Personally, I don't believe that the average person or majority of viewers prefers all of this garbage at all. I think the network execs made the decision which they based on supposed research (which I think doesn't exist). I would love to read the research behind their decision but, that will never happen. When one network started, they all began to follow like sheep. Their logic does not make it right. I am with many others here, I stopped watching NBC, TNT and other channels and let them know the reasons why. If it continues to get worse, I will cancel my subscription to E* and let them know why too.

South Park had it right - part of the blame for NBC's obnoxious graphics goes to Canada as Miranda makes alot of the equipment used for that. ;)

Personally, I don't believe that the average person or majority of viewers prefers all of this garbage at all. I think the network execs made the decision which they based on supposed research (which I think doesn't exist). I would love to read the research behind their decision but, that will never happen. When one network started, they all began to follow like sheep. Their logic does not make it right. I am with many others here, I stopped watching NBC, TNT and other channels and let them know the reasons why. If it continues to get worse, I will cancel my subscription to E* and let them know why too.It's not about what people "prefer"--no one particularly wants this stuff. It's about how many people are willing to tolerate it. I've learned to ignore it, because I don't expect "free" television to be eyesore-free or of A/V-ophile quality. I've had to go back and look to see what people are talking about here by scanning recordings of stuff on NBC that I'd already watched. I'd hardly noticed the things that drive some of you crazy and I am someone who enjoys very high quality video and sound--I just don't expect to find it on commercial national network television.

If someone like me with an investment in decent quality HT equipment doesn't care about this stuff, there's little chance that most people will. If it really bothers you, you should stop watching it and send the networks messages telling them that you've stopped watching and why. Just don't expect that any significant portion of their viewership feels the same way. Most people will be indifferent.

I think the network execs made the decision which they based on supposed research (which I think doesn't exist).What possible advantage would they derive from doing things that don't help their bottom-lines?


It's not about what people "prefer"--no one particularly wants this stuff. It's about how many people are willing to tolerate it.More precisely, it's a matter of what best supports satisfying their obligations to their owners. That isn't a matter of preferences; it's a matter of what drives specific consumer behaviors.

If someone like me with an investment in decent quality HT equipment doesn't care about this stuff, there's little chance that most people will.This is really critical. We're talking about a majority plus part of the minority versus the other part of the minority; which do you think will "win"?

If it really bothers you, you should stop watching it and send the networks messages telling them that you've stopped watching and why. Just don't expect that any significant portion of their viewership feels the same way. Most people will be indifferent.Absolutely on-target.

and here comes CW. It doesn't go away btw.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3904/cwoi6.th.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cwoi6.jpg)Yikes.





Can Smallville create a character to kill the big CW bug and the other crap they have on the screen? Maybe John Goodman could make a cameo?
That One Tree Hill bug persisted the entire Smallville rerun thursday night. I hope it was an accidental oversight, but how could that be missed? It looks like they're tryin' to give NBC a run for their money. :rolleyes:

That One Tree Hill bug persisted the entire Smallville rerun thursday night. I hope it was an accidental oversight, but how could that be missed? It looks like they're tryin' to give NBC a run for their money. :rolleyes:
If that stays up I will not be looking forward to when new the episodes returns.

Promo Bug from white to transparent, some improvement. The next step should be invisible. Still unacceptable.

Just noticed last night that Universal HD have super-sized their logo/bug. Its huge! Very intrusive and distracting, just like the CW!

Those complaints must be working:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9831/snapshot200801080001vh5.th.jpg (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot200801080001vh5.jpg)
The text is at least %50 smaller and the same opacity as the logo.

Those complaints must be working:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9831/snapshot200801080001vh5.th.jpg (http://img175.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snapshot200801080001vh5.jpg)
The text is at least %50 smaller and the same opacity as the logo.

Hmm, your local nbc affiliate has the yellow bar on the left to :o

Sorry for the delay in responding. The holidays and the aftermath has resulted in it taking a wee while to catch up on some things.

