BBC iMP Trial - My Thoughts
Fred Finisterre
thoughts on it.
1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
2. It has Radio too (but not much of it at the mo).
3. You have to watch the download from within the iMP (due to DRM), which is
a bit of a drag, cos I usually watch videos on my TV via my XBox. Hate
watching at my PC. A license is acquired the first time you play the video.
4. You can book a download in advance.
5. You can book a series download in advance (the iMP sits in your Sys Tray,
presumably monitoring a programmes availability)
6. Downloads become unwatchable after 7 days.
7. A one hour shows is 330-340MB (764 Kbps, variable bit rate)
8. Subtitles are available for some shows (you can choose to display them or
not).
No time for a full review now, but post questions, and I'll try and answer
them.
Fred.
Peter Graves
14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux?
We are currently conducting a content trial of iMP with 5,000 users in
order to assess audience interest. As this is a trial it has only been
possible to develop a version for Windows using Windows Media 9 Digital
Rights Management, given time and budget constraints. Should the service
be approved, we aim to make it accessible for different platforms, like
Macintosh and Linux. Our suppliers are currently working towards this.
Yup - like that will ever happen...
Kouros
I dunno... reading BBC.co.uk news of late, they do tend to be quite
favourable of both Linux and MacOS. I reckon it's a goer.
Heracles Pollux
"Fred Finisterre" <finis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Iqdna87qrY...@giganews.com...
> Well I finally got my invite to download the software, so I said I'd give
> my thoughts on it.
>
> 1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
That rules out any interest that I have in the product.
I wonder if the excuse will still apply that it is to help people "identify"
that they are watching BBC channels?
Sam Nelson
Listen to anyone from anywhere in broadcasting admin, and they are absolutely
convinced that their viewers and listeners think in channels, while we're all
absolutely convinced that we think in content. It gets more and more
desperate with every passing R4 Feedback programme. When are they going to
figure this out?
--
SAm.
osc
> 14. When will I get iMP on Mac & Linux? We are currently conducting a
> content trial of iMP with 5,000 users in order to assess audience
> interest. As this is a trial it has only been possible to develop a
> version for Windows using Windows Media 9 Digital Rights Management,
> given time and budget constraints. Should the service be approved, we
> aim to make it accessible for different platforms, like Macintosh and
> Linux. Our suppliers are currently working towards this.
Translation: we paid peanuts to some Visual Basic monkeys at an outside
contractor to slap together a "media player with 'content protection'" --
and they came up with a mix of BitTorrent and Microsoft Media Player
ActiveX controls.
Sally Cort
<finis...@gmail.com> writes
to watch files on my TV :-(
6. Downloads are also only available for 7 days after they are
broadcast, so no good if you go on holiday.
Plus:
9. Not all programmes are available - in fact hardly anything I DO want
to watch is there.
--
Sally Cort
Serenity now, insanity later.
Time To Burn
Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article <djatua$t4h$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>,
> "Heracles Pollux" <heracle...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > "Fred Finisterre" <finis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8Iqdna87qrY...@giganews.com...
> > > Well I finally got my invite to download the software, so I said I'd give
> > > my thoughts on it.
> > >
> > > 1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
> >
> > That rules out any interest that I have in the product.
> >
> > I wonder if the excuse will still apply that it is to help people "identify"
> > that they are watching BBC channels?
>
> Listen to anyone from anywhere in broadcasting admin, and they are absolutely
> convinced that their viewers and listeners think in channels, while we're all
> absolutely convinced that we think in content.
Speak for yourself.
> It gets more and more
> desperate with every passing R4 Feedback programme. When are they going to
> figure this out?
The broadcasters' logic does in fact make sense, and is perfectly
simple to figure out. The REAL problem is that most people on here
dislike DOGs to such an extent that they refuse to apply any rational
thought to anything which explains or defends them.
I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
"What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
a programme guide to plan their viewing.
TTB
osc
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, osc wrote:
>> Translation: we paid peanuts to some Visual Basic monkeys at an outside
>> contractor to slap together a "media player with 'content protection'"
>> -- and they came up with a mix of BitTorrent and Microsoft Media Player
>> ActiveX controls.
>
> The Open Source movement will just reverse engineer iMP and put out a
> version that's free.
... and immediately find themselves in legal difficulties. The point is
that they shouldn't have to. I get the impression that the BBC's idea of
"making it accessible for other platforms" will involve licensing the
codecs to be wrapped up in a binary a distributed for x86-based Linux
systems. I don't fancy seeing the BBC handing Microsoft and its
proprietary DRM infected formats a huge lock on content in this country.
Lister
<alex....@munted.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> ... and immediately find themselves in legal difficulties. The point
>> is that they shouldn't have to. I get the impression that the BBC's
>> idea of "making it accessible for other platforms" will involve
>> licensing the codecs to be wrapped up in a binary a distributed for
>> x86-based Linux systems. I don't fancy seeing the BBC handing
>> Microsoft and its proprietary DRM infected formats a huge lock on
>> content in this country.
>
>If they do that, I'll complain the BBC are in breach of their charter.
They did that ages ago - look at all the ads on the BBC now :)
--
.sig for rent
Apply within
Heracles Pollux
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129910103.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Channels and identities are important.
Channel "identification" is not something that needs to be written
constantly on-screen.
Time To Burn
> Channels and identities are important.
>
> Channel "identification" is not something that needs to be written
> constantly on-screen.
I disagree, particularly in the UK. Channels want viewers to recognise
them, and feel at home there. BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4, and
to a lesser extent five have a clear advantage here, as most viewers
have for years been used to having only these to choose from. This
still shows, as ratings for these channels still dwarf those for
others.
I'll bet that many viewers, even in multi-channel homes, rarely even
consider any other options. So you really can't blame the minority
broadcasters for wanting to get themselves into the consciousness of
the viewer by ram their identities down their viewers' throats by any
means possible once they have eventually got them to tune in.
Crucially, this is especially important if viewers are not tuning in
for an extended period, and therefore don't have the chance to become
familiar with other aspects of a channel's presentation package.
TTB
Heracles Pollux
The channels I would most likely want to watch are owned by the BBC, ITV,
Channel 4 anyway, so the logic of marketing these channels in the same way
as "LIVE TV", "Wine TV", "Bid Up TV", escapes me.
I don't watch these "digital" channel because of the DOGs.
I indeed do "blame" these channels for their irrational unnecessary hyper
marketing, but then a "marketer" is just a Nazi doing it with business power
instead of military power.
Well I've got the cash and the BitTorrents, and they don't have my custom,
so I'm happy to be called "wrong" so long as they don't expect me to pay for
them. Fuck off BBC.
DAB sounds worse than FM
What bit rate are the stereo radio shows using?
Is WMV9 and WMA9 used for video and audio, respectively?
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Please sign the petition asking the BBC to provide better audio quality
on its radio stations on DAB, Freeview, satellite and cable:
http://tinyurl.com/a68e4
John
<dab...@low.quality> wrote:
>Fred Finisterre wrote:
>> Well I finally got my invite to download the software, so I said I'd
>> give my thoughts on it.
>>
>> 1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
>> 2. It has Radio too (but not much of it at the mo).
>> 3. You have to watch the download from within the iMP (due to DRM),
>> which is a bit of a drag, cos I usually watch videos on my TV via my
>> XBox. Hate watching at my PC. A license is acquired the first time
>> you play the video. 4. You can book a download in advance.
>> 5. You can book a series download in advance (the iMP sits in your
>> Sys Tray, presumably monitoring a programmes availability)
>> 6. Downloads become unwatchable after 7 days.
>> 7. A one hour shows is 330-340MB (764 Kbps, variable bit rate)
>> 8. Subtitles are available for some shows (you can choose to display
>> them or not).
>>
>> No time for a full review now, but post questions, and I'll try and
>> answer them.
>
>
>What bit rate are the stereo radio shows using?
128kbps (as posted earlier)
>
>Is WMV9 and WMA9 used for video and audio, respectively?
Certainly WMV9 is used for video (at least on my setup using
Zoomplayer) but I can't seem to find a way of telling when it comes to
audio. Let me know how and I'll report back.
John
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
Have they started breaking into shows to show promos for washing powder then?
mh.
--
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
"People are animals too."
neil h
> Well I finally got my invite to download the software, so I said I'd give my
> thoughts on it.
>
> 1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
> 2. It has Radio too (but not much of it at the mo).
> 3. You have to watch the download from within the iMP (due to DRM), which is
> a bit of a drag, cos I usually watch videos on my TV via my XBox. Hate
> watching at my PC. A license is acquired the first time you play the video.
Could you use something like a Streamium or Windows Media Center to pipe
the video to your tv? Presumably that's all part of the experiment and
they should get feedback on it.
> 4. You can book a download in advance.
> 5. You can book a series download in advance (the iMP sits in your Sys Tray,
> presumably monitoring a programmes availability)
> 6. Downloads become unwatchable after 7 days.
Whereas something like 'Blessed' is unwatchable straight away.
> 7. A one hour shows is 330-340MB (764 Kbps, variable bit rate)
> 8. Subtitles are available for some shows (you can choose to display them or
> not).
--
neil h.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like
'Psychic Wins Lottery'?" - Jay Leno
neil h
> I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
> channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
> newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
> listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
> tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
> viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
> occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
> such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
> "What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
> identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
> such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
> future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
> a programme guide to plan their viewing.
If they've switched to ITV2 then they will have had the banner coming up
on their EPG to tell them exactly what they are watching. The only time
when they can possibly be unaware of what channel they are watching is
if they randomly push buttons on their remote control and then keep
their eyes shut for thirty seconds until the banner goes away. Oh, and
they must remember not to press the information button in the case they
accidentally see the channel id again.
Nig
> Well I finally got my invite to download the software, so I said I'd give my
> thoughts on it.
>
> 1. There's a DOG on whatever you download, including BBC1 & BBC2. Pah!
Shame there's not much to download. It would've been nice to catch up on
the episodes of QI I've missed, but it's not listed. Instead we have a
bunch of stuff off CBBC. Why? Are there that many kids on the trial?
There also seems to be an awful lot of the daytime progs on there. I
wouldn't watch most of them live let alone download them.
> 2. It has Radio too (but not much of it at the mo).
Just the main national stations AFAICT. Which is a shame as there are
some progs on Radio London that I'd like to catch up with. I know it's
early days, but I think a bit more choice on the radio, especially,
would be nice.
> 3. You have to watch the download from within the iMP (due to DRM), which is
> a bit of a drag, cos I usually watch videos on my TV via my XBox. Hate
> watching at my PC. A license is acquired the first time you play the video.
I still haven't had any reply on the email I sent them about two weeks
ago asking them why DRM is necessary. I really don't want to install it
so still haven't watched or listened to anything I've downloaded.
Actually, one of the things I downloaded was an old episode of the Goon
Show and it makes no sense to me to DRM a show that is over 40 years old!
