Of course, I agree, it could be worse, but quite honestly, I find the ten logo unbelievably intrusive and haven't watched them once since they introduced it.

You certainly did come across OK - your point was very valid and well put. I heard it and I know about the being cut off thing as it happened to me too (I was one of the other callers) I wanted to talk about the fact that as someone involved in the process of actually making programs, I found it appalling that the ABC were prepared to compromise the quality - but I didn't get there.

At least I got to make a valid point about the difference between content at risk for rebroadcasting and ordinary programming and the intrusion on that space.

Upon reflection, I should have agreed about the corporate nature as well - but the first thing that bothers me when I watch the ABC is the fact that this blot is on my screen. It should not be there. I found it interesting that Chris Winter said later that they were experimenting with positions and so on. If branding was so important, then the ABC would have never muck around with its own logo like that on-air. It looks amateurish to do that.

That caller that wanted the watermarks was obviously some old lady who couldn't program her ordinary analog TV with a remote and had 7 as 4 and 5 was something else, etc. Surely you don't make policy for someone who can't program a TV, or get someone to do it for them!

Just been doing some research about all this - in Britain they call them DOGs! (digitally originated graphics) and there are several examples of them being removed due to viewer response.

In fact, in one case, BBC 2W, in November 2001, they were smart enough to remove it after realizing a DOG was generally hated.

I always like CAT (Clean-Alternative Television) a bit better anyway!

I was watching on my 4:3 34CM TV via my ITV-D500 (letterboxed) so I didn't notice. I will have a look on my computer on Tuesday.

Hi Toasted,

Yes it was a pity that neither of us got a chance to have ten minutes of uninterupted rant and rave time!

But I think Peter Clarke did a great job in putting this issue to air. And for making his program flow it is appropriate to have many short comments.

So I am very happy with how the program went.

Also,

The Sunday afternoon arts program is now on ABC TV, and the dreaded watermark is there, albeit smaller and in the very bottom right of the widescreen picture.

But any watermark on an Arts program is vandalism.

So I rang the ABC again to complain, and finished by wishing the operator a nice day (just to emphasise that she does not deserve our anger).

On with the fight!

Michael et al,

You might have better luck with Terry Lane (ABC Rad Nat) - a very early adopter of digital tv and one who has strong views on many topics.

Cheers,
Jet :ph34r:

When is this guy on Radio National, might have to have a listen to him on 792kHz 4RN.

Sunday's at 12.

His programs website

(unless there is someone else on RN that has the same name )

EDIT: I sent an email to Terry Lane. Time to wait for a response.

Not too sure "Dat" but believe he turns up from time to time on a Rad Nat program called "The National Interest" with John Faine - you can always check RN out on Auntie's web site for exact details?

Cheers,
Jet :ph34r:

Actually

I was watching a bit of the ABC before and I noticed the ABC Watermark had moved. It now seems to be in the bottom far right. In the exact spot where it should be for 16:9 (If we absolutely have to have a watermark).

Anyone else notice it had moved from inside the 4:3 safe area to outside? It's alot less intrusive, but I wonder if it will stay that way.

I'd still rather no watermark at all though.

I've just written the following letter to 'The Age' - which probably won't get printed because it is too long, but I plan to send snail-mail to the ABC anyway (with maybe a modification or two)



Any thoughts?

The complaints process for the ABC requires you to have gotten a reply from them first to be able to go to the next step. http://abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_whatif.htm

Don't know if that's the right thing to do just yet...

But I think I'll send a copy of the above letter to the Advisory Council as well.

The ABC Advisory Council,
c/o Executive Officer to the Board,
GPO Box 9994, Sydney 2001

Cheers.

It is interesting that on the ABC 774 Program that Channel 7 have said their 'watermark' was for 'branding'.

Back in 1999 when the 7 watermark was introduced, they said it was for 'copyright' purposes... Interesting how they've changed their tune on the purpose of the 'watermark'..

I am in agreement with everyone else - there is no place for a watermark on 'our' ABC. The ABC does not need to be 'branded' - it is not a commercial entity.

The current ABC logo is already one of the most recognisable brands of any organisation in this country and that has been achieved without watermarking (up til now). And it was a much respected/loved brand too.

I do think the ABC risk losing a lot of this credibility/respect from the public with their watermark.. And might I add, I think that watermarking will also result in an increased turnover of logos to keep the brand looking "fresh" (I do think logos can suffer from 'over-exposure'). 7 have already changed theirs once since 1999.

And now that almost all stations are using a watermark, how is that going to help any station gain an advantage over its' competitors via 'branding'???..

