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

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


The above troll came to you from

Is that for the benefit of your God who hates to be blasphemed?

Isn't he (or she) supposed to be all knowing?


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!

On 14 Mar, 23:15, "Agamemnon" wrote:

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.

Aggy, how hard did you have to work to find a way to bring animals'
arses into this thread....?

In article f7a0fbbf-8cc4-4573-9a50-
, Maffster wrote:
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 (although I'll still
watch and check - I'm not totally irresponsible and trusting of
institutions) but if I see the Nick Jnr logo and the channel will be
changed straight away.

You may have valid reasons for knowing the sort of programmes you can
expect to see on those channels, and for being happy to let your
children watch one and not the other, but that doesn't explain why it
should be necessary to superimpose the information indelibly over the
picture. It's simply a duplication of information that is readily
available elsewhere, on screen if you want it at the push of a button,
and sometimes on an indicator on the front of the receiver.

It seems to me that the people who are most vociferous about how
necessary it is are the ones responsible for perpetrating it, and thus
have jobs to justify. I'm sure everybody else would prefer their TV
pictures without screen clutter if there were a choice, but learn to
live with it because there isn't. I can't imagine any viewers actually
asking for their TV pictures to be covered with banners and logos, and
for announcers to shout over the end credits.

Rod.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...

"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

"fewer" I mean, not more.

viewers with the DOGs or the Title Shrinkers.

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

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


The above troll came to you from

Is that for the benefit of your God who hates to be blasphemed?

Isn't he (or she) supposed to be all knowing?


Excuse me but do you expect Christ Jesus to be on the Internet?


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!




--
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!

He is everywhere, but he posts from the gay bar

--
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 ,
Agamemnon wrote:

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


The above troll came to you from

Is that for the benefit of your God who hates to be blasphemed?

Isn't he (or she) supposed to be all knowing?


Excuse me but do you expect Christ Jesus to be on the Internet?


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!




--
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!

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

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


The above troll came to you from

Is that for the benefit of your God who hates to be blasphemed?

Isn't he (or she) supposed to be all knowing?


Excuse me but do you expect Christ Jesus to be on the Internet?

So you are saying the Jesus Christ is not omnipresent?

BLASPHEMER.....

HERETIC.....

STONE HIM.....

STONE HIM.....!!!!!!

Big bolder being lifted up (in stop motion animation at 12fps) moved over
towards Yads and dropped on his head

Yads lying crushed under the boulder with only his legs showing as he
twitches

And you call yourself a Christian?!



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!




--
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 Mar 14, 10:56*pm, " wrote:
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.

iPods can play MP3's.
Perhaps you should have done some research before making your
purchasing decision.

Apple has changed it's logo. It was originally a guy sat under a tree
(Newton).
It then changed to the apple with a bite taken out, but was made up of
coloured stripes.
It has since evolved into an glass apple then a solid coloured apple.
Apple has rebranded itself too. It changed its name last year from
Apple Computers Inc. to Apple Inc.
People aren't buying Macs because of compatibility issues with their
iPods because their Windows machines work just as well with them!

--
Mr Maff

"maffster" wrote in message
...
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.
My Grandparents will not watch ITV because it is for common people.
I've already mention the rebranding of BBC2 and how that increased
audience figures.

And were proven to be COMPLETELY WRONG!

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 (although I'll still

TWADDLE! If you cant tell the channel they are watching and its programmes
are for toddlers from the content of the programmes and need a DOG to tell
you or can't be bothered to use your remote control to find out then you are
clearly an ignorant fool.

watch and check - I'm not totally irresponsible and trusting of
institutions) but if I see the Nick Jnr logo and the channel will be
changed straight away

Irrespective of the actual programmes? You are clearly an IMBECILE as well
as being a fool!

I know some children that want Nick Jnr on no matter what is showing,
because that is the channel they like to watch. Even if the same
programme is on another channel they would rather watch it on Nick
Jnr. It is irrational and illogical to me, but it is how some children
behave.

Simple solution to your problem. Place a parental lock on the channel if you
don't want your kids watching it!

The youth audience is very acutely aware of image. To be known to
watch certain things can be cause of great embarrassment or bonding
between this very social section of society.

POPPYCOCK!

If you don't want to watch something then you don't watch it and if your
friends do like you because of it then they are not your friends, and there
is no reason for you to talk to them about it.

I would guess that very few members of the youth audience actually
make use of things like the Radio Times, but rely on discussions with
their peers that will talk about the channel as well as the programme,
or by channel hoping.

BULL****!

When I was 6 or 7 I was using the programme guides in the local papers
(since unlike the Radio times, the had what was on on all the TV channels at
the time not just BBC programmes).

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.

Then you are a FOOL!

Your STB will tell you the name of the channel when you switch over to it
and if you can't remember that for the duration of the programme or when it
tells you during the commercials breaks then you either have a form of early
onset Alzheimer's, some sort of brain injury, or more likely you are an
IGNORANT FOOL!

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.

Having idents inbetween programs is not enough, especially with
channel hoppers. We have probably moved on before the credits have
ended so will not see the fancy ident.

You are obviously also a TROLL!

I may of course be odd, and my experiences out of the ordinary, so
feel free to dismiss my opinion, but if it didn't work, then why are
they doing it?

IT DOESN'T WORK! Viewing figures for BBC3 have plummeted and changing the
DOG isn't going to make any difference for the better. Removing the DOG
completly will.

I doubt that the BBC are being sheep and doing it because everybody
else are doing it.
But maybe they are.

Yes they are. Look at Eastenders.

It's not worth getting too upset about.

On Mar 15, 12:07*am, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article f7a0fbbf-8cc4-4573-9a50-

, Maffster wrote:
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 (although I'll still
watch and check - I'm not totally irresponsible and trusting of
institutions) but if I see the Nick Jnr logo and the channel will be
changed straight away.

You may have valid reasons for knowing the sort of programmes you can
expect to see on those channels, and for being happy to let your
children watch one and not the other, but that doesn't explain why it
should be necessary to superimpose the information indelibly over the
picture. It's simply a duplication of information that is readily
available elsewhere, on screen if you want it at the push of a button,
and sometimes on an indicator on the front of the receiver.

It seems to me that the people who are most vociferous about how
necessary it is are the ones responsible for perpetrating it, and thus
have jobs to justify. I'm sure everybody else would prefer their TV
pictures without screen clutter if there were a choice, but learn to
live with it because there isn't. I can't imagine any viewers actually
asking for their TV pictures to be covered with banners and logos, and
for announcers to shout over the end credits.

Rod.

You are quite right . Of course nobody is ASKING for these things, who
would? No I for sure. But these things are transient. Not superimposed
indelibly over the programme.
I'm currently watching New Zealand vs England on Sky (cricket). In the
corner is a DOG and it doesn't bother me.
I understand the argument that we have paid to watch these programmes
so should see them unadulterated, we do if we buy them on DVD, so why
not when broadcast on TV?
The thing is they are not so intrusive to get worked up about. I can
see why TV stations do it.
We all have different viewing habits and styles, and I'm guessing our
arguments this evening have been based on our own personal experience.
I doubt Aggy's demands to PROVE IT can be met by me for my argument or
him for his for that matter!

Phil is probably right in that we become desensitised to it, and we
will keep watching regardless (with the exception of a few stubborn
highly principled people).

Personally I miss the old BBC 3 cone creatures. I liked them very
much.

--
Mr Maff