Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Logo-Free TV Broadcast Organizations?
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.
Like that
I thought those things were on there for copyright protection. Sort of like video watermarking.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
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 I find subtle, semi-transparent logos helpful when flipping around, since every house I go to seems to have a different cable system with completely different numbering scheme. It's really annoying. Perhaps they could standardize channel numbers....
m00.
...on re-runs of Saturday Night Live.
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
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
I'm sure most television viewers out there can associate shows to networks, these days.
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.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
People who leave those things on their TV's should be gently throttled until they see reason.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I'm not a huge TV watcher, wish I had a TIVO to just record the stuff I really like (Farscape, History Channel, various classic movies that I probably wouldn't buy but do want to watch in their entirety like 'Office Space', etc), but I don't. Sometimes I find it quite useful while flipping through cable channels to see those little logo's down in the corner. Helps me determine if the channel is worth slowing down for in the mad dash to change channels, as I keep forgetting which channels are which. Perhaps if there was a simple way to just request through the cable providers to turn those little icons on or off before and after hooking up the cable, now that would be something.
I wish there would be something like this for the US. It is an absolute disgrace that now TNN has changed its name from Nashville to National and started airing cool reruns of STTNG and I have to watch it though a horrendous bottom bar. Not just a transparent logo in the corner, but a continuous ugly black bar all the way across the bottom. I cant even read the text when they translate for Klingons (the horror).
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
I remember hearing the technical names for these logos are DOG.
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.
Cruise TT
This is certainly an admirable goal, but with conventional commercials quickly becoming totally ineffective (thanks to personal recorders with skipping features as well as more channels to flip to), I'd expect logos to be the least of our worries. From now on, you'll have to either deal with the morphing logos, advertising bars, virtual (and increasingly brazen) product placement, and other assorted in-show advertising, or actually start paying for your channels, HBO style. I don't really think that's such a bad thing... with increased demand for ad-free/light premium-style channels prices will drop, quality will go up, and you won't have to wade through crap. But, it'll cost you.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Most of the logo's are translucent. Like the scores/info of a football game, if its semi-translucent, you can still see the action when it happens where the score is.
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 logo? Its taking up my valuable website art.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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!
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
I don't watch TV. I play video games. Much more productive.
Half the time you cannot read the captions on the screen bottom. Anyone try to watch MTV's pop up video lately? The have so many logos that you can't see the goofy "fact" pop ups half the time.
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.
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.
Only 'flamers' flame!
"In the past, the networks needed to provide a way for the viewer to know what station they were watching."
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.
What is even worse on the discovery channel, is when they put up links to their website. they first make a fairly loud chime, which most of the time makes the dialog unintelligible, then they shrink the screen to put the link on a black background. it was one of the most intrusive logo i have ever seen.
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.
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?
The logos annoy me too, away with them, I say.
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 accomplished the task by isolation the logo (scanned which pixels were relatively stationary, giving priority to the corners.
- I then tracked the edges of the logos, and picked up the color values just beyond the borders of these pixels.
- In repainting a pixel, I'd average out the pixels on the left, right, up, and down, and weight each one based on how close to that particular edge the replacement pixel was being drawn.
You'd be surprised how well it works.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.
They frequently are opaque. And sometimes, quite gaudy. Ah Adult Swim, I love your shows, but I hate your logos (especially the rating that stays over Cowboy Bebop the whole time!)
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I freely admit to being a wrestling fan (ducks), as a result WWF Smackdown is one of the only things I bother with on a regular basis (outside of news, the Red Sox, and an occasional This Old House episode). And when I get my weekly fix, I get not just one logo (UPN's) in the lower _right_ corner of the screen, I get the horrifyingly ugly (and not even translucent) WWF logo in the lower left corner! It wastes a significant amount of screen real estate, and just looks dumb.
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.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Everybody's got a brand to plug...
Eric
Be who you are...and be it in style!
I don't know...videophiles have been annoyed about this for years. It reduces the quality of the program being viewed, and in many cases actually obstructs information...try watching some of the documentaries that air on Discovery or TLC. And Animal Planet has gotten ridiculous with their animated "bugs" filling the bottom of the frame.
