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.
Yeah right (Score:2, Funny)
Like that
Branding? (Score:2, Interesting)
MjM
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
Re:Branding TV shows. (Score:2, Funny)
Sometimes helpful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes helpful (Score:2)
Fair enough. But when they started having those continous news flash scrolling along the bottom, along with the other logos and station IDs, etc. they can take up to a quater or a third of the screen.
That is really annoying.
Just another example of Disney Planet, Mac World, and the universe of Microsoft.
I swear I am getter less sympathetic to corporations each day.
Corporate Bashing (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking of getting really annoying. Sorry to rant, but corporate bashing is just so nonunique and tiresome.
I found myself doing the same with the cable company, the local newspaper monopoly, McDonalds (for lying about its fries - yea, I know, lame issue, but it pissed me off). Etc. I found I was whining about tons of stuff.
So I fired them all. It really has to come down to that. Don't like the station IDs on the screen? Fire them. Yank the cable. That's your choice.
Warning: Be prepared to be totally amused when you do this.
Cable: I returned everything except the cable modem (I do have my limits). Apparently nobody ever does this. The guy at the counter thought I must have been shut off for not paying when I returned all the other junk. His announcement "but your account is fine" confirmed the suspicion. Oh, apparently they don't have a process for this either. After returning all the converter junk, I discovered I now have better cable for free than I got when I paid for it (HBO is unblocked now). Guess that cable modem needs a few more things live.
Newspaper: Hell, they couldn't make three out of five successful deliveries. Fired them. Now I get every sunday (for the past two months) free and on time.
Give it a shot. Don't like the service? Fire them. Don't rant. Don't threaten. Pull the trigger. You might actually discover you like it.
Now if I could just fire the postal service...
*scoove*
Re:Sometimes helpful (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes helpful (Score:3, Interesting)
I was working in a television station when these things started to get popular. In fact, I was one of the people who helped make our station's logo as transparent as possible.
First it was just during the beginning of the news, then all through the news, then all day long
I have no issue with them when done "right". "Right" by my definition is as transparent and small as possible, preferrably -just- a logo and no text. If you're going to "tease" a special with an animation it should only happen once during a block of programming or -right- after the commercial and last no more than 5 seconds.
Of the "educational" channels, Animal Planet is the worst ("Croctober" opaque full color animations? Made me completely avoid anything to do with that special). History channel is worse with it's solid gold logo and the word "History" on everything. It would be highly preferrable to have a transparent "H" and nothing else. HGTV seems to understand the concept of simplicity pretty well.
Things got much worse after 9/11/01
As for the other issue, channels like CNNHN and Fox News scrolling every little quote they can scrounge across the screen, OUCH. This is specifically why I didn't watch Bloomberg TV. At a maximum I want the announcer, a well done graphic, and and explainer quote. I want all the text on the screen to relate to the story I'm watching. If you have to refer to additional stories, start additional channels and just run a miniature TV guide at the bottom so I can switch if I want to. Otherwise we're just further investing a culture of lack of concentration.
I also don't particularly see need to make CNNHN or Fox "tag-team". I preferred the single announcer format, again, for focusability reasons.
But then again, I'm known to be opinionated.
Shows vs Networks... (Score:2)
I can think of at least 5 shows off the top of my head that appear on at least 2 stations currently, even with my limited (UK Digital Terrestrial) range of channels.
Admittedly they are mostly US syndicated shows, but not all. A lot of BBC shows are ending up on UK Gold, UK Living, Granada+ and so on. The rest are things like Frasier, Friends, The Simpsons, Futurama, Buffy, Seinfeld and similar 'big' shows, where a subscription channel (Sky One, Paramount) usually has a newer season of the same show being shown on a free-to-air station (BBC 2, C4).
I think there is less and less association of shows with networks.
How 'bout those Sony static stickers! (Score:3, Troll)
People who leave those things on their TV's should be gently throttled until they see reason.
Actually... (Score:2)
TNN (Score:2, Interesting)
DOG.... woof (Score:2, Interesting)
Digital
On-Screen
Graphics
Anyway, i can think of two reason for them , 1) To stop people record a movie , and acting like its a gunine copy.
