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

[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.