U.S. Logo-Free TV Broadcast Organizations? 485
iluvpr0n asks: "I ran across The UK Campaign for LOGO FREE TV and admired their goals for encouraging television broadcasters to stop taking up valuable screen space with their annoying and brightly-colored logos. It's not enough to be bombarded with 8 minutes of commercials during programs, but they also need to deface a supposedly artistic work (yes, for most of television that's highly debatable) to enhance their 'brand identity' initiatives. Is anyone aware of groups with this goal operating in the US (or other non-UK locations)?" Do we really need these things anymore? I'm sure most television viewers out there can associate shows to networks, these days.
Branding TV shows. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is silly. All the shows I watch are on the Sony network, but the only way I know is that they slap there logo on it. They've got it rigged now so that it's even there when my TV is off. I think that's going too far!
-- MarkusQ
Sometimes helpful (Score:4, Insightful)
A matter of choice (Score:1, Insightful)
Put yourself in their shoes (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, you don't pay for local stations, the advertisers do. So its not really your choice.
And another thing, when I post a message, do I really need to see that slashdot [slashdot.org] logo? Its taking up my valuable website art.
What's most annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Logos no longer serve a purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
I've heard that argument repeated so many times since the networks started doing it about ten years ago. It almost makes sense until you realize that they don't do it over the commercials.
Branding Folly (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why a movie studio, television network, or record company would go to so much bother to establish a brand. When I buy a movie ticket, CD, or choose a TV station, I do it because I'm interested in the content - the story or the music - not because I'm a fan of the production company. I couldn't even tell you what studios produced my all-time favorite movies or what labels produce my all-time favorite records, and I suspect I'm not alone.
I don't watch much TV, but I would have a hard time believing that anyone would turn to a particluar TV station to watch a show they dislike just because it's on their favorite network. And the logos don't serve any other purpose.
This isn't the reason they do it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they do it so that you always know who's PROPERTY the broadcast is. They could care less about brand identification ... they do it so that when PVR'd copies of programs show up online, it's easier for them to claim ownership.
Now, when will we see software to EXTRACT these logo's?
The Slashdot Mindset (Score:5, Insightful)
My recomendation would be that vocal slashdotters stop watching TV as it is obviously not what you want. Listen to Geeks in Space re-runs for entertainment. OR, if you do enjoy The Simpsons, or god-forbid, The West Wing, you can pay for it out of your pocket or put up with the aforementioned "intrusions".
I like The Sopranos so I pay for HBO. I don't know when quality TV programming became a natural right. I don't pay for The Simpsons out of my pocket, so I'm willing to put up with whatever the fine folks at Fox can dish out. And when I don't like it anymore, I'LL STOP WATCHING.
mangled credits (Score:3, Insightful)
This mangling the programming attitude has been taken much further by CNN and copied by its clones. First, they put financial tickers on. Then sports tickers. Now news tickers, even during live coverage of a major Presidential speach. Headline News is virtually unwatchable--it's like watching RealPlayer in the corner of a web page--ick.
What is needed is a broad-based opposition to program mangling, be it logos, tickers, credits, or whatnot.
Crusade? (Score:2, Insightful)
Television and Good Taste (Score:1, Insightful)
Another thing that's bothersome is this trend of commercials, esp. drug commercials, being less discreet in revealing the intimimate details about what it is their product does. There was a time when "do you have that not-so-fresh feeling?" was as indiscreet as advertising got. Now, we have toilet paper commercials that zoom in on peoples asses (and show cartoon bears grinning with satisfaction as they experience that "I'm taking a big shit" feeling), as well as drug companies that explicitly discuss the details about herpes, genital warts, and vaginal dryness.
I'm not talking about censorship - just about self-review in the name of good taste. If I had kids, I would NOT want to be cornered into explaining to the young ones what genital warts or herpes are all about, because of whats on in the early afternoon or prime time. I find it, not offensive persay, but lacking in good taste and good judgement.