2) To stop other chanells nicking their stuff. Over here in Ireland they often show stuff from Sky Sports on the news (with permission i am sure), but there is no doubth where is from with the Big Sky Sports logo on the screen.
Re:DOG.... woof (Score:5, Funny)
Eric
Re:DOG.... woof (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't count on it (Score:2)
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.
Re:Put yourself in their shoes (Score:2)
I hate that crap.
We do pay for TV. every time we buy a product that advertaise we pay for tv.
TV is NOT free. It is included in the price of goods.
If you don't watch tv, and you buy things, your paying for tv.
its not your website art, its slashdot website art, but we don't really need it there, and I'd like to see it go away when I'm dialing in from home.
However it is good information architecture design, so people can immediatly get to the home page.
Re:Put yourself in their shoes (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with the translucent logos. It's stuff like Cartoon Network's bright red opaque Adult Swim logo (which I noticed they finally changed), or Starz Action's multi-colored logo, or the animated logo of some network that I can't remember (real good job that one did).
Honestly, you don't pay for local stations, the advertisers do. So its not really your choice.
Actually, it is. If I choose not to watch a channel due to their obnoxious logo, the advertisers lose money. Plus I really am paying for Starz's logos.
What's most annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's most annoying (Score:5, Funny)
Well, we know you haven't associated shows with channels.
Pop-up Video is a VH1 program.
-Grant/JimTheta
Logo's in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
All the mainstream channels don't include any tags and wouldn't dare to do so, however since the launch of DigitalTV around three years ago and the numerous stations that came with it... they started to put logo's on channels to differentiate themselves (so you can tell crap from crap).
But it seems it caught on and even the new BBC channels include it like BBC Choice, Knowledge and News24, they all include a subtle alpha channelled logo in the top left, for MTV/Music and News it's not really that bad but if you want to sit down and watch a programme then they become annoying.
But at least we don't have to contend with any adverts on some channels, I sometimes watch ABC evening news here, there is a break every 4-5 minutes, then the news is filled with sentimental dross in-between, you watch it and feel as informed as watching a brick wall, they call this news ?!? Fox News isn't even worth mentioning, do people serious watch that?
At least CNN has something going for it.
Re:Logo's in the UK (Score:2)
I try to fight for freedoms, but sometime I say "if everybody seems to like to be sheep, why bother?"
Re:Logo's in the UK (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, you are supposed to watch both Fox with its conservative/republican bias and CNN with its liberal/democrat bias and then take a moderate view between the two to get the true facts :)
Re:Logo's in the UK (Score:2)
At least satellite TV lets you choose from a variety of channels - Sky satellite TV in the UK even lets you watch Al Jazeera (unfortunately I don't speak Arabic, but the stories they include are quite different to the ones in Europe or the US - much more coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian situation).
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*
Re:Logo's in the UK (Score:2)
I can remember when SkyOne never had any logo's on anologue satellite, graphics on stuff like MTV, VH1, TheBox or the news channels have never bothered me since you generally don't watch them intensely.
At least they're not stuck all over the movie channels (not PPV) apart from Carlton Cinema.
8 minutes of commercials.. (Score:4, Informative)
I think that the small logo in the corner is a little annoying but I have seen it get worse. There have been times when I have seen the network, then the US flag and then other logos, all adding up to about 3 to 5 logos on the screen. On a 20 inch TV this makes for small viewing. :-(
What is worse is AT&T's digital cable service now has advertisements in its on line TV guide. It used to be that you could see 12 channels at a time when you press the guide button, but now it is about 8 channels and 4 ad's. This makes it slower to browse the digital TV guide. I called and apparantly noone likes this but they don't care cause what can I do? Get satelite like my brother and then possibly not get the local stations (he doesn't)?
While logos are bad I think that being bombarded with advertisements is worse. Look at yahoo and their new popup window ads.
AT&T digital cable (Score:2)
Re:8 minutes of commercials.. (Score:2)
"Get satelite like my brother and then possibly not get the local stations (he doesn't)?"
