Dear ABC:

Please please please do not let this become ABC's new bug for HD. It's almost as bad as NBC's, which is TERRIBLE.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
AVS




This god awful thing showed up after some commercials/lead-ins. 4:3 safe, and big letters advertising a show. NBC and CBS have recently gone to 4:3 safe bugs...

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3989/captureue8.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=captureue8.jpg)

Huh?

Huh?

he is complaing about the add on the left of the bug about the basketball finals coming up...that really takes alot of space and its in the 4x3 no less.

The abc hd bug they are using during the spelling bee is small, framed for 16:9 nearly transparent. If there has to be a bug on the screen...abc's is ok.

I really wish they would trash that bug to the right of the ad. I HATE the bug they started using this year. It seems bigger and more noticeable. (The SD bug, I'm talking about). I also hate that effect that makes it look "glassy" and almost "bubble-like". I liked the bug they used forever that was transparent completely, except for the ABC text.

I like the current ABC HD bug. I'd really hate to see that shiny ABC bug go 4:3 safe.

This is the bug I would like to see ABC use:

The abc hd bug they are using during the spelling bee is small, framed for 16:9 nearly transparent. If there has to be a bug on the screen...abc's is ok.

I agree the current one is fine! But with CBS and NBC recently moving them to the 4:3 safe area, I hope ABC doesn't follow suit.

Dear ABC:

Please please please do not let this become ABC's new bug for HD. It's almost as bad as NBC's, which is TERRIBLE.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
AVS




This god awful thing showed up after some commercials/lead-ins. 4:3 safe, and big letters advertising a show. NBC and CBS have recently gone to 4:3 safe bugs...

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3989/captureue8.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=captureue8.jpg)

Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually they all will, with the digital transition coming soon. If they have to do it, at least do it like CBS, NOT NBC. The CBS bug is transparent and not noticeable. The NBC bug is horrible. There's HUGE advertising text with it. I wouldn't expect an ad bug from ABC. They tried it in the past and quickly abandoned it.

I know there was some concern when ABC sports was rebranded as ESPN on ABC, to clearly denote that the viewer was tuned into ABC and not in fact watching ESPN (as there would really be no other network branding during a sports telecast other than the occasional bottom line scroll), but 'the meatball' as it's called i think should be safe as semi-opaque for the time being...hopefully this doesnt change soon.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3989/captureue8.th.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=captureue8.jpg)
If it was NBC, CBS, or the CW, we would see the big bug that is on the poster in the middle of the screen if they had their way. But then that might get into the way of the other crap they put on the screen promoting other shows.

It's only a matter of time. I'm surprised ABC has held out this long.

So far, no one has presented any market research study showing that the negative impact of the bugs are greater than the positive impact of the bugs, so expecting the bugs to go away, or get less prominent is nothing more than wishful thinking. Don't take it personally; it's only business.

So far, no one has presented any market research study showing that the negative impact of the bugs are greater than the positive impact of the bugs, so expecting the bugs to go away, or get less prominent is nothing more than wishful thinking. Don't take it personally; it's only business.

Futhermore in our age of blatant footage piracy and the internet networks are going to be very reluctant to not brand programming. I was actually shocked when the Oscars were presented bug less a few years ago on ABC for such a high profile show with footage that everyone from local news to YouTuber's are going to steal.

I was actually shocked when the Oscars were presented bug less a few years ago on ABC for such a high profile show with footage that everyone from local news to YouTuber's are going to steal.

AMPAS are really hot on on-screen crediting of footage from the Oscars though - and if you see Oscars material you KNOW it has to be credited if you aren't the rights holder, unless you want to get sued. Even in the UK, where you would imagine AMPAS had fewer eyes and ears, all the news broadcasters adhere to the credit rules as dictated, and every non-headline/promo appearance of Oscars material is credited with the required on-screen text verbatim.

Putting an ABC dog on it won't keep AMPAS happy will it? Or are other broadcasters supposed to courtesy ABC rather than AMPAS when running Oscars material in the US?

There are a couple of golden rules that even a rookie producer knows about using material :
1. Oscars and Olympics - both footage and logos - are fiercely protected.
2. Any archive in black and white is likely to be expensive.
3. Any sporting coverage is likely to be restricted.

These rules are even more relevant in the current era of internet streaming/download of broadcast TV shows.

(Can you tell I've just done a quick on-line broadcast law refresher course?!)

Do US broadcasters have the same "fair dealing" rules when it comes to using off-air material from other broadcasters. In the UK you can re-use off-air pictures for two reasons under fair-dealing - Criticism and Review (where you are critiquing the show you are using a clip of), and Reporting Current Events. When using such material it is required that you clearly credit the source - "Pictures from Sky Sports", "Pictures from BBC Sport" etc. - and there are usually industry-wide agreements on how much material, and how many showings in a given period you can use. What you can't get away with us just saying "Well there is a bug on it so I don't need to credit it..." - you HAVE to credit...

I understand the arguments for broadcaster bugs (though I don't always agree) in the era of non-linear PVR viewing, where it isn't always obvious which CHANNEL you watched a show on. However when watching live digital TV it is pretty difficult to not know what channel you are watching as your channel banner usually pops up with channel and show info for 5+ seconds on each channel change.