One thing that often gets overlooked is that, sometimes, there simply isn't a viable business model, and indeed, sometimes conditions change that a viable business model dies, replaced by an environment where no viable business model exists for the same service.

Let me be clearer about that: The viable business model for NBC, TNT, etc., is that the advertisements get people to buy things, and that makes it worthwhile to advertisers to pay for those advertisements. Those payments represent the only way networks can fulfill their obligations to their owners, i.e., it represents the viability of their business model.

So back to commercial avoidance; I'm going to word this very explicitly. The specific words underlined are critically important: The less people buy things because of the commercials included in television shows, the crappier television will get, because there simply won't be the money there -- the viable business model -- to support quality television.

All of what you have written here is 100% true. One thing not mentioned is commercial clutter. It has been a worry in the trades. Commercial retention is a problem, because there are just way too many in an hour. The 18-19 minutes an hour for commercials and promos is just plain stupid. Give us more program content (actually put back the stolen program content) and air less, a lot less, in the way of promos (repeating the same show promos constantly makes one go numb) and commercials, airing commercials that are worth watching (the Apple Mac ads for example).

It isn't a matter of whether the commercials are seen or watched... it actually matters how much we buy things because of watching them. As the general public has gotten more jaded, becoming more dissatisfied with being "sold to", the more the quality of the television programs offered is being undercut. Note that this has nothing to do with snipes or bugs or billboards. Before we get back to that, we're already heading down the path towards crappier television. Indeed, to the extent these things get folks to buy more stuff (and despite your feeling to the contrary, they actually do), they're actually helping reverse that trend towards crappier television.

I agree with you. See my note above the quote.

A new viable business model? How about a $2 fee for every 42 minute, commercial-free, bug-free, iron-clad DRM-protected episode you decide to watch? That is what I believe it will take. If the DRM isn't iron-clad, up that to $3. Without DRM, the whole model falls apart, i.e., the business model is not viable.

50 minute programs and you got a deal. Wait-a-sec. That is called HBO/Showtime/PPV/OnDemand.

Reading between the words means that you're creating the contempt for viewers, rather than the executive.

It is how I feel that I am being treated by the networks. Even though they think they aren't contemptuous, it is the perception that I have.

I'm going to assume that you made up the contempt until you can provide a reference. If you don't have the evidence, benefit of the doubt towards the person you're trying to condemn is warranted.[

It is not made up. I'm fairly certain it was a New York Times article that got quoted in another on-line (legit press type) site. The network exec. was asked about the bugs/snipes and how so many people hate them. His basic response was that they knew that, but were willing to put up with the flack of using them.

To me that is contempt of their viewers. Others might not take it take way, but to come out and say that we don't care that you don't like them, they "think" that they are doing some good, so they will continue to use them.

It is important to understand, though, that what people "like" is irrelevant except when it comes to love and hobbies. In a business circumstance, what matters is behaviors -- what people actually do.

And I do by putting my displeasure about these damn things on my website and do postings in forums like this.

HDNet will probably be the last one to go. With respect to Mr. Cuban, AFAIC, HDNet won't have much going for it if they get rid of their high bit-rate and unadulterated presentation.

I currently can't get HDNet. I did for a few months. As far as bitrate is concerned, the cable companies are hurting it. Time Warner bit-starves their stuff. Has D* moved it to MPEG-4 yet?

But, do you know something about their HD feeds that I don't?

You should to take a course in statistics. Aside from helping you understand this issue, it would help you better understand the world in general. I consider it one of the most useful courses I took.

I fully understand that it is all based on the statistical mathematics model. But there is a break even point where you'd think you'd want to be, i.e., the most amount of sampling you can do, where more samples won't make a difference.

It is pretty bad when a ratings report said that 100,000 people watched said show. How many people in the sample base actually watched? Three? My point is that from the numbers I've read, there are too few sample for the millions of homes involved. Those samples have to cover race, age and gender. Way too few for my liking.

