit?

Phil

On 14 Mar, 19:32, maffster wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:41*pm, " wrote:





On 14 Mar, 15:07, maffster wrote:

On Mar 13, 9:21*pm, " wrote:

On 13 Mar, 18:04, "Agamemnon" wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. *We know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.

The re-vamp of BBC Three gave us the opportunity to refresh our image. *Our
logo had not been changed since the channel's launch five years ago. The
logo and branding changes were part of a *number of big changes to the
channel. Our BBC logos work to make sure our channels and services stand out
among media brands and are appealing to their target audiences on TV and
online.

We took the decision to re-vamp the channel with a solid pink 100%
brightness *logo otherwise know as a DOG (digital on - screen graphic) . The
colour pink was chosen because it is warm, vibrant and an alive colour to
match the channel's image. The logo was then reduced to 70% transparency,
which was one of the levels previously used by BBC Three. *This level was
agreed after consultations with BBC TV operations, as we are aware of issues
of screen burn to some sets caused by solid logos. *The BBC Three logo is
brighter than other BBC logos, *but our *digital competitors use bright
logos and colour for their on - screen branding . This is the norm among
youth channels.

Thank you once again for contacting us.

Regards

BBC Complaints
__________________________________________

Ah, they've got a formula letter for complaints about DOGs. Here's
something to keep BBC researchers busy. They have so many complaints
about the logo they have a standard reply to them. To balance that,
how many people have written in praising the new look? Before they
changed the design, how many viewers wrote in expressing a desire for
a new DOG?

Phil

I love that kind of thinking. Nobody has asked for change, so lets not
give it to them...
Henry Ford is quoted as saying "If I'd asked people what they wanted,
they would have asked for a better horse".

Unlikely. They'd probably have asked for a better car, since the
vehicle had been in existence for 20-odd years before Ford came on the
scene. Of course, as with any survey, it would have depended on the
way the question was phrased - if he had asked "would you like a
faster, more reliable form of transportation" rather than "would you
like a better horse or a better car", say, how do you suppose the
answer would differ? Once again, the moral of ther story is to
question received authority rather than to parrot quips that probably
weren't meant to be taken as deep insights into human nature in the
first place.

And once again, to examine the core issue: a car is, to practical
intents and purposes, a "better horse" - does the same job more
efficiently. The core issue with DOGs is what are they intended to
achieve, and are they the best way of achieving it? If the channel
execs feel their existing DOG isn't working and so invent a new one,
are they just banking on a better horse without thinking of the
alternatives?

The examples of branding you give are quite interesting, because this
is exactly the mindset that TV channels are stuck in: see what the
rest of the commercial world is doing and copy it, without thought as
to whether it's equally appropriate for TV. It's akin to people
looking at the success of the free market and thinking "hey, that's
great. Now let's do the same with schools and hospitals". Different
situation, different rules apply, and there's no 'one size fits all'
model. How do you know which channel you're watching? It comes up on
the screen when you turn the machine on or change the channel, and
it's in the Radio Times when you identify the programme you want to
watch. An iPod doesn't have an equivalent - the only things
distinguishing it from a generic MP3 player are the file types it
plays and the label on the front. It doesn't tell you between songs
that you're using Apple technology. And many people won't make the
connection between an iPod and a Mac without it, because the brand
that sticks in the mind is "iPod" or "Mac", not "Apple". Hence the
need for physical branding on the front. This simply isn't relevant to
television - if you want to see a programme, you have to know which
channel to look on to find it. If you don't know/forget which channel
you're watching and just hop until you see something you like, chances
are you don't care what channel you're on and won't be affected by
branding one way or the other.

Phil

I think you underestimate the snobbery of people and the need they
have to belong and have identity.

You're missing the main point. Even if people do have some sort of
absurd cliquish mentality with regards to television channels, DOGS
are *simply not necessary* to promote brand identity in this medium.
Someone loyal to a particular channel will always have that channel on
the TV anyway. Trailers, advert breaks and preprogramme animations all
serve to identify the station in the same way the Apple logo
identifies the manufacturor of an iPod. The iPod doesn't have to have
an Apple logo sitting at the corner of the display full-time.

My Grandparents will not watch ITV because it is for common people.

Are you sure they don't watch it simply because it's rubbish? I'd
watch ITV if there was something good or interesting on it (and be
pleasantly surprised), but I don't remember it showing any such thing
since it cancelled Survival years ago.