Really, the watermark is FOXTEL's fault.. there was virtually none of this on Australian TV (except in some regional area) before pay TV started back in 1995.. Thanks, Rupert!!

Abc have been mucking round with there logo past few days and foxtel it only came on abc on foxtel when i did the box upgrade.

but anyway abc changed there logo again and now only digital viewers can only see it

its only in half of screen on analouge viewers

Digital
http://img53.exs.cx/img53/1526/abclogo8nh.jpg

Abc Analouge
http://img32.exs.cx/img32/3442/abcanalouge7yy.jpg

Jet - I think the anti-watermarking side did very well with Peter Clarke.

Toasted - I don't see much point in writing a letter to the Age which is too long to be published. Better to send something shorter and snappier that will actually make it into print. Of course this will mean leaving out many good points in your long letter.

dkind3 - I very much like the idea of basing the anti-watermarking campaign on the damage it will do to the ABC brand. If the main reason for doing it is to promote the brand, then showing that it will do the opposite is probably the best way to be effective.

I think the Seven guy was being very honest in saying that the watermark was for "permanent branding".

This thread had pointed out the flaws in all the other reasons. But raising these other reasons probably works well for all those who do not bother to look into it further.

I agree that the ABC is softening up the viewers by shifting the watermark around. I also think that the complaints must be having an impact if they are starting to read out a statement on the complaints line. So everyone keep up the good work.

I just have to wonder what the management hope to achieve by this. They have been very successful in attracting viewers in the past few years, why make such a stupid move as this? If they want to act like a commercial business, then they should realise that goodwill is one of a companies most important assets. Why destroy it needlessly!

True - but it's actually the second one I've sent - the first was about 12 words, got short-listed for the Green Guide, but not published in the end. The one above was written more for the ABC anyway, but I figured as I was writing it that it would be good to see if some of it could get published in a public forum earlier rather than later to raise awareness. If it gets edited, so be it.

Cheers.

In addition to my previous post. If watermarks are such a good marketing tool, why did 7's ratings go down the toilet the last few years and only pick up when they actually focused on the programming! If you follow the tv exec's logic they should have been No.1 all along.

Watermarks seem to be like lawyers or nuclear weapons - you only need them when the other guy has them.

...and when both sides have them, they still dont actually do anything useful!

Probably not a good idea to get too strident about a particular reason; I might've been guilty of this myself a few pages back. While I think the marketing-minded managers at the ABC rubbed their hands together with glee at the branding aspect, I doubt that's what prompted the watermark in their case. My suspicion is external pressures from content owners paranoid about copyright--given the resistance to watermarks, there has to be some significant pressure the other way coming from somewhere. But who knows. I don't doubt Seven's claim it was primarily about branding in their case--they were pushing their brand really hard in the year running up to the Olympics coverage, and mass, open copyright infrigment of TV was still only on the horizon. Regardless, branding, copyright, and channel identification are all part of it in varying amounts.

I first complained about watermarks back in '99 when I had Foxtel, and have done so several times since to various networks. In my experience, if you make an argument against one reason for watermarks, they will just come back at you with one of the others rather than respond to your argument directly. In other words, if you whinge about branding, they might come back with the copyright argument. If you tackle the copyright issue, they might tell you it's all about helping people identify channels. So watch out for that

Anyway, I prepared a brief letter last night to SBS to complain about their "LG" logo on WeatherWatch which I'll be dropping in the post box this morning. Also took the opportunity to ask whether they have any plans for a full-time watermark (I did this mid last year also, but they never replied ).

I noticed Dr. Who has lost its watermark on SD! Have they listened???

The watermark was on the edge of the 14:9 frame on The Bill tonight.

And it didn't seem to be grainy.

damn I missed the bill tonight so can't comment on the grain - hopefully someone else can ?

I can't believe it! They've moved the watermark further left into the picture again as of today... and on Lateline it was moved up from the bottom into the picture! WTF are they doing?

Everytime I check they have moved it again, and on some shows it is completely missing. This looks so professional

THankgod the moved it back to the 4:3 area. That 16:9 looked absolutely ridicoulous!

Satelliteguy

I imagine that Seven must have two DOG generating machines (or one that delivers two watermarks to two different streams), one for digital in 16:9 corner, and another for analogue in 4:3. That's clearly the best way to do it (if you're going to do it at all).

OMG! I just made a "Seven does it best" post!

One effect of putting the ABC logo in the very bottom of the 16:9 picture is that it does not appear on the analogue service.

