A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 26th 08, 01:08 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote:



"Edster" wrote in message
. ..
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
The commercial broadcasters do it to reduce the average intelligence
level of their viewers. The less intelligent the viewers the more
attractive they are to advertisers. I don't know about the BBC, maybe
they just want to drive viewers to BBC1 or something.


I can't follow your logic. How will reducing the number of intelligent
viewers increase the number of unintelligent ones? The average
intelligence
is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute number of viewers with the
correct profile.

Bill


But it would lower the average IQ of the viewers left behind. That's
what will be attractive to advertisers, not the number of viewers.

What the advertisers want is the maximum number of viewers who fit the
profile required. The number of viewers that doesn't fit the profile is
largely irrelevant.

There wouldn't be any point advertising lottery tickets or food with
made up magical ingredients to intelligent viewers.

But there's no point in deliberately excluding them. I know a very
intelligent person who buys a lottery ticket every week. Profiling isn't
exact.


There would be other benefits to the broadcaster too -- they could
have more repeats, more cheap reality shows, they could go to advert
breaks in the middle of a sentence without anyone noticing, they could
cut bits out to make programmes fit their schedule. All without
generating any complaints at all.

But the broadcasters don't respond to viewers' complaints. Thery only
respond to advertisers' complaints.

Bill


Ads
  #22  
Old February 26th 08, 01:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,125
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3

On 26 Feb, 13:54, Edster wrote:

Even if it is only a small minority of viewers who would do that
(which I accept), why would they want to lose them in this "age of
multi channel competition ... " they keep going on about? Surely they
would want to keep or attract as many viewers as possible if it was
all about numbers?


They want to make damn sure that every single one of the poor sods
left watching cannot forget, even for one second, what channel they
are watching.

It shows such a high level of paranoia, especially for a broadcaster
like the BBC who's funding is "guaranteed", that it's quite
disturbing.

There are two groups within the BBC: the young and tasteless who have
no inkling that DOGs are a grotesque intrusion into public service
broadcasting, and the wiser bods who believe they're a necessary evil.
These people really are petrified that someone might watch something
on the BBC without realising that it's the BBC. Then that someone
might not value the BBC, and would be against the licence fee. Then
the BBC might lose the licence fee, and cease to exist.

It's the same unquestioning acceptable of backwards logic that has
persuaded "normal / sensible" people to do stupid / terrible / wrong
things throughout history.

The sad thing is that the BBC has been forced to devote so much
thought to its survival that it can no longer deliver what is best for
the viewer and listener. _Everything_ they do (and don't do) is part
of a (IMO misguided) plan to make sure they stick around for another
decade. From DOGs to Freeview itself.

This, I think, can explain almost every balmy decision we've seen from
the BBC. After all, you don't really think there are that many people
at the top of the BBC who, given the choice, would drop the sound
quality of The Archers (etc) on digital radio to make room for 1Xtra?!

Cheers,
David.
  #23  
Old February 26th 08, 01:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Edster" wrote in message
...
"ChrisM" wrote:
Do you have a more credible theory why broadcasters would deliberately
want to alienate viewers to the point where they would stop being
viewers, or even just cut down on their viewing time?

They calculate that the number alienated will be small compared to the
benefits they expect from 'branding'. They believe that when people channel
hop they are more likely to pause when the see a nice reassuring DOG, which
they associate with programming they have enjoyed on previous occasions.
That's why they use DOGs. There are sounds reasons for them, in the eyes of
the Tristrams.

Bill


  #24  
Old February 26th 08, 01:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Agamemnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote:



"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Brian Gaff" wrote:
The commercial broadcasters do it to reduce the average intelligence
level of their viewers. The less intelligent the viewers the more
attractive they are to advertisers. I don't know about the BBC, maybe
they just want to drive viewers to BBC1 or something.

