"Standard Industry Practice" - The Fallacy of Relevance

Many of you may remember back a few years - before the introduction of the previous "standard industry practice" - programmes used to finish with credits rolling, and generally either a carefully selected soundtrack, continuing dialogue or a theme tune.

As you would probably be well-aware, the Network Sheep/Lemmings one by one jumped at the opportunity to place intrusive voice-overs on top of the soundtracks of all closing credits. (Even though - in the case of the ABC - the programme would not be followed by commercials, and viewers were unlikely to suddenly switch stations directly after the credits. In fact, given that most of the items between programmes are promotions for up-coming shows, and are often even referenced in the superfluous voice-over, the need for any voice-over is redundant).

This practice was introduced to the ABC under the excuse of being "standard industry practice" and "helpful to viewers", despite NO-ONE WANTING IT.

Deja vu all over again.

If the commercial networks start eliminating management and PR people to achieve real cost-cutting and savings, would that also become a "standard industry practice" the ABC would feel compelled to mimic?


PS: Please be aware, that, in order to appear to be "with it" (justifying, Ziggy Switcowski style, their inflated paycheques), the ABC "management" will next visually butcher the credits in a similar fashion to the commercial stations' latest techniques ... as thats now "standard industry practice".

Already in the planning stages I fear Santa. No to mention 'comming up next' BOF supers, and eventual fully paid commercials firstly between and eventually in the middle of programs. And when that happens, expect even more programs on the ABC to be butchered so as to make more room for interstitials. It won't take them long at this rate. Why have an ABC if this is to occur, why? I really fear for Aunty after July 1 when Howard gets full Senate control.

With a couple of weeks of the official ratings season out now, it appears that the ABC is rating around the same as this time last year. Although I would have preferred a massive drop due to the watermark, it goes to show that it is a complete failure from a marketing perspective. If nothing has been gained from it then why aren't questions being asked by the board. I thought that the resources of the ABC were limited, so wasting money on unpopular measures makes them look a bit stupid when they are begging for money from the government.

By chance the other day I "powered on" the telly. ie; it wasn't in "standby mode".
On came the picture.

On the screen was some cycling.

Top right hand corner was an SBS logo, bottom right hand corner was an ABC logo.

This went on long enough for me to wonder which station I was watching .....

So I selected the channel I wanted using the pre-programmed button on my remote.
As I have done for years.

My submission to the ABC Advisory Council can be viewed at http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=14802&hl=

- Miles.

A very professional submission.

Given that it took me so long to do my rougher presentation, I know that your submission would have taken even longer to prepare.

It will be interesting to see what response we get.

PS I assume that the place for comments on your submission is this thread rather than the attachments forum where you posted your attachment.

Are Foxtel not using an off-air retransmission any more? They always did on analogue - it was clearly stated in the Foxtel TV guide.

Great submission, by the way.


Oh, and FWIW Seven and Nine both have their watermarks in the lower right as well in Sydney, only Ten is the odd-one-out.

Timmy, Foxtel has a transponder on Optus C1 that is dedicated to ABC Digital TV and ABC Radio.

Seven and Ten on cable are still off-air retransmissions.

Nine, ABC and SBS are straight from the networks.


Evan :->

Whew! Glad I got that one right.

Thanks to all for the positive feedback.

- Miles.

Well done Rochford. My letter seems very paltry in comparison. I hope though they prefer the get rid of it all together option.
I fear though that Russell Balding wants to run a commercial station and he is making sure that the ABC mimics one as much as possible.

I wrote to the ABC Advisory Council about the watermark issue and also sent a copy to the Friends of the ABC. Here is the reply I received from the Friends of the ABC. I have still not had a reply from the ABC Advisory Council...

From: fabcvic@vicnet.net.au
Subject: Re: ABC TV Watermark - a blight on OUR viewing
Date: 24 February 2005 1:43:10 PM


Dear Steve

While understanding the extreme funding pressures the ABC is under, FABC is
concerned at much the ABC now does to raise funds and to promote itself -
the latter being an attempt to build public support, which the broadcaster
hopes will, in turn, result in the present government ceasing its hostility
toward the ABC and restoring its funding.