Before complaining on Slashdot, you might want to at least CALL the satellite company to see if that's true in your area. I live 30 miles out of San Francisco and I get the local SF channels. I am quite happy with my DirecTV + TiVO offering.
Does anyone else get sick of people who complain without researching their options first? If the cable company still has your business regardless of how much you like it or dislike it, you have given them NO incentive to change! You have a choice of what company you give your money to -- USE IT! Change to satellite, then write a letter to the cable company's VP of customer service explaining why you changed. Don't complain on Slashdot -- I highly doubt the suits who put the ads in are reading your post.
...and now flags! (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, with a zillion cable channels that I, at least, don't remember most of, it's useful to have a small logo. Anyway, it's not at all clear to me how this group expects to have any effect. A petition? "Demonstrate and calculate the cost of ignoring the problem logos."?
I'm skpetical about the claim that the logos are there to discourage piracy. Is anyone really trafficking bootleg C-Span or Weather Channel broadcasts or Dharma and Greg episodes? And if so, are they going to be deterred by a network logo?
Piracy... by other TV stations. (Score:2)
It is not uncommon for a station to re-use news footage or network feeds from another station, with or without permission.
When the translucent small 'bugs' first appeared, the 'pirating' stations would sometimes cover up the original station's info by using a larger, more opaque 'bug'
And so began the logo wars...
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.
I Solved this Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Transparent logos are a bit more difficult to detect, but they're less obtrusive. In addition, if this were implemented as a full-blown product, it could easily build a library of company logos and associate those logos with the channel that is being watched, so the logo detection wouldn't be necessary.
Re:I Solved this Problem (Score:2)
Frikkin distracting.
--
Evan
Tansparent Logos (Score:2)
Even more annoying than single logos... (Score:2)
Now there is a reason they do it - WWF actually owns the time that Smackdown runs on (as they do with all their shows), and so they brand their content as does the network (which brands _everything_). But it's still silly.
I'm sure there's other programs with similar double-branding, but I haven't seen them.
Local stations do it too... (Score:2)
Everybody's got a brand to plug...
Eric
Not going away in the USA (Score:2)
They've been in place for 10 years now. Flipping through normal cable TV, I don't think I can see anyone who doesn't do it, aside from the premium movie channels (thank goodness.)
Ian
Re:Not going away in the USA (Score:2)
However, with Digital Cable in America, you don't really need them anymore 'cause the cable box itself will throw the logo on the screen as you change the channel, and you can call it up at any time on your remote, so eventually when the entire US is on digital cable or direct-tv satelite (who do the same thing), the need for them to identify the station during channel-surfing will be done.
Then they'll definitely have decided to keep 'em around to "mess up" programs so that your home-taping is getting inferior copies and you'll eventually want to buy a vid-tape or dvd release. X-Files, Robotech, and Simpsons season 1 are definitely showing that people are willing to buy whole seasons of things at a time, and would prefer that to getting the "one tape a month" approach that older syndicated shows were offering on TV promotions (e.g., MASH and the Honeymooners).
Actually, I'd like to see channels do the opposite of what they do now. When surfing, and I hit a program, I generally will decide based on the program content if i want to stick around. I'd rather be told what channel i've hit when i hit a commercial, in order to decide if i wanna stick around and wait 'til a program starts. This is the approach that HBO and Showtime do for their pay networks -- the programs are logo free, the promotions in between have the logo.
more necessary now (Score:2)
Personally, I think that it's all a bunch of bunk. They may get a few more viewers here and there, but nothing that would be statistically relevant in the ratings.
Now what would be really cool is to get my ReplayTV to detect the "bugs" and digitally remove them. (If you think they're annoyed with the current round of lawsuits...) Of course, there are technical problems in that the bugs actually remove information--you could mostly compensate on the transluctent ones, but even then not entirely.
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?