Is this a cunning plan to stop people on analogue from complaining?

WHAT!, the last place I want it is in the 4:3 area, if it must be anywhere (and I wish it wasn't), then the very far, bottom, 16:9 corner is all that I will live with. And then it still needs to be very transparent.


As for Dr Who, yes, I noticed it was missing too, which is very good, but I expect someone forgot to flip the switch back on.

In the case of it moving around all the time, some "exec" has one of those PS2 type guns, aimed at the screen and trying to shoot it for fun. Not having a clue, chances are they don't know you need the PS2 pluged in as well, some "tech" having a bit of fun I bet

Just a thought.......
I think that we have now seen the "blight" in all positions 4:3, 16:9, 14:9 etc.
Perhaps it is a plan, a cunning plan at that, to defuse the "burn in" arguement by saying - "hey we move it - so you viewers cannot use that arguement!"

omg no!
how unprofessional looking if they plan to change it everyday lol

I cant believe some people here would rather have a "professsional looking" watermark slap bang in their viewing area, rather than way off to the side, where it at least is a bit less of an eyesore!

Let me guess, you opted for the extra-cost gold Honda symbol on your accord?

Some people have a "J. 6Pak" target painted on their backs...

u can see the 16:9 watermark on analouge just a bit of it.

and 7 yeh they are good they have 2 water marks they have few watermarks


7 SPORT 7LIVE 7DIGITAL 7

and abc logo changes all time and its back to 4:3 area only on abc kids.

though 7 stuffed up there logos last night b4 dancing with stars and on all saints kept jumping to 7 digital . 7 live


start of all saints

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/1665/7sd15oi.jpg

after couple of mins
http://img97.exs.cx/img97/8173/alexallsaints802156rm.jpg

I saw the end of Four Corners and noticed that the watermark has been significantly faded, I could hardly see it...

have noticed though that the watermark seems to be floating around the screen though. In different spots for different programs. I was sure for the movie show or was it 4 corners that it had moved significantly into and up the screen.

Harder to hit a moving target - how do the watermark zappers go with removing it when it floats around.

Wouldn't be a bad tactic to move it around a bit--nullify the burn-in issue while making life a little more difficult for those who try to filter out the watermark via technical means (though I'd be surprised if the two or three people engaging in the latter are even on their radar). Not too familiar with plasma TVs myself--how long must the kinds of watermarks on FTA be in a particular spot before it starts causing burn-in?

Haven't watched much ABC in the past week, but I notice its visibility was reduced and it moved from well within the 4:3 area to well outside it, but now appears to be somewhere in between (half visible in 4:3). It's been absent altogether from late-night movies the past couple of days. The ABC Kids one was also shrunk, and moved to the bottom-right, though is will within the 4:3 frame.

P.S. I recall submissions for the Advisory Council's next meeting end soon. Just went through the earlier pages of the thread and it was rochford who said 22 February (next Tuesday) is the last day, so not much time left for snail mail.

I received a reply from the ABC regards “watermarking”.

extract: (please excuse typos that result in spelling errors ... I’m arthritic)

“We’re sorry that you do not like the introduction of watermarking on ABC television programs. While noting your comments, we believe that this change is both important and necessary. Watermarking is a pratcie that has been well established in Australia by other networks for many years and is in fact fairly standard pratice internationally. In a multichannel environment there is a need to identify the channel for viewers and this identification will become even more necessary as the number of digital stations increase in coming years.

Secondly, and importantly, the ABC believes it has a duty to copyright owners. Watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording) and for this reason it was adopted in most countries a number of years ago.

I hope this helps explain the rationale for the introduction of watermarks on ABC-TV.”

So many thoughts in reply .......

Dare I ask .....
I've had a look through the thread and couldn't see anything ....

Has anyone an ABC Logo bitmap for Virtualdub they are willing to share?

My old arthritic hands aren't what they shoulkd be when using photoshop.
Or typing for that matter.
Thanks all.

Clearing my (snail) mailbox of all the junk that gets put in it everyday, despite the "No Junk Mail" sign, I came across a colour brouche from the "Dick Smith Power House".

On page 9 are advertised all the DVD Recorders, "with built in tuners", that you can buy.
There's a big "i"; and next to it - "Why Buy DVD Recorders?"
Under which it says:

"Record your favourite shows ..... and cherish them forever".

Now, isn't this an encouragement to make an illegal off air recording?

Surely all the TV Networks and copyright owners and all the rest should be setting their attack dogs .. errr .. lawyers onto this organisation, as well as all the companies whose products are advertised and shutting them down for good. Then using the sale records, find all the people who bought such a device and if they have broken the law ........