I've tried a couple of DRM removal proggies but as most of them seem to
be for iTunes, they haven't been able to remove the protection.
You mentioned that you had to play the files in the iMP player, does
that mean they refuse to play in another player? I use JetAudio here and
I must admit I'd prefer to use that for any playback.
> 4. You can book a download in advance.
> 5. You can book a series download in advance (the iMP sits in your Sys Tray,
> presumably monitoring a programmes availability)
> 6. Downloads become unwatchable after 7 days.
Presumably, lack of DRM will prevent this?
> 7. A one hour shows is 330-340MB (764 Kbps, variable bit rate)
> 8. Subtitles are available for some shows (you can choose to display them or
> not).
>
> No time for a full review now, but post questions, and I'll try and answer
> them.
I actually think the iMP interface is not too bad but it would be nice
if the download screen showed a bit more detail instead of an anonymous
grey bar. I also get a scripting error on every page I visit although if
I just click OK, the pages load correctly. I suppose I ought to report
it but as they haven't replied to my last email, I really CBA.
I also don't see the point of the celebrity choices. I couldn't care
less what any anonymous celeb recommends and certainly wouldn't be
influenced by any of them. Who is Fiona Bruce anyway? (that's a
rhetorical question BTW, I don't really care;-))
Cheers,
Nig
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Carl Waring
Which bit, out of interest?
--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Time To Burn
> Time To Burn wrote:
>
> > I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
> > channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
> > newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
> > listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
> > tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
> > viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
> > occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
> > such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
> > "What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
> > identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
> > such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
> > future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
> > a programme guide to plan their viewing.
>
> If they've switched to ITV2 then they will have had the banner coming up
> on their EPG to tell them exactly what they are watching.
True. But if that were the only means of identification needed for any
channel, why do all channels have presentation packages with ident
trailers and announcers before programmes, break bumpers etc?
The obvious answer, as I explained elsewhere in this thread is that
they serve to create a look, feel and personality for the channel, that
a viewer will grow to feel comfortable, familiar and at home with. For
BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five, this takes place around the
programmes. However, as minority channels are watched more
infrequently than those mentioned above, broadcasters understandably
take the opportunity to establish the channel's personality during the
programmes, using DOGs.
I suspect that you are suffering from the syndrome I described earlier:
i.e. you are an intelligent person, perfectly capable of understanding
this, however because it relates to DOGs, the red mist has descended
and you are choosing not to apply any rational thought to the matter.
TTB
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
> neil h wrote:
>
>> Time To Burn wrote:
>>
>> > I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
>> > channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
>> > newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
>> > listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
>> > tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
>> > viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
>> > occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
>> > such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
>> > "What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
>> > identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
>> > such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
>> > future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
>> > a programme guide to plan their viewing.
>>
>> If they've switched to ITV2 then they will have had the banner coming up
>> on their EPG to tell them exactly what they are watching.
>
> True. But if that were the only means of identification needed for any
> channel, why do all channels have presentation packages with ident
> trailers and announcers before programmes, break bumpers etc?
Marketing. The ITV annual report
(http://www.itvplc.com/itv/fininfo/reports/itv/annualrep04/annualrep04.pdf)
says pretty much explicitly that their main aim is to get as much adverts on
as possible to maximise returns for shareholders, or in their own words: "We
will continue to lead and grow the UK TV advertising market, promoting the
power of the medium to advertisers." Also note their strategy for 2005-06:
"Looking forward - ITV's strategy for growth
* Lead and grow UK commercial TV market
- promote effectiveness of TV advertising
- strengthen ITV's family of channels
* Develop content production
- to be Europe's leading commercial content provider
- create new content for technologies
* Increase revenue streams beyond spot advertising"
In other words, their interest is keeping people on *their* channel for as
long as possible so they can show more adverts. Nothing to do with trying to
help the viewer and everything to do with maximising advertising revenue.
Most media companies do tend to see viewers, listeners or whatever as being
nothing but sources of cash and (as per the usual rules of business) they
are aiming to get as much of it as possible. Viewers and media groups may
well think in terms of channels, but not for the same reasons.
Fred Finisterre
> the download screen showed a bit more detail instead of an anonymous grey
> bar. I also get a scripting error on every page I visit although if I just
> click OK, the pages load correctly. I suppose I ought to report it but as
> they haven't replied to my last email, I really CBA.
>
> I also don't see the point of the celebrity choices. I couldn't care less
> what any anonymous celeb recommends and certainly wouldn't be influenced
> by any of them. Who is Fiona Bruce anyway? (that's a rhetorical question
> BTW, I don't really care;-))
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nig
I get the scripting errors too.
I also agree that the download status could be more detailed.
I also couldn't care about celebrity choices.
I think the availability needs to more than a week as well. I've been lucky
enough to go away for a month before, why not make the programmes time out
after say, 6 weeks.
I've tried watching a video in native Windows Media Player, and it seems to
work fine on the machine the video was downloaded on, once the license has
been obtained from within iMP. But WMP on my laptop (which doesn't have iMP
installed) is unable to play the video.
Fred.
Jerry Brown
<snip>
>The obvious answer, as I explained elsewhere in this thread is that
>they serve to create a look, feel and personality for the channel, that
>a viewer will grow to feel comfortable, familiar and at home with. For
>BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five, this takes place around the
>programmes.
I prefer to think of them by their proper names of BBC1, BBC2, ITV,
Channel 4 and Channel 5.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Nick Cooper
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The broadcasters' logic does in fact make sense, and is perfectly
>simple to figure out. The REAL problem is that most people on here
>dislike DOGs to such an extent that they refuse to apply any rational
>thought to anything which explains or defends them.
>
>I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
>channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
>newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
>listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
>tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
>viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
>occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
>such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
>"What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
>identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
>such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
>future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
>a programme guide to plan their viewing.
So, basically, you think that someone who switchs over from ITV1 to
ITV2 is too thick to realise they're watching ITV2, and will certainly
forget that ITV2 exists unless they are constantly reminded?!
--
Nick Cooper
[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
625-Online: http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come': http://www.thingstocome.org.uk
Various distractions: http://www.nickcooper.org.uk
Carl Waring
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Carl Waring wrote:
>
>>> If they do that, I'll complain the BBC are in breach of their
>>> charter.
>>
>> Which bit, out of interest?
>
So they're not really and you're just blustering for something to complain
about or you don't actually know anything about their Charter? :-)
Time To Burn
Nick Cooper wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2005 08:55:03 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The broadcasters' logic does in fact make sense, and is perfectly
> >simple to figure out. The REAL problem is that most people on here
> >dislike DOGs to such an extent that they refuse to apply any rational
> >thought to anything which explains or defends them.
> >
> >I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
> >channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
> >newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
> >listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
> >tucked away at the bottom, or on another page. I'll bet that many
> >viewers do not even bother to look at these. Therefore, on the rare
> >occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
> >such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
> >"What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
> >identity is reinforced as much as possible. The desired effect is that
> >such viewers will gradually become familiar with the channel, and in
> >future consider that channel when either channel-hopping, or consulting
> >a programme guide to plan their viewing.
>
> So, basically, you think that someone who switchs over from ITV1 to
> ITV2 is too thick to realise they're watching ITV2, and will certainly
> forget that ITV2 exists unless they are constantly reminded?!
Pretty much. The majority of viewers, even in multichannel homes, are
still in a four or five-channel mindset, having had only those options
for so long.
So when they eventually switch over to a minority channel, broadcasters
need to try and keep them coming back. The DOG is effectively a way of
saying: Look! You're watching something you like on ITV2! Why not
consider us more often in future?
TTB
Time To Burn
> On 22 Oct 2005 03:53:34 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >The obvious answer, as I explained elsewhere in this thread is that
> >they serve to create a look, feel and personality for the channel, that
> >a viewer will grow to feel comfortable, familiar and at home with. For
> >BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five, this takes place around the
> >programmes.
>
> I prefer to think of them by their proper names of BBC1, BBC2, ITV,
> Channel 4 and Channel 5.
I think you'll find that you actually made up four out of those five,
and that their real names are those I used above.
TTB
JohnJ
>So when they eventually switch over to a minority channel, broadcasters
>need to try and keep them coming back. The DOG is effectively a way of
>saying: Look! You're watching something you like on ITV2! Why not
>consider us more often in future?
Does it work, though? Seeing a DOG on the screen would actually put me
off and discourage me from watching that channel again!
Time To Burn
Sure, but you and I and most people on this newsgroup aren't really
representative of the TV viewing population as a whole. For instance,
the amount of people that have their widescreen TVs set up wrongly with
their digital boxes - it's amazing what people will accept and see
nothing wrong with!
Anyway, broadcasters around the world have been using DOGs for decades,
so they must have an overall positive effect.
TTB
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Sam Nelson wrote:
> I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
> channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
> newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
> listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
> tucked away at the bottom, or on another page.
Who designs the magazines: viewers, or broadcasting administrators?
> I'll bet that many viewers do not even bother to look at these.
That's because `they' want us to think in channels.
> Therefore, on the rare
> occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
> such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
> "What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
> identity is reinforced as much as possible.
You're either a broadcasting administrator or an idiot.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article <1129910103.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Sam Nelson wrote:
> > I believe viewers and listeners, on the whole, DO think in terms of
> > channels. For instance: turn to the TV listings page of any national
> > newspaper; you'll find BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4 and five
> > listed in big columns. Minor channels (read DOG-branded ones) are
> > tucked away at the bottom, or on another page.
>
> Who designs the magazines: viewers, or broadcasting administrators?
Eh? Take off those DOG-blinkers and apply some thought to your
comments. For starters, who mentioned magazines? Which of these
(Radio Times aside) are designed by broadcasting administrators? And
even if they were, wouldn't broadcasters want to give greater
prominence to minority channels?
More like newspaper editors/designers who know that those are the
channels that most people watch.
> > I'll bet that many viewers do not even bother to look at these.
>
> That's because `they' want us to think in channels.
So you accept that my assertion (that many viewers do not bother to
look at those listings) is valid, hence they think in channels?
> > Therefore, on the rare
> > occasion that such viewers DO stumble across something they like on
> > such a channel (for instance, a viewer switching to ITV2 prompted by a
> > "What's On Next" banner on ITV1), it's important that the channel's
> > identity is reinforced as much as possible.
>
> You're either a broadcasting administrator or an idiot.
Nope. I am however approaching the issues surrounding DOGs/banners etc
with an open mind, unlike you.
TTB
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Eh? Take off those DOG-blinkers and apply some thought to your
> comments.
I'm not DOG-blinkered. I don't like 'em, that's all.
> For starters, who mentioned magazines? Which of these
> (Radio Times aside) are designed by broadcasting administrators? And
> even if they were, wouldn't broadcasters want to give greater
> prominence to minority channels?