When there were only three major networks and PBS, the smaller sample was only sliced between those networks. The nuimber of channels has drastically increased, yet I believe the sample rate has not kept up with that increase, spreading the current sample between too many sources.

Actually, the opposite of what you said in your first paragraph is precisely the reason for what you mentioned in the second: there is no "sweeps" period except for local news anymore. Ratings are continous now.

Yes and no. The networks still do the ratings stunts during the three major sweeps periods. And yes the idea is to get viewers to watch and then stay tuned for the local news. Its been that way for ages.

Of course, this February it is going to be real tough to do ratings stunts. There isn't enough new scripted programming to make a dent. All this reality crap just turns me off.

I don't care what the networks put on, I always only watch one local news channel and it has been that way for 30+ years. But that is me and I've only ever gotten one paper diary in those 30 years.

The problem is, the ratings clock starts ticking as soon as a show hits air and a network gets gunshy when they end up third or fourth right out of the gate. They don't care if a show could potentially find an audience and become a hit later - it's pulling down the ad value and, in return, the stock price NOW. This leads to a bunch of "sure thing", quick grab shows that will bolster the nightly rating, but serve no one, especially the audience.

Oops, should have reponded to this in the other posting.

You are 100%. It is all about the almighty $$$ these days,

The WGA strike has resulted in some shows staying on a lot longer they they would have otherwise and is one that is being dumped on the air after production was even shut down. (Name that tune :) )

One day the networks and their ad buyers will realize that less is more. For instance, The Masters employs a far more effective advertising strategy than any of primetime programming. Sponsored programming with few sponsors and limited interruptions generates the most consumer goodwill and the most consumer retention of the product.

Indeed, tying products also generates consumer loyalty. Just look at the success sports teams have had picking up various sponsors. Fewer ads specifically tailored to the programming allows for a greater likelihood of tying the program with the product, again boosting consumer goodwill.

SI just wish all the JSP viewers felt the same way I do,

I must be dense - JSP?

I care and have lashed out at the neworks on my website. They can sue me, which would let me bring in lots and lots of viewers that hate the clutter as much as I do, so my calling them stupid idiots will ring true.

Polling data is very accurate of attitudes and trends, even election results. Television viewing isn't a special category that defies polling.

Apples and oranges. Polling is done within a narrow scope of questions. Viewers are asked to list, of the hundreds of channels, what they watched in 15 minute windows. Instead of a question with 1-4 answers, the question has a range of over a hundred answers, thereby fragmenting the data.

Then it is further fragmented by race, age and gender.

As a further example of what another poster touched on is personal taste. Say there is this guy and he likes comedies. Can't really stand scripted Sci-Fi. Me, on the other hand, doesn't care for comedies (Big Bang Theory exempted :D ), but loves scripted Sci-Fi. He gets the ratings book. Every time he marks down his comedies, it counts for two viewers, him and me. But I didn't watch the comedies, I watched the Sci-Fi shows. My shows get ZERO ratings hits, thereby getting canceled. But wait, the shows got 50% of the audience, but that was unknown, because I wasn't measured.

That is how I feel, because too many of the shows I like go away and all of the crap, in my eyes, is still on the air.

There are two legitimate critiques of Nielson sampling:

1) Whether Nielson has pulled together a genuinely random sample.
2) Whether, after becoming a Nielson family, knowing the power you hold changes your viewing habits.

These critiques are inter-related. A truely random sample won't be possible until every individual American has a DVR/STB that tracks their viewing. A statistician would then be able to select a purely random sample for every hour of television and none of the viewers would have a clue they were being polled. But that'll never happen.

Unfortunately your idea is a good one, but won't ever happen. Also, if every data sample was used, the viewers would also know that their watching something just to try and give it ratings won't, since they are such a small cog in the wheel, so they'll just settle dow and watch what they really want to watch and the ratings will be 100% accurate.