Besides, if you have herpes or genital warts, I would imagine that you will indeed be able to locate a product that suits your needs without the assistance of explicitly detailed television advertising. Am I wrong?
Within three years, given this trend, we will be subject to gigantic dancing logos, scrolling advertising banners and jingles, cartoon bear turds, and graphic representations or photos of these herpes and warts being shrunken by proper medication. Television is turning into garbage. Perhaps that's why I watch so much less of it than I used to.
It's about recorded copies (Score:4, Insightful)
One possible problem in search of this solution would be low-budget independent stations taping re-runs from other channels and replaying them. Then again, I wonder if there are any independents left.
Re:DOG.... woof (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Network Logos ok, advertising bad (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that this is the natural response to people's attempt to filter out advertizing. First it was just getting up and going to the fridge when commercials were on, then channel surfing, now TiVo. People aren't watching regular commercials anymore, so advertizers feel that they need to adopt more and more intrusive methods to force their ads into your attention. Obscuring part of the program with an ad is the next logical step, since you're forced to watch the ad if you watch the program (at least until someone comes up with a blocker).
The thing that you really need to watch out for is the next logical step in the progression- product placement. Once the product is deeply intertwined with the program there will be no way to remove it except to stop watching the show. IMO the TV news has already been completely taken over this way. There are a lot of "news" spots that are nothing but advertizements for shows from the same conglomerate, and there's no telling how much impact corporate ownership has had on coverage of stories relevant to corporate interests.
scope error (Score:2, Insightful)
Gawd. I mean, screw the logos. Let's get rid of corporate branding in general. It is the reality which shapes young minds today- self image is far too closely tied to what your favorite tv shows are and how high on the nike sneaker price scale you rank. I think if we woke up one day and the tvs were all gone we'd experience a cultural renaissance that we can scarcely imagine today.
harrumph.
Re:Logo's in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
My original post was intended to be funny sarcasm as I don't believe there is much true journalism left at least on a national level. The current big boys seem more interested in fear mongering and bias to make more money *sigh*
The networks need them, not the viewers (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence the corner logos. They're more brightly-colored these days because the networks keep weaving American flags into them post-9/11, but usually they're monochromatic and very subdued. They sit in the corner, out of the way and not interfering in the program, giving everyone a ready reminder of whose network they're watching so that they can find it again in a sea of dozens or hundreds of cable channels.
As for the complaints: is anyone really complaining about them? As I said, they're subtle and subdued, and nearly all channels have acknowledged that they're better off not animating them on a constant basis. The only people who have cause to be annoyed about them, as near as I can tell, are the people who tape shows or movies and archive them for posterity -- something the networks don't like you doing anyways, since if you're using a VCR then you're not watching the commercials those networks rely on.
There's no nationwide American movement to remove these logos because there's no real need to remove them. They provide brand awareness for the networks, they don't interfere with the program, and they're not nearly as obnoxious as, say an X-10 popup ad or the flashing ThinkGeek banners I'm forced to stare at right now.
Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Fixed the problem for me.
Re:Burnt in logos on projection tvs. (Score:3, Insightful)
The ADs bother me, not the logos (Score:4, Insightful)
What I do mind is the very annoying trend I've seen mainly on the USA Network, TBS Superstation, and perhaps others. Not only do they leave a transparent logo, but they also have very active ads for other movies, specials, etc. This is during parts of movies that I'm trying to WATCH mind you. In fact, USA has a bad habbit of actually including audio with these ads during slow parts of movies.
I must say, the first time I saw this, I removed both those channels. If other people do the same when they see crap that they don't like, stations WILL stop doing it.
The same thing applies to anything you don't like... If you just complain about it, nothing gets done. If you cost them a few bucks, then they'll rethink their activities. The entire capitalist system is based on the idea that people will choose some other competing product when they don't like the company's features, price, or practices.