>
> More like newspaper editors/designers who know that those are the
> channels that most people watch.
It's a feedback-loop problem.
> So you accept that my assertion (that many viewers do not bother to
> look at those listings) is valid, hence they think in channels?
Only because that's the only way they're ever presented with the information.
Do you suppose anyone ever asked, or sat down and thought about it? I don't.
> I am however approaching the issues surrounding DOGs/banners etc
> with an open mind, unlike you.
Hardly. You're clearly so taken with the idea of channel-branding that you
find it impossible to consider any other position.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article <1130143549.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Eh? Take off those DOG-blinkers and apply some thought to your
> > comments.
>
> I'm not DOG-blinkered. I don't like 'em, that's all.
No. Whenever I make valid points to defend them, you don't actually
counter my argument with any valid points of your own. You just call
me an idiot. This indicates that either:
a) you haven't given my points enough consideration to come up with an
actual response
or
b) you have considered them, can see that I'm right, but you hate DOGs
so there's no way you'd concede that. So you resort to unconstructive
name-slinging.
> > So you accept that my assertion (that many viewers do not bother to
> > look at those listings) is valid, hence they think in channels?
>
> Only because that's the only way they're ever presented with the information.
> Do you suppose anyone ever asked, or sat down and thought about it? I don't.
I do. As I have said already, for many years viewers in the UK have
been used to having only four or five channels to choose from.
Therefore those are the ones which they are most comfortable with, and
most likely to consider when channel-hopping, or planning their
viewing. They are used to those channels and know that they are likely
to offer something of interest.
So it makes sense that those are the channels that viewers want to know
about in terms of listings. Somehow, I really don't think the Radio
Times would sell too well if they listed UKTV Style, ftn, Ideal World,
Men and Motors and Sky Travel in the five big columns, with BBC One
tucked away in a tiny block overleaf.
> > I am however approaching the issues surrounding DOGs/banners etc
> > with an open mind, unlike you.
>
> Hardly. You're clearly so taken with the idea of channel-branding that you
> find it impossible to consider any other position.
Well highlight another position for me to consider then. You really
haven't given any reason why my points are invalid, other than that you
don't like DOGs.
TTB
Sam Nelson
By definition, if I'm in a position to watch loadsachannels on digital TV,
I can press the `i' button. Under what circumstances, then, do I need to
be permanently reminded which channel I'm watching, when I can find out for
myself, assuming I'm too stupid to know, any time?
Get this, again: I am not DOG-obsessed, like some around here. I don't
actually _avoid_ watching DOGged channels and programmes and I've never yet
issued a complaint to a broadcaster against them. But they serve no viewer-
related purpose, obstruct my view of programmes, and I object to them on
those grounds. If I thought it was worth complaining, I would, but extensive
experience suggests to me that the marketing/branding idiots would pay no
attention.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> In article <1130145475.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Well highlight another position for me to consider then. You really
> > haven't given any reason why my points are invalid, other than that you
> > don't like DOGs.
>
> By definition, if I'm in a position to watch loadsachannels on digital TV,
> I can press the `i' button. Under what circumstances, then, do I need to
> be permanently reminded which channel I'm watching, when I can find out for
> myself, assuming I'm too stupid to know, any time?
Very good! When you're fighting a losing battle, what can you do?
Insults? Selectively snip the other person's argument? Hmm. I
know... try your opponent's patience by asking the same questions over
again!
I am now sick of repeating myself. Please read elsewhere in this
thread for answers to the above.
You can start here:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/16dd6ba43efd9f19
As usual when a DOG-martyr is defeated, the points go uncountered.
Feel free to respond.
> Get this, again: I am not DOG-obsessed, like some around here.
Why do you think I'm pursuing this with you rather than anybody else?
I'm living in the hope that you may be able to debate this issue with
some degree of sanity ;-)
TTB
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Sam Nelson wrote:
> > In article <1130145475.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Well highlight another position for me to consider then. You really
> > > haven't given any reason why my points are invalid, other than that you
> > > don't like DOGs.
> >
> > By definition, if I'm in a position to watch loadsachannels on digital TV,
> > I can press the `i' button. Under what circumstances, then, do I need to
> > be permanently reminded which channel I'm watching, when I can find out for
> > myself, assuming I'm too stupid to know, any time?
>
> Very good! When you're fighting a losing battle, what can you do?
> Insults? Selectively snip the other person's argument? Hmm. I
> know... try your opponent's patience by asking the same questions over
> again!
>
> I am now sick of repeating myself. Please read elsewhere in this
> thread for answers to the above.
>
> You can start here:
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/16dd6ba43efd9f19
You don't answer my points at all there. My points are still outstanding
unchallenged.
> As usual when a DOG-martyr is defeated, the points go uncountered.
> Feel free to respond.
>
> > Get this, again: I am not DOG-obsessed, like some around here.
>
> Why do you think I'm pursuing this with you rather than anybody else?
> I'm living in the hope that you may be able to debate this issue with
> some degree of sanity ;-)
I don't see why I should bother trying. You aren't putting in any effort.
Your entire argument is based on conjecture.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article <1130147412.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Sam Nelson wrote:
> > > In article <1130145475.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > Well highlight another position for me to consider then. You really
> > > > haven't given any reason why my points are invalid, other than that you
> > > > don't like DOGs.
> > >
> > > By definition, if I'm in a position to watch loadsachannels on digital TV,
> > > I can press the `i' button. Under what circumstances, then, do I need to
> > > be permanently reminded which channel I'm watching, when I can find out for
> > > myself, assuming I'm too stupid to know, any time?
> >
> > Very good! When you're fighting a losing battle, what can you do?
> > Insults? Selectively snip the other person's argument? Hmm. I
> > know... try your opponent's patience by asking the same questions over
> > again!
> >
> > I am now sick of repeating myself. Please read elsewhere in this
> > thread for answers to the above.
> >
> > You can start here:
> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/16dd6ba43efd9f19
>
> You don't answer my points at all there. My points are still outstanding
> unchallenged.
This could be construed as complete thickness, but I think you're being
deliberately obtuse. You asked why viewers needed to be reminded what
channel they are watching. The post I linked to above explains that
viewers are unlikely to watch minority channels for extended periods,
therefore don't have the chance to become familiar with other aspects
of a channel's presentation package.
Enter the onscreen graphic during the programme.
Allow me to pre-empt your next stalling tactic. The reason, before you
ask, that it's necessary for viewers to become familiar with a
channel's presentation package, as I've already explained, is so that a
mental picture of a channel's style and personality can be built up.
Hence the vast sums invested in channel presentation packages.
> > As usual when a DOG-martyr is defeated, the points go uncountered.
> > Feel free to respond.
> >
> > > Get this, again: I am not DOG-obsessed, like some around here.
> >
> > Why do you think I'm pursuing this with you rather than anybody else?
> > I'm living in the hope that you may be able to debate this issue with
> > some degree of sanity ;-)
>
> I don't see why I should bother trying. You aren't putting in any effort.
No, you aren't. All of your posts ask me to explain something I've
already explained. You are either too thick, or lazy, to put the
pieces together.
> Your entire argument is based on conjecture.
Seems like common sense to me. What part of my argument, in
particular, don't you agree with?
TTB
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> This could be construed as complete thickness, but I think you're being
> deliberately obtuse.
No---just unaffected by the marketing/branding bullshit that seems to be all
you know anything about.
> You asked why viewers needed to be reminded what
> channel they are watching. The post I linked to above explains that
> viewers are unlikely to watch minority channels for extended periods,
Pure conjecture, on which your entire useless argument is based.
> therefore don't have the chance to become familiar with other aspects
> of a channel's presentation package.
---which is utterly irrelevant.
> Allow me to pre-empt your next stalling tactic. The reason, before you
> ask, that it's necessary for viewers to become familiar with a
> channel's presentation package, as I've already explained, is so that a
> mental picture of a channel's style and personality can be built up.
> Hence the vast sums invested in channel presentation packages.
Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
> No, you aren't. All of your posts ask me to explain something I've
> already explained. You are either too thick, or lazy, to put the
> pieces together.
>
> > Your entire argument is based on conjecture.
>
> Seems like common sense to me. What part of my argument, in
> particular, don't you agree with?
Any and all of it. All you seem to know how to talk about is marketing and
branding strictly-form-over-content crud, all of which is so unnecessary
that I'm having trouble thinking down to your level.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> In article <1130149035.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > This could be construed as complete thickness, but I think you're being
> > deliberately obtuse.
>
> No---just unaffected by the marketing/branding bullshit that seems to be all
> you know anything about.
Whatever. YOU might think that YOU are. But you really don't accept
that on the whole, people in general are affected and influenced by
branding and image?
> > You asked why viewers needed to be reminded what
> > channel they are watching. The post I linked to above explains that
> > viewers are unlikely to watch minority channels for extended periods,
>
> Pure conjecture, on which your entire useless argument is based.
So I'm just imagining the fact that the average person in a
multi-channel home watched ITV1 for 4 hours 31 minutes per week last
month, compared to 34 minutes per week for ITV2?
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/monthreports.cfm?report=monthgmulti
> > therefore don't have the chance to become familiar with other aspects
> > of a channel's presentation package.
>
> ---which is utterly irrelevant.
Remarkable that the advertising industry has been doing very well for
the last God knows how long considering what they do is useless and
irrelevant.
> > Allow me to pre-empt your next stalling tactic. The reason, before you
> > ask, that it's necessary for viewers to become familiar with a
> > channel's presentation package, as I've already explained, is so that a
> > mental picture of a channel's style and personality can be built up.
> > Hence the vast sums invested in channel presentation packages.
>
> Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
On you perhaps. Not on most other people.
TTB
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
>
> On you perhaps. Not on most other people.
There you go, marketing/branding-led conjecture again. The only argument
you have is that people need this because they need it. The problem here
is that channel management daren't do without it, because if they gave it
a shot they'd suddenly discover how much money they'd been wasting on
Emperor's New Clothes all these years, and how useless they were. Channel
branding is just revenue protection for channel management---nothing else.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> So I'm just imagining the fact that the average person in a
> multi-channel home watched ITV1 for 4 hours 31 minutes per week last
> month, compared to 34 minutes per week for ITV2?
Case in point. Much of ITV2's programming comes from ITV1 anyway: why on
earth does it matter which version of ITV these people watch the programme
on?
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
> >
> > On you perhaps. Not on most other people.
>
> There you go, marketing/branding-led conjecture again.
I don't understand the problem here. Are you disputing that
advertising, branding, image and style is effective in selling
something to a consumer?
> The only argument
> you have is that people need this because they need it.
Broadcasters need it to stand out amongst the competition.
> The problem here
> is that channel management daren't do without it, because if they gave it
> a shot they'd suddenly discover how much money they'd been wasting on
> Emperor's New Clothes all these years, and how useless they were.