Of course, then there will come a time where a show is on its last legs and the mass e-mail goes out that sayd to watch, in order to save the show and in this case, all those sets changing to that program will make a difference, unlike today where all those changed channels pretty much means nothing because they aren't a nielsen family or has a DVR.

But that would be unnecessarily time consuming given the accuracy of polling. Compiling data from 2000 STBs versus 300 million STBs.

The problem is those 2000 STBs only cover 6.666x10-6 of the STBs. A really horrible sample, considering all of the things mentioned above.

If you were just choosing one of five colors, fine. But 1 of over 100 channels? Not so fine.

NBC is the worst absolute worst, gee I wonder if Celebrity Apprentice starts tonight?

No, the CW is in a race to be worse at this game than NBC is and right now, The Cw is worst. (of the broadcast networks)

Ken, you know I'm not much of a word mincer... However, truth be told, that was the PC version. I had to revise the first draft because of this being a family board and all ;).

I certainly haven't minced words on my web site. I did a first, but they they really pissed me off, so I let it fly. I suspect there are some family PeeCees that are blocking that particular page :D

When you are 4th or 5th as NBC/CW are, you find any desperate way to plug shows. These promo bugs are commercials as far as I am concerned and should be looked at. If it doesn't stop, these networks will add more and more crap and they will look like Bloomburg.

Here's the catch-22 of that logic. If Joe Public isn't watching NBC or The CW, they aren't going to see that damn bug constantly announce such-n-such a show. The only viewers that will see that crap are the few that are watching and all those two networks are doing is driving them away al well.

The bug on The Tonight Show is formatted for 16:9 and it seems they can't move it into 4:3 placement for the SD feed so they turned the logo off on it

Huh? The Leno tape is clean, there are zero bugs. The bug is inserted at NBC network operations. One bug inserter for HD and a different one for SD.

What you have pointed out is a screwup in network operations.

The CW, on the other hand, is such a small time operation, that two tapes are assembled for that nights progrmming. That network is not assembled from a server farm. The last I heard that was the case. Whatever screwup there is for the east coast feed is repeated exactly the same for the west coast.

One day the networks and their ad buyers will realize that less is more. For instance, The Masters employs a far more effective advertising strategy than any of primetime programming. Sponsored programming with few sponsors and limited interruptions generates the most consumer goodwill and the most consumer retention of the product.

BINGO! That happens every now and then. An example is an episode of American Dreams, where Ford was the sole sponsor and limited the ads. One of the ads was a very well put together 2-minute mini-movie that worked really well. It was so well done, that I extracted out that HD ad and kept it.

That is the way it should be done.

BTW, there isn't anything that will get me to buy a Ford, not even that ad :D

Hmm, your local nbc affiliate has the yellow bar on the left to :oFix the overscan setting on your TV.

Yes this is a major turn off for me, sometimes It makes me change the channel, Fox and SCI-FI are almost as bad as TNT and NBC.

I must be dense - JSP?He probably means "Joe Six Pack", most common abbreviated "J6P". A reference to the common man; as opposed to anyone reading or posting at AVS Forum, who is probably at least a little-bit of an A/V-ophile.

I was wondering where MrVideo was lately and he's now catching up burning the midnight oil! Perhaps our complaints to NBC are working, somewhat. I watched part of 1 vs 100 and the transparent bug (AMERICAN GLADIATORS) was an improvement, but overlaid some of the graphics, as they did on Deal or No Deal. About the only NBC show I have watched lately other than the Redskins-Seahawks.

The CW is a total waste of time these days. I can't enjoy Smallville anymore.

I was wondering where MrVideo was lately and he's now catching up burning the midnight oil! Perhaps our complaints to NBC are working, somewhat. I watched part of 1 vs 100 and the transparent bug (AMERICAN GLADIATORS) was an improvement, but overlaid some of the graphics, as they did on Deal or No Deal. About the only NBC show I have watched lately other than the Redskins-Seahawks.

The CW is a total waste of time these days. I can't enjoy Smallville anymore.
If they wanted to make an even better improvement get rid of the promotion of new shows above the bug. I'd be happy with just the transparent bug. I'll never be happy with the bug and then promoting another show.

