Another pile of BBC DOG ****

"maffster" wrote in message
...
snip
google groups quote
Which shows statistics shouldn't be taken at face value to make simple
statements like viewing figures for SKY ONE have been in decline since
the introduction of banners, especially when viewing figures were in
decline already!
/quote


Over-all viewing figures maybe, but specific figures for a certain
programmes or genres can be.

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"The Real Zarbiface" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you're coming across as a village gossip who just snipes to
her friends about someone without confronting them to their face.

At least I'm not coming across as a totally bumbling imbecile who has
forgotten to take their daily medication, like you!...

And yo mamma's so fat, she jumped up and down and created a 2nd Grand
Canyon.

Honestly, the way you 2 are bickering, you're like a pair of 6 year olds.

On 2008-04-12, Edster wrote:
It's interesting that all the DOG lovers have taken to just using

Oh for Gods sake.
Noone here loves DOGs.
We don't think they are great and wish every channel would have them.
We just somehow manage to ignore them, and don't think they are the
end of the world. We don't find that their presence is cause to cease
watching any television programmes.

On Apr 12, 12:18 pm, Paul Murray wrote:
On 2008-04-12, Edster wrote:

It's interesting that all the DOG lovers have taken to just using

Oh for Gods sake.
Noone here loves DOGs.
We don't think they are great and wish every channel would have them.
We just somehow manage to ignore them, and don't think they are the
end of the world. We don't find that their presence is cause to cease
watching any television programmes.

I suspect Edster and Jerry persist in this myth just to get our backs
up. Either that or they like the sound of their own voices so much
that they're not paying attention to anything anyone else is saying.

And you'll note they still haven't answered my question. What they
fail to realize is that we can switch off our computers and walk away
while they're still spending every day POINTLESSLY obsessing about
bloody DOGS. LOL!

On Apr 12, 12:08*pm, Edster wrote:
maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:28*pm, Edster wrote:
maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:53*pm, Edster wrote:
Edster wrote:
Mark wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:49:12 +0100, Edster wrote:

Paul Murray wrote:

On 2008-04-10, :Jerry: wrote:
programmes that attract the highest number of viewers rather than
making programmes that serve a certain sector of an audience -
rather
than show a historical adaptation of "Richard ll" they will show a
film/play about "Robin Hood" - basically 'dumbing down' to the
lowest
common denominator...
Which is obviously true.
They are trying to increase their audience by appealing to more
people.
But driving away the more intelligent viewers - Thank you!

As an effect, yes, but not the original cause.
In another post it has been claimed the channels want to drive away
'intelligent' viewers so they can run more scam telephone shows
without anyone noticing. I really can't think of any polite way
to respond to that.

Because you know it is true. Another truth you might want to deny is
that Sky One has lost about a third of its viewers since it started
using advertising banners during programmes.

Do you have a reference to this? *It would be handy to send this to
the BBC.

M.

It was in the Radio Times a few months ago, so they will already be
aware of it.

BARB viewing figures:

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?RequestTimeout=...

Compare March 2008 with March 2006.

If you look at the overall trend for BBC1 since 2001 it has been in
decline, while the dogged multichannels have increased.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re...
So lets engage irrational argument mode...
[beep]
People have been leaving the undogged channels for Dogged channel
because they like them.
Disengage irrational argument mode...
[bib-beep]
Sorry that made as much sense as your claim that people are leaving
Sky One because of pop up banners, when there is a more credible
argument...
Look at the drop from February 07 (1.6%) to March 07 (1.2%). In March
07, Sky removed Sky One from Virgin. Perhaps that explains your drop.

It is true that Sky One has had a gradual decline in viewing
percentage over the last few years (which is why Virgin didn't want to
pay more to show Sky One when the view figures were in decline).
However this decline predates the introduction of pop-up banners
during the programmes, so we can discard that as the cause.

