Another pile of BBC DOG ****

On 12 Apr, 10:39, The Real Zarbiface
wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:23 am, " wrote:





On 12 Apr, 09:33, ":Jerry:" wrote:

"The Real Zarbiface" wrote in ...

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

No, just a bog standard imbecile. Is that an improvement?

*who has

forgotten to take their daily medication, like you!...

*Why

not write protest letters to media figures who might have influence
instead of bitching about the BBC behind their backs?

How do you know that I (or anyone else in this thread) have not
complained directly?

Not the issue if you have or not - even if you have, what further to
you have to gain by spouting on a Who newsgroup?

Phil

By constantly avoiding the question they lead me to conclude that
they're just your bog standard fan moaners who boost their low self
esteem by trying to appear knowledgeable and superior by preaching to
the converted on a cult tv forum.

Oh, of course - never doubted it for a moment. Always fun to give that
sort a taste of their own medicine by pointing out how idiotic their
posturing makes them look, though.

Phil

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

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.


Present your evidence and source then please.

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.


Maybe all these numbers are too confusing for you.
BBC1's 0.1% drop is a percentage of ALL the TV viewers.
SKY One has had a 0.1% drop as a percentage of ALL the TV viewing
figures.
BBC has a starting share of around 19% and Sky One a 1.1%.
A 0.1% drop of total audience share does not equate to 35 to 50% drop
in viewers of that channel.
That is a loss for BBC1 of 0.5% of its total audience.
That is a loss for Sky One of 9% of it's total audience.
However, both channels have lost the same number of actual viewers.

--
Mr Maff

"Edster" wrote in message
...
maffster wrote:

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?

Ooh. Now there's a tricky question. Well let's see. Which channel:
is owned by a British company, and makes British programmes for a British
audience?
is available to terrestrial, cable and satellite viewers?
is the first one to be seen when opening any TV guide?
does not have to put breaks in all its programmes for adverts?
does not incur any additional payments in orde to be viewed?
has an international reputation for producing?
has less than 10% of repeated material?

Answers on a postcard...

On Apr 12, 12:34*pm, The Real Zarbiface
wrote:
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.

On 12 Apr, 12:35, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"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.

You just don't get it, do you? "We just somehow manage to ignore
them", i.e. we accept them. That doesn't mean we like them, only as
Paul points out that they aren't an important enough issue to make a
fuss about. Most of us have much more productive uses of our time than
writing "Disgusted, from Tunbridge Wells" letters or ranting on Usenet
to people who aren't in a position to change policy on DOGs even if
they cared to.

Look, you've made your case that you don't like DOGs and you've just
made yourself look ever more foolish with your outlandish claims about
their effects, which have so far resulted in you shifting your
position from the original claim that channel DOGs drive away viewers
to the claim that banner advertising does, and now in your case from
the claim that they drive them away from those channels to the claim
that they only drive people away from certain genres/programmes. Your
backpedalling isn't nearly as subtle as you think. Just accept that
you have a stronger dislike of DOGs than most people and leave it at
that - there really isn't any case to be made beyond that, about
either viewing figures or the types of people who are prepared to
accept DOGs. The way you come across should already be plain from the
comments here, and it's really not doing you any favours.

Phil

"The Real Zarbiface" wrote in message
...
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....?

I freely admit that I can be as childish as anyone!

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

Oh well if we are going to go off on a "yo momma's so fat"
tangent ..... (possibly a trollish action but it has to be more
entertaining than the DOGGING debate)

Yo momma's so fat she has her own postcode

Next please

Regards

Ged

"hulahoop" wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 12:07 pm, "Stephen Wilson"
wrote:
":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.

Oh well if we are going to go off on a "yo momma's so fat"
tangent ..... (possibly a trollish action but it has to be more
entertaining than the DOGGING debate)

Yo momma's so fat she has her own postcode

Yeah? Well yo mamma's so fat she could be the eighth continent.

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

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?

Ooh. Now there's a tricky question. Well let's see. Which channel:
is owned by a British company, and makes British programmes for a
British audience?
is available to terrestrial, cable and satellite viewers?
is the first one to be seen when opening any TV guide?
does not have to put breaks in all its programmes for adverts?
does not incur any additional payments in orde to be viewed?
has an international reputation for producing?
has less than 10% of repeated material?

Answers on a postcard...


ITV(1), Ch4, Ch5? Seriously it is NOT BBC1 (or BBC2) as it most
certainly DOES incur additional payment - the TVL...

On Apr 12, 1:03*pm, hulahoop wrote:
On Apr 12, 12:07*pm, "Stephen Wilson"



wrote:
":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..

Oh well if we are going to go off on a "yo momma's so fat"
tangent ..... (possibly a trollish action but it has to be more
entertaining than the DOGGING debate)

Yo momma's so fat she has her own postcode

Next please

Regards

Ged

Yo momma's so fat her arse sits in 3 interantional time zones. So she
can be having elevenses with her left arm and eating lunch with her
right.

--
Mr Maff