I'd be happy with just the transparent bug.

I never thought I'd say this, but me too. I've hated bugs since day one, but now it seems we are lucky if that's all we get. I had to a piece of black cardboard over the corner of my screen last night during "Medium" -- no way was I going to stare at that for an hour. There's something about TEXT being there -- your eye just keeps on reading it, even if you don't want to. Of course, I'm sure that's what they are hoping for. Even though I read it, it did not cause me to take any action (other than covering it up) ...

I had to a piece of black cardboard over the corner of my screen last night during "Medium" -- no way was I going to stare at that for an hour. There's something about TEXT being there -- your eye just keeps on reading it, even if you don't want to. Of course, I'm sure that's what they are hoping for.Every time you guys point out something like this, I have to go back. I'd just finished watching my recording of Medium and I'd never noticed that text (hadn't really been aware of the bug). Doesn't much matter--I don't care for L&O: CI (can't stand the D'Onofrio character) and no matter how much they advertise it, I ain't watching it. But apparently they are getting through to somebody :D.

The CW, on the other hand, is such a small time operation, that two tapes are assembled for that nights progrmming. That network is not assembled from a server farm. The last I heard that was the case.Last I heard that small time operation was called CBS.

I'd be happy with just the transparent bug.

I would be too! :D I was looking forward to january '08, since it is an Olympic year. I was expecting the original, transparent NBC/Olympic logo to come back. And I was expecting it to be on the RIGHT side of the screen. I cannot stand this dirty white/grey colored peacock logo. I've hated it since the beginning of last season. Especially on dark shows like L&O:SVU, L&O, ER, and Medium, that opaque logo REALLY stands out.

My favorite logo was the clear peacock w/NBC lettering under it on the right side of the screen on HD and the small clear peacock on the right side of the screen for letterbox programming.

I am glad to see the "NBC HD" logo gone. That was the most hideous thing I've ever seen! A high school student could design a better logo. That opaque white bird with "HD" superimposed next to it. I hope that eyesore never comes back!

I would be too! :D I was looking forward to january '08, since it is an Olympic year.It's a Summer Games year, with the competition to be held in Beijing in August (you can see the schedule here (http://en.beijing2008.cn/cptvenues/schedule/). The next Winter Games will be held in Vancouver in February, 2010.

It's a Summer Games year, with the competition to be held in Beijing in August (you can see the schedule here (http://en.beijing2008.cn/cptvenues/schedule/). The next Winter Games will be held in Vancouver in February, 2010.

I know it's a Summer Olympic year. I was looking forward to January because NBC starts using the Olympic logo in January of Summer Olympic years and at the beginning of the TV season for Winter Olympic years. I was expecting the old Olympic logo, but I see they made the Olympic branding fit around their new advertising campaign.

And you're right, I'm looking forward to seeing this summer's games in HD; my first time! :D

And you're right, I'm looking forward to seeing this summer's games in HD; my first time! :DAh, your first Olympic year with HDTV! NBC Universal usually spreads coverage out throughout their HD and standard-def channels. I was a bit disappointed last time by what they chose to cover in HD on Universal HD--I think that it was mostly Hockey. There may be at least one new HD channel in their group this time.

There may be at least one new HD channel in their group this time.

USA is already in HD, but only on DirecTV and Comcast. CNBC has an HD channel on DirecTV and an HD conversion may be coming to MSNBC, the cable side of NBC News this year. These channels launching is only half the battle. The REAL hard part will be Time Warner adding them to their line up. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm really feeling the pain of not having USA-HD tonight with Monk and Psych. The "blown up" letterboxed/480i picture on USA SD is GARBAGE compared to a true 1080i HD broadcast.

I did get to see Psych in HD once when it was on NBC HD last year.

USA is already in HD, but only on DirecTV.

Not true: For Comcast in Annapolis, it's on digital channel 235. Psych was on in HD when I switched to it a few seconds ago.