As well as believing it is unacceptable for the public broadcaster to carry
promotion which irritates or is detracting for audiences, FABC is concerned
that this chipping away at the edges is moving the ABC closer toward
carrying advertising, as most in the public do not readily distinguish btw
promotion and advertising.

It is important that the community do as you have, and let the ABC know what
they do and do not expect of their public broadcaster. You may want to
consider writing a letter to the Age Green Guide. Please encourage others to
complain on any occasions the ABC annoys its audiences with self-promotion.

We note that you are not a member of Friends of the ABC. Friends of the ABC
is able to exist – to lobby for the ABC to be well funded and pressure the
ABC to fulfil its role as a quality independent broadcaster - only through
the support of its membership.

Sincerely, Glenys Stradijot, Campaign Manager

I also received the same e-mail from Friends of the ABC. Today I received this letter from SBS in reponse to a letter I wrote congratulating them on resisting using the watermark in general programming.




I can only hope they show more sense than everyone else...

Well, from memory the ABC had the same email response for about 6 months.

In other words, SBS will have a watermark all over stuff around the middle of the year and just like the ABC and others, management will sit back and ignore any complaints.

And that should be the first of the final nail in FTA.

hmmm, now so much to choose from to do/watch and none of it involves FTA TV.

OK abc now gone watermark crazy..

now theres two watermarks..the abc one on the right and a big huge 'andrew denton enough rope' one on the left. Even the commercial channels don't do this !

Seems like the ABC "sold" the interview to channel NINE. Looked pretty funny, the late night NINE news, showing a large chunk of the Denton interview with the royals, and two ABC watermarks (one watermark half cut off), then an NBN NINE watermark on top of that They broke up the interview with the obligatory reporter from Denmark doing a running commentary.

The Denton program reeked of either paranoia that it would be copied or just hoping that it would. It is funny that when the ABC showed cricket off of Fox Sports the other night they zoomed the picture to widescreen so removing the Fox Sports logo alltogether, it just said LIVE. So there was no credit given to them at all. It is funny how they have become so prissy about other networks using their material but are quite happy not to give credit to others themselves.

And it is not funny that they think that the extra marketing benefit of people noticing the ABC watermark when snippets are shown on other channels outweighs the ABC viewer noticing the watermark whilst watching the whole program on the ABC.

Yeah, I noticed that foxsports stuff as well - but the most ridiculous of them all was Sat morning (Fri night) about 1:10am waiting for rage to start (to see if the watermark would get used) The netball was on and, although I didn't have the sound turned up at the time, they showed some highlights clip that had the best attempt of an editor to remove ABC watermarks (of different styles) by zooming, moving and even blurring! Over the top of all this was, of course, another ABC watermark!!!

I wish I'd been taping it - it's such a good example of how the whole watermark thing is just totally out of hand and the ABC would be much better off ignoring it. Otherwise, it's pretty easy to query why they don't adhere to high standards mentioned at the top of the ABC Charter, (which one would assume, includes technical standards) when the usage of the watermark so clearly contributes to sub-standard viewing.

Here comes HD - well, whatever quality we can get after it's been zoomed or blurred...

Cheers

anyone notice that the watermark was mysteriously missing from little britain tonight - on both ch2 & ch20(SD-soft). I got excited for a second. till the news and glass house returned and the watermark too ! unfortunately....oh well could only hope !

All these multiple watermarks on the screen, certainly blows out of the water the argument that the ABC is only using the watermarks for station identification. How confusing would it be for someone changing channels to see three watermarks, as I mentioned in my last post, two ABC and one channel NINE watermark

Finally received a reply from the ABC to my letter. As expected, it's the same canned response posted by others--everyone else is doing it and we have a duty to copyright owners. Their use of the word duty indicates quite bluntly the significance of the copyright issue alongside the marketing/branding aspect not addressed by their response. Will be sending a followup question now that I have their reply.

I didn't see the Enough Rope watermark, but I have a fair idea of what it must have looked like based on Australian Story--the main serial offender when it comes to displaying extremely prominent logos. There seems to be a certain contempt for the idea of fair use that is a result of the ever-increasing obsession with the control of "intellectual property", and it's led to watermarks getting bigger and the appearance of two or three watermarks becoming common. It's got beyond a joke. So what if another network pinches ten seconds of footage for a news broadcast and only displays "Source: ABC" and only for the first few seconds? Is this prospect so awful that it's okay to subject viewers to ridiculously oversized watermarks and ruin the visual integrity of the entire program?

