[jackjack]

i'd like to see dynamic watermarks, that pop up when you flick onto the station, and then fade out, even if you flick to the station during commercials... surely they can do this with digital??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to see something like that also

[Reuder7]

Is the Ten watermark looking alittle stretch now, during Judge Judy?

[anthonysimilion]

I'd like to see something like that also

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really very unnecessary. Watermarks are 'supposed' to be there for station identification - so you know what station you're watching. With digital set top boxes each station is able to broadcast a name for each 'channel' - so your set top box gives you the station name on it's on screen display when you change channels, eliminating one of the big 'reasons' for watermarks.

Also, having a dynamically appearing watermark is not possible. For mcpaton's idea to occur, it would have to be generated from the home viewer's equipment.

There's just nothing good about watermarks for the viewer.

[Cyvros]

That's really very unnecessary. Watermarks are 'supposed' to be there for station identification - so you know what station you're watching. With digital set top boxes each station is able to broadcast a name for each 'channel' - so your set top box gives you the station name on it's on screen display when you change channels, eliminating one of the big 'reasons' for watermarks.

Also, having a dynamically appearing watermark is not possible. For mcpaton's idea to occur, it would have to be generated from the home viewer's equipment.

There's just nothing good about watermarks for the viewer.

For the next couple of years at least, not everyone will be having digital. Once everyone stops broadcasting analogue, watermarks won't really be necessary (unless 7news has yet another exclusive :sarcastic:). I think that if everyone just has 50-75% transparency, 'monochrome' watermarks at the moment (I'd prefer the ABC to use their previous logo as a basis for their watermark), that'd be fine.

[dk32]

That's really very unnecessary. Watermarks are 'supposed' to be there for station identification - so you know what station you're watching.

Most TV networks say the watermark is there for "branding" as opposed to simply identifying the channel... ie. so that you are constantly reminded that 'CSI Miami' for instance is a Nine network program.

I'd like to see the ACMA tackle the TV networks on watermarks.. to me, it's advertising, and TV networks already get 14-15 minutes per hour as it is. But I doubt very much that it will happen.

[EuroKick]

Most TV networks say the watermark is there for "branding" as opposed to simply identifying the channel... ie. so that you are constantly reminded that 'CSI Miami' for instance is a Nine network program.

I'd like to see the ACMA tackle the TV networks on watermarks.. to me, it's advertising, and TV networks already get 14-15 minutes per hour as it is. But I doubt very much that it will happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're getting a free service.. Networks can put what ever they like on screen.

[dk32]

You're getting a free service.. Networks can put what ever they like on screen.

Just because it's "free" doesn't mean that networks should be able to 'do whatever they like'.

And it's not really "free" imo. We buy their advertisers' products so that advertisers will keep the TV networks in business.

There are rules regarding "program matter" vs "non-program matter"...

I recall the ACMA/ABA stating that they would have been prepared to take action against TV networks over the number of pop-up ads that appeared last summer if the level of complaints justified it. Infomercials are another case in point, but I guess I am getting off topic now..

Finally, what about Pay TV?
It's not free, yet they still put hideous "watermarks" on their channels.
If I were a Foxtel subscriber, I'd complain.

[Mr Q]

Branding and advertising are two very different things. A watermark is not an advertisement, it is reinforcement of a brand. It's like saying the Kellogg's logo on a box of Corn Flakes is advertising... Or that the M&Ms symbol on each individual M&M is advertising - it's not. It's just branding.

[mathew]

i dont mind watermarks, the only annoying ones are the WIN NETWORK one which is solid and covers up the 9 one and for some reason one day on today on WIN HD there was a solid WIN HIGH DEFINITION watermark, even though it gets a clean feed!!! and the ABC2 watermark, they should just use the 2 and make sure they place it so that when a show is in full screen it doesnt disappear. It can help for example if you are at someone elses house with analogue tv, you dont know what numbers the channels are so you just guess, the watermarks could help if you didnt know what was on tv.

[dk32]

Branding and advertising are two very different things. A watermark is not an advertisement, it is reinforcement of a brand. It's like saying the Kellogg's logo on a box of Corn Flakes is advertising... Or that the M&Ms symbol on each individual M&M is advertising - it's not. It's just branding.