Re:This isn't the reason they do it ... (Score:2, Informative)
Of course this only helps if you use your computer to watch TV - but anyone with projection system should be doing that - there ought to be enough geeks with projectors on slashdot to make that useful to someone
Station ID (Score:5, Informative)
Further, it means that if their shows are copied -- whether taped on a VCR, or stills shown on entertainment news or whatever -- that there's a little ``hey, this is the work of CBS/NBC/ABC/...'' sign in the bottom, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
This is nothing new, but it is getting worse. (Score:2)
There is A much older anti-logo site [msen.com] at http://www.msen.com/~mwg/anti-logo-links.html
Over time, the logos grew larger, more opaque, staying on-screen 100% of the time, and lately I've been seeing more and more animated logos. They're getting to be as obnoxious as banner ads.
Re:This is nothing new, but it is getting worse. (Score:2)
Re:Station ID - NOT! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Station ID (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC requires that broadcasting stations ID themselves by stating their call sign(s) - a minimum of once an hour, IIRC. I've yet to see a "bug" with a call sign in it. And this regulation doesn't apply to cable channels, as they're not broadcasters.
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.
Re:The Slashdot Mindset (Score:2)
The problems arise when you pay for a channel and they STILL subject you to bright logos during programs. Most Sky channels in the UK, even the pay ones, and especially the sports channels, have prominent logos.
If I have to pay for TV thats fine - but I shouldn't have to pay AND watch commercials AND have product placement AND have all the shows sponsored by something AND have a stupid logo burning a whole in my screen.
I can even see that big X when I watch the news
Re:The Slashdot Mindset (Score:5, Informative)
What if I told you that the UK has TV channels with NO COMMERCIALS! I'm kidding, right? No, there really is!
And guess what, there's NO LOGO, either! (OK, so they've started putting one in for a second or two at the start and end of the program) Is this broadcaster crazy? How does it get its funding?
Now, I know that THE MARKET must dictate everything, and socialism is an EVIL THING that has NEVER WORKED, but guess what, the people of the UK actually collectively pay for these TV channels! And they like that!
They also pay for 5 radio stations (pop/rock/dance, easy listening, classical, current affairs and comedy, sport and talk) and local newsrooms up and down the country.
The issue at stake is that the channel they own, because they pay for it, is doing things that they don't like, such as producing crap TV shows and bastardising their output. So they complain. And believe it or not, they can actually win this one.
Re:The Slashdot Mindset (Score:2)
The airlines' service sucks. I don't remember when air travel became a natural right so I'll just stop flying.
AT&T sucks. It takes them 3 months to get me a phone and they'll only let me use their particular model of telephone. I don't recall phone service being guaranteed in the constitution though, so I'll just go without phone service.
Certain things are available to us as a society in finite quantities. The broadcast spectrum for instance - its ours and we ALLOW it to be used for commercial TV. Since its ours and we're giving them the chance to use it to make money/entertain us, we have every right in the world to bitch when we don't like what they're doing with it.
Re:The Slashdot Mindset (Score:2)
yes you do, everytime you buy a product that it or affilate merchendise,is advertised on the simpsons.
As a metter of fact, things you buy may go to support TV shows you don't watch.
I don't mind advertising tv shows. I'd perfer it was under 5 minute per half hour, but all-in all I don't mind.
I hate that damn logo, It doesn't do anything but take away form the content. the Simpsons is only shown on 1 network, do they really think another station will try to play it on the air unauthorized?
wait until HBO decides to place there logo in the corner of the sopranoes.
Whats that? you say you pay for it so it won't happen? well I pay for cable and the cable channels still have advertising.
It's about time. (Score:2)
I consider myself to be probably the smartest user on the American Internet today. For example, are you aware that many web pages use "banner advertising" or "popped up advertisements"? It's true, whether or not you realize it. However, I have downloaded a piece of soft-ware known as the Junking Buster [junk-buster.com] which defeats those advertisements. Now I can surf the web seeing only content which is relevant, such as these comments. Now, what about television (or "TV")? I have purchased a device which allows me to watch T-V shows not at the times set by the closed-minded networks, but at my own leisure. It cost me over $400, but I consider it to be far superior to watching T-V with advertisements.