Well my thoughts on the ABC response above are:
(feel free to cut and past from this response if you want to write to the ABC).

Dear ABC,

Thank-you for explaining your rationale for watermarking.

Before saying why your rationale is wrong, I would like to say that I do not just “dislike” the watermark. The program maker aims to make a program which captures our attention. The ABC used to have a high quality broadcast network which, particularly on a widescreen TV with digital signal, provides a very high quality picture.

But now, every time the bottom right hand part of the screen is very dark or bright, my attention is drawn to the watermark. The watermark also becomes very apparent when the whole picture pans or zooms as the watermark does not follow the camera movement. This breaks the spell of the program. And this makes me mad.

I agree with you that the change is important. It shows that ABC management now believe that it is important to permanently market their brand despite that fact that it annoys many viewers.

It also shows that ABC management have a poor understanding of their industry, and of the difference between OUR ABC and the commercial networks.

Watermarking has only been established by commercial networks. These networks are responsible to their shareholders. Within the law, the commercial network is striving to increase their shareholders value. If they feel that this is best done by permanently branding their station, then it is up to them. Bad luck to any viewers who do not like it.

But it is OUR ABC. There is no higher-shareholder who's interest come first. The ABC should be aiming to please its viewers, not to annoy them by trying to shove the ABC brand down our throats.

The ABC seems ignorant of how multi-channel systems work. Firstly, when a viewer changes channel, the STB always puts up an onscreen message saying what channel is on. Secondly, if the viewer wants to know about the channel, they can push a button on their remote control (often called “info”) which will show the channel number, the channel name, and often the name of the program which is being transmitted.

In a very large multi-channel environment most viewers will move to channels by actually selecting the channel number. To do otherwise is to step through far to many channels.

Do you really think that most multi-channel viewers will be unable to find the ABC if they wish to tune to this channel?

Also, even if a watermark was necessary for your retransmission over Foxtel, this does not mean that you need to watermark your terrestrial transmission.

The copyright reason is also a complete load of rubbish. And you know it. Please provide ONE example of a person being caught selling video tapes or DVDs of content taken from the off-air ABC signal.

And if someone wanted to pirate ABC content, then even a home computer can now be used to remove the watermark ie it no longer takes expensive professional equipment.

If you intend the watermark to deter people making copies of programs for their private collection, then your logic condemns you.

If the watermark did not annoy the home recorder, then it follows that the watermark is not a deterrent.

If the watermark was annoying and did disturb good viewing, then it would act as a deterrent to the home recorder. But, for every home recorder annoyed by the watermark, there would be THOUSANDS of ordinary viewers who are not making a recording but are annoyed.

The ABC is acting as if it is your own business and bad luck viewers. It used to be OUR ABC, and there are some people who are determined to get it back.

Please remove the watermarks, and give us back OUR ABC.



I have just attempted to post this (with short introduction) to the ABC.

Once again I get the Error page.

So if someone else wants to post this, or similar, and is able to get through, please do so.

Good letter MichaelCPE. I haven't had any trouble with their e-mail system and I have prepared my letters using Word and then pasted them into their reply box. So I can only suggest to keep on trying.

I was thinking in regard to the Advisory Committee that perhaps they need someone to attend the meeting and demonstrate to them how digital television actually works. Actually I think I will write and suggest it.

I was reading some of Russell Balding's responses to the Senates Estimates Committee in regard to some ticker tape they have on the side of the building in Sydney. It seems that it is basically used for advertising and not news flashes. I think it shows just where his focus is, ie brand marketing and not provision of a quality television service.

After 10 or so years of passive, enjoyable ABC viewing I have been driven to action by the horrible watermark! I have sent numerous e-mails (no replies) and left lots of messages on the ABC answerphone. Finally, yesterday afternoon I got to speak to REAL ABC person. According to her the reasons for the watermark are as follows. "All the other TV stations in the world do it."
"When The ABC goes to Foxtel viewers will know what channel, amongst the hundreds on offer they are watching."
Now, I tried to argue the above points with her (using information gleaned from this forum) and explain how intrusive the watermark was. But, she wasn't having any of it and got quite annoyed towards the end of the conversation. So I suspect she has had to deal with quite a few irate viewers complaining about the watermark.
I don't think The ABC will get rid of it easily so the only way might be 'pester power'. Write, phone and Email again and again and they may just see the light. What does FRIENDS OF THE ABC have to say about the watermark??

Ranger

Thanks for your nice words about my letter.

