View Full Version : Logo back on Channel Five
Shaun666
14-10-2007, 22:08
Anybody know why they've decided to re-introduce the on-screen logo on Five ? I thought we'd seen the back of that a few years ago. I hate the bloody things !
jonathan.e
14-10-2007, 22:22
Came back Thursday apparently. According to them they did a survey and a handful of chavs in Croydon town centre had trouble picking Five’s programmes out of a list hence they panicked and became, yet again, the only terrestrial channel to have an on-screen logo instantly cheapening their programmes, not that they need much help with that. Funny how this retrenchment has coincided with soft porn tat creeping back into their schedules and an over-reliance on CSI to the point where it is now on every day on one or other of their channels. And you thought E4 flogged Friends to death!
The management reasoning is thus - If the viewers cannot identify their progmmes then they (Five) cannot demand (and get) decent dosh from their advertisers. Classic bean-counter decision: God forbid they make their programmes/schedule distinctive and vibrant. Nah, slap a bloody great logo in the corner again instead. Job done.
Christ, even ITV has thus far resisted this downmarket approach on ITV1 although their multi-coloured logos on their cable adjuncts are sufficient crimes against the viewers to balance this (no doubt soon to be corrected) oversight out.
Shaun666
14-10-2007, 22:34
Came back Thursday apparently. According to them they did a survey and a handful of chavs in Croydon town centre had trouble picking Five’s programmes out of a list hence they panicked and became, yet again, the only terrestrial channel to have an on-screen logo instantly cheapening their programmes, not that they need much help with that. Funny how this retrenchment has coincided with soft porn tat creeping back into their schedules and an over-reliance on CSI to the point where it is now on every day on one or other of their channels. And you thought E4 flogged Friends to death!
The management reasoning is thus - If the viewers cannot identify their progmmes then they (Five) cannot demand (and get) decent dosh from their advertisers. Classic bean-counter decision: God forbid they make their programmes/schedule distinctive and vibrant. Nah, slap a bloody great logo in the corner again instead. Job done.
Christ, even ITV has thus far resisted this downmarket approach on ITV1 although their multi-coloured logos on their cable adjuncts are sufficient crimes against the viewers to balance this (no doubt soon to be corrected) oversight out.
I can see it ****** you off as much as it does me
nwgarratt
14-10-2007, 22:54
Basically they asked people what channel House, CSI, NCIS and Dirt were on and got back Channel 4 and even BBC.
The logo isn't even in the corner. On my TV it is a good 3 inches from the left and 2 inches from the top.
Shaun666
14-10-2007, 22:59
Basically they asked people what channel House, CSI, NCIS and Dirt were on and got back Channel 4 and even BBC.
The logo isn't even in the corner. On my TV it is a good 3 inches from the left and 2 inches from the top.
Why does it matter whether people know what channel a particular programme is on ? As long as they're watching it that's the important thing surely.
So decisions like this are now being made by canvassing people who are so stupid they can't remember whether a programme is on a channel with advert breaks every 15 mins or on a channel with no ad breaks. Madness !
MovieMax
14-10-2007, 23:00
I cannot see the point of the channel logo always on display. Not too concerned about five though as not watched since loss of Stargate Atlantis. Surely the quality of the programming is enough to promote the channel, not some pointless logo.
jonathan.e
14-10-2007, 23:01
I can see it ****** you off as much as it does me
Sure does. Their Five schedule is a joke anyway - Look at tonight: 3 US movies back to back followed by American police chase footage! And they wonder why the channel’s identity isn’t distinctive from others that offer up the same diet of [almost] wall-to-wall full-fat American telly. Too difficult (read, expensive) to fix the problem at source so like most other things in our wonderful (sic) world it’s far easier just to re-brand it.
Baffling why they feel the need for a seperate US channel as their main one is 95% there already!
nwgarratt
14-10-2007, 23:09
Why does it matter whether people know what channel a particular programme is on ? As long as they're watching it that's the important thing surely.