Watching T-V programs with the help of my Delayed Recording Device (or "DRD") has helped greatly, and is a means of content control. However, although my DRD has over seventy features on its remote-control (hereinafter "remocon") I do not see any option to remove the logos. Because I am releasing the soft-ware for my DRD and T-V into the public domain, I expect that one of you "hackers" (hereinafter "crackers") will enable me to remove the logo from my programs.
I look forward to hearing from you.
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.
Not about "most" viewers (Score:2)
who do you think all commercials and ads a postioned to?
ages 10-20. as a general rule, once someone has started by something regularl, like the same deoderant) it is very hard to get them to change brands once there over 20.
so a product must be pounded into our brains so its there when we make that criticle decesion on a product will use for a very long time.
thats why they put there logos there, so new viewers will get brand identification.
personally I think this issue is someone else did it, so we must do it just to maintain the same brand exposure.
I hate the things, I didn't buy a big tc just to have 5-10%of the picture ruined by that amn logo.
I do see a day when everything is broadcast in a 'letter box' format, and the black space is filled with ads.
This came up when TNT took over Babylon 5 (Score:3, Informative)
The full discussion is here [a42.de] -- page down to the entry from "97/07/18" (that's 07/18/1997 for us 'mercans).
-Scott
Crusade? (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the logos! (Score:2)
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.
Too many cable channels (Score:2)
Frankly, I like having the bugs on cable networks, as long as they're translucent, and limited to one (1).
With most cable systems now carrying upwards of 50 channels, I think they're pretty handy when I'm looking for a channel on a unknown system.
On the flipside, I don't think networks need them at all. Most cable systems (to my knowledge) follow the convention that the local networks are on the lower-numbered channels (except for maybe UPN or WB), and even then most of us have associated the big shows with the networks, if we even bother to pay attention. Aside from evening shows or soaps, why would I look for someone's NBC anyway? They all schedule the off-hours independently.
Of course, I should kick in here that associating shows with networks is pretty dumb for viewers anyway. As if Simpsons made the rest of FOX's shows good...
It seems like the only channels that can really benefit from branding are theme-targetted cable channels. You want some interesting non-fiction? You might need a bug to tell you quickly if you're learning about guns (Discovery) or a specific war (History). Looking for an abused woman triumphing over adversity? You might need a bug to tell if you're watching a drama (Lifetime) or an opening to a bad sci-fi movie (Sci-fi).
As long as bugs are translucent and don't distort/cover text, I don't mind them. But does Friends need it? Not really. I doubt the Friends viewer cares.
-Grant/JimTheta
let's reason here (Score:2)
Also a lot of news services attach logos to released footage of course. If the news organization is obscure in the U.S., for example Al-Jazeera, it is fair, in my opinion, to include a logo. Those people, (here I'm thinking of footage in Kabul) invested money and put their bums on the line to get that footage, and if their credit is a little too blaring, well, go get your own damn footage.
These days video gets passed around a lot more freely than it used to. If the people who got it for you want you to be reminded in a relatively unobtrusive fashion, that's their perogative.
Some people here complain that it's damaging the artistry. I have done some video and I know that TV video, as a format, is relatively not "solid", compared with, say, text or paintings... Every TV has different distortion properties, the corners may be cut off if it's not a Trinitron, the colors, of course, are unreliable. My point is that purity of experience in TV video is not going to happen, because of the nature of the system. These people aren't being very reasonable.
MSNBC banners are much more annoying (Score:4, Informative)
But the most annoying trend on television is the MSNBC-style banners. I noticed this especially during the September 11 coverage. I swear, the huge banner on the bottom of the screen took up almost 1/3 of the height of the screen, and had basically NO information on it. WTF is up with that? These people need to get some designers in there that know how to put the most information in the least amount of space.
I don't need a huge banner to tell me the name of someone who's face I can't see because it's half covered up by said banner!
Channels are easy to identify. (Score:3, Funny)
the logos can be useful (Score:2)
(The satellite system would show you the name of each channel as you flipped channels, making the channel logos less important.)
Network Logos ok, advertising bad (Score:2)
Any marketer who's followed the internet should know that adding ads to your content doesn't work very often. Most people just tune them out mentally. Why even bother, when the only thing you're going to accomplish is making people change the channel? Logos and even adverts for coming shows are fine, since they do have something to do with the watching experience, but irrelevant ads like for phone companies have no place and should be discouraged with a quick change of the dial.