I watched Earl from last night and a few times the damn peacock would be all colorful, then they would show the grayed NBC logo and reminding me of some other show will come on.

Hey NBC guess what, I won't be watching it. Hell, I watched Earl 2 hours ago and I don't even remember what show you were trying to spam me to watch.

USA is already in HD, but only on DirecTV. There are also rumors of CNBC launching HD and an HD conversion coming to MSNBC and NBC News this year.nickdawg,

This is AVS. If you're going to start barking, you better be accurate, which your post is not.

- USA HD is available on Comcast in addition to DirecTV.

- CNBC HD is an existing HD channel, on DirecTV. (Graphics only)

- As for NBC News, the Today Show has been HD since September of 2006, and NBC Nightly News has been in HD since March 2007.

Yes this is a major turn off for me, sometimes It makes me change the channel, Fox and SCI-FI are almost as bad as TNT and NBC.

Huh? Unless I'm missing something, Fox doesn't snipe/banner/whatever, their HD video.

Fox can't put text above the locally produced bug. They can go to the left of it though.

He probably means "Joe Six Pack", most common abbreviated "J6P". A reference to the common man; as opposed to anyone reading or posting at AVS Forum, who is probably at least a little-bit of an A/V-ophile.

Yep, that old reference I understand. Just not seen it written as JSP. I would have missed J6P as well, since I haven't heard someone use that term in years.

I was wondering where MrVideo was lately and he's now catching up burning the midnight oil!

I'm always up past midnight. Lately until 2-4am, with the alarm going off at 8am to go to work (M-F). I still can't seem to catch up.

The CW is a total waste of time these days. I can't enjoy Smallville anymore.

Did you see my web page about all this, especially the inside joke during an episode of Gossip Girl?

Send e-mail to The CW bitching about their damn bug and snipes. I think it is feedback@thecw.com. Double-check their website.

What is sad is that CBS is part owner of the network and the big man has not come down on them about this. CBS doesn't do it, yet The CW does.

Dawn definately needs to be committed.

Last I heard that small time operation was called CBS.

Like mother like daughter :D

nickdawg,

This is AVS. If you're going to start barking, you better be accurate, which your post is not.

- USA HD is available on Comcast in addition to DirecTV.

- CNBC HD is an existing HD channel, on DirecTV. (Graphics only)

- As for NBC News, the Today Show has been HD since September of 2006, and NBC Nightly News has been in HD since March 2007.

Ken, other than that I think he was right on target! :D

Ken, other than that I think he was right on target! :D

Indeed.

I tried to message them and got the message back, so I just went to their site. There actual e-mail as copied from their site is - feedback@CWTV.com


I'm always up past midnight. Lately until 2-4am, with the alarm going off at 8am to go to work (M-F). I still can't seem to catch up.



Did you see my web page about all this, especially the inside joke during an episode of Gossip Girl?

Send e-mail to The CW bitching about their damn bug and snipes. I think it is feedback@thecw.com. Double-check their website.

What is sad is that CBS is part owner of the network and the big man has not come down on them about this. CBS doesn't do it, yet The CW does.

Dawn definately needs to be committed.

I know it is somewhat off-topic but I would like to thank the stupid decision makers at the US networks for starting a trend that Australian networks (well one so far) are already copying.

Do they really think this helps their cause by advertising throughout the entire show?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5479/ninehdunderbellywatermawh4.th.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5479/ninehdunderbellywatermawh4.jpg)

Above is the first time an Aussie station has done this but it looks ridiculous. BTW, that is how it was on TV, there is no strange aliasing going on - it actually was difficult to read. Today they dropped it on the HD feed but changed the text to a larger size with increased clarity.

I really hate it when they feel the need to drive advertising in-show.

This is an image of your future. "They" are driven by profit, not by aesthetics. The only way to prevent them from going down any specific path is to withhold the profit they get from going down that path. Otherwise, you're essentially endorsing their going down that path.