The watermarks on Enough Rope were much worse than Australia Story.

As well as the prominant ABC logo in the bottom right, there was a logo with the workds "Enough Rope" on the bottom left.

The copyright "duty" is a load of rubbish. And they know it.

And if, perchance, there was a duty for other peoples copyright, then there is no duty for ABC content. After all, we the Australian public have paid for it.

I am sure that any survey of home copying of TV would show that the programs copied fairly well match the rating figures, ie much more woudl be copied from 7, 9 and 10. And all these stations have watermarks. So it does not stop home copying.

Watermarking/bugging is all about marketing and ratings, nothing else. Funny that the ABC Charter mentions that the ABC is not about ratings chasing, but to compliment and be different from the commercial broadcasters by providing an alternative, and not to compete with them by imitating them, and very badly at that. The ABC is well and truly stuffed at this fastening rate of continued commercialisation. Give it time, you will be seeing commercials, and more of them! After July 1, all bets are off, with Howard having Senate control, don't be surprised if the ABC Charter is not re-written so as to focus on being more commercial in focus to the point of the ABC being self funded. What happened at TVNZ is surely going to happen with the ABC. RIP ABC.

The stupid thing is that the ABC is totally shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of policy because it so clearly demonstrates they are not providing "value for money" (quote from current Corporate Statement) nor are they upholding "high standards" (right at the beginning of the Charter). Watermarks do not improve programming or brand-awareness or anything like that (so even the marketing/ratings reasons are highly dubious - just ask 7 or 10), and high technical standards are being thrown out the window. We know the other reasons (copyright, identification & industry standard) are crap.

Mismanagement is hardly going to be rewarded with increased funding, is it?...

I don't disagree that home copying of the "time shifting" kind will be unaffected, but to dismiss it on that basis is to assume enforcement is the only thing that matters in the copyright battle, when intellectual property owners are engaged in a defence of the legitimacy of copyright (the resulting laws to underpin future success in reestablishing enforcement). The question--what do watermarks have to do with copyright?--answers itself as soon as one looks at the issue not just as direct copy protection but the reinforcement of the idea that "X is the rightful owner of this property".

How do I know they're thinking in these terms? None of us knows for sure what they're up to. What we do know is that both marketing and intellectual property rights are particular obsessions in those circles, so it's safer to assume it's a both/and than an either/or.

anyone notice they do not run watermarks in ad breaks ! - this goes for both abc and the commercial channels !

find it a bit strange that they think no probs deface the actual program material with their ugly watermarks but keep them off the adds in the breaks.

The ABC is acting as a power unto themselves, because, as you say, we do not know what they are thinking. OUR abc should tell us what they are thinking.

And I maintain that the watermark is not needed for copyright protection. Content does not need to be so marked to maintain or protect copyright.

I would like the ABC to give me just one example of commercial piracy within Australia of ABC content recorded off air. And if they have such a case, was it serious enough to end up with a conviction of the offender?

Copyright is the excuse for a marketing exercise!

Simple as to why the commercial networks' watermarks disappear - the advertisers pay for the time! Who pays for the ABC? We do! So we should continue to remind them! Of course the irony of the commercial stations not using the watermark during breaks is that it's precisely the time when they are most alike! Go figure!

I think the ABC are just doing the same in breaks without thinking why. Of course, in the process it undermines the whole 'identification' argument, and strengthens the impression the ABC are just following the others like mindless sheep.

I must admit a week ago, I was prepared to give some leeway for watermarks on sport and some news items, but that netball clip I mentioned above still bothers me. Stations just crop/zoom/block/blur it anyway. It's a joke that anyone considers it worthwhile for that reason.

I'm now thinking they should be banned completely in a legal sense. They contribute to technical sub-standard viewing. Supposedly as we are getting access to clean digital pictures. Who is the relevant authority? The ABA? The government?

I just thought of another argument that wallops the watermark.