So back to the issue of DOGs and BARB figures as you brought it up.
March 07 before the horrible pink DOG 1.1% share of viewing.
March 08 after the horrible pink DOG is introduced, 1.1% share of
viewing.

So maybe DOGs aren't that big an issue after all (especially
considering undogged BBC1 is in decline).

If you learn to read,

Perhaps if YOU read what I have written I address your introduction of
banner theory, I just extend your poor anaylsis of statistics to make
further ridiculous theories.

you will find that the drop in viewers coincides
with the introduction of advertising banners during programmes, not
the introduction of logos. The only channel that has introduced a logo
recently is C5, so there is no before and after comparison available
for anyone else. They haven't had it long enough to see how many
viewers they have lost because of that yet.

But BBC 3 has changed its DOG to a more intrusive one. It was this
change that prompted Aggy's original letter of complaint to the BBC.
Some people in this thread have stated they have stopped watching BBC3
because of it. If this is a wider trend, it would have already
affected viewing figures.
It hasn't.

People who were going to stop watching BBC3 because of something like
that would have stopped watching the last time they did something like
that, when they made it about 3 times larger than it was when they
first started broadcasting. Those people will never see the pink one
to be able to complain about it, so you would need to go back further.





And if you look at the figures again, you will see that BBC1 is the
only channel that isn't in terminal decline. It is more or less
unchanged during the same time span, while the channels with
advertising banners have lost anywhere between a third and half their
viewers since they were introduced.

BBC is in decline. Did you bother to look at the evidence I provided?
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re....
The red line on the graph represents BBC1. If you are colour blind,
the redline is the line that at the end of the graph is below the
green line.

But even using the figures you have used 2007 to 2008 has seen a
decrease in .1% for BBC1, which is of a similar level to the decline
of Sky One over the same period. Perhaps banners and dogs are not the
reason for the decline of the major channels. Maybe the decline is due
to improved programming on other channels, or an increase of
availability of the other channels due to an increase in the uptake of
Freeview.

Not true. Sky One and the Scifi channel have both lost between 35% and
50% of their viewers during the period since they started using
advertising banners during programmes. That does not compare well with
BBC1's 0.1% drop at all.



The figures for BBC2 have also dropped since they started having the
advertising banners, but you would need a year's worth of figures to
eliminate anything else that might be influencing those figures.

Figures for well over a year are used in the graph above (2002 -
present).
All terrestrial channels have been in decline since 2003.
What his shows that more people are now watching TV stations with
DOGs. It doesn't show that they like them, but it does seem to show
that people are not so affected by them that they will stop watching
channel that use them.

If that is the case, why hasn't BBC1 also seen a 35% drop in viewers?
How has BBC1 managed to hold onto so many of its viewers when all the
other channels have lost them?

Have you bothered to look at the link I posted?
BBC1 is losing audience.
Keep making your point - the BARB figures disprove it, but don't let
that get in the way of your argument!

--
Mr Maff

On Apr 12, 12:07 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
wrote:


Honestly, the way you 2 are bickering, you're like a pair of 6 year olds.

And by joining in you're somehow different because....?

On Apr 12, 12:26 pm, maffster wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:08 pm, Edster wrote:



maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:28 pm, Edster wrote:
maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:53 pm, Edster wrote:
Edster wrote:
Mark wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:49:12 +0100, Edster wrote:

Paul Murray wrote:

On 2008-04-10, :Jerry: wrote:
programmes that attract the highest number of viewers rather than
making programmes that serve a certain sector of an audience -
rather
than show a historical adaptation of "Richard ll" they will show a
film/play about "Robin Hood" - basically 'dumbing down' to the
lowest
common denominator...
Which is obviously true.
They are trying to increase their audience by appealing to more
people.
But driving away the more intelligent viewers - Thank you!

As an effect, yes, but not the original cause.
In another post it has been claimed the channels want to drive away
'intelligent' viewers so they can run more scam telephone shows
without anyone noticing. I really can't think of any polite way
to respond to that.