I've already mention the rebranding of BBC2 and how that increased
audience figures.

No idea what that relates to, since I've been out of the country for
most of the past four years - did BBC2 have an animated DOG at some
point?

When my children are watching TV when I get home from work if it has
the CBeebies DOG in the corner of the screen, I'm reassured that what
they are watching is not going to be rubbish

Then CBeebies must be unique among television channels in not putting
out rubbish. And these days, channels share so much (and change hands
so often) that the name is no indication of quality at all. No self-
respecting naturalist would have watched the mishmash of dismally-
scripted nature docs and 'animal reality TV' that was Animal Planet
when it was part of the Discovery Channel's property. Since the BBC
bought it, avoiding it means depriving oneself of (admittedly repeats
of) fine BBC natural history programming. And anyone switching to
National Geographic expecting the same quality of journalism as is
generally found in the magazine will be disappointed as often as not.
Etc. etc. The same channels that put out some of the best programming
also churn out vast amounts of junk. The only way to tell which is
which is the tried-and-tested method of watching programmes that look
interesting, whatever channel they're on.


The youth audience is very acutely aware of image. To be known to
watch certain things can be cause of great embarrassment

Particularly things called "Torchwood"...

or bonding
between this very social section of society.

Teens are a senseless bunch, to be sure, but I don't think they
generally derive kudos from the TV channels they watch - isn't sitting
in watching TV 'uncool' when self-respecting teens ought to be going
out and getting wasted? Isn't MTV the only channel with any street
cred?

But in all this, where are the DOGs? As already noted, TV channels are
adept at self-identification without them. Kids might tell their
friends they watch BBC3, but are they going to tell them "hey man,
watched that channel with the far-out pink logo yesterday"?

When I channel hop I look at the TV program not the station. When
watching the program I become aware of the channel through the DOG.
If I find myself watching a station fairly often I will make the
channel a favourite. That then means it will be in my quick channel
hopping list, and I'll more likely stumble across another program to
watch on that channel, and therefore up their ratings.

Oddly enough, I was able to work that out without the aid of onscreen
graphics, but more often than not I skim all of the entertainment and
documentary channels to see if there's anything on. Sometimes I'll
earmark a series when I've seen a good episode, but that can be
misleading (the History Channel had a strand with a couple of good
docs and a batch of superstitious rubbish, one of the perils of
magazine-type strands where different programmes have different
producers. For that matter Horizon has had some fine stinkers
recently).

Phil

On 14 Mar, 20:28, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"maffster" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 4:02 pm, Ian Jackson





wrote:
In message , ChrisM
writes

In message
,
maffster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

On Mar 13, 9:21 pm, " wrote:
On 13 Mar, 18:04, "Agamemnon" wrote:

If I don't like a particular brand that from its appearance tells me the
product is a load of ****e then I won't but it. The branding of BBC3 tells
me its ****e. I WILL NOT WATCH IT!

Yet strangely you seem up to date on the BBC3 Torchwood episodes.

When Channel 5 first came on air I didn't
watch is because of the DOG ****.

When Channel 5 first came on air, no one watched it. But I maintain
that was mostly because of the quality of the programming.

When it was removed I started to watch it
but not the DOG **** has been plastered all over the screen again I have not
watched it at all, NOT ONCE! Not even five minutes. I haven't watched FiveUS
or FiveLife either because at the gigantic DOGs which take up 1/4 of the
screen. The Virgin1 DOG looks like an erect penis branded by Coca-Cola

You are quite disturbed, aren't you? I don't even recall noticing the
logo.

and I
have not watched even one second of that channel because of the DOG.

Oh well, don't fret. The Sarah Connor Chronicles is just another bad
Buffy knock-off, pretty much on a par with Flash Gordon from the
episode I saw a couple of days ago.

Nor
have I watched a second of Dave, and the primary reason for that is the
branding.

The name puts me off - which is, I suppose, a branding issue. Why they
didn't call it UK Gold 3 I don't know.

Even if it did not have DOG **** defacing the programmes I refuse
to watch a channel called Dave.

I don't refuse to watch it despite the stupid name, I've just not seen
anything there worth watching. It just seems to be another dustbin
channel for bad repeats, with most of the good stuff already taken by
the other repeat channels.