The ABC Code of Practice refers to classification of programs. One part reads:



It would be extremely difficult to argue that the importance of what station you are watching exceeds the importance of the classification of the program content. But the symbol is only used for a few seconds at the head of each program. Therefore, it could be argued, that if the stations want to use a watermark, they have to also show the classification for the duration too. Hey, it's perfectly reasonable 'consumer advice!'

There is tho one problem with that, for most the ABC is not the rightful owner, it could be a BBC property (Doctor Who).

This goes even more for the commercial stations, 7 don't own Lost, 9 don't own Star Trek and 10 don't own NCIS. Yes they have the rights to broadcast the property in Australia, but they don't own any of it.

So, once again, its marketing, nothing more, nothing less!!

I like it



Isn't relevant, because it's not a matter of specifying the numerous copyrights than can exist in a broadcast, but of subtly reinforcing the message that someone owns the property. I think Michael and yourself are looking at it in a narrow technical sense. If you look at it in a broader context and recognise the pervasiveness of the intellectual property rights issue, it's difficult to ignore that aspect. I am as pissed off at the branding aspect as anyone, but beware the fallacy of the single cause.

It could be said that, among other things, it is marketing the idea of copyright. So we're not that far apart after all

Yeah, true. Which of course does hold pretty well for everything like Ford to Nike.
However, if you ask the average person I would expect you would get one of two replies.

1. Seeing the watermark they would just say that, that was the copyright holder, which would be wrong, unless it was local content (news, Home and Away, etc).
2. Seeing the watermark and say, that was broadcast on [insert TV station name], which of course is the marketing.

Now, you are right, it can be viewed as a little reminder that this is copyright material, but even if ppl pause to think that, it would be a nano second of "I don't give a s**t", followed very closely by, "God damn watermark, I know I'm watching [insert TV station name]".

I guess this then leads to the interesting question, if you asked a room full of ppl, how many know/consider that everything shown on TV is copyrighted.
And even if they do, given the 20 years of VCR, I think that horse has already long gone.

Pizza,

I suggest that you paint "Murder is wrong" onto your living room wall (in big letters).

This is much more important than a "reminder" of copyright.

I do not need to paint my wall, because I know murder is wrong.

But if you think a logo on the TV is going to make a difference to anything to do with copyright, then there are more important things to be said, and your living room wall is a good place to start.

And this post is serious.

If copyright really was the concern, then they could just do a little copyright promo every evening (sort of like on some DVDs). As the ABC have never done this, they cleary are not really concerned.

I do get annoyed when the excuses for the marketing exercise get taken seriously.

Good to see that the jumping television has vanished

Indeed, I noticed that on Monday. Thank god.

The new Aurora on Foxtel does have one. Not sure if this is the same as Channel 31 though.

ABC HD has gotten worst, so blury looks like its needs another wipe and the whole screen will be gone.

I am not so serious, because conjecture simply doesn't justify such an obstinant position. Nothing better than tenuous inferences about what motivated the introduction of watermarks can be made from offhand comments by insiders and observation of watermark appearance and behaviour. The latter is useful for poking holes in the justifications for watermarking, but reading the minds of management and reaching conclusions about the basis of their decisions? A person who is honest with himself would recognise it as the speculation it is, not fall into a reductionist trap and demand everyone follow him.

The fact that I was writing diatribes on the branding aspect well before your "aha!" moment with the Seven exec doesn't preclude me from exploring the issue from different angles. If you considered it a distraction, you could have ignored it.


This is just being condescending and infantile. You ought to take a break if you've become that precious about the issue. Seriously

If the ABC had a good reason for the watermark other than pure marketing, then it would do them alot of good to tell us.

If they had a good reason other than marketing then they would be able to defend this position.

The ABC has not done so.

What was interesting about the 7 spokesperson was that he gave only one reason for watermarking. He did not add any other reasons. He did not need to because his one reason made sense, and was the truth.

Because the ABC is not telling us the truth, the are just listing the excuses.

I am open to the possibility that it is incompetence within the ABC and that someone really does believe some of the excuses. And I have no hesitation on saying "incompetence" because the discussion in the dba forums has shown that the other reasons do not make sense.

I must admit that this does make me hot under the collar, because everytime I watch the ABC the watermark still anoys me, and spoils my viewing.

Did anybody else notice the ABC Watermark stuff up on last week's episode of Little Britain?