So decisions like this are now being made by canvassing people who are so stupid they can't remember whether a programme is on a channel with advert breaks every 15 mins or on a channel with no ad breaks. Madness !
There excuse is the people paying for advertising. If the advertisers think people are watching another channel then why advertise on five.
The full conversation with Five is here.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5650139&postcount=14
"due to overwhelming demand from our customers"
Customers will mean advertisers then not viewers. I hate the bloody things. Just how thick are people that don't know which channel they are on or can't press a button to find out ?
Oooo Thursday, House is on tonight - press 4 - oh damn it isn't !
This compounded problems with Five's advertisers, who said to Five that if we buy advertising time during these shows, but audiences think that its on other channels, why should we pay to advertise on Five at all, and not just advertise with Channel 4 or other similar channels instead, as that's where people think they watch the shows, and hence that's where these same viewers will watch our adverts.
Are the advertisers just as thick as the viewers then?
The viewers may not realise that they are watching Five - but they are actually watching it!! Why would the advertisers go off and put their adverts on C4?
That quote makes it sound like they think that these idiot viewers flick over to C4 for the adverts and then (unknowingly) go back to Five to watch the actual programme?
Shaun666
15-10-2007, 08:32
The more you think about this the more ludicrous it becomes.
One of the programmes mentioned was Dirt which was shown on FiveUS which has the biggest, most intrusive logo going. So if people can't remember which channel it's on despite it having a huge logo that suggests that logos don't work anyway !
I wish they'd stopped me in the street and asked me which channel Dirt was on. I'd have told them, FiveUS but I never watch it cos of the stupid disfiguring logo on the screen.
I suspect that the people they asked don't even watch the programmes they were asking about cos they're too busy watching Eastenders, Corrie, X Factor or wall to wall Big Brother, but I could be wrong.
However if I'm right it means they're more interested in the opinions of viewers who don't watch their channel than the opinions of viewers that do.
CRAZY !
TigaSefi
15-10-2007, 08:37
I would have thought people would have known they were on Channel 5 due to the incredible amount of Noise on the screen!
AndyWilson
15-10-2007, 09:07
I zone them out pretty much immediately, so as far as I'm concerned they should put more of them on just to annoy people.
I'd love to see an avforums interview if the head of C5 said "We only do it to wind geeks up" :)
Shaun666
15-10-2007, 09:25
I zone them out pretty much immediately, so as far as I'm concerned they should put more of them on just to annoy people.
I'd love to see an avforums interview if the head of C5 said "We only do it to wind geeks up" :)
Perhaps you have very poor peripheral vision.
In addition to these annoying logo's, every channel is getting is on the act of displaying somewhere on the screen what the next programme is going to be which completely distracts you from what you are watching.
The worse offender seems to be Ch 4 when they actually showed a picture of the x-files guy (Surname escapes me) from Californification as well as the name of the programme :mad: in the crucial/moving moment of what we were watching - completely ruined the scene!
Mr Majestik
15-10-2007, 09:39
The worse offender seems to be Ch 4 when they actually showed a picture of the x-files guy (Surname escapes me) from Californification as well as the name of the programme :mad: in the crucial/moving moment of what we were watching - completely ruined the scene!
That's on 5.
If only they had a logo...
The worse offender seems to be Ch 4 when they actually showed a picture of the x-files guy (Surname escapes me) from Californification as well as the name of the programme :mad: in the crucial/moving moment of what we were watching - completely ruined the scene!
Ahh well there's the proof Five needed.
degeneration
15-10-2007, 10:57
Whats this Channel Five?
Honestly though, I watch Five less than I watch ITV.
Ahh well there's the proof Five needed.
:lol::lol:
Shaun666
15-10-2007, 11:07
Ahh well there's the proof Five needed.
But he was watching the prog so he'd have seen the ads anyway :cuckoo:
Well I dumped Sky due to the logos.