When BBC2 changed it's ident from the word "TWO" to the exploits of
the animated number 2 it's audience share increased. The channel
changed it's image, and with it part of its audience to the better.

POPPYCOCK! BBC2 did NOT display the new "2" logo during every single
programme. The reason for BBC2's increased audience share was the rise and
rise of Red Dwarf which was getting 8 million viewers and was the stations
highest rating show and the improvement of ST TNG after Season 3, then DS9
and Voyager which were the stations second highest rating shows after Red
Dwarf and when that was not on, The Simpsons. It had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to
do with branding. It was about programmes.

This is, surprisingly as it comes from Aggy, probably closer to the
mark than the idea that the channel labelling increased the channel's
popularity. In fact it's BBC practice to move programmes between
channels to carry their audiences to the new channel - series like
Life in Cold Blood, for instance, are screened on BBC1 to attract the
audience share of amateur naturalists whose natural habitat is BBC2.
While it mostly goes that way, IIRC BBC2 has grabbed BBC

If you claim that it was branding then it was the re-branding of BBC2 in
2000 with exactly the same "2" logo as before but with different films which
drove away all of BBC2's viewers from that time on, but everyone knows that
this is not true nor was it true back in 1990 the last time BBC2 was
rebranding. Branding had nothing to do with the stations audience share.
BBC2's share fell to nothing because it lost The Simpson's and Star Trek to
Channel 4, and Red Dwarf was canceled and it was THESE PROGRAMMES and THESE
ALONE that brought in almost all of BBC2's viewers. When the programmes
moved the viewers moved with them or just left.

Now explain why Sky wanted to keep premiership football all to itself. Do
you thing people would watch Sky Sports because of it's brand if it only
showed 2nd, 3rd and 4th division football? NO!

One assumes that the BBC have targeted a different audience than us
moaning sci-fi nerds with their rebranding of THREE. *If a few odd

In which case the have SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT because given that their
highest ever rating programmes ever are Torchwood, Doctor Who and Heroes
science fiction fans are the primary audience that they should be targeting
and WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH DOG **** COVERING OUR SCREENS!

balls no longer watch and there is an increase in the target audience
(that out ways the moaners) then the new pink DOG will be success.

With Torchwood, Doctor Who and Heroes and other so-called "nerdy" programs
like Little Britain and before these Robot Wars being their staple they will
have NO VIEWERS LEFT AT ALL if they carry on like that!!!! Wake up and smell
the coffee.

I would also guess that they did some analysis of their target
audience before making the change, and tested out the new logo and

BULL****! They did no analysis of their target audience at all. They
completely ignored us even though they know that last time they put a new
DOG on Doctor Who they were inundated with thousands of complaints from
their target audience telling them to get rid of it or they would not watch.

idents to check that they would appeal to them. *I would guess too
that this feedback was positive.
Positive focused comments probably out way some negative comments from
people who are not in their target audience...

POPPYCOCK. BBC3 is run by a bunch of IGNORANTS. The did no research at all..
The just copied downmarket US local (analogue) TV channels and ITV without
any kind of understanding of the product, the market or the consumer! Had
they done research it would have told them that they would have got more
viewers with the DOGs or the Title Shrinkers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In article ,
Jesus Christ wrote:


The above troll came to you from

rec.arts.drwho #207692 (47 more)
Path: news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpen dium.com!news.glorb.
+ com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.co m!local02.nntp.dca.
+ giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:20:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:19:57 +0000
From: Jesus Christ
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: BBC3 insults viewers once again with DOG **** reply
References: b9c91497-f101-
+ e07207d2-
+
+ .
+ uk .
+ com
In-Reply-To: .
+ com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:
Lines: 10
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.134.213.65
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-
+ gJp9bn97WZxwGB4/03uZ84HXJ6lnU/ao4d8Q9vkb+UsMYQjFp7ZUUhw3IaHSWdLgMAnRw1
+ WDyXlvOk3!
+ gj3jc9j9jtHd79a5kfzdWhnE9pKNPCZxHEqt34kF6ZHyVKC0g7 Ps9ErgQMQRjyO2Y/YkfL
+ mq6p0=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
+ properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.37


--
Member - Liberal International
This is Ici
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Time for the U.S.A. to vote on a referendum to dissolve its nation!