This episode was broadcast without the usual watermark, although the previous two episodes did have the watermark.

What was more interesting (and I only spotted yesterday when watching the program again) was that an ABC Kids watermark appeared for a second or so just up from the centre of the screen very near the end credits. There was a background of trees at this point so the green watermark didn't really stand out.

http://img127.exs.cx/img127/1913/littlebritain4ch.th.jpg

So was somebody having a laugh??? Very professional.

It's weird now because the ABC Watermark is only shown during widescreen programmes. When a programme is not in widescreen on analogue or on digital.. they simply don't put it on....

I am not really a huge watermark fan either... but isn't a watermark supposed to last on EVERY program on that channel (sometimes besides news & current affairs) and not just on widescreen shows???

The ABC watermark was shown today during the 4:3 program on D.W. Griffith. So it is on some 4:3 programs.

And in the following thread I have asked people to let the ABC know what we think of watermarks on the opening of ABC2.

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=15269

I have noticed that there is no watermark during At The Movies. Perhaps Margaret and David told them what they could do with it! We could only hope. There indecisiveness with its application seems to indicate that the complaints are having some impact.

I have also noticed that they are still zooming in footage on the news and removing other networks watermarks. The latest was with the grand prix. I wonder how the spin doctors will justify this!

Maybe the catch all of "Industry Practice".

It is industry practice to put watermarks to get publicity when your clip is shown on another channel.

It is also industry practice to sometimes do tricks to remove other channels watermarks when you show some of their content.

The ABC is obviously fairly uptodate

Doesn't their 3+3+3 fair use policy* include giving credit to the source of the content?

*three minutes of footage, three times in a day, three hours apart - well, something like that.

On ABC2 this morning during Inside Business they had three watermarks! The original ABC one and the two ABC2 ones. They don't seem to be even keeping a clean copy of their own programmes any more! Just imagine if they persist with this idiocy that as they inevitably make changes to the watermark, old programmes will be shown with a plethora of them, like a mutating virus!

hi stone wall well as I can testify as an editor for aunty you now have to deliver all programes to on air pres with a water mark....pest pest as this means yet another dub with out bug for our library & in a 30 min programe it can take up to 1 to 2 hours rendering to get the bug into the program...not happpy........I went to presentation asking why they did not do it...no joy there ......also asked where they would like it ......ie 4.3 safe 14.9 safe or 16.9 safe...I was told 14.9 safe and to use the one news uses.... a standard I thought also 75% luminence....now all well & good till I saw '2' this morning & counted 2 or more at times..not happy as some one in pres' is also puting there own bug......the same as landline yesterday......at times 2 bugs......... why don't we have it flying around in all colours .......perhapes in the centre of the screen would be a good place for it& muliti colours to boot...not happy....so if pres was the only one buging none of the above would be an issue......as usual early days & the rules will evolve as it evolves...I hate bugs........I will now make them as light as possible in the programes I'm involved with....

Hi Max,

As an ABC insider, can you please tell us the reason given for the watermark within the ABC?

I am not asking for company secrets. If you have been told that there is to be no talk about the watermark outside of the ABC then that would also be useful information.

And I am asking for the reasons you have been told (ie not what you personaly think makes sense). So any flames in this forum about your answers should of course be directed at your management, and not at you.

Thanks for posting on the forum. It is great to hear something from the inside.

Regards,
Michael

The people working at ABN Pres have no control over the bug/watermark policy, they are running to the daily whims and orders of wind change directions from Television and New Media, complain to them, not On-Air Presentation. For the record, everyone in Pres I am told hates the bugs/watermarks as well. But I am sure an ABC spinmeister would have you believe that all ABC operators 'love emblazoning corporate logos over all programs as being their one and only reason to having being born. And that the operators cant wait to get to work each day to defecate over all programs in such fashion.' There is no written justification that exists as far as I know except for the corporate spin that the switchboard operators have been handed out to inform punters who dare to call in to complain, in fact, the directive for the watermark came from very high in the Corporation for it. And very possibly it was introduced as a tie for free FOXTEL digital carriage of ABC services? Who knows, I am guessing, the only way that can be found out is by FOI requests, which will no doubt be blacked over with ABC logos to cover incriminating bits and pieces.