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.
I don't think these things are going away any time soon. After they were brought to the attention of the USA's general public with CNN's coverage of the Persian Gulf War, practically every major network latched on to the practice and haven't let go.
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
The problem from the TV station's perspective is that you really do need to be reminded that you're watching their network. With many cable and satellite systems having over a hundred channels, they're afraid of getting lost in the mix. If you watch and enjoy one show that they air, they want you to think of them the next time you channel surf to find something else to watch.
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.
just so you know guys, I'm there along with you too. Who the f%$? care that much about a friggin little logo that you don't even see afther a minute? Absurd and ridiculous.
cheers
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?
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.
Let me see if I get this straight. Vocal slashdotters want PVRs that can skip the commercials that pay for the production of the programs. Vocal slashdotters also want the networks to air programming without product placements that pay for the production of the programs. And vocal slashdotters feel it is their right to dictate what programmers can put on the screen at any given time.
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.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
As a loyal television viewer, I feel that it is my right to enjoy television the way I see fit. Seeing a small logo superimposed over my favorite television shows deprives me of my right. With all of the talk being made on web-sites like The Slashing Dot about content control, I wonder: when do we, the viewers, get to control the content ourselves?
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 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.
For more information, click here.
Is this really any different from the other mangling of the shows that networks have been doing? They've been talking over the credits for years, often totally destroying the tone set by a dramatic ending. More recently, they've squished the credits to the side, making them impossible to read, so they can show ads for upcoming shows. Personally, I would just as soon they not bother showing the credits; I suspect the only reasons they do are that one, they are required by contract to do so, and two they then don't have to count the time as advertising.
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.
its about new viewers.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The full discussion is here -- page down to the entry from "97/07/18" (that's 07/18/1997 for us 'mercans).
-Scott
-Scott Hutton
When quickly channel-surfing, the logos remind you what channel you're watching. This is a plus in my book!
sulli
RTFJ.
You can change that or remove it.
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Actually, I'd say it's the other way around.
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.
I seriously doubt anyone "enjoyed" Crusade. If taping B5 is all we needed to do to keep Crusade from airing, I would have done it twice!!
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Hear, hear.. AT&T's digital box and guide are simply the WORST interfaces to TV viewing I've seen. I'm guessing you have the general instruments DCT box like me.. it's a slow and outdated platform. Changing channels (even analog) takes at least 3 seconds, and it's covered with ads (don't we pay for this service?). I called too, there is no other box available. I asked what type of digital system it was, so I could purchase a replacement box.. the rep told me that was illegal. I told her it wasn't, I had a right to own my equipment, but she wouldn't tell me anything more.
Even worse is TLC. They have this animation for some of their shows that will just pop-up during the middle of a program, complete with sound effects that completely drown out the volume of the show you are actually watching. It usually lasts for 5 seconds or so. The one for Junkyard Wars is the worst. It's a car that pops-up with crashing sound effects, then drives off screen. Really annoying.
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.
There is A much older anti-logo site 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.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Worse yet, every episode of Junkyard Wars that I've seen recently includes a a full banner across the bottom of the picture. (about 1/8 of the screen?) If that wasn't bad enough, it's animated. So you have some piece of junk that flys across the screen and crashes (with sound!) into the corner.
It's really annoying, not only does it distract you, but the crash noise completely over powers the audio.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK, got myself going. :) Went and looked:
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...
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
The logos are on the screen so that any recorded copies that pop up will have a logo on them. It's probably some kind of legal trick so that the networks can scream about copyright infringment, theft of service, or their "campaign du jour" to outlaw fair use.
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.
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
My stupid web site
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.
--hongpong.com
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...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Those little logos don't bother me on things like live sports, but they are totally distracting when watching a movie or good drama. Especially those that show up really bright when the full frame is dark.
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!