You would soon be on the dole

--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous


"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jesus Christ wrote:


The above troll came to you from

rec.arts.drwho #207692 (47 more)
Path:
news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpen dium.com!news.glorb.
+
com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.co m!local02.nntp.dca.
+ giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:20:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:19:57 +0000
From: Jesus Christ
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho,uk.tech.digital-tv
Subject: BBC3 insults viewers once again with DOG **** reply
References:
b9c91497-f101-
+
e07207d2-
+
+
.
+ uk
.
+ com
In-Reply-To:
.
+ com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID:
Lines: 10
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.134.213.65
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-
+
gJp9bn97WZxwGB4/03uZ84HXJ6lnU/ao4d8Q9vkb+UsMYQjFp7ZUUhw3IaHSWdLgMAnRw1
+ WDyXlvOk3!
+
gj3jc9j9jtHd79a5kfzdWhnE9pKNPCZxHEqt34kF6ZHyVKC0g7 Ps9ErgQMQRjyO2Y/YkfL
+ mq6p0=
X-Complaints-To:
X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint
+ properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.37
Xref: news rec.arts.drwho:207692 uk.tech.digital-tv:134381


--
Member - Liberal International
This is Ici
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Time for the U.S.A. to vote on a referendum to dissolve its nation!

On 14 Mar, 21:49, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"maffster" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, "ChrisM" wrote:

In message
,
maffster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

The awareness of Apple products has grown as a result. Sales of Apple
Macs have increased massively in the past couple of years. Apple
itself has won an award for Branding in the US this week: (http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=20716).

ABSOLUTE TOSH!

The primary and only reason for the increased in Apple Mac sales in the last
couple of years is because of the Apple PC based Mac's. It has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with branding. NOTHING!

This is probably true. Apple has had the same logo for years, and the
same Macs for years. There might conceivably be some connection
between people with iPods wanting a platform that uses Apple's music
file type as its default, but this is a protectionism issue rather
than a branding one. It's the same reason people buy Sony memory cards
instead of Sandisk for Sony digital cameras - they're designed to be
incompatible with everyone else's. It's for the same reason that I got
an MP3 player rather than an iPod; not from some hatred of Apple or
love of whatever generic brand I've got (um, calls itself Matsui - the
fact that I had to check tells you how much bearing it had on my
purchasing decision), but because iPods can't play MP3s. The reason
I'm replacing my ageing Nikon SLR with a Nikon model isn't loyalty to
that brand, but the practical issue that only a Nikon camera is
compatible with my existing Nikon macro lens. After a sequence of
Canon compacts, I've moved to Pentax for no other reason than that it
has features no Canon compact has and which I need.

Branding is important to businesses. They create identity.

CRAP!

It's not branding that sells products. It's the product and its image that
sells it.

Aggy, the image is what branding is about. Take my cameras - when
looking for a new camera, I will unashamedly look at Nikon and Canon
and neglect other brands because they do have a deserved reputation
for being the highest quality. On the other hand, as my Pentax can
testify, that doesn't blinker me to other options as the need arises.
You're right that maffster places far too much emphasis on the value
of branding; no one will go for a brand because it has a particular
name - no one, say, will buy a Mac just because they're impressed by
Apple. They might do because Macs have a particular reputation (or,
more often than not, because people hate Windows - another reason for
the increase in sales of both Macs and UNIX machines. It's generally
forgotten in all the reaction against Windows, an admittedly poor
operating system, that the Mac's is actually worse still - this is a
case of reacting against something based on its reputation).

If Sony put their logo on a piece of worthless crap then no one
would but it and Sony's market image would do down and people would
associate Sony with rubbish, therefore Sony ensures that it brings out
quality products and that's why people buy Sony as opposed to other makes.

This is true, but again you won't find people thinking "It's a *Sony*.
I must have this instead of that". Sony, for example, does not have a
very good name in cameras (mainly because of incompatibility issues
with other brands), and someone who buys a Sony microphone or walkman
might not even consider Sony when buying a new camera or computer. And
TV stations are much the same - Channel 4 may show some very good
history documentaries, but this isn't going to persuade anyone to
watch Big Brother. And this is where maff's idea falls down -
television channels' output varies so much in quality and subject that
it's meaningless to ascribe loyalty to channels, and people aren't
going to be drawn to something they aren't interested in just because
it shares a channel with something they like. However good BBC2 does
science, natural history, sci-fi and sitcoms, I'm still not going to
watch Gardener's World or some random property programme.

