On onscreen adverts

[avevale_intelligencer]

People who don't have satellite or cable, or who don't watch much telly anyway, may not be aware that it's been common practice on non-terrestrial channels for some considerable time to stick little banners all over the screen plugging the next programme, or another programme, or an upcoming live event, at every conceivable point either side of any advert break. Yes, it's irritating, but so are the advert breaks themselves, and nobody complains about them.

And then the Beeb does it to nuWho and everyone goes wild.

Every so often someone on Making Light or somewhere indignantly refutes the notion that publishers are indifferent to the quality of the content they sell except insofar as it impacts on the profit margin. They point out, and they should know, that not only they themselves, but absolutely everyone they know who works in the business, is fully and whole-heartedly dedicated to finding the best writers they can and bringing their work before the world. Likewise, I'm sure anyone who works for any given television channel would say with their hand on their heart that the sole purpose of their existence is to bring quality programming before the discerning viewer. It's all about the programmes.

And yet...in the past few years, we've seen the encroachment of continuity announcements over the closing credits of every single programme (or sometimes the closing minutes of said programme), the appearance of the station ident in the top left corner (which only gets removed for the adverts), the squeezing of the said credits into a tiny tiny box so as to include adverts for more programmes, often including commercial sponsors' logoes, and the growth of the intrusive banner such as 6.8 million people saw on Saturday. We have also noted that the continuity announcements are frequently miscued, the screen-squeezing is sometimes applied to the programme rather than the credits, and, in short, whoever is running the daily broadcast schedule seems to spend at least some time each day asleep at the switch. It certainly appears that the content of the programmes is to some extent regarded as filler, at best, and at worst an unnecessary intrusion into the process of selling product (or, in the non-commercial channels' case, keeping people hanging on for the next programme). There's indifference in there somewhere.

The weird thing is that it took so long for anyone to notice. Maybe, if the thousands who complained about it on Saturday have any actual effect (beyond the anodyne "apology" which somebody dashed off late on Sunday), it will spark a wave of complaints to ITV2, 3 and 4, Virgin 1, Sky 1 to 3 and all the rest. We'll see.

Comments

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

They only did it in England...

[keristor.livejournal.com]

And not on BBC HD, which I downloaded by torrent on Sunday morning -- I had been confused by comments about it, because I didn't remember seeing it. I re-watched the ending yesterday evening, and the banner happened possibly a minute later, over the credits (after the 'wormhole' and start of the outgoing music), which is why I missed it originally (I killed it at that point to avoid spoilers for the next episode).

(I disapprove of big things over credits as well, and shrinking the credits, but I feel that the people who should be complaining are those credited and the production companies -- if the credits are never going to be shown so they can be read, why are they wasting money making them? Why not just have a URL for people to find the credits large enough that it's readable even after being shrunk? For the DVD releasae they could always do just one set of credits for the whole series, or put it on as a text file or something.)

[inamac.livejournal.com]

In fact, one of the things that really (really) annoys me about DVD releases is that all too often they don't have easily available credits. If it weren't for IMDB (which is a British site - in itself an indication of how important the Brits have been taught to regard the contribution of everyone who makes film/TV over the years) I wouldn't be half as selective in my viewing.

But maybe that's the point?

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I didn't know IMDB was a British site originally. I knew they have an office in Bristol, they've occasionally advertised jobs there (and I notice are again), but they are 'Inc' and an Amazon company so I assumed they were American. I've just read their history, fascinating (started as a load of Unix and Usenet geeks, yay!). Definitely one of the most useful sites on the Intarwebz.

Not that knowing who the director etc. is has changed my watching much. I remember shocking Minstrel when I said that I didn't know (or much care) who the director and producer of movies were, much the same as I rarely know who the editors of books are -- they are essential people, but not ones about whom I would normally say "X was editor/director so I'll buy the book/movie" (there are exceptions with both, but only a few). I use IMDB and the credits more for "I know that face, where else have I seen them?" (or "hold on, wasn't that $character?"), and occasionally to find who wrote the music or did the effects.

The DVDs of series I've watched all seem to have the credits at least once per disc, including recent ones like Fringe (full credits and outgoing music on each episode on that one at least; OK, I skip them most of the time just as I do the leading credits, because I know them, but they are there). So have the films I've watched on DVD.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Sadly they want people with more whizzy skills than I have.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

IMDB? Yes, me too, and they mostly want them in America. Otherwise I would be rather interested, that's a project in which I can believe.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Sadly, my friend, you're just now discovering what we here in the country that invented television have known for decades: The commercials are NOT there to fund the programs; the programs are there to get you to watch the commercials. To paraphrase my Biblical namesake, one cannot serve both Art and Mammon.