Err... Conjecture?!!????
> Channel
> branding is just revenue protection for channel management---nothing else.
Explain?
TTB
Time To Burn
So that viewers grow to associate ITV2 with programmes they enjoy, and
will consider it in future when channel-hopping or when consulting a
programme guide to plan their viewing.
As I have said already.
TTB
Dom Robinson
You're like ITV2 yourself, Time To Waste, endlessly repeating the same
old crap.
The times I've watched ITV2 are when I've missed something on ITV, so
regardless of the DOG issue, I, like everyone else on the planet with
some common sense, watch programmes not channels.
I've watched Chicago Hope (well, recorded more of them than I've got
round to watching) on ITV3 because the last two seasons were only on
ITV3. Yes, there's a DOG but it's the only chance I have to watch those
programmes so I make do. Again, I watch it for the programmes NOT the
channel.
There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
out alternative entertainment. That's the rapidly-declining market the
broadcasters think they should be attracting with their endless channel
branding and they're completely in the wrong.
Just like you.
Dom
Dom Robinson
Time To Burn wrote:
> Heracles Pollux wrote:
>
> > Channels and identities are important.
> >
> > Channel "identification" is not something that needs to be written
> > constantly on-screen.
>
> I disagree, particularly in the UK. Channels want viewers to recognise
> them, and feel at home there. BBC ONE, BBC TWO, ITV1, Channel 4, and
> to a lesser extent five have a clear advantage here, as most viewers
> have for years been used to having only these to choose from. This
> still shows, as ratings for these channels still dwarf those for
> others.
So how do you figure the continual use of a logo for Sky One? That's
been around for longer than Five, so by your logic it has a clearer
advantage so should be logo-free also.
Dom
Sam Nelson
"Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Sam Nelson wrote:
> > In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > So I'm just imagining the fact that the average person in a
> > > multi-channel home watched ITV1 for 4 hours 31 minutes per week last
> > > month, compared to 34 minutes per week for ITV2?
> >
> > Case in point. Much of ITV2's programming comes from ITV1 anyway: why on
> > earth does it matter which version of ITV these people watch the programme
> > on?
>
> So that viewers grow to associate ITV2 with programmes they enjoy, and
> will consider it in future when channel-hopping or when consulting a
> programme guide to plan their viewing.
And _I'm_ the one that's being deliberately obtuse? Mind, it's hard having
an argument about something quite as intrinsically pointless as marketing
and branding.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
It's only been around for longer than Five for those viewers who have
had access to Sky for all that time.
New viewers join Sky or cable all the time, so it is quite likely that
Sky One will always have a logo.
TTB
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
> Time To Burn wrote:
> > Sam Nelson wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > So I'm just imagining the fact that the average person in a
> > > > multi-channel home watched ITV1 for 4 hours 31 minutes per week last
> > > > month, compared to 34 minutes per week for ITV2?
> > >
> > > Case in point. Much of ITV2's programming comes from ITV1 anyway: why on
> > > earth does it matter which version of ITV these people watch the programme
> > > on?
> >
> > So that viewers grow to associate ITV2 with programmes they enjoy, and
> > will consider it in future when channel-hopping or when consulting a
> > programme guide to plan their viewing.
> >
> > As I have said already.
>
> You're like ITV2 yourself, Time To Waste, endlessly repeating the same
> old crap.
Very funny. But if you paid attention first time round, you wouldn't
need to keep asking the same old questions which have been answered
already.
> The times I've watched ITV2 are when I've missed something on ITV, so
> regardless of the DOG issue, I, like everyone else on the planet with
> some common sense, watch programmes not channels.
>
> I've watched Chicago Hope (well, recorded more of them than I've got
> round to watching) on ITV3 because the last two seasons were only on
> ITV3. Yes, there's a DOG but it's the only chance I have to watch those
> programmes so I make do. Again, I watch it for the programmes NOT the
> channel.
Good for you. But again, YOU along with most in this newsgroup are not
representative of the average viewer. I refer you back to my earlier
point about many people not looking past the main five columns on their
TV guide.
> There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
> ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
> out alternative entertainment. That's the rapidly-declining market the
> broadcasters think they should be attracting with their endless channel
> branding and they're completely in the wrong.
Why?
TTB
viv
What kind of beans do you buy, and why?
What brand of television do you watch, and why?
I'm often irritated by hype and advertising - it gets on my tits quite a
lot. However, I like to make what I hope are informed choices when I
buy. This may be marketing blurb, personal recommendation, experience,
cost, whatever. But I don't delude myself that marketing isn't involved.
Unless you buy all your goods from unmarked brown cardboard boxes based
on price, there's a fair chance that, as with most people, branding
plays its part.
--
Viv
Sam Nelson
Baked beans? Revolting things. I never eat them if I can possibly avoid them.
> What brand of television do you watch, and why?
Shopped around last time (January). Ended up buying a Panny based on
apparent quality of service from the local Panny dealer. Visited 9 TV
shops first, though.
> I'm often irritated by hype and advertising - it gets on my tits quite a
> lot. However, I like to make what I hope are informed choices when I
> buy. This may be marketing blurb, personal recommendation, experience,
> cost, whatever. But I don't delude myself that marketing isn't involved.
> Unless you buy all your goods from unmarked brown cardboard boxes based
> on price, there's a fair chance that, as with most people, branding
> plays its part.
Oddly enough, Panasonic isn't a brand I'd've considered other than that
m'colleague was impressed by the local dealer---and, when I went, so was I.
Branding as a rule for me identifies product ranges to _avoid_ (think: Matsui)
rather than choose. In particular, a crap TV ad is a good way to get me to
avoid a particular make.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> In article <MPG.1dc6f8a54...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> viv <v...@REMOVEmortine.dabsol.co.uk> writes:
> > What kind of beans do you buy, and why?
>
> Baked beans? Revolting things. I never eat them if I can possibly avoid them.
For someone who hates branding so much, you've certainly perfected your
own unique brand of obtuseness.
> > What brand of television do you watch, and why?
Not the best example; a television is an example of something that a
person may well go to greater lengths to research before deciding which
to go for.
Unlike, for instance, choosing a TV channel to help pass half an hour
or so in the evenings, when one is likely to glance straight at the
main five columns on the TV guide, rather than check the minority
channels overleaf.
TTB
viv
> In article <MPG.1dc6f8a54...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> viv <v...@REMOVEmortine.dabsol.co.uk> writes:
> > What kind of beans do you buy, and why?
>
> Baked beans? Revolting things. I never eat them if I can possibly avoid them.
>
> > What brand of television do you watch, and why?
>
> Shopped around last time (January). Ended up buying a Panny based on
> apparent quality of service from the local Panny dealer. Visited 9 TV
> shops first, though.
:) You know, that's just too picky...
> > I'm often irritated by hype and advertising - it gets on my tits quite a
> > lot. However, I like to make what I hope are informed choices when I
> > buy. This may be marketing blurb, personal recommendation, experience,
> > cost, whatever. But I don't delude myself that marketing isn't involved.
> > Unless you buy all your goods from unmarked brown cardboard boxes based
> > on price, there's a fair chance that, as with most people, branding
> > plays its part.
>
> Oddly enough, Panasonic isn't a brand I'd've considered other than that
> m'colleague was impressed by the local dealer---and, when I went, so was I.
> Branding as a rule for me identifies product ranges to _avoid_ (think: Matsui)
> rather than choose. In particular, a crap TV ad is a good way to get me to
> avoid a particular make.
Matsui (Dixons?) wasn't/isn't really a brand I think of as particularly
hyped but as a badged shop brand, I agree, I'd avoid. I tend to think of
Sony, Canon, Coke as among branding giants. My point is that everything
we buy is branded and sold to us to a greater or lesser degree,
unavoidably. I dislike DOGS, and I will also boycott the products of
irritating/crap ads but I accept that what I -do- buy is sold to me in
some form since I can't make my selection without information.
--
Viv
Dom Robinson
In other words, you haven't got an argument for that one, since new
viewers will come to Five just as they will to Sky One.
Dom
Dom Robinson
Time To Burn wrote:
> Dom Robinson wrote:
>
> > Time To Burn wrote:
> > > Sam Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > > So I'm just imagining the fact that the average person in a
> > > > > multi-channel home watched ITV1 for 4 hours 31 minutes per week last
> > > > > month, compared to 34 minutes per week for ITV2?
> > > >
> > > > Case in point. Much of ITV2's programming comes from ITV1 anyway: why on
> > > > earth does it matter which version of ITV these people watch the programme
> > > > on?
> > >
> > > So that viewers grow to associate ITV2 with programmes they enjoy, and
> > > will consider it in future when channel-hopping or when consulting a
> > > programme guide to plan their viewing.
> > >
> > > As I have said already.
> >
> > You're like ITV2 yourself, Time To Waste, endlessly repeating the same
> > old crap.
>
> Very funny. But if you paid attention first time round, you wouldn't
> need to keep asking the same old questions which have been answered
> already.
?
> > The times I've watched ITV2 are when I've missed something on ITV, so
> > regardless of the DOG issue, I, like everyone else on the planet with
> > some common sense, watch programmes not channels.
> >
> > I've watched Chicago Hope (well, recorded more of them than I've got
> > round to watching) on ITV3 because the last two seasons were only on
> > ITV3. Yes, there's a DOG but it's the only chance I have to watch those
> > programmes so I make do. Again, I watch it for the programmes NOT the
> > channel.
>
> Good for you. But again, YOU along with most in this newsgroup are not
> representative of the average viewer. I refer you back to my earlier
> point about many people not looking past the main five columns on their
> TV guide.
The type of viewer I am is becoming increasingly common as the months
and years roll by, though. Yes, four years ago not many people were
using a TiVo, but now PVR devices are on the fast increase, partly due
to the marketing of Sky+ but while that's not my unit of choice it's a
solid indicator that more people are breaking away from the "just sit
in front of a TV channel and watch whatever's on" brigade, as
highlighted by the statement I made below.
This very thread, and all the enquiries being made to the BBC about the
IMP, that has also been highlighted on Points of View - a programme
that's broadcast to the masses, proves the general public is seeking to
explore beyond the usual confines. Video iPods and the Sony PSP play
MP4 files and the public will be soon able to buy a download of last
night's TV shows the same way they can do it now with legal music
downloads.
> > There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
> > ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
> > out alternative entertainment. That's the rapidly-declining market the
> > broadcasters think they should be attracting with their endless channel
> > branding and they're completely in the wrong.
>
> Why?
Why what? The above is a fact, and I've explained the reasoning further
above that. Technology is moving on, the general public are becoming
more used to it and you see to be the only luddite left behind!
Dom
Sam Nelson
> person may well go to greater lengths to research before deciding which
> to go for.