Because you know it is true. Another truth you might want to deny is
that Sky One has lost about a third of its viewers since it started
using advertising banners during programmes.

Do you have a reference to this? It would be handy to send this to
the BBC.

M.

It was in the Radio Times a few months ago, so they will already be
aware of it.

BARB viewing figures:

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?RequestTimeout=...

Compare March 2008 with March 2006.

If you look at the overall trend for BBC1 since 2001 it has been in
decline, while the dogged multichannels have increased.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re...
So lets engage irrational argument mode...
[beep]
People have been leaving the undogged channels for Dogged channel
because they like them.
Disengage irrational argument mode...
[bib-beep]
Sorry that made as much sense as your claim that people are leaving
Sky One because of pop up banners, when there is a more credible
argument...
Look at the drop from February 07 (1.6%) to March 07 (1.2%). In March
07, Sky removed Sky One from Virgin. Perhaps that explains your drop.

It is true that Sky One has had a gradual decline in viewing
percentage over the last few years (which is why Virgin didn't want to
pay more to show Sky One when the view figures were in decline).
However this decline predates the introduction of pop-up banners
during the programmes, so we can discard that as the cause.

So back to the issue of DOGs and BARB figures as you brought it up.
March 07 before the horrible pink DOG 1.1% share of viewing.
March 08 after the horrible pink DOG is introduced, 1.1% share of
viewing.

So maybe DOGs aren't that big an issue after all (especially
considering undogged BBC1 is in decline).

If you learn to read,

Perhaps if YOU read what I have written I address your introduction of
banner theory, I just extend your poor anaylsis of statistics to make
further ridiculous theories.

you will find that the drop in viewers coincides
with the introduction of advertising banners during programmes, not
the introduction of logos. The only channel that has introduced a logo
recently is C5, so there is no before and after comparison available
for anyone else. They haven't had it long enough to see how many
viewers they have lost because of that yet.

But BBC 3 has changed its DOG to a more intrusive one. It was this
change that prompted Aggy's original letter of complaint to the BBC.
Some people in this thread have stated they have stopped watching BBC3
because of it. If this is a wider trend, it would have already
affected viewing figures.
It hasn't.

People who were going to stop watching BBC3 because of something like
that would have stopped watching the last time they did something like
that, when they made it about 3 times larger than it was when they
first started broadcasting. Those people will never see the pink one
to be able to complain about it, so you would need to go back further.

And if you look at the figures again, you will see that BBC1 is the
only channel that isn't in terminal decline. It is more or less
unchanged during the same time span, while the channels with
advertising banners have lost anywhere between a third and half their
viewers since they were introduced.

BBC is in decline. Did you bother to look at the evidence I provided?
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re...
The red line on the graph represents BBC1. If you are colour blind,
the redline is the line that at the end of the graph is below the
green line.

But even using the figures you have used 2007 to 2008 has seen a
decrease in .1% for BBC1, which is of a similar level to the decline
of Sky One over the same period. Perhaps banners and dogs are not the
reason for the decline of the major channels. Maybe the decline is due
to improved programming on other channels, or an increase of
availability of the other channels due to an increase in the uptake of
Freeview.

Not true. Sky One and the Scifi channel have both lost between 35% and
50% of their viewers during the period since they started using
advertising banners during programmes. That does not compare well with
BBC1's 0.1% drop at all.

The figures for BBC2 have also dropped since they started having the
advertising banners, but you would need a year's worth of figures to
eliminate anything else that might be influencing those figures.

Figures for well over a year are used in the graph above (2002 -
present).
All terrestrial channels have been in decline since 2003.
What his shows that more people are now watching TV stations with
DOGs. It doesn't show that they like them, but it does seem to show
that people are not so affected by them that they will stop watching
channel that use them.

If that is the case, why hasn't BBC1 also seen a 35% drop in viewers?
How has BBC1 managed to hold onto so many of its viewers when all the
other channels have lost them?