"And like that
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
I don't watch TV often, but a few weeks ago I heard that the Discovery channel would have a show about the Mars Society's efforts on Devon Island this Wednesday. Over the weekend, I tried to figure out whether my dorm gets the Discovery channel. Very few students here watch TV regularly, so they weren't able to tell me whether we get the channel. After a student in another dorm pointed out that the Discovery channel always keeps their logo on the screen, I was quickly able to determine that our cable service does not carry the channel. Once I gave up on cable, I asked around to find a satellite hookup, and found one after about 10 minutes.
(The satellite system would show you the name of each channel as you flipped channels, making the channel logos less important.)
The shareholder is always right.
[MS logo doesn't cover the bottom right-hand corner]
Shhh! Don't give anyone (MS or otherwise) any ideas!
What they are doing is not an FCC-legal ID. The FCC requires the *broadcast* station to ID with their callsign, not their network name. AFAIK, there is no requirement for a cable station to ID.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
I really don't have a problem with the network logos, since most are transparent and fairly unintrusive. I was watching some channel last night, though, and they did a Southwestern Bell "Bug" right next to their logo for about 30 seconds. Had nothing to do with the show I was watching, or even the channel I was on. It was a stupid ad, pure and simple. That just looked like too much of a banner ad to me, and really put me off.
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.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
The TV channels in Europe for the most part have big, ugly logos that are always showing (well, during the programs anyway, maybe not commercials.) These things really are annoying and get in the way. Usually on US TV the logos are transparent and so they don't really get in the way. Lately though, with the flag in the logos, they are a bit more intrusive, but I think we can handle that given the situation at hand. I think this is not a big deal over here in the USA, mostly a European issue.
~ now you know
Indeed, you're right. At least it's not overlapping the main content area of the screen, though.
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.
Do we really need these things anymore? I'm sure most television viewers out there can associate shows to networks, these days.
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.
The UK, from the UK TV that I watch, isn't nearly as bad with having these logos all over the channels as US channels are. It's not just the "big 4" networks either - cnn, cnbc, msnbc, etc. My inlaws tape many UK programs and send them over here - I probably view more UK TV than US TV - definitely in longer bursts (I can't watch more than about an hour of any US program, but 2-3 hours of eastenders, frost, morse, etc. is no problems!)
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?)
creation science book
"It's bad enough that you have trees in your forest, but moss is just too much"
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.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
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.
Yeah or the TNN ticker when watching Star Trek: TNG on TNN. Ths ticker tells you your watching Star Trek: TNG.....WELL DUH! :) Let the freakin surfers come up with their own tools. Don't make them for them. Also, at least one of my TV's let's you program call letters or something like CNN or TNN into the TV itself. I guess having a user program something like a VCR is too much hassle (hence Tivo.....although, the season ticket thing is cool, it's the thumbs up thumbs down thing I like...lets u discover stuff you didn't know was there!). At least if they did that with Enterprise it wouldn't cover anything up (it's letterboxed in my area).
Gorkman
UK terrestrial has had the teletext/cefax signal for more than 20 years, all you have to do is press a button on most tvs and you can see which station it is, as for any digital station, there simply is no excuse, they _definatly_ have the ability to send data to the tv to let the viewer know what there watching with out having to put in a logo, plus, logos look terrible when they are digitally compressed with the cheap stuff most providers get away with.
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
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Flamebait? sigh.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Since I've taken to watching TV almost exclusively recorded on my housemate's ReplayTV, the only way I ever know what channel a show is broadcast on is the little icons. So long as they stay in the corner and don't block anything important, I think they're fine, since I don't really have any other way of identifying the information, and it's occasionally nice to know what channel a show is actually on.
My wife didnt know you cant leave the TV on a channel too long or the logos burn in on your projection tv screens. She was letting the youngest watch disney tv all the time, and it started to burn in.
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.
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!"