I can't follow your logic. How will reducing the number of intelligent
viewers increase the number of unintelligent ones? The average
intelligence
is irrelevant. What matters is the absolute number of viewers with the
correct profile.

Bill


But it would lower the average IQ of the viewers left behind. That's
what will be attractive to advertisers, not the number of viewers.

What the advertisers want is the maximum number of viewers who fit the
profile required. The number of viewers that doesn't fit the profile is
largely irrelevant.

There wouldn't be any point advertising lottery tickets or food with
made up magical ingredients to intelligent viewers.

But there's no point in deliberately excluding them. I know a very
intelligent person who buys a lottery ticket every week. Profiling isn't
exact.


There would be other benefits to the broadcaster too -- they could
have more repeats, more cheap reality shows, they could go to advert
breaks in the middle of a sentence without anyone noticing, they could
cut bits out to make programmes fit their schedule. All without
generating any complaints at all.

But the broadcasters don't respond to viewers' complaints. Thery only
respond to advertisers' complaints.


Which is why they don't have DOGs on the adverts, so DOGs have absolutely
nothing to do with branding or informing the viewer which channel they are
watching. They have been put there to deface the programmes, annoy viewers
and drive them away. Perhaps we should be writing to the advertisers and
telling them we will not be watching their adds on any DOG **** channels
anymore.


Bill



  #25  
Old February 26th 08, 01:29 PM posted to rec.arts.drwho,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Agamemnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


wrote in message
...
On 26 Feb, 13:54, Edster wrote:

Even if it is only a small minority of viewers who would do that
(which I accept), why would they want to lose them in this "age of
multi channel competition ... " they keep going on about? Surely they
would want to keep or attract as many viewers as possible if it was
all about numbers?


They want to make damn sure that every single one of the poor sods
left watching cannot forget, even for one second, what channel they
are watching.

It shows such a high level of paranoia, especially for a broadcaster
like the BBC who's funding is "guaranteed", that it's quite
disturbing.


Look that what the ******* have done to Torchwood on BBC3.

Even with a DOG **** remover Captain Jack's face is completely obliterated.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/dog****1.jpg

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/dog****2.jpg


  #26  
Old February 26th 08, 01:31 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Agamemnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"ChrisM" wrote:
Do you have a more credible theory why broadcasters would deliberately
want to alienate viewers to the point where they would stop being
viewers, or even just cut down on their viewing time?

They calculate that the number alienated will be small compared to the
benefits they expect from 'branding'. They believe that when people
channel hop they are more likely to pause when the see a nice reassuring
DOG, which they associate with programming they have enjoyed on previous
occasions. That's why they use DOGs. There are sounds reasons for them, in
the eyes of the Tristrams.


They are a bunch of complete *******.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/dog****1.jpg


Bill



  #27  
Old February 26th 08, 02:23 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
Perhaps we should be writing to the advertisers and telling them we will
not be watching their adds on any DOG **** channels anymore.


A good plan. We will need at least a quarter of a million of us for it to
have any effect though.

Bill


  #28  
Old February 26th 08, 02:29 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Agamemnon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
Perhaps we should be writing to the advertisers and telling them we will
not be watching their adds on any DOG **** channels anymore.


A good plan. We will need at least a quarter of a million of us for it to
have any effect though.


I doubt that. These DOG **** marked channels don't even get a quarter of
that watching them on average. About a thousand letters to each advertiser
should do.


Bill



  #29  
Old February 26th 08, 04:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul D.Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,070
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3

....snip...
I would say we should support companies who advertise on channels that
don't put ****e all over the screen, but that would just leave the
Radio Times, Freeview, and DAB radios.


Not sure I follow. Channels on Freeview are full of DOGS too.

Paul DS.


  #30  
Old February 26th 08, 05:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast
Smolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default BBC admits it lied about DOGs on BBC3

It's because the BBC is now saturated with trails and jingles one would not
know it wasn't a commercial channel unless the DOG was there.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.