Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:52:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Dogs" are everywhere

Started by difbrook, August 10, 2005, 03:49:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

difbrook

a shitstorm has blown up regarding this little piece of "journalism" on the BBC website. I'm quoting the original here as it's been replaced with an extensively rewritten version. If this was in the comment section, they'd just about get away with it but I'm reliably informed that this sneaked onto the actual news page for a while.

highly professional in its original form, isn't it?

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.

imitationleather

Fuck me, that's absolutely shocking.

Wankers!

Slackboy

Where is the new version please? I couldn't find it.


difbrook

Quote from: "Slackboy"Where is the new version please? I couldn't find it.

interestingly enough, the link to the rewritten version is currently down...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/newsfeatures/dogs_080805.shtml

which suggests that more action is being taken. Somewhat embarrassing for the BBC all round, I think.

Slackboy

Is there a comments section where you could link to the article on here or maybe your own site? Why not send it to some newspapers to see what they make of it?

difbrook

Quote from: "Slackboy"Is there a comments section where you could link to the article on here or maybe your own site? Why not send it to some newspapers to see what they make of it?

there was actually a link directly to the complaints email address in the original article - the word "complain" was hyperlinked. Which again, was clever of them. And is probably some new viral marketing thing for BBC3. If so, it's backfired somewhat.

I'm actually beginning to think this was some person on their last day at work throwing caution to the winds. It's so out of step with the rest of the BBC's reporting style.

as it is, Media Guardian have got wind of it, as have Broadcast. I'm sure more will follow.

Slackboy

Christ, it is viral marketing isn't it? I'm so naive. If it's been picked up by other press people's then it's not backfired at all. BBC3 is a comedy channel so it can get away with this kind of thing, but even then it would work for all the others as well.

As for DOGs, it should be easy to have a button on your remote that gets rid of them. They'll probably add that feature on eventually.

Are you in on it too then difbrook?

InfiniteFury

Quote from: "Media Guardian thing"

BBC3 backs down over 'geeks' jibe

Chris Tryhorn
Wednesday August 10, 2005

BBC3 has apologised to viewers for an article that branded critics of its on-screen channel logo "geeks who should get a life".
The offending article, which generated a storm of protest, was first toned down and has now been taken off the channel's site.

A spokesman for BBC3 said that the news feature on DOGs (digital originated graphics*) - described by one viewer as "extremely patronising and downright offensive" - had struck the wrong note.

"Like its on-air counterpart, the BBC3 news website takes an irreverent look at the stories making the headlines," the spokesman said.

"The story on DOGs was intended to be light-hearted and to encourage discussion on the important issue of on-screen graphics.

"On reflection, we feel that we did not quite achieve the right tone and apologise for the offence this has caused some of our users. For this reason we have decided to remove the story in its entirety from the website."

Before BBC3 decided to remove the DOGs article, it was amended for the site's archive by taking out some of its more inflammatory phrases.

The original article began: "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... are the cause of much consternation among certain viewers.

"Just don't call them geeks who should get a life..."

The revised version opened in milder fashion: "As everyone knows, dogs come in all shapes and sizes. But we're not talking about the kind that go 'woof' a lot..."

In another concession to viewers today, BBC3 said it would change the size of its DOG.

It has already softened the logo since introducing a new design on Friday, and from tonight is making it smaller.

* There is no clear consensus as to what the O in DOG stands for: it is variously rendered as digital originated graphics and digital on-screen graphics.

mayer

The issue isn't the BBC offending anyone really. (They offend me all the time but I let it go).

As people have said it's the BBC using it's allegedly impartial News reporting to back itself up over customers complaining about its services.

difbrook

Quote from: "Slackboy"Christ, it is viral marketing isn't it? I'm so naive. If it's been picked up by other press people's then it's not backfired at all. BBC3 is a comedy channel so it can get away with this kind of thing, but even then it would work for all the others as well.

As for DOGs, it should be easy to have a button on your remote that gets rid of them. They'll probably add that feature on eventually.

Are you in on it too then difbrook?

no, I am not! I'm as taken aback by this little piece as anybody...

Slackboy

Fair enough. For some reason I'm suspicious of everyone today.

InfiniteFury

You don't live next door to iandredd do you?

difbrook

Quote from: "mayer"The issue isn't the BBC offending anyone really. (They offend me all the time but I let it go).

As people have said it's the BBC using it's allegedly impartial News reporting to back itself up over customers complaining about its services.

yep! What's getting my back up is the sneering tone, and I don't buy that "it was supposed to be a fun and irreverent attempt to provoke discussion" routine.

I don't need my news coverage presented in a fun and irreverent way (as an aside, I'm beginning to hate the word "fun", as it's invariably used in association with something that just... isn't), I don't want to be sneered at either. Just present the information, and let us make up our own minds, you bastards.

Oh, I forgot. We're too stupid to read the information bar when we change channels on a digital box, so we need a dog to help us. Saints preserve us.

Slackboy

I'm finding reading about people being wound up by those things quite amusing and "fun". I reckon they should animate them a-la the Microsoft Office Paper Clip just to see how people react.

I can also imagine the Mighty Boosh doing a bit where the logo would get bigger and bigger as well, and people kept walking into it and stuff. They're good them aren't they?

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "Slackboy"I'm finding reading about people being wound up by those things quite amusing and "fun". I reckon they should animate them a-la the Microsoft Office Paper Clip just to see how people react.

I don't know what your favourite films and old TV shows are, but do you get annoyed when they're broadcast with a logo in the corner? Especially as, thanks to EPGs, they're pretty much a pointless intrusion. I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about.

And none of the complainers (apart from a few nutters) are claiming it's an issue as serious as the War on Terror or anything. They're just arguing that, within the parameters of discussing TV, it's something worth objecting to.