So, what you're saying here is that branding only counts when the price is
irrelevant? I _try_ not to buy based on a positive assessment of a brand,
although I must admit I do sometimes allow myself to be swayed against
something based on a negative brand image---such as the `crap TV ad' case
previously mentioned.
> Unlike, for instance, choosing a TV channel to help pass half an hour
> or so in the evenings, when one is likely to glance straight at the
> main five columns on the TV guide, rather than check the minority
> channels overleaf.
As a rule, I'm checking TV listings on Digiguide's AvantGo channel, where
no such distinction is observable.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
Sorry, you've lost me here. Presumably, newcomers to Sky/cable will
previously have had only analogue terrestrial. In which case 80% will
already be familiar with five (source:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/index.asp.html).
Some others may have switched from digital terrestrial, in which case
they will already be familiar with five.
Leaving less than 20% of new Sky/cable customers who were not
previously able to receive five, to whom this argument does not apply.
Major bonus points to you.
TTB
Time To Burn
> > > The times I've watched ITV2 are when I've missed something on ITV, so
> > > regardless of the DOG issue, I, like everyone else on the planet with
> > > some common sense, watch programmes not channels.
> > >
> > > I've watched Chicago Hope (well, recorded more of them than I've got
> > > round to watching) on ITV3 because the last two seasons were only on
> > > ITV3. Yes, there's a DOG but it's the only chance I have to watch those
> > > programmes so I make do. Again, I watch it for the programmes NOT the
> > > channel.
> >
> > Good for you. But again, YOU along with most in this newsgroup are not
> > representative of the average viewer. I refer you back to my earlier
> > point about many people not looking past the main five columns on their
> > TV guide.
>
> The type of viewer I am is becoming increasingly common as the months
> and years roll by, though. Yes, four years ago not many people were
> using a TiVo, but now PVR devices are on the fast increase, partly due
> to the marketing of Sky+ but while that's not my unit of choice it's a
> solid indicator that more people are breaking away from the "just sit
> in front of a TV channel and watch whatever's on" brigade, as
> highlighted by the statement I made below.
You're right. However, most PVRs do not take guesses as to what you'll
want to watch, or record stuff you don't know about. Therefore, the
challenge to convince these people to look beyond the main five
channels when planning their viewing still exists.
> > > There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
> > > ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
> > > out alternative entertainment. That's the rapidly-declining market the
> > > broadcasters think they should be attracting with their endless channel
> > > branding and they're completely in the wrong.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Why what? The above is a fact, and I've explained the reasoning further
> above that.
No it isn't; your explanation explains something else. Look at the
link I posted earlier in this thread to see for yourself the ratings
chasm which continues to divide the main five channels and everything
else.
> Technology is moving on, the general public are becoming
> more used to it and you see to be the only luddite left behind!
I use a PVR. But this isn't about me personally.
My interest in this thread started because SAm (sic) posted the
assertion, which both of you now accept to be wrong, that people watch
programmes not channels.
I'm sick of complete untruths being passed off as fact on this matter,
in this newsgroup.
TTB
Dom Robinson
Time To Burn wrote:
> Dom Robinson wrote:
> > more used to it and you see to be the only luddite left behind!
>
> I use a PVR. But this isn't about me personally.
>
> My interest in this thread started because SAm (sic) posted the
> assertion, which both of you now accept to be wrong, that people watch
> programmes not channels.
> I'm sick of complete untruths being passed off as fact on this matter,
> in this newsgroup.
I'm sick of you talking out of your fucking arse all day long. You say
I now accept that I'm wrong on people watching programmes not channels?
Are you living in a backwards universe?
Dom
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
?!
> > > There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
> > > ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
> > > out alternative entertainment.
What is this if not an acceptance that there are people who watch
programmes not channels?
TTB
Time To Burn
Time To Burn wrote:
Obviously, I meant to say:
What is this if not an acceptance that there are people who watch
channels not programmes?
TTB
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sam Nelson wrote:
>
>> In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > > Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
>> >
>> > On you perhaps. Not on most other people.
>>
>> There you go, marketing/branding-led conjecture again.
>
>I don't understand the problem here. Are you disputing that
>advertising, branding, image and style is effective in selling
>something to a consumer?
For some products but not for general TV channels. We get a display
pops up when we change channels, we don't need any onscreen graphics.
I would suggest that anyone who does or thinks others do must simply
be a bit thick.
--
Mike Plowman
Coronation Street Visual Updates - www.csvu.net
"There was life before Coronation Street,
but it didn't amount to much." Russell Harty
Dom Robinson
And here's where we get to the point where we've been before.
It's not an acceptance of that, and if you read the whole of what I
typed then you'll understand the context.
At that point, you're either misunderstanding what I've written, in
which case you're not able to have a logical discussion, or you're
selecting parts of my side which fit your apparent beliefs, in which
case you're not worth trying to have a logical discussion.
I thankyou,
Dom
Dave Arnold
> What brand of television do you watch, and why?
> I'm often irritated by hype and advertising - it gets on my tits quite a
> lot. However, I like to make what I hope are informed choices when I
> buy. This may be marketing blurb, personal recommendation, experience,
> cost, whatever. But I don't delude myself that marketing isn't involved.
> Unless you buy all your goods from unmarked brown cardboard boxes based
> on price, there's a fair chance that, as with most people, branding
> plays its part.
Few people will disagree that branding doesn't have some affect on their
choices, either good or bad.
In the case of DOGs, however, it's more like having each individual bean
branded with the maker.
I have no objections to channels having idents at the start of programs and
around commercial breaks. I do however object to them being constantly
present (I notice very few have them present during the breaks themselves).
Some DOGs are more intrusive then others (animated ones - in particular the
ITV comming next - are the most irritating) but nearly all of them spoil
most shows that don't assume that viewers can only concentrate on a circle
in the middle of the screen; Frasier in particular often has people talking
at the edges of the screen whose faces aren't fully visible.
Dave.
--
Please remove your hat before replying.
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
> Time To Burn wrote:
> > Time To Burn wrote:
> >
> > > Dom Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > There's still a percentage of people out there who sit glued to BBC1 or
> > > > > > ITV for an evening because they don't use their common sense to seek
> > > > > > out alternative entertainment.
> > >
> > > What is this if not an acceptance that there are people who watch
> > > programmes not channels?
> >
> > Obviously, I meant to say:
> > What is this if not an acceptance that there are people who watch
> > channels not programmes?
>
> And here's where we get to the point where we've been before.
>
> It's not an acceptance of that, and if you read the whole of what I
> typed then you'll understand the context.
Ohh man.
Is this synopsis correct: you say that people who watch channels not
programmes exist, but that they are diminishing in number.
You snipped the part in which I said that they are not in fact
diminishing in number, and to back this up, I also directed you to the
BARB website, which shows that viewing figures for the main five
channels are worlds apart from those for minority channels.
Don't you think that suggests that viewers might need a little helping
hand in finding their way to those other channels?
TTB
Time To Burn
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 04:21:45 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1130150863.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > > Channels don't need styles, and all of that money is wasted.
> >> >
> >> > On you perhaps. Not on most other people.
> >>
> >> There you go, marketing/branding-led conjecture again.
> >
> >I don't understand the problem here. Are you disputing that
> >advertising, branding, image and style is effective in selling
> >something to a consumer?
>
> For some products but not for general TV channels.
Why not? Would you rather all TV channels had generic blank screens
between programmes? No channel logos or names, or familiar music in
the background, they can be referred to by their numbers in the EPG.
Don't need an announcer to introduce the programme, everyone can look
at the programme guide to see what's coming up.
Actually, come to think of it, many of the anally retentive obsessives
on here would probably consider that to be heaven.
> We get a display
> pops up when we change channels, we don't need any onscreen graphics.
> I would suggest that anyone who does or thinks others do must simply
> be a bit thick.
Really? I would suggest that you could do with looking beyond the end
of your nose, and should try thinking of a perfectly intelligent person
who is not used to having a selection beyond the main five. I would
suggest that they could get lost in the hundreds of channels with
greater ease than you think.
TTB
Sam Nelson
timeto...@yahoo.com says...
? Would you rather all TV channels had generic blank screens
> between programmes? No channel logos or names, or familiar music in
> the background, they can be referred to by their numbers in the EPG.
> Don't need an announcer to introduce the programme, everyone can look
> at the programme guide to see what's coming up.
I'm happy for a channel to identify itself between programmes, but I
would like the continuity announcements limited to `that was... later
is... and now...' and I could handle a few light trails.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
Sam Nelson wrote:
Why identify itself between programmes? The channel name came up on
screen two hours ago when you switched to it to watch the movie. Are
you too thick to remember? Why have continuity announcements at all?
Are you too thick to press the info button to find out what you're
watching?
TTB
Dom Robinson
Education tells them how to find their way, but having "SKY ONE"
onscreen on Sky One does not help any viewer find their way from any
other channel to Sky One, that's what the EPG is for, and when they
arrive at Sky One, the digibox tells them the channel name before it
appears.
By that time, they've been told several times what the channel name is
so even less need for a logo.
Dom
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
But according to the link I posted earlier, viewers in multichannel
homes watched Sky One for only 24 minutes per week on average last
month. Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look, feel,
image, identity and personality of a channel. Hence the usage of logos
to help establish this during the programmes themselves.
TTB
Dom Robinson
They watched it for 24 minutes because there was something on that they
were interested in and then they changed channels. They didn't care
about the identity/personality/etc. You're talking waffle. A TV channel
doesn't have traits of a living being.
You really are a marketing man's wet dream, aren't you? Always obsessed
with branding - "Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look,
feel,
image, identity and personality of a channel." Total doublespeak.
Try living in the real world.
Dom
Time To Burn
Dom Robinson wrote:
Oh come on Dom, surely you're not denying the importance of a TV
channel's branding package? It's all part of what viewers associate
with the channel, and it helps to establish it in the viewer's mind.
Therefore, the user will be more likely to consider that channel in
future when channel-hopping or programming the PVR etc. The same as a
TV advertisement for a product would stick in a viewer's mind. Hence
the big bucks spent on it by every TV network in the world.
> You really are a marketing man's wet dream, aren't you? Always obsessed
> with branding - "Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look,
> feel,
> image, identity and personality of a channel." Total doublespeak.
I'm not obsessed with it, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your
anti-DOG argument.
TTB
Sam Nelson
timeto...@yahoo.com says...
> But according to the link I posted earlier, viewers in multichannel
> homes watched Sky One for only 24 minutes per week on average last
> month.
Stats highly questionable: I live in a multichannel home (Freeview) but
I can't get Sky One. That means you have to be very careful with your
stats if you dare use them at all.
--
SAm.
Geoff Lane
> Why not? Would you rather all TV channels had generic blank screens
> between programmes?
Don't give a damn what they do between programs - blank screen or hardcore
porn, don't care. Just don't put DOG piss all over the PROGRAMS.