Have you bothered to look at the link I posted?
BBC1 is losing audience.
Keep making your point - the BARB figures disprove it, but don't let
that get in the way of your argument!

--
Mr Maff

Maff, Edster and Jerry can't even explain WHY they're continuing with
this pointless ranting, so presenting them with a logical counterpoint
is going to go right over their heads.

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Wilson" wrote:



"Edster" wrote in message
. ..
Paul Murray wrote:


On 2008-04-10, Edster wrote:
Paul Murray wrote:
On 2008-04-10, :Jerry: wrote:
"Paul Murray" wrote in message
That is the opposite of saying that they want to make 'low
intelligence'
programs, so that they can *artificially lower the average IQ of
[the]
audience* in order to *deliberately put people off watching*, which
is
what was claimed.
No, that is NOT what was being claimed, as such (although it was
badly
worded), what was being said was that broadcasters are now making
It is exactly what was claimed, look but up the thread.
The claim was that 'intelligent' viewers were being deliberately
driven away, to lower the average IQ of the viewers.
Do you have a more credible theory why any broadcaster would
deliberately do things that it knows would put people off watching?

I don't think it will put very many people off watching.
Outside of overexcitied usenet posters, I doubt there is a huge
population
of people who will refuse to watch a channel because of a DOG.

How do you explain the huge drop in viewing figures since Sky One
started using advertising banners during programmes?

How about the fact that it's not carried on cable any more?


When was the Scifi channel not carried on cable? That has had the same
dramatic fall in viewers as Sky One.

I didn't say anything about the SciFi channel. We were talking about Sky
One.

The Scifi channel is on cable. It's not on Freeview. Over 15 million homes
now have a Freeview device connected to at least one television. This
compares to 8.3 million Sky subscibers and 3.5 million cable customers.

I used to watch the SciFi channel. I don't now because there's virtually
nothing on it I want to watch. And that's got absolutely nothing to do with
DOGs or advertising banners.

On Apr 12, 12:31 pm, The Real Zarbiface
wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:26 pm, maffster wrote:



On Apr 12, 12:08 pm, Edster wrote:

maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:28 pm, Edster wrote:
maffster wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:53 pm, Edster wrote:
Edster wrote:
Mark wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:49:12 +0100, Edster wrote:

Paul Murray wrote:

On 2008-04-10, :Jerry: wrote:
programmes that attract the highest number of viewers rather than
making programmes that serve a certain sector of an audience -
rather
than show a historical adaptation of "Richard ll" they will show a
film/play about "Robin Hood" - basically 'dumbing down' to the
lowest
common denominator...
Which is obviously true.
They are trying to increase their audience by appealing to more
people.
But driving away the more intelligent viewers - Thank you!

As an effect, yes, but not the original cause.
In another post it has been claimed the channels want to drive away
'intelligent' viewers so they can run more scam telephone shows
without anyone noticing. I really can't think of any polite way
to respond to that.

Because you know it is true. Another truth you might want to deny is
that Sky One has lost about a third of its viewers since it started
using advertising banners during programmes.

Do you have a reference to this? It would be handy to send this to
the BBC.

M.

It was in the Radio Times a few months ago, so they will already be
aware of it.

BARB viewing figures:

http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?RequestTimeout=...

Compare March 2008 with March 2006.

If you look at the overall trend for BBC1 since 2001 it has been in
decline, while the dogged multichannels have increased.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re...
So lets engage irrational argument mode...
[beep]
People have been leaving the undogged channels for Dogged channel
because they like them.
Disengage irrational argument mode...
[bib-beep]
Sorry that made as much sense as your claim that people are leaving
Sky One because of pop up banners, when there is a more credible
argument...
Look at the drop from February 07 (1.6%) to March 07 (1.2%). In March
07, Sky removed Sky One from Virgin. Perhaps that explains your drop.

