[Chris E]

I agree with that article. I can still sit and watch BBC Three without being offended/distracted/stressed or whatever people claim that DOG does.

[Steve Green]

BBC Three/Choice is the channel that turned September 11 into a music video, and has been a shallow, fatuous celeb-obsessed channel (CelebDaq, XXXX's millions etc.) and vapid reality TV for most of its life.

It says a lot about the kind of people running BBC Three.

They're welcome to it, five has shown how a channel can be turned around, I wish the controller of BBC Three shared the same enthusiasm.

- Steve

[monkeymurderer]

I just noticed as I'm boycotting BBC channels (easier than you'd think) and yes it is more transparrent - but it's still not good enough.

You'd think with the contept they hold for their viewers it would be spinning around and massive lettering would flash up saying "HA HA I'm annoying you".

[stuart62]

Originally Posted by Chris E

I agree with that article. I can still sit and watch BBC Three without being offended/distracted/stressed or whatever people claim that DOG does.

what, even when it's over somebody's face?

[monkeymurderer]

Originally Posted by Chris E

I agree with that article. I can still sit and watch BBC Three without being offended/distracted/stressed or whatever people claim that DOG does.

Thats great but what was wrong with the last one? What will it look like when they also have "COMEDY TUESDAY" written beside it? If we sat quietly whats stopping them from making it bigger? Why not make it blingy gold with electronic sparkles?

It's clearly designed to grab your attention, otherwise why would it be there? If no one complained would they maybe think we still werent noticing it?

[Chris E]

Originally Posted by stuart62

what, even when it's over somebody's face?

Give me a screen cap of such an event then I can give you an answer. I've yet to see a DOG obscure a face, as I have previously said.

[stuart62]

Originally Posted by monkeymurderer

It's clearly designed to grab your attention, otherwise why would it be there?

Exactly! If people claim they don't notice it then the DOG is failing in its duty.

[Bigjakeblues]

I don't mind any channel having a logo on Tv as long as I can switch it off if I feel I don't want or need it. Give the viewer some control over their viewing.

[monkeymurderer]

http://www.gh-uk.com/goodgirlsdont.JPG

[Chris E]

Originally Posted by monkeymurderer

http://www.gh-uk.com/goodgirlsdont.JPG

Looks like its obscuring hair to me! Perhaps to you seeing hair is important, but it's not something I take a great deal of interest in.

[stuart62]

Originally Posted by Chris E

Looks like its obscuring hair to me! Perhaps to you seeing hair is important, but it's not something I take a great deal of interest in.

As I said, if you don't notice that then it's not doing its job. Don't tell them or they'll make it even bigger!

[monkeymurderer]

Originally Posted by Chris E

Looks like its obscuring hair to me! Perhaps to you seeing hair is important, but it's not something I take a great deal of interest in.

Thats not the point, I just sat there for 25 minutes to get that pic, I'm sure there are plenty more opportunities to catch the logo obscuring someones face while they are talking. Someone mentioned something about the News24 logo blocking out a putting shot by Tiger Woods that they were reporting a story on.

Chris E lots of people support your causes such as when MTV Dance doesn't play the particular type of Dance music that you enjoy, so if you don't want to support us then by all means don't come in here, but don't go against us just for the sake of it.

The Dog doesnt make BBC Three any more enjoyable for you, you won't miss it if it goes, but try to be a bit more understanding to those who would like their programmes unobscured.

[Chris E]

Originally Posted by monkeymurderer

Chris E lots of people support your causes such as when MTV Dance doesn't play the particular type of Dance music that you enjoy, so if you don't want to support us then by all means don't come in here, but don't go against us just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to go against you for the sake of it - I'm just expressing my opinion on this subject.

I've been more than happy to support your causes in the past (namely SB) .

[monkeymurderer]

Ok well treat this as you would any other mental illness . Large on screen graphics to me is the same as MTV Dance stopping a song half way through to show adverts then contining that 3 min song... 5 mins later.

[stuart62]

Originally Posted by Chris E

I've been more than happy to support your causes in the past (namely SB) .

SB?




.......

[monkeymurderer]

Originally Posted by stuart62

SB?




.......

The wonderful, fantastic american soap opera Sunset Beach.

[James2001]

Originally Posted by Steve Green

They're welcome to it, five has shown how a channel can be turned around, I wish the controller of BBC Three shared the same enthusiasm.

BBC Three's gone the opposite way! When it first launche dit had plenty of promise, but it very quickly went downhill.

[edw]

Advanced appologies for a long post, however I wish to retort quoting source facts rather than sound bites.


BBC Version

Just don’t call them geeks who should get a life…

These people, and there are hundreds, say DOGs vandalise their TV screens, defacing pictures, detracting from programmes, and even causing “burn” damage to their posh plasma screens

LOGOFREETV Version

TOTALS: 2173 UK Members

What Video TV Version

7523 signatures

Interesting that what the BBC calls "hundreds", the free media counts as several thousands.

This analogy however is also flawed since it is like saying that the only people concerned about littter are a few members of "Keep Britain Tidy". People may be concerned about litter, but not members of "Keep Britain Tidy".