I agree that you need to be able to tell the difference between a box of Corn Flakes and a box of Weetbix for instance, but consumers can find out what channel they are watching without the need to revert to near-permanent 'watermarks' on our screens for this.

If you're not sure what channel the telly is on, just one press of the button on the remote will answer the question for you.

I'm sorry, but the use of virtually permanent 'watermarks' as "brand re-inforcement" is just so over-the-top and degrading to viewers that, to me, it's just "advertising in disguise".

PRGs and ads for network programs at the beginning/end of ad breaks do enough for brand re-inforcement in my opinion.

And if TV networks want further brand re-inforcement, they should revert to 'proper' advertising like everyone else (eg. in the papers so that you are reminded of the brand when you're not watching TV).

[Mr Q]

I agree that you need to be able to tell the difference between a box of Corn Flakes and a box of Weetbix for instance, but consumers can find out what channel they are watching without the need to revert to near-permanent 'watermarks' on our screens for this.

If you're not sure what channel the telly is on, just one press of the button on the remote will answer the question for you.

I'm sorry, but the use of virtually permanent 'watermarks' as "brand re-inforcement" is just so over-the-top and degrading to viewers that, to me, it's just "advertising in disguise".

PRGs and ads for network programs at the beginning/end of ad breaks do enough for brand re-inforcement in my opinion.

And if TV networks want further brand re-inforcement, they should revert to 'proper' advertising like everyone else (eg. in the papers so that you are reminded of the brand when you're not watching TV).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look, obviously you've got a vehement opposition to watermarks, and this is a nice line of argument to take. I just don't think it holds any water. It's a mechanism for branding - and there's nothing in your arguments that convincingly defines them as advertising. Now, if you had the logo repeatedly spinning round spitting out information like "Please watch Herdland, 7pm tonight!" or "National Nine News with Mark Ferguson - the newsreader who's not gone on holiday - 6pm weeknights", then I think that would be worth investigating. But a watermark is no different to any product that has its logo emblazoned on it. I have a Nokia phone - I already know it's a Nokia... I bought it... but there's the logo on the front and back and on the start up screen. I have a Fossil watch - it tells me right on the clockface and the strap. You're visiting MediaSpy - and you already know that, because you typed in the URL, or clicked the link in your favourites menu. But there's a logo staring you in the face in the top left of every page here. Branding is everywhere. It's part and parcel of daily life. When I go out wearing a Quiksilver shirt, Rip Curl jeans or Globe shoes, I'm not going out as some walking billboard for those companies, even though their logos may be all over what I'm wearing. It's about branding. A TV network puts a logo in the corner of the screen, it's there to reinforce their brand, just as any other business puts a logo or some other identifier on their products. They're perfectly entitled to do it.

[dk32]

I don't have so much as a 'vehement opposition' to watermarks, but do you know anyone that actually likes them.. I don't.

And I think there is a difference here.. the 'brand name' of those products are part of the reason that you probably bought them in the first place.. eg. a nice Nokia phone as opposed to a no-name product, a Quicksilver shirt as opposed to a plain no-name shirt.

If you spend extra money on the goods because of the name/reputation, manufacturers presumably think buyers want people to notice where the extra money has gone and that's why they put their logos all over it.

If all consumers wanted plain no-name shirts, watches etc, manufacturers would quite happily produce them.

But most people don't need/want to know every single second that they are watching a certain channel.. We just want to the enjoy the program and not be distracted by gleaming watermarks.

[leedham]

But most people don't need/want to know every single second that they are  watching a certain channel.. We just want to the enjoy the program and not be distracted by gleaming watermarks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But what if I see something that I like the look of on tv while shopping in Myer, the watermark is going to allow me to see what channel it is on rather than me having to stand around the television and look like a dawk. Anyway Newspapers have their name at the top/bottom of every page so if you do only have one page of the paper you can still find out which paper it is from and same for magazines, then if you find that piece of paper and enjoy the articles on it you may well go and buy that newspaper magazine to see what else is inside it.