It is true that Sky One has had a gradual decline in viewing
percentage over the last few years (which is why Virgin didn't want to
pay more to show Sky One when the view figures were in decline).
However this decline predates the introduction of pop-up banners
during the programmes, so we can discard that as the cause.

So back to the issue of DOGs and BARB figures as you brought it up.
March 07 before the horrible pink DOG 1.1% share of viewing.
March 08 after the horrible pink DOG is introduced, 1.1% share of
viewing.

So maybe DOGs aren't that big an issue after all (especially
considering undogged BBC1 is in decline).

If you learn to read,

Perhaps if YOU read what I have written I address your introduction of
banner theory, I just extend your poor anaylsis of statistics to make
further ridiculous theories.

you will find that the drop in viewers coincides
with the introduction of advertising banners during programmes, not
the introduction of logos. The only channel that has introduced a logo
recently is C5, so there is no before and after comparison available
for anyone else. They haven't had it long enough to see how many
viewers they have lost because of that yet.

But BBC 3 has changed its DOG to a more intrusive one. It was this
change that prompted Aggy's original letter of complaint to the BBC.
Some people in this thread have stated they have stopped watching BBC3
because of it. If this is a wider trend, it would have already
affected viewing figures.
It hasn't.

People who were going to stop watching BBC3 because of something like
that would have stopped watching the last time they did something like
that, when they made it about 3 times larger than it was when they
first started broadcasting. Those people will never see the pink one
to be able to complain about it, so you would need to go back further.

And if you look at the figures again, you will see that BBC1 is the
only channel that isn't in terminal decline. It is more or less
unchanged during the same time span, while the channels with
advertising banners have lost anywhere between a third and half their
viewers since they were introduced.

BBC is in decline. Did you bother to look at the evidence I provided?
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary...eport=share&re...
The red line on the graph represents BBC1. If you are colour blind,
the redline is the line that at the end of the graph is below the
green line.

But even using the figures you have used 2007 to 2008 has seen a
decrease in .1% for BBC1, which is of a similar level to the decline
of Sky One over the same period. Perhaps banners and dogs are not the
reason for the decline of the major channels. Maybe the decline is due
to improved programming on other channels, or an increase of
availability of the other channels due to an increase in the uptake of
Freeview.

Not true. Sky One and the Scifi channel have both lost between 35% and
50% of their viewers during the period since they started using
advertising banners during programmes. That does not compare well with
BBC1's 0.1% drop at all.

The figures for BBC2 have also dropped since they started having the
advertising banners, but you would need a year's worth of figures to
eliminate anything else that might be influencing those figures.

Figures for well over a year are used in the graph above (2002 -
present).
All terrestrial channels have been in decline since 2003.
What his shows that more people are now watching TV stations with
DOGs. It doesn't show that they like them, but it does seem to show
that people are not so affected by them that they will stop watching
channel that use them.

If that is the case, why hasn't BBC1 also seen a 35% drop in viewers?
How has BBC1 managed to hold onto so many of its viewers when all the
other channels have lost them?

Have you bothered to look at the link I posted?
BBC1 is losing audience.
Keep making your point - the BARB figures disprove it, but don't let
that get in the way of your argument!

--
Mr Maff

Maff, Edster and Jerry can't even explain WHY they're continuing with
this pointless ranting, so presenting them with a logical counterpoint
is going to go right over their heads.

Sorry Maff. That read like I was including you with the two pedants. I
meant it to sound like I was addressing you about them, not tarring
you with the same brush. Carry on.

"Paul Murray" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-12, Edster wrote:
It's interesting that all the DOG lovers have taken to just using

Oh for Gods sake.
Noone here loves DOGs.

Perhaps not, but you do appease them.

We don't think they are great and wish every channel would have
them.
We just somehow manage to ignore them, and don't think they are the
end of the world. We don't find that their presence is cause to
cease
watching any television programmes.

You just don't get it do you, if you appease something (or someone)
they will not change, they will take your silence as acceptance.