Or it listens to me when I emailed them and told them that while I don't give a monkeys about the DOG one way or the other, I found the article quite funny.
Countering these complaints, however, research published in the Radio Times (10th-16th February 2001) suggested that 81% of viewers find on-screen logos useful. Not everyone agrees with this reseach though.
Countering these complaints, however, research published in the Radio Times (10th-16th February 2001) suggested that 81% of viewers find on-screen logos useful. Not everyone agrees with this reseach though.
It's actually bloody cheeky not to respond to people's complaints directly but to edit an article and pass it off as the original.
Just so anyone arriving here from the bastardised version knows what was originally said
FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE:
BBC Three News
Monday 8th August
Monday on BBC Three News.
Beware of the DOG
In a world where international terrorism, indiscriminate murder and global poverty are facts of life, you might think people would have more important things to worry about than little logos in the top corner of their television screen.
Alas, no.
Those little graphics displaying the names of all your favourite digital channels – BBC Three, MTV, Bid-Up TV, UK Living – technically known as Digital Originated Graphics (DOGs) are the cause of much consternation among certain viewers.
Just don’t call them geeks who should get a life…
These people, and there are hundreds, say DOGs vandalise their TV screens, defacing pictures, detracting from programmes, and even causing “burn” damage to their posh plasma screens.
On Friday, BBC Three’s DOG was relaunched, bigger and bolder than ever, much to the annoyance of some viewers. As one person put it: “Oh wow, that is truly awful Bright white, 100% opaque and HUGE!!”
In response, you may notice if you watch tonight that the logo is less opaque, so don’t say the BBC doesn’t listen.
Of course, if you still don’t like it, you can always complain.
For their part, broadcasters say the DOG is a vital method of channel identification in this multi-channel world, and an integral part of their branding strategy.
The argument goes that because there are now so many channels, viewers need all the help they can get navigating around their TV and identifying the channels they feel at home with. This is especially true for people new to digital TV and possibly bewildered and confused by the amount of choice there is.
And because everyone else is doing it, channel controllers say their hands are tied. They also point to research which suggests DOGs only upset a very small minority of viewers.
The theory is that the longer DOGs remain the more they will become accepted as part of the TV landscape – something the anti-DOG brigade reject.
BBC Three's new DOG
DOG’s detractors say the on-screen logos have turned digital TV into “an unholy mess slowly withering behind an increasing confusion of corporate branding and pointless messages”.
They could put up with them if there was a simple button you could press to turn them on and off – indeed this is one of their key demands.
Even worse, they say, are the “red button” prompts. On BBC channels these generally lead to free and popular “interactive” services, such as Glastonbury Multiscreen, but on commercial channels pressing the red button may lead to premium content, at a price.
Logofree TV say: “We believe in choice, in the right to clean television pictures of the highest quality. We want virtual DOGs and interactive content 'opt-outs', so all viewers can control what comes into their front room.”
Even on the launch night of BBC Three in February 2003, one viewer complained:
"Get rid of the annoying dog up the corner and you may get some viewers, it's worked for Channel 5 that now looks like a proper TV station. In the mean time, I'll give it a miss."
Much to the delight of the logo-free lobby, Channel 5, now re-branded as Five, has dropped its DOG. A sign, perhaps, of the new channel beginning to “mature” and a beacon of hope for the campaigners.
If you agree that DOGs are a serious issue, there’s even an online petition you can sign. 7,587 people already have.
Perhaps though, on reflection, you might conclude that there are more important things to get cross about.
Countering these complaints, however, research published in the Radio Times (10th-16th February 2001) suggested that 81% of viewers find on-screen logos useful. Not everyone agrees with this reseach though.
a bit out of date me thinks.
Also, what does "useful" mean? What was asked of the peopel who took part, and what were the options to answer? If the question was "would you prefer it if they were there or not" then the results would be different. These sort of things can be very selevctive in what they ask, and biased towards how they want people to answer. We covered this topic in General Studies and this sort of "forced answer" happens often.
We are sorry to viewers who found the new BBC Three identifier distracting. Viewers' feedback is important to us so we have taken on board the concerns and will be reducing its intrusiveness immediately.
We use identifiers in common with other broadcasters because, as the number of digital channels continues to grow, we believe it is important to ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC service.
The channel identifier is at the top left-hand part of the picture to avoid clashing with subtitles or captions, and this area of the screen rarely contains sensitive material which it might obscure or interfere.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Comments
We can only hope :-)
I have the full text in an email i sent to Helen Boaden and Byford.
Still seems to be working for me!
Try hitting "Refresh" and it will probably go. You're probably looking at a cached version.
Already done that, and I've also tried using a different browser that I never viewed it in.
That takes the P*ss
Or it listens to me when I emailed them and told them that while I don't give a monkeys about the DOG one way or the other, I found the article quite funny.
Phazer
"Thanks
we are taking up the case"
When I email senior BBC Staff I expect a reply. When they don't reply I'll comaplin elsewhere.
Typical clueless BBC muppets. I contacted my brother at the Independent, and he said he might be interested in following this up as a story.
Countering these complaints, however, research published in the Radio Times (10th-16th February 2001) suggested that 81% of viewers find on-screen logos useful. Not everyone agrees with this reseach though.
a bit out of date me thinks.
Its a mis-print
81% of viewers find on-screen logos NOT useful
Just so anyone arriving here from the bastardised version knows what was originally said
They've also updated the complaints website with the standard cut and paste reply they've sent to everyone else regarding the new DOG.
And people were still getting used to so many channels and the broadcasting world was just totally different. Ruddy cheats!
Do not view this article in your browser using the PDF plugin. Right click and download it to your computer, and then open it.
That's a shame.
A victory for the censors.
Phazer
Also, what does "useful" mean? What was asked of the peopel who took part, and what were the options to answer? If the question was "would you prefer it if they were there or not" then the results would be different. These sort of things can be very selevctive in what they ask, and biased towards how they want people to answer. We covered this topic in General Studies and this sort of "forced answer" happens often.
"
Dear Mr Budden
Thank you for your e-mail.
We are sorry to viewers who found the new BBC Three identifier distracting. Viewers' feedback is important to us so we have taken on board the concerns and will be reducing its intrusiveness immediately.
We use identifiers in common with other broadcasters because, as the number of digital channels continues to grow, we believe it is important to ensure that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC service.
The channel identifier is at the top left-hand part of the picture to avoid clashing with subtitles or captions, and this area of the screen rarely contains sensitive material which it might obscure or interfere.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.
Regards
Gary Sullivan
BBC Information
"