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.
Europe is different (Score:2)
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Come on. Firstly, viewers these days are FAR less likely to associate shows to network, and any ability to associate such is largely due to the effect of the superimposed logo. Do you know which network runs "The West Wing", the World Series or "Monday Night Football" ? I sure don't. This is NOT the days of old where there were precious few networks/channels, the networks had much larger mindshare, and there actually was such a thing as viewer loyalty.
Secondly, it is supremely hypocritical for an editor to argue that superimposed logos are not needed 'anymore' while his own website runs its own logo prominently. Don't you think most Slashdot readers know where they are ? Isn't this made more obvious by the fact that the location bar already *says* 'Slashdot' ?
At least one other poster has alluded to the powerful ability of VCRs and more recently PVRs to skip through commercials which are one of the major ways the networks both mark their brand and (of course) sell ad space. If this continues, it may be only a matter of time before networks are forced to start running advertisements underneath the programming itself.
Strange that it's from the UK (Score:2)
What I find annoying is during msnbc (I think) they shrink the screen and put up ads and news around the talking heads. And during commercials they're running news text at the bottom. It's non-stop mixing of info - I'm sure the advertisers aren't happy that the station is broadcasting data OVER the commercial they paid money to put there (maybe they get a reduced rate?)
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.
Theres no excuse (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it really worth having a logo on your screen for the rest of your life, just so you can tune the tv in easily a couple of times? no, (shut up, it isn't).
Not only that, but (moving back to evil compression) when i watch stuff i downloaded southpark etc.) i have to put up with the stupid blurry comedy central logo, i mean, the cheek - i get my programs legally of gnutella, yet i still have to put up with the logos. it sucks.
We don't have any logos on terrestrial tv here (uk) (no channel 5 does not count). but the BBC is starting to push it with news-24. One day those capitalist pigs will be shot like the err capitalist pigs they are, and i will personally destroy all tv logos over the world BA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA
They're all on the "Replay" channel (Score:2)
Burnt in logos on projection tvs. (Score:5, Interesting)
I didnt notice it, cause I only use the bigscreen for dvds which are letter box, but catch Enterprise, and there it was. At least they could move the logo or have it time out.
So logos are not just annoying, they are destructive.
Re:Burnt in logos on projection tvs. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Some aren't so bad... (Score:3, Funny)
What do annoy me are:
- Big, colorful logos that don't go away. (i.e. Discovery Channel...ick!)
- Moving, blinking, hopping, skipping logos. SciFi is bad about this...I keep thinking their logo is a part of the show and wondering when it's going to eat one of the extras for breakfast...
- Bars and borders. Come on, it's a station logo...it doesn't need the entire width or height of the screen. (This also applies to squishing the ending credits to show your damn ads for shows that suck...sometimes I want to read the credits for a movie for one reason or another, but good luck without a microscope or a 60" screen... Oh well, just more hits for the IMDB
- ADS that show up on the screen during broadcasts. NBC and TNT do this crap all the time with their NASCAR broadcasts. I swear, if I'd seen the flaming Witchblade logo cover Rusty's car one more time during a race, I would have chucked something through my TV. (It's even worse when it's those lame TNT series, because then you get an ad for them every commercial break, and a dozen or two in the broadcast itself. "And we'll be right back!" "Tonight on TNT: Watch Witchblade, it's the awesomest awesome show ever!" "Welcome back! Today's broadcast is brought to you by Witchblade. Here's our leader, Jeff Gordon. Hey, Jeff can't wait to watch Witchblade tonight at 9/8 Central! You should too! Here's a great battle for third which you can't see because our kewl Witchblade logo is blocking the view. Did I mention Witchblade is on at 9/8 Central? Hey, here comes a challenge for the lead, but it's time for another commercial break. We'll be right back, and don't forget about Witchblade!" "Tonight on TNT: Watch Witchblade, it's the awesomest awesome show ever!...")