[dk32]

But what if I see something that I like the look of on tv while shopping in Myer, the watermark is going to allow me to see what channel it is on rather than me having to stand around the television and look like a dawk. Anyway Newspapers have their name at the top/bottom of every page so if you do only have one page of the paper you can still find out which paper it is from and same for magazines, then if you find that piece of paper and enjoy the articles on it you may well go and buy that newspaper magazine to see what else is inside it.

There are rare occasions where a watermark might be helpful, such as being at the pub or in the shops when you don't have access to the remote control.
But you could always ask the shop assistant or publican what channel it is on.

Newspapers are a bit of a different kettle of fish.. pages are more likely to be ripped out or whatever. And copyright is probably a part of this too.

[Andy B]

I find watermarks (sometimes) aka DOGs helpful especially in america, with affilates that don't show their assigned network's brand, but I hate the embossedness!

This post has been edited by Andy B: 21 December 2005 - 08:26 PM

[leedham]

Newspapers are a bit of a different kettle of fish.. pages are more likely to be ripped out or whatever. And copyright is probably a part of this too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't copyright apply to TV now?

But you could always ask the shop assistant or publican what channel it is on.

What if it is at night and the TV is on in the window, no shop assistant around then.

[Jimmy James]

The Australian ones don't emboss (save for 10 Sport) but it's funny I actually like the embossed look!

As for watermarks - I'd be lost on Foxtel without them and it makes tuning in an analogue tv a lot easier (as I discovered today!)

[Mr Q]

And I think there is a difference here.. the 'brand name' of those products are part of the reason that you probably bought them in the first place.. eg. a nice Nokia phone as opposed to a no-name product, a Quicksilver shirt as opposed to a plain no-name shirt.

I'm not denying there are other benefits to consumers from buying brands... Although I didn't buy a Nokia phone because it looks good to have Nokia on the side of my phone - I bought it because it's a brand I trust.

Branding is about a consumer's perception. You don't just invent a brand one day - you've got to keep working on it, to make sure it's known in the market. Watermarks are a subtle way for networks to reinforce their brands - just as a newspaper has its masthead, just as MediaSpy has the logo at the top of every page, just as a bag of M&Ms has the M&Ms logo on every single piece of candy, just as a book has the publisher's logo on it, just as the shoes I wear have a logo on them. We live in a consumer society - branding is important to all successful businesses, and obviously TV networks right around the world see watermarks as essential to re-inforcing their brands.

But most people don't need/want to know every single second that they are  watching a certain channel.. We just want to the enjoy the program and not be distracted by gleaming watermarks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I might find watermarks on Indonesian TV that spin around constantly distracting - but I certainly don't find the small, translucent channel logos we have here to be distracting.

[dk32]

Doesn't copyright apply to TV now?

Yes it does, but in a lot of cases, TV networks themselves don't hold the copyright rights. Often the production company does (eg. a Warner Bros movie).

As for watermarks - I'd be lost on Foxtel without them

I don't have Foxtel..
Doesn't the channel name come up when you change channels?
I always thought it did.

What if it is at night and the TV is on in the window, no shop assistant around then.

Oh I don't know!

Anyhow.. I've noticed shops often don't have a FTA/pay channel on display anymore.. It's usually a DVD.

I wonder if (particularly with plasmas) if shops are worried about burn-ins from watermarks???

[dk32]

You don't just invent a brand one day - you've got to keep working on it, to make sure it's known in the market. Watermarks are a subtle way for networks to reinforce their brands

and obviously TV networks right around the world see watermarks as essential to re-inforcing their brands.

It was 40+ years before 7, 9, 10, ABC and SBS started using their watermarks.
The ABC already had one of the most recongisable brands in the country anyhow.

I think they all only started doing it because FOXTEL started doing it in the mid-90s and was able to get away with it, and I guess the FTA channels didn't want to risk losing any potential marketplace advantages..

All of this doesn't do any of us much good, however.

And yes, some watermarks are worse than others.
It's mainly on the dark backgrounds in general that they are a nuisance and tend to spoil the viewing enjoyment of the program somewhat.