Agreed that transparent logos are harder to detect..but won't they remove more cleanly? Once you identified the level of distortion (just an RGB value) for each pixel within the logo it should be pretty easy to just subtract those values out of the pixel to return it to it's natural state, yes?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
<RANT>I *really* hate those damn logos. They always obscure the subtitles in movies and TV. On-screen text is almost *always* shown on the bottom of the screen, and these damn logos obscure them. I don't pay USD $40 per month for basic cable, USD $10 per month for Tivo, and sit through hordes of time-compressed commercials (not to mention the insidious product placements...the Truman show come to life) so that my viewing experience can be ruined by yet more fucking corporate drivel.</RANT>
That said, I think the Tivo model works well: if viewers want an on-screen program guide, they can pay for digital cable or a Tivo-like service. Those things turn themselves off after a few seconds.
Some of theose logos are insidious as hell. If you watch a program for an hour and the logo is constantly on the screen, the logo gets burned into your brain. Pretty soon you'll be seeing it in your sleep...
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Okay, I'm weird perhaps -- but I actually like the stupid little banners at the bottom of the screen. Sure, it gets annoying when they start overlapping when one station re-broadcasts news feeds from others but I'm still glad they're there. I don't watch much TV, and I when I do I channel flip everytime a commercial hits the screen. I often forget what channel number I was on but I can remember which station it was (TNT, TLC, Discovery, etc) just because that logo was there and I can -find- the station again when I know the commercials are over. Call me weird, but I wish they'd put them there -all- the time. When it's missing I often flip right past the station I was looking for.
Nice to see a website dedicated to this issue. I find that whenever it's raised, all but the most discerning TV viewers (or those who hate the viral nature of branding in general) simply don't care and think you're being petty. Here in Australia our major broadcast TV channels were watermark-free until the Seven network added one a couple of years ago. After much initial complaint (mainly visible in newspaper letter pages and Australian TV newsgroups) people have just learned to live with it, and it hasn't had a negative effect on their ratings at all. Seven's watermark is transparent and not as annoying as most, but the scary thing is the precedent it sets. None of our other broadcast TV channels has one yet, but from Seven's experience it's clear that viewers will take it up the ass, and one suspects they'll use the introduction of digital TV as an excuse to introduce watermarks. Most channels have already begun to add show-specific watermarks during news, sport, breakfast, and music programs. As for the local cable/satellite providers, they've had watermarks from day one (except on the primary movie channels). When I contacted my provider to complain about watermarks, they told me they existed for "copyright reasons", not for branding, though I believe it's a bit of both. The watermarks were one of the main reasons I unsubscribed from the service when my contract was up - I got tired of watching nature documentaries where the elephants had giant "Discovery Channel" logo goiters protruding from their heads. What irks me is why these watermarks are suddenly so necessary when we've done fine without them for the past 50 years. It seems nothing is sacred anymore, and that TV programs are no longer a form of artistic expression, but branded, commercial product. In the end, your average commercial TV viewer who just wants to sit down to some mind numbing entertainment after a hard day's work doesn't give a damn about artistic integrity. Thankfully, there are two government-owned channels, the ABC and SBS, which are a bit of a haven for people who like quality programming, but my fear is if the watermarks proliferate on commercial networks they're likely to show up on these two channels as well.
"Fifty-seven channels and nothing on." Nowadays, thanks to cable and digital satellite TV, it's more like five hundred seventy. Each channel needs to somehow distinguish itself from the others, and with syndication further muddying the waters, it's getting harder and harder.
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.
they do it so that when PVR'd copies of programs show up online, it's easier for them to claim ownership.
You may not have noticed, but the corner logos have been there for literally years before PVRs became popular. And are they really that common online? Even a twenty-minute sitcom would take me so long to download via broadband, it's more worth my while to wait for the rerun.
The logos are for brand awareness, pure and simple. When there are 500 channels via cable for people to choose from, NBC needs to do *something* to make theirs stand out.
Don't watch broadcast TV.
Fixed the problem for me.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>up to 4 hours in a given day!
"Up to" four hours?
I'd say that's average, not maximum.
Depends on where you live, I suppose.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The scrollers would be useful if there were more than 7 pieces of "news" on them and they weren't all such useful nuggets as "Bush address ends with 'God Bless America.'"