To say that the only people who care about on-screen grafitti are the above two groups is disingenous to people who might not know about or want to be registered members of such groups.


BBC Version

And because everyone else is doing it, channel controllers say their hands are tied. They also point to research which suggests DOGs only upset a very small minority of viewers.

The "everyone's doing it" argument, is a cop-out from taking direct responsibility for their own creative decisions. One could endorse almost any anti-social or illegal activity using such a response.

The word upset is an emotive term which has the effect of making the complainants more child-like and emotionally uncontrolled than the corporate. Thus in the mind of the reader/ viewer, the complainants are pictured less favourably and an adult-child hierachy is inferred.

LOGOFREETV Version quoting the BBC.

The research which informs our on-screen graphics policy was indeed carried out before our current range of digital channels was established. Though digital take-up is progressing, there is not yet sufficient change to justify the expense of renewed research. However, all our qualitative audience research is commercially sensitive and therefore not available for public scrutiny.

So although they can imply the weight of quoting research and by claiming that every other broadcaster thinks the same, NO ONE has seen this research, and the BBC news article is simply quoting a press release, not the source data. Now in the minds of the reader, people will think that the corporate argument has weight and foundation!

Some viewers have asked to see it via a helpful MP, and the BBC refused.

If the conclussion of the BBC is the same as other broadcasters, another interesting question is why would they want to conceal from licence fee payers so called research that apparently came to the same conclussion as the commercial operators, not to mention that we, the public, funded it in the first place?

Isn't this research meant to be an objective impartial statement of truth? Any scientist will tell you that if the research is to be trusted, it should be open to scrutiny, and a recreation of the research would validate the conclussions again.

Observers might note that we can see the justification for going to war, the secret intelligence dossier and even legal advice for our Prime Minister, but we can't see the reasoning for what the BBC, our public service broadcaster, broadcasts in to our private abodes!

Even now, no one has ever examined this data, which would appear to be half a decade old, of unknown quantity, and unavailable to scrutiny.

The most detailed paragraph quoting what the BBC statement released is here.

Research

On a number of occasions, you have asked about audience research about DOGs. In 2000 research amongst viewers of BBC Choice, found that a substantial majority, 81% found DOGs useful identifiers of the channel viewed. For BBC Choice specifically, 29% said they would prefer the channel without a DOG, but 78% said the DOG would not affect their viewing. Just to clarify another point that you raised, this research was carried out amongst viewers of digital television with access to an EPG.

Plainly, the BBC is hiding information, painting a false picture, and engaging in the P.R. trickery of selective amplification.

Like it says, 29% said they would prefer the channel without a DOG but 78% said the DOG would not affect their viewing.

It would be a reasonable deduction therefore to suggest that 22% of viewers probably would have their behaviour affected by the presence of DOGs / logos.

I fail to see how either 19%, 22%, or 19% can be classed as a "small minority".

The principle is the BBC is meant to be our servant, not master, and its services are meant to serve all citizens.

This silly policy alienates and divides viewers, and whilst this issue annoys people, it is not their only concern. People get on with their lives and do other things.



I personally have no objection to what "logos" people choose on commcercial channels providing they do not inflict their poor chav choices on me.

Why does BBC FOUR, a supposedly unique "place to think" who's viewers Roly Keating described as "engrossed on the edge of their seat" need the same kind of tacky marketing used on music video channels, children's channels, and home-shopping channels? That this logo can be turned on and off when they decide, a privilege we mere licence fee payers are not allowed, would seem to suggest that what they call a vital part of their marketing strategy is not vital!

All people ask for is choice in this matter, for the ability to determine what comes into their private homes, and the right to reject one-sided unfettered corporate propoganda from invading their otherwise private affairs.

[James2001]

I always wonder if the TV channels eber carried out any research into whether viewers want to be told what's up next on screen, or if it was just a case of one channel does it, so everyone else has to. I'm wondering how long before the hideous crap that's on screen is Europe makes it over here. Some of it is already, on the music channels (where all graphical crap seems to have originated- I'm not aware of any graphics that didn't appear on the music channels first. In fact, I think MTV Europe were the first UK channel to have a DOG).

[boring name]

I thought the article on the BBC Three website was superb. Let's face it- it's what the BBC has wanted to say for years, but has resisted in the face of not wanting to "offend".

It's just a DOG.

Ironically, it IS more important than you think in the crazy media free world we live in. If the BBC could, (and they eventually will), they would love to put a DOG on BBC One and Two, but sadly the lack of any sensibility amongst a small minority of militant viewers prevents this natural step.

Take the recent screening of Little Britain, series 2- first on BBC Three. Within minutes of broadcast, this episode was available to download on various torrent and other illegal sites. The first series was popular across Europe, USA and Austrailia and viewers there obviously can't wait for new material.

It's therefore rather good for the BBC to brand this product with a DOG, accepting that the illegal activity of downloading is widespread. This is for two clear reasons:

1) Spread the brand to people who perhaps didn't notice it was a BBC programme (broadcast for example on ABC (with ABC DOG) in austrailia)- this brand value earns huge sums for investment in British programmes and jobs.