--
Geoff Lane
Today's Excuse: static from plastic slide rules
neil h
My ideal tv service would be a list of programmes that I could subscribe
to and then watch when I want. Each week, I'd get, say, Lost, Have I Got
News For You and a film or two delivered to my PVR for me to watch when
I want. The idea of many channels with a list of programmes to watch at
particular times then becomes redundant. I could even choose between a
version subsidized by advertising or one at a slightly higher price that
is advert free.
--
neil h.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like
'Psychic Wins Lottery'?" - Jay Leno
Dom Robinson
Time To Burn wrote:
> Dom Robinson wrote:
> > > > Education tells them how to find their way, but having "SKY ONE"
> > > > onscreen on Sky One does not help any viewer find their way from any
> > > > other channel to Sky One, that's what the EPG is for, and when they
> > > > arrive at Sky One, the digibox tells them the channel name before it
> > > > appears.
> > > >
> > > > By that time, they've been told several times what the channel name is
> > > > so even less need for a logo.
> > >
> > > But according to the link I posted earlier, viewers in multichannel
> > > homes watched Sky One for only 24 minutes per week on average last
> > > month. Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look, feel,
> > > image, identity and personality of a channel. Hence the usage of logos
> > > to help establish this during the programmes themselves.
> >
> > They watched it for 24 minutes because there was something on that they
> > were interested in and then they changed channels. They didn't care
> > about the identity/personality/etc.
>
> Oh come on Dom, surely you're not denying the importance of a TV
> channel's branding package? It's all part of what viewers associate
> with the channel, and it helps to establish it in the viewer's mind.
Maybe it's what YOU associate with a channel, but hardly anyone does
these days since the advent of the pay-TV revolution.
In those days, you might expect a certain set of programmes from BBC1,
2, ITV and C4, but these days all of those have dumbed down so much
that they blend together into the distance.
C4 was meant to be 'alternative' but nowadays it's full of reality
programmes, just like BBC1, 2 and ITV. I'd mention Five in there too,
now, but they've stated they're not doing reality any more. Hmmm...
we'll see.
I may pick and choose more than most, like many of us in this ng, but
for the everyman I look to people like those in my family who don't
have a PVR and who look down the TV schedule pages. They pick out what
they want to watch and they don't care what channel it's on just as
long as they can receive it and watch it. If they need to timeshift,
they'll use a video.
And that's the way the general populace is at the moment.
The only people who give a damn about channel identity and branding are
the broadcasters and they're so stuck in the dark ages they'll never
see the light.
> Therefore, the user will be more likely to consider that channel in
> future when channel-hopping or programming the PVR etc. The same as a
They won't, though. I've given the everyman position above and as I
have a PVR I tell you I look for the programme, not the channel. It
wouldn't matter to me whether The Thick of It was on BBC4, Thursday
10.30pm, or Sci-Fi at 2am or C4 at 9pm... I'd record it wherever it was
and then watch it.
> TV advertisement for a product would stick in a viewer's mind. Hence
> the big bucks spent on it by every TV network in the world.
Ad revenue is way down on what it used to be. Adverts are skippable
with a PVR or any recording device (except Sky+ when they kick THAT
feature in!), and it won't be long before ads become even more
irrelevant than they are now.
I forget which lager brand it is (possibly Heineken), but they're
stopping all TV advertising shortly? Why - because of the fact that
everyone fast-forwards them. How will they make their money instead?
Sponsoring sports matches and getting their name on the billboards at
the sides. Got that info from the business news on Radio 2 the other
day.
> > You really are a marketing man's wet dream, aren't you? Always obsessed
> > with branding - "Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look,
> > feel,
> > image, identity and personality of a channel." Total doublespeak.
>
> I'm not obsessed with it, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your
> anti-DOG argument.
There aren't any flaws. You're the only one who thinks they're useful,
outside of the braindead TV execs.
Dom
Dom Robinson
Mike Henry wrote:
> In <3s51lhF...@individual.net>, neil h <neil_h...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >My ideal tv service would be a list of programmes that I could subscribe
> >to and then watch when I want. Each week, I'd get, say, Lost, Have I Got
> >News For You and a film or two delivered to my PVR for me to watch when
> >I want. The idea of many channels with a list of programmes to watch at
> >particular times then becomes redundant.
>
> this case the programmes are 'delivered' by the means of broadcasting,
> but I don't need to get involved in that side, TiVo does it all for me
> automatically. You may have intended to describe new future pay-delivery
> TV services, but you've basically described what PVRs/VCRs/DVD recorders
> do already for free.
With tongue firmly in cheek (but nothing to do with an upcoming comment
:), it's still possible to get people to pay for what they can get for
free already - look at MP3 downloads. It's not a chore to download an
album for nothing and it can be down in less time than it takes to have
a good dump, and there's no DRM issues with the MP3s, whereas those
who've handed over their hard-earned get royally shafted by the record
companies.
Dom
Fred Finisterre
> so even less need for a logo.
>
> Dom
About 10 years ago I had a Pace MSS300 Sky Analogue box. It displayed on the
front of the box the number (or was it the name?) of the channel you were
watching on a blue pixellated display. If Sky would put this feature (with
channel names) back on the front of their boxes, then maybe we could do away
with DOGs altogether. Or is that too sensible?
Fred.
Mike Plowman
Then they are thick.
Viewers do not have any brand loyalty to a TV channel unless it's
something like Kerrang which is targetted at a particlar musical
taste. People dip in and out of channels to watch the shows they want.
With a PVR, the channel it is onis totally irrelevant to the viewer.
As for get lost in the hundreds of channels? No, you are totally
wrong because people don't chose their viewing that way when they have
multiple channels. They use a TV guide or EPG to book their
recordings. While you may stuill be living in the old days of watching
TV as it is aired, the general viewership is moving on and using time
shifting more than ever.
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>But according to the link I posted earlier, viewers in multichannel
>homes watched Sky One for only 24 minutes per week on average last
>month. Hardly enough time to become acquainted with the look, feel,
>image, identity and personality of a channel.
It doesn't have a feel or personality. It's a disparate collection of
TV shows as a genrral entertainment channel.
Please, do identify the look, feel and personality of Sky One.
> Hence the usage of logos
>to help establish this during the programmes themselves.
>
No, that's done because the channel does not have an identity.
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh come on Dom, surely you're not denying the importance of a TV
>channel's branding package? It's all part of what viewers associate
>with the channel, and it helps to establish it in the viewer's mind.
Oddly enough, my missus had someone delivering a lecture on marketing
and branding at the business school she works at and over lunch the
lecturer asked her and then colleagues which mobile phone company
David Beckham was promoting for two years and to a man not one of them
could tell him. He told them he had been a consultant for Vodafone and
that their marketing tests shopwed them that less than 15 percent of
people surveyed associated the two.
>I'm not obsessed with it, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your
>anti-DOG argument.
There are no flaws. Viewers want DOG free channels. If the show
following the one we watch is good, we'll watch it. If not, we'll
watch something else.
Time To Burn
> I may pick and choose more than most, like many of us in this ng, but
> for the everyman I look to people like those in my family who don't
> have a PVR and who look down the TV schedule pages. They pick out what
> they want to watch and they don't care what channel it's on just as
> long as they can receive it and watch it. If they need to timeshift,
> they'll use a video.
And they meticulously scan every small-printed listing of every channel
for every night, do they? Just in case they uncover something they
want to watch on UKTV Bright Ideas?
I'll bet that they know what channels are likely to offer something of
interest to them and scan only those in particular, leaving the others
to the side.
> And that's the way the general populace is at the moment.
I don't think your description is reflective of the general populace, I
think mine is.
> The only people who give a damn about channel identity and branding are
> the broadcasters and they're so stuck in the dark ages they'll never
> see the light.
>
> > Therefore, the user will be more likely to consider that channel in
> > future when channel-hopping or programming the PVR etc. The same as a
>
> They won't, though. I've given the everyman position above and as I
> have a PVR I tell you I look for the programme, not the channel. It
> wouldn't matter to me whether The Thick of It was on BBC4, Thursday
> 10.30pm, or Sci-Fi at 2am or C4 at 9pm... I'd record it wherever it was
> and then watch it.
So your PVR supplies you with an A-Z list of programmes then, rather
than grouped by channel? If so, bully for you; I'll bet that most PVRs
list programmes in a timeline, grouped by channel. In which case, how
would you know which channels to look at for your programmes? Exactly
how many channels are there on Sky? Into the hundreds? Is the
layperson going to scan through that many channels every time they plan
their viewing? I would say not, and that they are more likely to only
scan the channels with which they are most familiar.
Obviously, YOU'D put great effort into doing the research to find out
where it was on, but is your regular casual viewer going to go to all
that trouble?
> > TV advertisement for a product would stick in a viewer's mind. Hence
> > the big bucks spent on it by every TV network in the world.
>
> Ad revenue is way down on what it used to be. Adverts are skippable
> with a PVR or any recording device (except Sky+ when they kick THAT
> feature in!), and it won't be long before ads become even more
> irrelevant than they are now.
PVR this, PVR that. I think people picking and choosing their viewing
with PVRs remains the exception. You're talking about it as if any
other means of viewing is unthinkable.
> I forget which lager brand it is (possibly Heineken), but they're
> stopping all TV advertising shortly? Why - because of the fact that
> everyone fast-forwards them. How will they make their money instead?
> Sponsoring sports matches and getting their name on the billboards at
> the sides. Got that info from the business news on Radio 2 the other
> day.
Precisely. Force the brand into the viewer's consciousness by making
the logos constantly visible and unavoidable. Hmm, that idea could
catch on...
TTB
Time To Burn
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 14:00:34 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh come on Dom, surely you're not denying the importance of a TV
> >channel's branding package? It's all part of what viewers associate
> >with the channel, and it helps to establish it in the viewer's mind.
>
> Oddly enough, my missus had someone delivering a lecture on marketing
> and branding at the business school she works at and over lunch the
> lecturer asked her and then colleagues which mobile phone company
> David Beckham was promoting for two years and to a man not one of them
> could tell him. He told them he had been a consultant for Vodafone and
> that their marketing tests shopwed them that less than 15 percent of
> people surveyed associated the two.
Very interesting! Could you now explain the relevance of this
anecdote? Had the marketing tests shown that fewer than 15% of
subjects could identify a Vodafone logo with the name of the company
removed, then it may have highlighted that logos do little to enhance a
brand.
Your little nugget just compares apples with oranges.
> >I'm not obsessed with it, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your
> >anti-DOG argument.
>
> There are no flaws.
Yes there are.
> Viewers want DOG free channels.
You and your obsessive compadres do. Nobody else gives a fuck.
TTB
Time To Burn
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 11:42:36 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> We get a display
> >> pops up when we change channels, we don't need any onscreen graphics.
> >> I would suggest that anyone who does or thinks others do must simply
> >> be a bit thick.