;-D
DennyK
It sucks the most... (Score:2, Informative)
You can tell right away if a commercial on the show is real or not - the (usually) hilarious SNL bogus commercials have the damn Comedy Network logo on 'em.
MjM
Re:It sucks the most... (Score:2)
They should at least be extremely translucent.
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:2)
Yes, but the MS logo doesn't cover the bottom right-hand corner of /. while you're reading it, does it?
I always thought that they put those logos on there to prevent people from making fairly-nice copies of movies they aired, etc. Now, it's reached the ridiculous stage: like the animated "Croctober" logo for Animal Planet. Branding is one thing, but geesh tone it down a bit! 15% transparency would be better than those full-colored monstrosities!
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:2)
It's really annoying, not only does it distract you, but the crash noise completely over powers the audio.
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:3, Informative)
All other TV questions should be sent to viewer_relations@discovery.com. For a quicker response to your television questions, please call viewer relations at 1-888-404-5969.
Don't file your complaint here...look up the contact info and let the networks know what you think. Anyway, I have a letter to write...
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:2)
Shhh! Don't give anyone (MS or otherwise) any ideas!
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:2)
Hmmm... if IE had good alpha channel support for PNG graphics, then it would be easy with a bit of CSS to build web sites with a "bug" over the corner of every page, in spite of scrolling, overlapping actual content.
Prediciton: If/when IE gets such support, the free-web-space hosting companies will do this.
Re:You won't remove that icon (Score:2)
Re:Don't watch television. (Score:2, Offtopic)
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.
Re:Logos no longer serve a purpose (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is not for you to be able to identify what station you're watching - by looking at an onscreen guide - but it's to ENSURE you know what station you're watching.
Once people stopped watching TV when the networks wanted them to watch it this became important. Tape something to a VCR, play it back when you want, and you may very well not care what station it came from; but the broadcaster certainly does want you to know.
With TiVo and other digital recording devices it's even more endemic. You may not have even told it to record the program. It just did because it fit some set of criteria. And you're going to be skipping commercials! All YOU care about is the program name and content. This doesn't give the broadcaster much sell room.
A lot of pundits and PDR users know that commercials are ineffective now -- the only time I "watch" them is when I'm not paying attention to the show much anyway and don't pick up the remote to FF through them. I suspect that eventually TV networks will move to banner ads or something similar, with side-band information available to those with "interactive" digital TV sets.
Would I love to see the logos go poof? Sure. Do I think they will? No way. Not unless you want to pay for the right to have a TV (ala the UK) or pay for every channel you receive.
Re:Watch TV? (Score:2, Interesting)
as for the small translucent logo's in the corner, they dont bother me. as many other people said, they are actually useful when channel surfing because you can tell right away what channel you are watching. and when cable and satellite systems have well over 100 channels, it helps in locating any interesting programming.
Re:Watch TV? (Score:2, Interesting)
I also hate when the local stations decide to put their logo next to the Network logo. One of the local stations here in Orlando is particularly bad about it(WFTV - ABC Affiliate). I could care less what station a show comes on, since I use my Tivo to time shift just about everything I want to watch.
Re:Not that big a deal. (Score:2)
Re:OMG ... (Score:3, Interesting)
When it first started, I tried to vote with my remote and switched to stations that didn't use the annoying, distracting practice. That didn't last long as every one of them picked up on it.
Re:OMG ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:*ahem* (Score:2)
HBO doesn't do it. Showtime doesn't do it. If they ever do start doing it, I'll cancel my subscriptions and switch all my movie viewing to DVD rental.
Re:on a website with an ad and a logo on every pag (Score:2)
Re:Score -1 (Flamebait) (Score:2)
well cartoon network is the worse offender.
I was wath=ching something with my son, when johnnyneutron start flying all over the screen, total screwing up the 'climax' of the cartoon. or johnnyneutron will appers and start making the screen more and more images of itself until you can't here what there saying.
Re:Logos, nothing -- what about the weather? (Score:2)
But you never hear the weather guy say, "If you are in this red zone, here, unplug the TV and get in the basement, moron! That cow wasn't flying past your window for fun!"