It is so annoying it feels like I've got AOL Instant Messenger open on my TV.
Of course, a station could advertise itself as the station you know so well, they don't need a logo - a bit like postage stamps in the UK not needing the country on them, or USA domain names not having a country code. "If its not got a logo, its us!" sort of thing.
Maybe they could even trademark the non-logo....
I was referring to using a partially transparent image (hence PNG alpha channel support) to create the same see-through look that TV stations use. Yes, Geocities has had the idea a long time, but has had to keep the thing small and way in the corner because it's opaque.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I have AT&T Digital Cable in the Boston, MA area and the ads and screen navigation are awful, but I wanted the extra channels on Digital (BBC America rocks!).
So I went and bought a Tivo which has its own navigation and onscreen displays that are not affected by the AT&T silliness.
MTV is the absolute worst at this.
They have those stupid huge annimated icons that are always moving around and dancing in the bottom right corner.
Casual Games/Downloads
My question is "Why aren't the logos on the screen during the commercials?" If the concept is that you want brand recognition, I would have thought that during commercials is when you want/need them most.
Exactly since commercials (and for that matter trailers) tend to be non channel specific. Even without such a logo you might have more of a chance of guessing the channel when a programme is on.
Curiously the channels that I've noticed always having a logo on them are the ones on pay-TV (cable, satellite, etc). I guess logo's must be good, since you only get em when you pay.
I was watching a Jackie Chan movie once, the ones that show the words at the bottem of the screen when they are not speaking in English. I was reading what the woman was trying to say, when all of a sudden one of those things came up at the bottem of the screen and stayed there for like 2 minutes during the whole conversation between the 2. I missed the entire thing!
I agree that stopping this type of activity is a good thing. I can't watch a forign film, and understand it anymore, and thats just plain sad.
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
but I ran across a show on TLC where their logo kept viewers from reading the last word of each line of translated text at the bottom of the screen. So the old Russian gentleman's speech was peppered liberally with references to TLC, which didn't make any sense at all.
In such cases it's not unknown for the produces of the programme to turn the audio way down, so even people who understand Russian have problems.
There is also the fun you sometimes get of overdubbing and changing metric to imperial, as I once saw on National Geographic.
You should try and snag the UK version... they actually edit the US programme so they can fit a load more adverts inbetween.
Anything made for US TV is typically under 43 minutes long. One made for UK commercial TV is likely to be arround 50 or more.
Have you noticed that the logos always dissappear during commercials. I guess the sponsors don't want any part of their message obstructed.
Also that credits, which acknowlage the people who actually make the "content", are not infrequently mashed, talked over, etc.
I've not minded the icons that much. Obviously they don't want you to make a copy that cannot be distinguised for the non-free product.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
----------
------------------------ Optimists learn English; pessimists learn Chinese; realists learn Kalashnikov
Fox News isn't even worth mentioning, do people serious watch that?
At least CNN has something going for it.
Yes people watch Fox News. This is because stories that can't be spun into a left-wing slant won't be aired on any other television medium in the US (except for a few that might air on the official outlets of certain religious organizations).
When it comes to constructing a propaganda machine the suppression of coverage of opposing points of view and news items giving them supporting evidence is a far more important piece than the promulgation of a Big Lie. This was known and used well by the Nazis, the Communists (European, Asian, and Central/South American), and every petty dictator with a population too poor to afford short wave radios. It's no less true in the meida-conglomerated "free world" today, despite the Newspeak-style renaming of "propaganda" as "spin".
Fox News makes a point of living its "fair and balanced" slogan - which it does by giving the top two political slants equal time, rather than one of them getting all the time and the other none. This still leaves number three downward with no outlet (though Fox News does give them a couple minutes from time to time).
So the Conservative position gets half a channel with Fox and none with anybody else (including CNN). The result is that heartland viewers watch it in drives (despite the laughably tiny headline segments). I hear Fox News has passed CNN in US viewership despite having far lower cable system penetration.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The answer is pay per view video on demand, which should be common once broadband and smart card readers are in most homes. With that, we'll be buying the right to have uninterupted content.