I also write in word and paste in. I have no idea why my postings are getting the error message.

Tonight or tomorrow night I will try to post using a friends computer and my own email. If it doesn't work I will know that MichaelCPE@yahoo.com.au has been banned by the ABC!

I just noted that tonights Dr Who has no watermark. So success for some programs is possible.

My viewing is now 50% DVD, 25% SBS, and 25% ABC.

So most of my world does NOT do watermarks.

It is interesting to note how so many people are starting to get pissed off by commerical pay and FTA TV.

One trend I am noticing is that not only are people buying TV shows on DVD, but they are lending them to their friends.

I would spend about one hour per day watching TV shows I have never seen before off DVD. Some have been good enough for me to buy, and some are fun to watch once, and great to pay nothing for as I have borrowed it from a friend.

Commercial Pay and FTA TV marketing has become so short term focussed that they have not realized that they are killing themselves.

And I think the ABC has no idea of how much damage some passionate anti-watermarking people will be able to do to their brand image.

My next target is the ABC shop. Stay tuned...

This is basically their standard reply, and if like me, you have emailed back etc with a listed of more valid reasons why none of it is true (ie the STB and even normal analog TV, displays what station your on when you change channels).

Needless to say, I never get a reply. Like any big "corporation" they just stick their heads in the sand and will only come out to blame everyone else for any future problems, never thinking for a moment that "ones" past actions just may have been the cause.

Gee, I wonder what/who else that could be applied too around the world.

Thanks for posting that. Haven't received a reply here, but I now know what to expect. Yours is virtually identical to this one. One small thing I'm curious about is the minor difference in the wording of the opening sentence... is the above exactly as it appears on your letter? What is the date on it?

Looking at tonight's first movie, it looks as though they're watermark-free again. Wonder if they've decided not to watermark movies now or if it's just a technical issue. They were doing so initially.

Given the choice between a "Conspiracy" and a "Stuff Up" always bet on the latter, especially when it comes to Auntie!

If you really want to give 'em the "Tom Tits" email the director / manager / ding-bat or whoever your favourite target of the day is, simply email them direct as follows: < lastname.firstname@abc.net.au >

This post and I will self destruct in 30 seconds (tick, tick, tick....)

BANG!
Jet :ph34r:

The letter is dated february 15th 2005.
The first paragraph thanks me for my letter of December 28th 2004 regarding watermarks, which is odd because I don't recall writing a letter. It may be referring to an email I sent to "Feedback". They apologise for the delay in replying but the 'Transmission Communication Officer" was on leave.

Then it's the letter as posted.
Then yesterday I received an email response with more or less the same wording:

Quote:
Thank you for your email regarding the program Catalyst and the introduction of watermarking programs.

The ABC regrets you are not impressed by the introduction of watermarking on ABC Television programs. While noting your comments, we believe that this change is both important and necessary. Watermarking is a practice that has been well established in Australia by other networks for many years and is in fact fairly standard practice internationally. In a multichannel environment there is a need to subtly identify the channel for viewers and this identification will become even more necessary as the number of digital stations increase in the coming years.

Secondly, and importantly, the ABC believes it has a duty to copyright owners. Watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording) and for this reason it was adopted in most countries a number of years ago.

Please be assured I have noted and passed your comments onto Television Management to ensure they are aware of audience sentiment.

Yours sincerely
ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs
End Quote:

Their reasons seem to come down to:
- everyone else is doing it.
- viewers need a watermark to know what channel they are watching.
- it will stop piracy, ie; illegal off-air recording.

And as already discussed by others none of these reasons are vaild.

All that is stopping some non-kids programs being buggered is its aspect ratio. If it is 4:3, the program is not being buggered with, likewise anything after Lateline upto 6am and Education programs in the mornings are not being buggered either, nor rage. This will no doubt all change again soon? All very silly and part time, not consistant or professional at all. But since when did the words 'consistant' and 'professional' apply to television?

It's the third version of the opening sentence. The one in your other reply was "We’re sorry that you do not like the introduction of watermarking on ABC television programs." and gerald's just over a week ago was "We're sorry that you haven't appreciated the introduction of watermarking on ABC Television programs."

Reason I asked about it is because I criticised the use of "appreciated" in a post on the 11th. Probably a coincidence, but the tweaking of this particular sentence could be the first clue they've been snooping on the thread. A rudimentary Google search shows this forum as the most prominent of the places the issue has been discussed online. Others are the Whirlpool forums, the aus.tv newsgroup, the ebroadcast forum, and some ABC guestbooks.