Another pile of BBC DOG ****

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
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.

9% is still larger than 0.5%. What do you think accounts for the
difference?

Have you established weather more people have stopped _paying_ for Sky
one - or just that they have stopped watching.

If there has been a subscriber drop-off, then financial considerations
may be an issue.

If there has NOT been a subscriber drop off, then the people who have
stopped watching are now continuing to pay for a service they do not
use.

Paying for a service you do not use is fairly stupid behaviour - which
(at they are the people who have stopped watching Sky One) rather goes
against your "Screen junk used to chase away intelligent people" doesn't
it?
--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. john smith said:
No they wouldn't. I stopped watching Sky One because it's no longer
available on cable. I stopped watching the SciFi Channel because there are
no programmes I want to watch on it.


Exactly the same here. SciFi Channel's total crap these days...

Every time I flick it on they're showing "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves"
- on the _SciFi_ Channel? - the top 3 reasons can come up with to
justify RH:POT as sci fi a

3. Black Powder in Dark/Middle age England.
2. Crafted telescope lenses (again, during that time period)
1. Teleportation - Kevin "more wooden than the trees of Sherwood" and
Martian "wise and insightful" Freeman Get from The white cliffs of Dover
- To hadrians wall - to Nottingham, ON FOOT in one afternoon!
--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
Will Tingle wrote:


An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
It's interesting that all the DOG lovers

Please quote anything that ANYONE has said that labels them as a DOG
lover.

Why else would they want to stifle discussion of them?

For the reasons they have stated: they don't particularly mind them and
think you are acting lake an ass.

But you didn't answer my simple request, so here it is again:

Please quote anything that ANYONE has said that labels them as a DOG
lover.
--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

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



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



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



"Edster" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...

Where are the BARB figures that show an increase in viewers
coinciding
with the introduction of extra screen junk?

Where are the BARB figures that refute it?


In the link I posted.

Yeah, I saw the link. I can see plenty of figures. I don't see comments
from
people saying they've stopped watching a channel because of DOGs or
banners.


What other explanation do you have for so many people to stop watching
a channel at the same time? The channel's positioning in the Radio
Times changing or something like that?

I've already given several reasons. Tell you what, as you're so curious,
why
don't you conduct a poll?


So what you're saying is, as soon as the broadcasters implemented
their plan to put intelligent people off watching there was a huge
drop off in viewing figures, but that was just a coincidence and they
all stopped watching at the same time for some other reason?

No, it's not what I'm saying. Because I've never suggested that broadcasters
are trying to put intelligent people off. That's the scenario you've created
out of thin air.

The Real Zarbiface wrote:
On Apr 12, 9:04 pm, Edster wrote:
Will Tingle wrote:
An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number
of typewriters. Edster said:
It's interesting that all the DOG lovers

Please quote anything that ANYONE has said that labels them as a DOG
lover.

Why else would they want to stifle discussion of them?

Because 689 posts on the same bleeding subject is BORING and you've
achieved NOTHING.

That's the norm on Usenet though isn't it? Loads of posts, but all going
nowhere! :-)

The Real Zarbiface wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:37 pm, Edster wrote:
"Stephen Wilson" wrote:



Groomed into what, exactly? Advertising banners? DOGs? Neither were
around when I was a child.

You must be the one that just has it on in the background while you
do something else then.

Are you on ****ing auto pilot? That's your response to everything
isn't it? "Ew if DOGs don't bother you as much as they bother me you
must have your tv on in the background". Stupid boy.

Edster, you and Jerry have something wrong with you if you can't
ignore a little company ident while you watch a tv programme. So stop
blaming others for your own problems.

I must admit I don't like the DOGs on some channels, and at times find
them annoying. (Especially if they 'pulse' or change colour.) And not
just the channel idents/logos either, all that scrolling stuff and next
programme banners do drive me up the wall at times. But I can honestly
say that I've never stopped watching a TV channel because of them!

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:08:33 GMT, Will Tingle
wrote:

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
Will Tingle wrote:


An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. maffster said:
On Apr 11, 9:58*pm, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"Edster" wrote in message

...

snip

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.

Also, one will need to consider that Ch5 will have had a net increase
in viewers due to taking over Neighbours, before anyone claims that
they have had an increase that coincides (roughly) with the use of a
DOG.

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!

It's from the "global warming" school of reasoning.

Simply take 2 undeniable things, that happened at the same time, and
label them cause and effect.

i.e.

FACT: The planet is getting warmer at the moment
FACT: We are producing more C2 at the moment
THEREFO Our c2 is causing global warming.