> >
> >Really? I would suggest that you could do with looking beyond the end
> >of your nose, and should try thinking of a perfectly intelligent person
> >who is not used to having a selection beyond the main five. I would
> >suggest that they could get lost in the hundreds of channels with
> >greater ease than you think.
>
> Then they are thick.
> Viewers do not have any brand loyalty to a TV channel unless it's
> something like Kerrang which is targetted at a particlar musical
> taste. People dip in and out of channels to watch the shows they want.
>
> With a PVR, the channel it is onis totally irrelevant to the viewer.
>
> As for get lost in the hundreds of channels? No, you are totally
> wrong because people don't chose their viewing that way when they have
> multiple channels. They use a TV guide or EPG to book their
> recordings.
So how do programmes get added into a PVR's recording schedule? Divine
inspiration? For TiVo users, maybe. For everyone else the viewer has
to add them. How does the viewer add them? By selecting the programme
from the EPG list. And how does the viewer select it? By scrolling to
the correct channel. Is the viewer going to scroll through hundreds of
channels in order to find the few programmes of interest? No, the
viewer will go straight to his favourite channels. So much for your
claim that "the channel a programme is on is totally irrelevant to the
viewer".
Now say a user somehow magically stumbles across something else he
likes on a channel he hasn't watched before. It's important that the
channel becomes a regular stopping point for the viewer in future when
planning viewing. This can only happen if the viewer is made well
aware of what he's watching.
No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
before. Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
TTB
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Very interesting! Could you now explain the relevance of this
>anecdote? Had the marketing tests shown that fewer than 15% of
>subjects could identify a Vodafone logo with the name of the company
>removed, then it may have highlighted that logos do little to enhance a
>brand.
>
>Your little nugget just compares apples with oranges.
Bit like imbuing a TV channel with 'personality and feel' then.
>
>> >I'm not obsessed with it, I'm just highlighting the flaws in your
>> >anti-DOG argument.
>You and your obsessive compadres do. Nobody else gives a fuck.
I'm not obsessive about it but I do not link a program with the
channel it s shown on because it has a DOG in the corner. I watch the
show, not the channel.
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, people watch shows, not channels.
Time To Burn
> On 25 Oct 2005 02:14:04 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
> >count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
> >before. Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
>
> No, people watch shows, not channels.
You're clearly not worth having this discussion with, if you start out
stating your opinion, and snip my entire argument against it without
bothering to respond to any of the points.
Good day.
TTB
Sam Nelson
> > Oddly enough, my missus had someone delivering a lecture on marketing
> > and branding at the business school she works at and over lunch the
> > lecturer asked her and then colleagues which mobile phone company
> > David Beckham was promoting for two years and to a man not one of them
> > could tell him. He told them he had been a consultant for Vodafone and
> > that their marketing tests shopwed them that less than 15 percent of
> > people surveyed associated the two.
>
> Very interesting! Could you now explain the relevance of this
> anecdote? Had the marketing tests shown that fewer than 15% of
> subjects could identify a Vodafone logo with the name of the company
> removed, then it may have highlighted that logos do little to enhance a
> brand.
>
> Your little nugget just compares apples with oranges.
It contributes usefully to the over-arching point that `branding and marketing
are largely pointless wastes of time'.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
Mike Plowman <mike.p...@csvu.net> writes:
> On 25 Oct 2005 02:14:04 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
> >count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
> >before. Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
>
> No, people watch shows, not channels.
Just for a change, it's quite nice not to be the only contributor on my side.
--
SAm.
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Mike Plowman wrote:
>
>> On 25 Oct 2005 02:14:04 -0700, "Time To Burn"
>> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
>> >count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
>> >before. Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
>>
>> No, people watch shows, not channels.
>
>You're clearly not worth having this discussion with, if you start out
>stating your opinion, and snip my entire argument against it without
>bothering to respond to any of the points.
>
That's all the response it needed because you are talking out of your
arse and unwilling/unable to concede that you are a lone voice.
Again I ask, please explain what flavour, personality and feel Sky One
has.
It can't have a flavour cos it merely shows a mish mash of bought in
stuff. When was the last time Sky One actually showed a self
financed/produced show? Not since Springhill I think and the only
think that could be said in that's favour is that it gave Peter Mills
his writing break.
Please, so answer
Sky One
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personailty is..........
Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
intentions.
Time To Burn
Mike Plowman wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2005 02:56:38 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike Plowman wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 Oct 2005 02:14:04 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> >> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
> >> >count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
> >> >before. Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
> >>
> >> No, people watch shows, not channels.
> >
> >You're clearly not worth having this discussion with, if you start out
> >stating your opinion, and snip my entire argument against it without
> >bothering to respond to any of the points.
> >
> That's all the response it needed because you are talking out of your
> arse and unwilling/unable to concede that you are a lone voice.
I am well aware that I am pretty much a lone voice in this newsgroup.
But just because I can think for myself rather than mindlessly join in
the endless u.m.t.m anti-DOG love-in, why does that make my opinion any
less valid than anybody else's?
ISTM that the viewpoint of "DOGs are evil and unneccessary, end of
story" has gone unchallenged for so long in here, people don't even
have reasons for it any more, other than that they don't like them, and
are unable to counter any argument in their favour with anything other
than "you're talking out of your arse".
> Again I ask, please explain what flavour, personality and feel Sky One
> has.
>
> It can't have a flavour cos it merely shows a mish mash of bought in
> stuff. When was the last time Sky One actually showed a self
> financed/produced show? Not since Springhill I think and the only
> think that could be said in that's favour is that it gave Peter Mills
> his writing break.
>
> Please, so answer
> Sky One
> It's flavour is........
> It's feel is......
> It's personailty is..........
I don't have Sky One so couldn't tell you.
> Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
> because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
> intentions.
Piss off. You can't just leave my earlier points unresponded to due to
your selective snippage, then expect me to counter even more ammunition
of your own.
Either go back and give a full response to
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/5cd91f8bf37795a8
or go away.
TTB
Sam Nelson
> But just because I can think for myself rather than mindlessly join in
> the endless u.m.t.m anti-DOG love-in, why does that make my opinion any
> less valid than anybody else's?
You haven't actually offered any concrete evidence to back up your opinion
yet, so it remains just that: an opinion. That's what makes it less valid.
You've aimed the occasional dodgy statistic at us and started several
sentences with `I bet...' and `It's likely...' none of which have been very
convincing.
Oh, and I can think for myself: witness various lengthy licence-fee threads
in which I'm pretty much out there on my own.
> ISTM that the viewpoint of "DOGs are evil and unneccessary, end of
> story" has gone unchallenged for so long in here, people don't even
> have reasons for it any more
They are both unnecessary and intrusive. If they were necessary, people
would accept the intrusion. If they weren't intrusive, it would matter
less if they were necessary or not. You're allowed to disagree with that
reason, of course, but you cannot possibly deny that it is a reason. If
you wish to disagree with that reason, please describe either the necessity
of DOGs or their lack of intrusion.
> > Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
> > because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
> > intentions.
>
> Piss off. You can't just leave my earlier points unresponded to due to
> your selective snippage, then expect me to counter even more ammunition
> of your own.
So you can't identify the personalities of any channels when it's clearly
fundamental to you that channels have personalities? That strikes me as
a weak platform.
> Either go back and give a full response to
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/5cd91f8bf37795a8
> or go away.
People can program TiVo with categories, as far as I'm aware (I don't have
one and never have had) which means that any programme in that category on
any channel will be collected. It's therefore perfectly possible for a TiVo
to record a programme from a channel I've never even heard of, let alone
ever previously watched before.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> In article <1130237530.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Time To Burn" <timeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I am well aware that I am pretty much a lone voice in this newsgroup.
> > But just because I can think for myself rather than mindlessly join in
> > the endless u.m.t.m anti-DOG love-in, why does that make my opinion any
> > less valid than anybody else's?
>
> You haven't actually offered any concrete evidence to back up your opinion
> yet, so it remains just that: an opinion. That's what makes it less valid.
> You've aimed the occasional dodgy statistic at us and started several
> sentences with `I bet...' and `It's likely...' none of which have been very
> convincing.
My statistics were not "dodgy".
Where are your rock-solid statistics disproving the effectiveness of
advertising and branding?
> Oh, and I can think for myself: witness various lengthy licence-fee threads
> in which I'm pretty much out there on my own.
>
> > ISTM that the viewpoint of "DOGs are evil and unneccessary, end of
> > story" has gone unchallenged for so long in here, people don't even
> > have reasons for it any more
>
> They are both unnecessary and intrusive. If they were necessary, people
> would accept the intrusion. If they weren't intrusive, it would matter
> less if they were necessary or not. You're allowed to disagree with that
> reason, of course, but you cannot possibly deny that it is a reason. If
> you wish to disagree with that reason, please describe either the necessity
> of DOGs or their lack of intrusion.
I have described the necessity of DOGs.
> > > Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
> > > because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
> > > intentions.
> >
> > Piss off. You can't just leave my earlier points unresponded to due to
> > your selective snippage, then expect me to counter even more ammunition
> > of your own.
>
> So you can't identify the personalities of any channels when it's clearly
> fundamental to you that channels have personalities? That strikes me as
> a weak platform.
I did not say I couldn't identify them.
> > Either go back and give a full response to
> > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/5cd91f8bf37795a8
> > or go away.
>
> People can program TiVo with categories, as far as I'm aware (I don't have
> one and never have had) which means that any programme in that category on
> any channel will be collected. It's therefore perfectly possible for a TiVo
> to record a programme from a channel I've never even heard of, let alone
> ever previously watched before.
How is your argument above beginning "as far as I'm aware" any
different from my "It's likely.." you refer to above?
TiVo is a bad example of a PVR to refer to, as they are no longer
available in this country.
Most other PVRs require the viewer to know which channels their
favourite programmes are on. Sky's hundreds of channels means that
many will go unlooked at. It's therefore important for a channel to
get into a viewer's consciousness so that he gradually learns to check
that channel in future.
TTB
Mike Plowman
<timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I am well aware that I am pretty much a lone voice in this newsgroup.
>But just because I can think for myself rather than mindlessly join in
>the endless u.m.t.m anti-DOG love-in, why does that make my opinion any
>less valid than anybody else's?
It doesn't but as you are an admitted minority you must accept that
DOGs must go if the will of the people is to be done.
>ISTM that the viewpoint of "DOGs are evil and unneccessary, end of
>story" has gone unchallenged for so long in here, people don't even
>have reasons for it any more, other than that they don't like them, and
>are unable to counter any argument in their favour with anything other
>than "you're talking out of your arse".
>
>> Again I ask, please explain what flavour, personality and feel Sky One
>> has.
>>
>> It can't have a flavour cos it merely shows a mish mash of bought in
>> stuff. When was the last time Sky One actually showed a self
>> financed/produced show? Not since Springhill I think and the only
>> think that could be said in that's favour is that it gave Peter Mills
>> his writing break.