But thank you for showing me I'm not the only viewer bugged by the ever-growing encroachment of promos and ads into the shows themselves.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I've known that for years. There was a time when the BBC, being publicly funded, could afford to care about content. Unfortunately, that time is gone, and even though they're still not funded by advertisers, they have to behave as if they were for some reason.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The "bugs" (as they're known) are just as bad across many US-based channels. It was one thing for there to be a transparent, static channel logo in the corner. But there are often animated ads that take 1/4 of the screen during the show, and we've been railing at them for years. This one happened to be particularly egregious, and the timing sucked red rubber donkeys -- and a populist movement was born. Who knows, maybe it'll make a difference?

I'm not holding my breath in anticipation, though.

[armb.livejournal.com]

> Yes, it's irritating, but so are the advert breaks themselves, and nobody complains about them.

They might accept that given a choice between only a state funded broadcaster and adverts, adverts are preferable, but people do complain if ad breaks get longer, more frequent, or more intrusive (sound compressed to seem louder).

(And TV companies complain that if too many people watch on time-shifting devices that can easily skip ads, which more and more do, they will lose revenue.)

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that people object to a state (read: tax) funded broadcaster[1], it's that they want a lot more options than that. If the BBC put out a hundred channels with a similar variety[2] to those currently available, with no adverts, I doubt if people would complain. But when we only had one BBC channel plus one ITV channel (with adverts) having double the choice was worth the adverts for most people. (Not for my family, we rarely watched ITV because we disliked the adverts, but we were atypical.)

But TV companies complaining because people now use time-shifting and skip the adverts is disingenuous, because even without time-shifting people have always got up and made a drink, had a cigarette, turned off the sound, or even changed channel during the adverts (even setting an egg-timer to remind them when the advert break would end). Few people have ever sat and watched through them, and probably those people still do watch the adverts because they enjoy them.

There is also a qualitative difference between advert breaks and advert banners. The latter are annoying (especially TV companies who just cut at regular intervals, sometimes in the middle of a word), but in general don't obscure the actual material, just break it up (and with an editor the programme can be more or less reassembled). Banners, on the other hand, do obscure the picture and are context-insensitive, often obscuring important parts (TV station logos sometimes do that, but many are small and transparent enough that it's not so bad, and being usually static are fairly easy for the eye/brain to filter out).

[1] This may not be what you meant, if so then I apologise.

[2] For some value of 'variety'.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I have complained to some channels about 'crashing' programme material (the worst was FX with a JAG episode which ended on a very sombre note (Last Post and then silence) which the announcer then cheerfully overtalked; from their reply apparently a lot of people also complained about it and they did apologise and say that the announcer had been warned).

I think in this case the outrage was greater because it was the BBC. Most people understand that commercial companies have to maximise their advertisement time, even though they don't like the credits being squashed (or maybe most don't even notice because they get up as soon as the credits come on, just as they do in the cinema), but the BBC don't have that excuse. Couple that with crashing programme material on a popular show and there will be complaints. I suspect that ITV or whoever would have the same level of complaint if they did it to a soap opera.

Of course, the advertising pressure works both ways. The BBC became well-known for messing with programme times[1] and cancelling programmes at whim (and randomising the order of programmes in a series[2]) because they didn't care, they had a virtual monopoly and weren't responsible to anyone. Unfotrunately some of their programming people still seem to have the same attitude.

[1] At one time I used to set a VCR on "long play", 8 hours, starting 3 hours before a half hour programme was scheduled, in the hope that I would catch it somewhere on the tape. At least one I still missed, they rescheduled at 2am the next morning (instead of 8pm) because the *repeat* (not even live) of a sports game overran too much.

[2] I believe it was 'Shogun' where they showed the last 4 episodes of a season in random order. Unfortunately the main character cut his hair in one of the episodes, so when shown it kept getting longer and shorter again. Several other series also had definite continuity problems because they didn't bother showing them in order.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

You plainly haven't been watching Points of View, or frequenting various BBC message boards or listening to Feedback, because all of those issues have been the subject of furious complaint for over a year.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, good. I'm glad to hear it. Somewhat disheartening that it hasn't had any effect, though...

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

There are a number of continuously running threads on the Points of View board all making exactly that point. Occasionally the BBC puts up a spokesperson who says something like, "We've done focus groups who aren't offended by these things so yah-boo!"

In this case, however, the host on the messageboards promised to personally find out who was responsible and yell at them on Monday morning. I believe Mr Moffat was also furious and likely to be on the phone too.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Well, at least it's inspired some creativity... =:o}