If it is just a coincidence, what reason do you give for the extremely
large drop in viewers that coincides with the introduction of
advertising banners during programmes? And why hasn't BBC1 and Film4
had the same drop?

This is part of my point: we don't have all of the facts.

It's worth bearing in mind though that BBC2 ASFIK _HAS_ had the drop, so
the difference apparently lies within something BBC2 is doing
differently to BBC1 - neither have DOGs, so it's not that.

BBC2 has "what's on next" banners that appear during the previous
programme. That may explain it.

Also, Fiom 4 became free during the period you mention, and therefore
gained millions of potential viewers overnight.

M.

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Mark said:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:08:33 GMT, Will Tingle
wrote:

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
Will Tingle wrote:


An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. maffster said:
On Apr 11, 9:58*pm, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"Edster" wrote in message

...

snip

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.

Also, one will need to consider that Ch5 will have had a net increase
in viewers due to taking over Neighbours, before anyone claims that
they have had an increase that coincides (roughly) with the use of a
DOG.

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!

It's from the "global warming" school of reasoning.

Simply take 2 undeniable things, that happened at the same time, and
label them cause and effect.

i.e.

FACT: The planet is getting warmer at the moment
FACT: We are producing more C2 at the moment
THEREFO Our c2 is causing global warming.

If it is just a coincidence, what reason do you give for the extremely
large drop in viewers that coincides with the introduction of
advertising banners during programmes? And why hasn't BBC1 and Film4
had the same drop?

This is part of my point: we don't have all of the facts.

It's worth bearing in mind though that BBC2 ASFIK _HAS_ had the drop, so
the difference apparently lies within something BBC2 is doing
differently to BBC1 - neither have DOGs, so it's not that.

BBC2 has "what's on next" banners that appear during the previous
programme. That may explain it.

Fair enough.

I'm sure there are other factors though - I know that I watch FAR less
TV than I used to, but I never watched much on the terrestrial channels,
so therefore it can only be the DOGged channels I use less, but (I know
from the things I do still watch) it's not the DOGs that did it - I
can't be the only one...

--
The more I see of my dickhead half brother...
....the more I think Cain was onto somthing!

Will Tingle
Remove YOUR.PANTS to e-mail

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:53:36 GMT, Will Tingle
wrote:

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Mark said:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:08:33 GMT, Will Tingle
wrote:

An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. Edster said:
Will Tingle wrote:


An infinite number of primates hammered away at an infinite number of
typewriters. maffster said:
On Apr 11, 9:58*pm, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"Edster" wrote in message

...

snip

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.

Also, one will need to consider that Ch5 will have had a net increase
in viewers due to taking over Neighbours, before anyone claims that
they have had an increase that coincides (roughly) with the use of a
DOG.

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!

It's from the "global warming" school of reasoning.

Simply take 2 undeniable things, that happened at the same time, and
label them cause and effect.

i.e.

FACT: The planet is getting warmer at the moment
FACT: We are producing more C2 at the moment
THEREFO Our c2 is causing global warming.

If it is just a coincidence, what reason do you give for the extremely
large drop in viewers that coincides with the introduction of
advertising banners during programmes? And why hasn't BBC1 and Film4
had the same drop?

This is part of my point: we don't have all of the facts.

It's worth bearing in mind though that BBC2 ASFIK _HAS_ had the drop, so
the difference apparently lies within something BBC2 is doing
differently to BBC1 - neither have DOGs, so it's not that.

BBC2 has "what's on next" banners that appear during the previous
programme. That may explain it.

Fair enough.

I'm sure there are other factors though - I know that I watch FAR less
TV than I used to, but I never watched much on the terrestrial channels,
so therefore it can only be the DOGged channels I use less, but (I know
from the things I do still watch) it's not the DOGs that did it - I
can't be the only one...

I also watch far less TV than I used to. I put that down mainly to
poorer quality programming. With regards to DOGs, besides their
nuisance factor, I associate DOGs with low quality channels. If you
switch to a programme with a DOG it is likely to be poor IMHO.

With BBC2 the quality of the programming went down before they started
using in programme banners. I can't understand why they think this
will bring back lost viewers or even maintain them.

M.

On Apr 15, 2:31 pm, Mark wrote:


I also watch far less TV than I used to. I put that down mainly to
poorer quality programming. With regards to DOGs, besides their
nuisance factor, I associate DOGs with low quality channels. If you
switch to a programme with a DOG it is likely to be poor IMHO.


I also watch far less tv than I used to, but that's due to tv being
mainly aimed at women and teens. Nothing to do with DOGs. I think it's
fairly normal to give tv less importance as one grows older. I'd
rather read or go out.