Now there goes channel 5.
But he was watching the prog so he'd have seen the ads anyway :cuckoo:
But Californication is on Five - the poster says he saw it on Channel 4
hence, perhaps Five are right in saying people don't know what channel they're watching
Yep it was on 5 :D, must have been at the end of CSI (new series, well S7 anyway) on Saturday when in popped up.
The image was huge as well when it popped up towards the end at the bottom centre-left of the picture.
BlueDwarf
15-10-2007, 11:59
If the people asked are watching the programs, why should it matter that they couldn't recall what channel they are on?
It shows they watch the station, surely that's all they need?
I was watching an ep of "The Chaser" (Oz comedy show), and they were asking members of the US public when the 9/11 attack took place.
People got it wrong.
Apart from Eastenders and Coronation street, I bet most morons you stop on the street couldn't tell which program was on which channel.
mklion123
15-10-2007, 12:25
The advertisers should be more worried about the crappy picture quality on 5!
It bothers me more when presenters say "don't turn over" just before going to a break, what they should be saying is "don't forget to switch back", as I tend to forget and end up watching something else.
Apart from Eastenders and Coronation street, I bet most morons you stop on the street couldn't tell which program was on which channel.
Apart from Harry Hill's TV Burp, which I know is on ITV, I think all other programs are on the newsgroup channel
Shaun666
15-10-2007, 14:07
Well I dumped Sky due to the logos.
Now there goes channel 5.
I've always been violently anti-logos and never watched 5 till they got rid of it, and never watch anything on BBC3, BBC4, ITV2,3 or 4 or any other freeview channel that sports a logo.
But 2 months ago I decided to treat myself to an HD telly and Sky Sports for the footie this season. I still don't watch many channels with logos but I have to say that Sky OneHD is at least sensibly placed in the corner, relatively small although it's a bit too bright for my liking.
BBC HD by contrast is far too big in my opinion. They should make the text smaller and remove the big white boxes around the letters.
But FiveUS - well they can kiss my flabby white a**e !
But Californication is on Five - the poster says he saw it on Channel 4
hence, perhaps Five are right in saying people don't know what channel they're watching
Now I'm confused. I was flicking round the channels during the ads in 'Without a Trace' on that C4+1 thingy, when I flicked back there was a trail for 'Californication'. I had to press the info button to make sure I was on the right channel. I was !
It was an ADVERT not a trailer :?:
My reply to their response - could have seen this one coming a mile away, but anyway...
---
Thank you for your reply, but I have to take issue with a few points (not that I expect anything but corporate rhetoric in return);
1) "In an environment of up to 400 channels, we feel that it is entirely appropriate to carry a DOG" & "we believe that the majority of this audience are extremely visually literate and comfortable with the use of DOGs"
Are your "feelings" and "beliefs" backed up by any kind of statistical data? I don't know one person who would answer in the positive if quizzed about the use of DOGs, nor do I know anyone who has been quizzed. If you can make your findings on the matter available to the public (the people who watch your channel), and the results skewed one way, I'd be happy to accept that, however, I doubt this is the case. If you do conduct surveys, can I be included?
2) "The vast majority of channels carry them, most permanently and virtually every channel at some point has one during the day."
What made five stand out for me was the LACK of a DOG, it gave an air of quality in a sea of mediocrity - are five now playing follow the leader? Are five now going to start following the trend of US channels and inserting mini-adverts overlaying the current program, during the shows? Where does it end? Permanent adverts running picture in picture alongside the programmes?
---
Customer Services wrote:
> Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the re-introduction of our DOG.
>
> In an environment of up to 400 channels, we feel that it is entirely appropriate to carry a DOG. The vast majority of channels carry them, most permanently and virtually every channel at some point has one during the day. 85% of households in the UK are watching digital TV and we believe that the majority of this audience are extremely visually literate and comfortable with the use of DOGs.