I swear I am getter less sympathetic to corporations each day.
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*
If you ever watched the late lamented UPN series "Nowhere Man", you know that the logos are there for mind control! They're to turn us into good little citizens^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers.
:-)
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go put on my tinfoil hat
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You can blame Jim Gabbert, a SF bay area TV personality/former TV station owner/airline pilot/radio talk show host for those annoying little logos in the bottom corner of your screen. As he's won't to point out whenever he gets the chance, he invented those little f***ers. At least that's what he says. If *I* had invented them, I'd keep my mouth shut and lay low.
What I hate the most is when some station takes footage from another station w/o removing the original logo first. You then get to see two overlaid logos, making for a totally useless logo jumble.
I guess I'd hate the minilogos less if they'd only show them periodically instead of all the damn time, on top of your favorite show no less! I guess some stations do that, but not all.
They should show a logo for the program (not the network) during the commercials. When I switch on the TV or channel surf, I always switch to another channel immediately if one happens to be showing commercials (in the US, there's a greater than 1/4 chance that it will be). If I saw the logo of a program I liked, I might actually stick around and wait for it to start up again. This would have the effect of both helping the viewer and getting more people to watch commercials (during the good programs, at least).
Yes, I know I should plan what programs to watch in advance, or check with a Web site or TV guide, but I'm not that organized. My guess is that neither are 90% of the viewing public.
I don't mind the stations that have small, unobtrusive transparent logos in the corner. These blend right in and you usually don't notice them after a few seconds unless you look for them. Sometimes they're almost TOO hard to see when channel surfing or trying to guess what number my cable company decided to put The Foobar Channel on *this* week... ;-D
;)
;) I hate bottom bars on sports channels, too. If I'm watching NASCAR and I for some inexplicable reason really cared how the AAA-League Arkansas Mud Puddles are doing today, I will change channels and watch the damn game. ;) )
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
If there's a tornado, I would like to be warned. But if I'm watching TV its going to take some seriously hardcore rain to harm me INSIDE MY HOUSE! So no thanks on the "its raining" maps.
SimCash writes:
/do/ have a solution. And it's quite an ego boost too, knowing you aren't some pathetic herd animal gobbling up whatever they're dishing out.
So, I concur, fire the scum -- refuse to fill their coffers.
Isn't this fun, too? It's a lot tougher than simply ranting, but in some odd manner, it's awfully empowering. It makes you aware that you
It sort of reminds me of a parallel to the ALF (animal liberation front - a collection of angst-filled upper class kiddies that attack farmers and other hard-working people because their daddy didn't by them a BMW) types that are attacking farms in our parts while wearing cool leather shoes. Their activism has no positive impact for their cause. Their consumerism choice continues to reinforce what they oppose.
If you don't like something, your option is to vote with your own property (money). That's the rule of the game in the US, and increasingly so in the rest of the world. (Don't like it? Name a better alternative that doesn't centralize this vote in the hands of an elite few) Want a bigger vote? Get more property/friends to vote.
Understand though that your non-vote will probably have little effect - passive resistance requires major numbers to make a dent. That's where you need to step up and "positive-vote" (aka spend your money) on things that you do support.
Hate Microsoft? Don't just mooch... buy Redhat (or whatever non-MS OS). Fork it out. Don't be stingy. Buy copies for your friends. Or accept Microsoft's domination.
Same applies for any other special cause...
*scoove*
>Get home at 6, watch TV for four hours straight,
>eat dinner, brush your teeth and go to bed.
I still think you're underestimating the norm, or
else the norm where I live is different from where you live.
Get up at 7:00. Watch TV while brushing your teeth and making coffee. Rush to work. Watch tv in the breakroom, in the cafeteria at lunch, get home at 6. Watch TV while eating dinner, and until you pass out at 2:00am. Or if you go out,
watch TV in the bar until it closes. Repeat.
Sleep deprivation, bundled with alcohol addiction and Television. Anyone who DOESN'T indulge in this ritual is splitting from the pack.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.