I can see the arguments for 4:3 safe dogs being used as the US approaches digital transition - as 4:3 SD screens will increasingly be being fed with a 4:3 centre cut out downconversion of a 16:9 HD signal, so to ensure all viewers see the dog it has to be in 4:3 safe. (This is the same as most 16:9 SD channels in the UK - BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News Channel, BBC Parliament, ITV2,3,4 etc. all have 4:3 safe dogs on their 16:9 content)

The Finals June 5th - Celtics-Lakers like the old days and yes, I was alive when the Knicks last won a title, sadly.

I remember a time back when you could watch TV with no bugs or popups. And soda cost only 50 cents!

I remember the first time I saw a bug years ago and thinking how retarded it was and how the people would not put up with that crap. I still can't believe it caught on, and here we are years later with even more annoying bugs, popup ads everywhere, etc.

I basically have quit watching most TV now. I can still deal with a few shows that still are still tolerable (Like how Lost only has a small ABC logo and I haven't noticed any popups during the show).

I remember soda at 25 cents. I also remember duck-and-cover. I also remember a time before great television shows, like Alias, Lost, and Fringe.

Things change. Mostly for the better.

I don't consider bugs or snipes "for the better". There are less obtrusive ways to brand a program to a network. Self-promotion does not increase the bottom line especially when you piss off enough viewers to the point they don't watch your programming.

I don't consider bugs or snipes "for the better". There are less obtrusive ways to brand a program to a network. Self-promotion does not increase the bottom line especially when you piss off enough viewers to the point they don't watch your programming.
the point is that the bugs DON'T piss off enough viewers to the point where they don't watch the programming. They are never going away.

the point is that the bugs DON'T piss off enough viewers to the point where they don't watch the programming. They are never going away.

Yea I'm not even sure that watermark bugs even annoy most of the mainstream public let alone anger them enough to complain or even mention it during a focus group. TNT & NBC pop-ups on the other hand are a completely different story.

So far, no one has presented any market research study showing that the negative impact of the bugs are greater than the positive impact of the bugs, so expecting the bugs to go away, or get less prominent is nothing more than wishful thinking. Don't take it personally; it's only business.

Are there market studies that show that bugs actually HAVE a "postive impact"? And what is the positive impact, and for whom?

"This is a notice from Sprint, to let you know that starting Monday, you may notice ten-second promotional messages randomly spliced into your calls. Don't take it personally, it's only business!" :rolleyes:

"Hi, I'm a manager from Cutrate Motors Inc. About your engine that failed just after our 36,000 mile warranty expired, starting last year we saved two dollars per car by replacing the engineering-specified trimetal forged copper bearings with ones made from recycled cast aluminum cans. But don't take it personally, it's only business!" :D

I'm naive enough to expect that companies actually respect the customer enough not to compromise their own product just for the sake of a tiny bump in the next quarterly report. You can't make decisions based purely on economics. If you do that, it won't be long before the night sky will be filled with flashing satellite-ads, and we are all paying for our daily air rations.

There are less obtrusive ways to brand a program to a network.That's not the objective. The objective of branding is instilling recognition and association of the service provided with identity of the service provider. This is not a matter of availability of data, but a matter of what manner of branding prompts the best purchasing decisions by typical consumers.

Self-promotion does not increase the bottom line especially when you piss off enough viewers to the point they don't watch your programming.You don't know what percentage of viewers are "pissed off" by this. They do. Until you have vast arrays of market research backing up your criticism of their actions, there is no reason to believe your perspective, IMHO.

the point is that the bugs DON'T piss off enough viewers to the point where they don't watch the programming. They are never going away.Precisely.

Are there market studies that show that bugs actually HAVE a "postive impact"? And what is the positive impact, and for whom?That's a good question. Until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable assumption is that there is. Remember, we viewers are in this for the entertainment. We theoretically don't care about the business. The networks are in it for the money. All they care about is whether it has that positive impact they're looking for.

And of course, the "for whom" is the owners of the network.

"This is a notice from Sprint, to let you know that starting Monday, you may notice ten-second promotional messages randomly spliced into your calls. Don't take it personally, it's only business!" :rolleyes:You're frustrated that business considerations sometimes trump your fun. I can understand that and sympathize with your distress.

I'm naive enough to expect that companies actually respect the customer enough not to compromise their own product just for the sake of a tiny bump in the next quarterly report.I applaud you for at least recognizing your perspective as naive.

That's not the objective. The objective of branding is instilling recognition and association of the service provided with identity of the service provider. This is not a matter of availability of data, but a matter of what manner of branding prompts the best purchasing decisions by typical consumers.

And brand identity is incredibly important from a sales & ad revenue standpoint. It is a fact that certain programs do better simply because of the network it's associated with. So it becomes even more convoluted when you have ventures such as ESPN on ABC for the sales folks, because from a marketing standpoint, though ESPN may be a stronger brand for its base demographic, the ABC brand carries branding and cultural weight of its own with the larger more generalized population. So it is important from a sales standpoint to build associations between that little peacock, the little CBS eye or the ABC meatball, because network brand identities (in this country) are fickle. We all remember the Must-see-TV NBC glory days, the Oldsmobile grandfather CBS days and the rowdy X-Files/Married With Children FOX days and 4th place, Disney needs to sell ABC because there is no way a show like Lost could be a hit days. All of these periods have come and gone. So anything networks can do to help solidify their brand (especially during periods where competitors have the edge a la NBC) they do it. Wait till the Olympics rolls around NBC will launch an all out branding assault.