>
> The logo is translucent white and completely unobtrusive; it will appear on screen at all programming times except for during commercial and promotional breaks.
> Your comments about the re-introduction of our logo have been noted in our Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company.
>
> If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
> Thank you for your interest in Five.
Shaun666
19-10-2007, 13:25
Had exactly the same response as the above poster. I wrote back saying how can it be completely unobtrusive if people are complaining about it ?
No response so far.
I don't mind too much about these logo's on screen. Not something I'd go as far as writing in to complain about it. What does annoy me is, and what most channels are guilty of now are squeezing down the credits so they can show trailers for other programmes and/or a menu of what's on later on. As well as the continuity announcer chatting all over the credits too. As demonstrated in this screengrab here......
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/Macca2/Neighbourscredits.jpg
The screen is squeezed to such a small size, that you can't even make out any of the names of the credits atall.
That's what really annoys me. And I've been meaning to write and complain about it to the relevant broadcasting companies for sometime but not got round to it. Not that they'd probably do anything about it. This sort of practice has been used more and more frequently over the past few years. And it's here to stay sadly.
BlueDwarf
19-10-2007, 17:51
The BBC are rights ***** at it.
I was listening to a Mark Kermode film review podcast from 5 live, and half way through they stick in an ad "You're listening to a 5 live podcast"
Yeah, I KNOW! I DOWNLOADED IT! AND THEN I PUT IT ON MY IPOD!
*****.
Charlie Brooker had a rant about the credit squeeze and his last episodes have gone unmolested. Now they all just need to work it into the plot and they should be fine.
Bapapapa
19-10-2007, 18:57
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/Macca2/Neighbourscredits.jpg
Celebrity Masterchef is back on..? :suspect:
Another one for the generic reply here. They caught me in the wrong mood I'm afraid
Dear Sir.
Thank you for your reply on the subject of Dogs. It is much the same as many I have seen mentioned on forums, no - what am I saying, in fact it is entirely the same since its a cut and paste job....sigh.
Another channel falls to the banal pap and over branding gods of uk tv. Surely branding should act to guide the user not to overwhelm the programs the channel is carrying. You say that you find it "entirely appropriate", well, that's nice - but you're not the viewer, I am and whilst I'd say your logo isn't among the worst (although the Five US is up there with the Disney channel as worst in competition) it's still annoying, distracting and unnecessary (unless you think your channels primary demographic is so gibberingly, droolingly stupid they can't operate their remote control for fear of turning off the set).
What a shame Five has decided to go from leading the way and pushing ahead without the need for cheap, amateurish presentation to a "Me too, me too, I want to play" standpoint.
Well, I suppose you'd better now start clearing the schedules for "help, I'm a celebrities' big brothers' dancing queen" or whatever cheap rubbish (and associated thieving phone competition) comes next in the marketeers handbook of "things the public wants".
Thank goodness for DVD box sets given the state of the non public funded broadcasters in this country. Once US TV was a joke given the number of adverts and intrusive logos. Having seen the standard of US TV first hand recently I can honestly say the presentation is better than ITV/Four/Sky (and now five) seems to be capable of.
Yours Sadly,
....
As others have said, it wont do diddly since the channels will broadcast knowing no one is watching if they get the money from advertisers but made me feel better..
Quincunx
20-10-2007, 23:30
The BBC are rights ***** at it.
I was listening to a Mark Kermode film review podcast from 5 live, and half way through
You're posting on thedvdforums.com - A Poisonous Monkey site
they stick in an ad "You're listening to a 5 live podcast"
Yeah, I KNOW! I DOWNLOADED IT! AND THEN I PUT IT ON MY IPOD!
*****.
..
jonathan.e
21-10-2007, 17:06
Wow - Just when you though they couldn’t show anymore contempt for the viewer - Trailing Dirty Dancing on-screen over the first 15 seconds of Spanglish after it came back from the break. And that after they’d just plugged it with a trailer anyway!!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.