>>
>
>Either go back and give a full response to
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/5cd91f8bf37795a8
>or go away.
Gladly, and then you will of course answer the above which I will
repost at the end
>You said
<Quote>
So how do programmes get added into a PVR's recording schedule?
Divine inspiration? For TiVo users, maybe. For everyone else the
viewer has to add them. How does the viewer add them? By selecting
the programme from the EPG list. And how does the viewer select it?
By scrolling to the correct channel. Is the viewer going to scroll
through hundreds of channels in order to find the few programmes of
interest? No, the viewer will go straight to his favourite channels.
So much for your claim that "the channel a programme is on is totally
irrelevant to the viewer". <Quote>
No, if he wants to find shows of a particular genre he would search by
genre or keyword. That is the whole point of an epg, that it can be
queried using different fields, thus eradicating a channel by channel
approach and allowing people to search in much more detail. Also,
Please explain that while adding shows to be recorded how the hell a
DOG helps him?
>
<Quote>
Now say a user somehow magically stumbles across something else he
likes on a channel he hasn't watched before. It's important that the
channel becomes a regular stopping point for the viewer in future when
planning viewing. This can only happen if the viewer is made well
aware of what he's watching. <Quote>
So he presses a button on his remote and it flashes up onscreen what
channel he is watching and he makes a mental note. Or are you saying
that people could only remember what a channel is if they have sat and
stared at it in the corner of their screen for half an hour? And when
he has set the show to record and watches it later, does he need a DOG
to remember what channel he recorded it off? I would venture not
unless he was quite retarded.
<Quote>
No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
before. <Quote>
Why? Are you seriously stating that someone can not look at a channel
name and no and remember it?
<Quote>
Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
<Quote>
They don't. My missus like Property Ladder, Location Location etc. Ask
her what channels they are on, ask me what channels they are on.
Couldn't tell you. It's simply not relevant. Add the show to your
shows to be recorded and that's it, doesn't matter if it's on C4 or
one the other channels. It's simply not a matter of concern what
channel a show is on, just whether it's good or not. The interest in
what channel a show is on is to be able to set it to record and, as
explained above, using search methods the channel no is largely
irrelevant and there's certainly no buying into some imaginary brand
or brand loyalty. People do not see channels like that other than
where a channel serves a niche market like Kerrang or the like.
I trust that is your points responded to, now if you would respond to
my request
>> Please, so answer
>> Sky One
>> It's flavour is........
>> It's feel is......
>> It's personailty is..........
>
>I don't have Sky One so couldn't tell you.
No wonder you speak with such authority then
>
>> Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
>> because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
>> intentions.
>
>Piss off. You can't just leave my earlier points unresponded to due to
>your selective snippage, then expect me to counter even more ammunition
>of your own.
Done. Off you go
BBC1
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personality is..........
BBC2
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personality is..........
ITV1
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personality is..........
C4
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personality is..........
Five
BBC1
It's flavour is........
It's feel is......
It's personality is..........
I await your summation of the information imparted by their 'branding'
with considerable anticipation.
>TTB
Sam Nelson
You said that `multichannel households watch Sky One for an average of
24 minutes a day'. My multichannel household doesn't have Sky One, so
your statistic is dodgy until you define a `multichannel household'.
> Where are your rock-solid statistics disproving the effectiveness of
> advertising and branding?
Easy. Disproof only requires one counter-example. I am such a counter-
example, therefore the effectiveness of advertising and branding are
suspect.
> I have described the necessity of DOGs.
As I said, you're allowed to dispute the reasoning, but you cannot deny
the existence of a reason. I consider your reasoning of the necessity
of DOGs to be invalid.
> I did not say I couldn't identify them.
Pick a channel, any channel.
> How is your argument above beginning "as far as I'm aware" any
> different from my "It's likely.." you refer to above?
Because in my case, I'm as sure as I need to be that someone else on this
group that actually owns a TiVo can come along and confirm it. Do you think
that'll happen for any of your "It's likely" claims?
> TiVo is a bad example of a PVR to refer to, as they are no longer
> available in this country.
Doesn't matter. Such PVRs exist.
> Most other PVRs require the viewer to know which channels their
> favourite programmes are on. Sky's hundreds of channels means that
> many will go unlooked at. It's therefore important for a channel to
> get into a viewer's consciousness so that he gradually learns to check
> that channel in future.
I'm prepared to accept that. I don't see how DOGs help that process.
If I've never used a channel, whether it is DOGged or not is irrelevant.
Once I use it, any DOGs it uses are unnecessary and irrelevant. Therefore
DOGs are both unnecessary and irrelevant. QED.
--
SAm.
Time To Burn
> On 25 Oct 2005 03:52:10 -0700, "Time To Burn"
> <timeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I am well aware that I am pretty much a lone voice in this newsgroup.
> >But just because I can think for myself rather than mindlessly join in
> >the endless u.m.t.m anti-DOG love-in, why does that make my opinion any
> >less valid than anybody else's?
>
> It doesn't but as you are an admitted minority you must accept that
> DOGs must go if the will of the people is to be done.
Where does the will of the people necessarily come into play?
> >ISTM that the viewpoint of "DOGs are evil and unneccessary, end of
> >story" has gone unchallenged for so long in here, people don't even
> >have reasons for it any more, other than that they don't like them, and
> >are unable to counter any argument in their favour with anything other
> >than "you're talking out of your arse".
> >
> >> Again I ask, please explain what flavour, personality and feel Sky One
> >> has.
> >>
> >> It can't have a flavour cos it merely shows a mish mash of bought in
> >> stuff. When was the last time Sky One actually showed a self
> >> financed/produced show? Not since Springhill I think and the only
> >> think that could be said in that's favour is that it gave Peter Mills
> >> his writing break.
> >>
> >
> >Either go back and give a full response to
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.media.tv.misc/msg/5cd91f8bf37795a8
> >or go away.
>
> Gladly, and then you will of course answer the above which I will
> repost at the end
Fine. Why didn't you respond to my points in the first place?
> >You said
> <Quote>
> So how do programmes get added into a PVR's recording schedule?
> Divine inspiration? For TiVo users, maybe. For everyone else the
> viewer has to add them. How does the viewer add them? By selecting
> the programme from the EPG list. And how does the viewer select it?
> By scrolling to the correct channel. Is the viewer going to scroll
> through hundreds of channels in order to find the few programmes of
> interest? No, the viewer will go straight to his favourite channels.
> So much for your claim that "the channel a programme is on is totally
> irrelevant to the viewer". <Quote>
>
> No, if he wants to find shows of a particular genre he would search by
> genre or keyword. That is the whole point of an epg, that it can be
> queried using different fields, thus eradicating a channel by channel
> approach and allowing people to search in much more detail. Also,
> Please explain that while adding shows to be recorded how the hell a
> DOG helps him?
Fine if the grouping into genre works well. What genres are available
on Sky? Entertainment, Kids, Music, Sport? That's a real fine-toothed
comb. Are all programmes categorised correctly? Hmm, I fancy watching
a General programme. How many programmes are there on each category?
Is the user really going to scroll through them all?
For the gazillionth time, a DOG helps a user become familiar with a
channel, so they will scan through that channel to see if there is
anything on that channel which they wish to watch or record.
> <Quote>
> Now say a user somehow magically stumbles across something else he
> likes on a channel he hasn't watched before. It's important that the
> channel becomes a regular stopping point for the viewer in future when
> planning viewing. This can only happen if the viewer is made well
> aware of what he's watching. <Quote>
>
> So he presses a button on his remote and it flashes up onscreen what
> channel he is watching and he makes a mental note.
Only if the viewer is permanently in the mindset of planning ahead for
future viewing. I am sure that you most probably are, but your average
viewer, as you have said, is just watching it without regard to which
channel it is. This is in fact undesirable for the viewer!!!!! If the
viewer is unaware which channel he's watching, how will he know to come
back in future? The DOG makes the viewer aware of the channel so he
will come back in future!
> Or are you saying
> that people could only remember what a channel is if they have sat and
> stared at it in the corner of their screen for half an hour?
YES.
> And when
> he has set the show to record and watches it later, does he need a DOG
> to remember what channel he recorded it off?
YES.
> I would venture not
> unless he was quite retarded.
I would venture yes even if he is quite intelligent, particularly if it
happens not to be on a channel the viewer is used to watching.
> <Quote>
> No, flashing it up briefly when switching to the channel does not
> count, particularly if the viewer has not heard of or seen the channel
> before. <Quote>
> Why? Are you seriously stating that someone can not look at a channel
> name and no and remember it?
YES. The user is unlikely to be paying attention at this point, and
just wants to see what's on.
> <Quote>
> Logos serve to establish the channel in the mindset.
> <Quote>
>
> They don't. My missus like Property Ladder, Location Location etc. Ask
> her what channels they are on
Really? Go and ask her then and report your answer honestly. I bet
she can tell you that it's C4.
> Couldn't tell you. It's simply not relevant.
Probably not for C4 as that is a channel that most people are likely to
check automatically.
> Add the show to your
> shows to be recorded and that's it, doesn't matter if it's on C4 or
> one the other channels.
Just a coincidence that you chose C4 as your example there? I doubt
it. Makes me suspect that you're telling porkies above when you say
"Couldn't tell you" what channel Property Ladder and Location Location
Location are on.
> It's simply not a matter of concern what
> channel a show is on, just whether it's good or not. The interest in
> what channel a show is on is to be able to set it to record and, as
> explained above, using search methods the channel no is largely
> irrelevant and there's certainly no buying into some imaginary brand
> or brand loyalty.
Yes there is! People are more likely to come back to a channel (i.e.
check its listings to see if there's anything of interest) if they have
know they have previously watched something entertaining on that
channel! How is that such an alien concept?
> I trust that is your points responded to, now if you would respond to
> my request
>
> >> Please, so answer
> >> Sky One
> >> It's flavour is........
> >> It's feel is......
> >> It's personailty is..........
> >
> >I don't have Sky One so couldn't tell you.
>
> No wonder you speak with such authority then
I wasn't the one who mentioned Sky One in the first place.
> >> Could you also sum up the 'personality' of BBC 1, 2, ITV, C4, C5
> >> because I would love to know, you being so attuned to the branding
> >> intentions.
> >
> >Piss off. You can't just leave my earlier points unresponded to due to
> >your selective snippage, then expect me to counter even more ammunition
> >of your own.
>
> Done. Off you go
I can't help thinking that YOU are really the retarded one here, as
ISTM that this really is too obvious to warrant explanation. But I
couldn't possibly do justice to them all, so why not read the
descriptions straight from the people who commissioned them?
> BBC1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/03_march/26/bbconeident.shtml
> BBC2
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/displayarticle.php?id=4234
> ITV1
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds9434.html
> C4
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds17772.html
> Five
http://thetvroom.com/p-five-2004-a.shtml
TTB