2) To prevent "clean" versions being made into DVDs in illegal markets- thereby reducing revenue through the BBC's commercial arm (selling DVDs, videos etc)- that raises a huge amount of revenue per viewer.
- incidentally this one reason (of many) why continuity announcers talk over credits.

So in this free media world, we actually NEED DOGs to protect the value of media produced. Eventually you will see DOGs on BBC One/Two, and it is done entirely in the interest of license fee payers. Channels like "five" (see comment below) produce so little home grown output of ANY interest to ANYONE in the world that there is little value in branding their goods.

Originally Posted by Steve Green

They're welcome to it, five has shown how a channel can be turned around, I wish the controller of BBC Three shared the same enthusiasm.- Steve

My sides are splitting.

Let's give you the BBC Three summary in just a couple of years on air

6 Baftas
15 RTS Awards
5 Rose d'Or Awards
Broadcast magazine's (the market leader) "Digital Channel of the Year" (best general entertainment channel).

Find me a comparable list of Five's achievements in 8 years on air and I'll accept your point. Their recent audience growth is down entirely to buying in fairly decent US programmes (largely the CSI franchise) rather than their old highbrow "football, film & f*cking" strategy.

And yet people make stupid comments (as brilliantly highlighted in the BBC Three News column) like "I won't watch the channel regardless of content because of the DOG".

Well if you're that stupid, then perhaps you've reached your level with "five".

[MattCom]

I thought the article on the BBC Three website was superb. Let's face it- it's what the BBC has wanted to say for years, but has resisted in the face of not wanting to "offend".

What article on the BBC3 website?,Edit Dont worry about it just found it What a bloody patronising offencive article. As a matter of fact that article was so unbalanced it would put Fox news to shame

[Andy B]

To be honest, I understand the concept of a DOG, since there are so 100's of channels in the Multichannel market.
They need DOG's to remind the viewer that your watching that channel.

But I think they should be more transparent, and reasonably sized.

And I agree with some of the BBC Three news colum about people not watching a channel because of a "DOG".

[stuart62]

Originally Posted by boring name

Well if you're that stupid, then perhaps you've reached your level with "five".

Such a shame - you were almost being reasonably persuasive up until that point but they your credibility flew out of the window!

If, as you say, the main purpose of a DOG is to stop piracy, why is it unnecessary on the BBC's two main channels (showing their more commercially attractive material) and why do BBCs Three and Four do away with the DOG at certain times?

If the prevention of piracy is thereal reason for having a DOG, why doesn't the BBC just come out and say so?

Sorry, I've yet to hear a convincing argument in their favour.

[MattCom]

in fact I am really mad about that article if anyone wants to read it ,read it here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/n...s_080805.shtml

Bloody insulting,patronising shite (the article) shame the guy who wrote the article didnt leave his name is this the BBC's official responce, "there are more important things to worry about" if someone E-mailed the BBC about the poor quality of the programming would they be dismissed with the same responce or how about if there are more important things to worry about why dont they just spend 3.2 billion a year on showing us a testcard

and, BBC dont give us that piracy bull, if you are so concerned about piracy why are they launching a P2P network to share BBC programmes which will almost certainly be hacked within a couple of weeks of being launched and anyway shouldnt the commercial aspect of the BBC be kept seperate from the normal aspect of the BBC and piracy is only going to effect the commercial aspect of the BBC, It is just an wierd ego trip for stuart Murphy and the BBC 3 team in my opinion it is no more "mature" than the people who graphiti on walls

[Steve Green]

Boring Name,

It's more that it sums up the BBC's attitude to viewers who have a grievance. Which is basically 'screw them, we have their money anyway'

Can you similarly justify the Comedy Tuesday DOG or the Monday Night Docs DOG, or the IPP for coming next, which is then repeated again within 30 secs during the credits. At what point would you consider that a logo is overkill, when it's got a URL throughout? It's animated? It has a constant scrolling ticker?

Or would you blindly watch BBC Three it if it looked like Bloomberg?

I worked on the last series of Monkey Dust, and I find it infuriating that after working hard on a series, two stupid logos are plastered over the top. Because the logo has to go in a safe frame, it looks like ridiculously ham-fisted design to have sitting a third of a way in on a 16:9 frame.

Pretty much all BBC programmes have a BBC logo on the opening credits these days, so why hammer the point home with a pointless permanent logo?

All I see are terrified muppets frantically flailing about with gimmicks to stop their audience deserting them.

The blatant self-pimping of the BBC really gets on my nerves.

BBC Breakfast is little more than trailers for upcoming BBC programmes. News 24 loves a tragedy so they can show concerned relatives keeping up-to-date by watching reports on News 24.

It's pretty desperate to promote your logo on the back of the Soham murders or the Asian Tsunami. Not to mention the increasing amount of trailers at the expense of programming.

I'm sorry that it upsets you that some people can't watch a channel with a logo that size, and in that position. However since you seem to like insulting those people, have you considered a position at the BBC? It sounds like you would fit right in.

Titanic won a load of Oscars, I treat awards with a high degree of scepticism.

- Steve