DOGGY-DOOS

BBC3 is, unfortunately, a channel paid for by the licence-payers which puts out programmes that run the gamut from dire to dreadful. The BBC clearly thinks so little of its viewer that it has to broadcast a DOG (Digital Originated Graphic) permanently to remind him a) they are watching BBC3 and b) to breathe. This led in 2005 to complaints, which the BBC treated in its usual way. It was rather narked when this cavalier attitude led to far more complaints, and they had to issue a formal apology. And, of course, hide the original article and pretend they had done nothing wrong. But not before the blogosphere had got hold of the original and copied it. How dare they?

---------------------------------------------

BBC Three News, Monday 8th August 2005

Beware of the DOG

In a world where international terrorism, indiscriminate murder and global poverty are facts of life, you might think people would have more important things to worry about than little logos in the top corner of their television screen.

Alas, no.

Those little graphics displaying the names of all your favourite digital channels – BBC Three, MTV, Bid-Up TV, UK Living – technically known as Digital Originated Graphics (DOGs) are the cause of much consternation among certain viewers.

Just don’t call them geeks who should get a life…

These people, and there are hundreds, say DOGs vandalise their TV screens, defacing pictures, detracting from programmes, and even causing “burn” damage to their posh plasma screens.

On Friday, BBC Three’s DOG was relaunched, bigger and bolder than ever, much to the annoyance of some viewers. As one person put it: “Oh wow, that is truly awful Bright white, 100% opaque and HUGE!!”

In response, you may notice if you watch tonight that the logo is less opaque, so don’t say the BBC doesn’t listen.

Of course, if you still don’t like it, you can always complain.

For their part, broadcasters say the DOG is a vital method of channel identification in this multi-channel world, and an integral part of their branding strategy.

The argument goes that because there are now so many channels, viewers need all the help they can get navigating around their TV and identifying the channels they feel at home with. This is especially true for people new to digital TV and possibly bewildered and confused by the amount of choice there is.

And because everyone else is doing it, channel controllers say their hands are tied. They also point to research which suggests DOGs only upset a very small minority of viewers.

The theory is that the longer DOGs remain the more they will become accepted as part of the TV landscape – something the anti-DOG brigade reject.

DOG’s detractors say the on-screen logos have turned digital TV into “an unholy mess slowly withering behind an increasing confusion of corporate branding and pointless messages”.

They could put up with them if there was a simple button you could press to turn them on and off – indeed this is one of their key demands.

Even worse, they say, are the “red button” prompts. On BBC channels these generally lead to free and popular “interactive” services, such as Glastonbury Multiscreen, but on commercial channels pressing the red button may lead to premium content, at a price.

Logofree TV say: “We believe in choice, in the right to clean television pictures of the highest quality. We want virtual DOGs and interactive content 'opt-outs', so all viewers can control what comes into their front room.”

Even on the launch night of BBC Three in February 2003, one viewer complained:

"Get rid of the annoying dog up the corner and you may get some viewers, it's worked for Channel 5 that now looks like a proper TV station. In the mean time, I'll give it a miss."

Much to the delight of the logo-free lobby, Channel 5, now re-branded as Five, has dropped its DOG. A sign, perhaps, of the new channel beginning to “mature” and a beacon of hope for the campaigners.

If you agree that DOGs are a serious issue, there’s even an online petition you can sign. 7,587 people already have.

Perhaps though, on reflection, you might conclude that there are more important things to get cross about.

The BBC 'apology'

Like its on-air counterpart, the BBC Three News website takes an irreverent look at the stories making the headlines. The story on DOGS was intended to be light-hearted and to encourage discussion on the important issue of on-screen graphics. On reflection, we feel that we did not quite achieve the right tone and apologise for the offence this has caused some of our users. For this reason we have decided to remove the story from the website.

---------------------------------  ----------------------------------