Slackboy

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"I don't know what your favourite films and old TV shows are, but do you get annoyed when they're broadcast with a logo in the corner? Especially as, thanks to EPGs, they're pretty much a pointless intrusion. I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about.
I haven't had this problem recently since I usually get my films from, well, let's just say not off the TV. Would it annoy me if I had to put up with a DOG though? I guess so, but then I'd probably turn over and watch something else and that would work as a boycott anyway, which is probably why Channel Five has got rid of theirs. I can always get the film from somewhere else or live without it; it's not like it's water or anything.

I do think that they are a reasonable thing to complain about, just that it's not worth getting wound-up by them, that's all.

Quote from: "Emergency Lalla Ward Ten"
And none of the complainers (apart from a few nutters) are claiming it's an issue as serious as the War on Terror or anything. They're just arguing that, within the parameters of discussing TV, it's something worth objecting to.
I agree, but why get angry about it as well? If an act of being angry gets you your way then you could argue that it would then be justified, but I don't think that is a suitable means to an end.

All I'm saying is is that I think you are taking your interpretation of the writer's (and the BBC's) intentions too seriously. It's clearly a jokey article and should be read as such.

Slackboy

The 2nd and 3rd links on this page just take you to the BBC3 frontpage. Odd that. I reckon the BBC doesn't want mention of this story at all and that's why they pulled the other article. That's probably why there aren't any other articles on the whole BBC site about DOGs. They just don't want to get rid of them for some reason.

Santa's Boyfriend

I've never understood why, particularly with the advent of digital tv, you couldn't simply switch them off.  Simply put them in a layer that goes on top of the tv screen (like on the menu thing with digital and sattelite) so you can switch them on or off as needed.  Problem fucking solved.  I should be the head of the TV watchdog, me.

slim

Quote from: "Santa's Boyfriend"I've never understood why, particularly with the advent of digital tv, you couldn't simply switch them off.  Simply put them in a layer that goes on top of the tv screen (like on the menu thing with digital and sattelite) so you can switch them on or off as needed.  Problem fucking solved.  I should be the head of the TV watchdog, me.
You're not the first to think of that. The execs wouldn't like it - they want the DOG on the screen.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "Slackboy"It's clearly a jokey article and should be read as such.

I don't think it's good-naturedly jokey, though - it's playing up to a gallery of 'normal people' who 'aren't sad enough' to be bothered by such 'trivialities'. And that annoys me. It doesn't anger me, but it annoys me. It seems to represent a certain attitude that a lot of people working in TV have.

mayer

Slackboy I thought the original article was unethical, especially in its placement on the News pages.


Its analagous to the Channel 4 being accused of violating their remit, and Channel 4 doing a show, devoid of any other content, about how all the complainers were whiny geeks who can fuck right off.

Except of course that the license fee is compulsory, which makes the BBC's words even worse.

terminallyrelaxed

Naturally, as with most things in life, I couldnt give a fuck either way. However, if I had been the kind of tool that bought a plasma screen I'd be pretty annoyed if a logo got burned into the corner of the screen, even if it was little more than a harbinger of having the Sky menu burned onto it a few months later.

Morrisfan82

Interesting to hear the 'ur sad' argument coming out, when by that logic, that makes the BBC the saddest fuckers of all for bothering to design, broadcast and maintain them in the first place. If they're not important, why the heck does the BBC go to such lengths to create and use them? For fun?

It's a matter of presentation. If you call people who get put out by DOGs* sad, then frankly you lose all right to ever complain about voice announcements, fucking about with credits, placement/frequency of ad breaks, trailers, aspect ratios/cropping, picture quality, scheduling, anything to do with getting a programme from the can to your telly basically.

*By which I'm not referring to the end sequence of The Flintstones

Yes, I know, it was a cat.

Paul Dee

That really is an appalling attutude, as if they don't even care about television at all.

Dark Sky

I don't like 'em.  Especially the ones on kids' channels like Nickelodeon or Disney or whatever where they take up almost a third of the screen (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea).

I still understand the point of them....they're supposed to let confused people not used to multi-channels know what channel they're on?  Surely all Sky and digital menus SAY what channel you're currently on?

And definitely the BBC should refrain from using them...and all the shrinking-credits stuff and the scrolling banners which tell you what's on next stuff...  It's disgusting.  Those things are only there to try and viewer grab, which the BBC shouldn't have to do.

The Mumbler

Quote from: "Muteki"I blame Network Seven.

They never did that, though, did they?  They did lots of captioning, but that was to give you extra information.  

Who started the DOG-rot?  MTV, was it?

Alberon

Quote from: "Dark Sky"I don't like 'em.  Especially the ones on kids' channels like Nickelodeon or Disney or whatever where they take up almost a third of the screen (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea).

I still understand the point of them....they're supposed to let confused people not used to multi-channels know what channel they're on?  Surely all Sky and digital menus SAY what channel you're currently on?

My Mediocre Claim To Fame is that I almost got on Channel 4's Right to Reply on this issue about six or seven years ago when the digital satellite versions of BBC 1, 2 and Channel 4 (I think) carried DOGs.

In the end, none of them would talk to me, so the article was never made. But what it boils down to is that the DOGs aren't there for the viewers benefit at all.

The point of them is to create brand identity for the channel. That's why they're still around in the digital age with pop-up banners and EPGs.

It's easy to make removable DOGs, just like the red dots, but no channel is going to do something like that.

Blumf

Aren't they there to fuck up any video recordings you make (possibly to stop piracy).

Horrible little things.

Emergency Lalla Ward Ten

Quote from: "Alberon"

The point of them is to create brand identity for the channel.

What does that mean though? They want you to subliminally associate the channel logo with the prrogramme you're watching? That happens already due to the millions of idents/trails doesn't it?