People associate BBC3 with down market low quality CRAP and a primary reason
for this is the DOGs that are defacing its programmes.

No, the primary reason is the downmarket low quality crap that
constitutes its programmes.

Phil

wrote in message
...
On 14 Mar, 21:49, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"maffster" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 3:31 pm, "ChrisM" wrote:

In message
,
maffster Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

The awareness of Apple products has grown as a result. Sales of Apple
Macs have increased massively in the past couple of years. Apple
itself has won an award for Branding in the US this week:
(http://www.macworld.co.uk/business/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=20716).

ABSOLUTE TOSH!

The primary and only reason for the increased in Apple Mac sales in the
last
couple of years is because of the Apple PC based Mac's. It has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with branding. NOTHING!

This is probably true. Apple has had the same logo for years, and the
same Macs for years. There might conceivably be some connection
between people with iPods wanting a platform that uses Apple's music
file type as its default, but this is a protectionism issue rather
than a branding one. It's the same reason people buy Sony memory cards
instead of Sandisk for Sony digital cameras - they're designed to be
incompatible with everyone else's. It's for the same reason that I got
an MP3 player rather than an iPod; not from some hatred of Apple or
love of whatever generic brand I've got (um, calls itself Matsui - the
fact that I had to check tells you how much bearing it had on my
purchasing decision), but because iPods can't play MP3s. The reason
I'm replacing my ageing Nikon SLR with a Nikon model isn't loyalty to
that brand, but the practical issue that only a Nikon camera is
compatible with my existing Nikon macro lens. After a sequence of
Canon compacts, I've moved to Pentax for no other reason than that it
has features no Canon compact has and which I need.

Branding is important to businesses. They create identity.

CRAP!

It's not branding that sells products. It's the product and its image
that
sells it.

Aggy, the image is what branding is about. Take my cameras - when

No. Branding is about putting your mark on something to say its yours, like
the cowboys did on the arses of their cows, so no one could steal it and
pass it off as theirs. And that is the real reason for the DOGs on BBC3. The
******* running it think competitors will steal their programmes, retransmit
them and pass them of as their own. But the ******* fail to realise that
this only happens with Sport and News programms which are taken off air by
their competitors and placed in their own News programes. DOGGING Films,
Drama, Comedy and Documentaries is completely unnecessary. These *******S
need to get an education. They know NOTHING about broadcasting.

Image is something completely different.

looking for a new camera, I will unashamedly look at Nikon and Canon
and neglect other brands because they do have a deserved reputation
for being the highest quality. On the other hand, as my Pentax can
testify, that doesn't blinker me to other options as the need arises.
You're right that maffster places far too much emphasis on the value
of branding; no one will go for a brand because it has a particular
name - no one, say, will buy a Mac just because they're impressed by
Apple. They might do because Macs have a particular reputation (or,
more often than not, because people hate Windows - another reason for
the increase in sales of both Macs and UNIX machines. It's generally
forgotten in all the reaction against Windows, an admittedly poor
operating system, that the Mac's is actually worse still - this is a
case of reacting against something based on its reputation).

If Sony put their logo on a piece of worthless crap then no one
would but it and Sony's market image would do down and people would
associate Sony with rubbish, therefore Sony ensures that it brings out
quality products and that's why people buy Sony as opposed to other
makes.

This is true, but again you won't find people thinking "It's a *Sony*.
I must have this instead of that". Sony, for example, does not have a
very good name in cameras (mainly because of incompatibility issues
with other brands), and someone who buys a Sony microphone or walkman
might not even consider Sony when buying a new camera or computer. And
TV stations are much the same - Channel 4 may show some very good
history documentaries, but this isn't going to persuade anyone to
watch Big Brother. And this is where maff's idea falls down -
television channels' output varies so much in quality and subject that
it's meaningless to ascribe loyalty to channels, and people aren't
going to be drawn to something they aren't interested in just because
it shares a channel with something they like. However good BBC2 does
science, natural history, sci-fi and sitcoms, I'm still not going to
watch Gardener's World or some random property programme.

People associate BBC3 with down market low quality CRAP and a primary
reason
for this is the DOGs that are defacing its programmes.

No, the primary reason is the downmarket low quality crap that
constitutes its programmes.

Phil