About the BBC - BlogAbout the BBC - Blog
Local Navigation
« Previous | Main | Next »

Digital On-Screen Graphics - research findings

As digital switchover continues apace the audience can choose from lots of different channels and technologies to consume television programmes, with some having access to over 500 different channels. 

As the number of channels grows we at the BBC believe it is important that viewers can quickly identify when they are watching a BBC service. That is why the BBC, like many other broadcasters, insert channel identifiers for dedicated digital channels. The identifier, called a Digital On-Screen Graphic (DOG), is normally at the top left-hand part of the picture to avoid clashing with subtitles or captions.

You may ask the question why don’t  we show on screen graphics on BBC One and BBC Two as well.  The reason we don’t is that they are very well established channels that always appear on positions 1 and 2 of the EPG. Our digital channels are much newer and are on different numbers, depending on what platform you’re watching on, be it Freeview, Freesat or one of the subscription options available, and DOGs allow viewers to identify the channel instantly.

DOGs have always been subject to wider public interest and every now and then we’re asked why we use them. Over 48 million people watch the BBC’s television channels each week and it’s natural that, within a group that large, people will have differing views about DOGs. With that in mind, we commissioned a detailed piece of research to gain a deeper understanding of how the public at large feel about Digital On-Screen Graphics.

The research was carried out by Ipsos MediaCT using in-home interviews, amongst a nationally representative sample of 1031 people across the UK. The research took place from 5-11 March 2010 and we would like to share some of those findings from the research with you.

Download the research summary by Ipsos Mori (PDF 1.4MB)

Do people notice DOGs?

Very few of the people interviewed spontaneously noticed the DOGs on screen, even when prompted.  The DOGs aren’t the first thing the eye is drawn to, even on a TV screen that was not very busy. Our research found that the majority of people tend to agree that they ‘don’t really notice them’.

Do people find DOGs helpful?

Despite this claimed low awareness, DOGs are the most commonly cited aid in helping people identify the channel they are watching. This puts it ahead of the EPG and other methods in claimed use for channel identification. A majority (6 in 10) agree that DOGs are a quick and easy way in which to identify the channel they are watching.

How do people feel about DOGs?

Despite the fact that they are rarely noticed and their usefulness in identifying the channel, the research did show that the audience have mixed views about DOGs:

  • around a quarter of all TV viewers hold negative views about DOGs
  • a similar proportion (27% ) are broadly accepting of them
  • around half of do not have consistently strong views either ways

The research also shows that even amongst those who dislike DOGs, many still agree (4 in 10) that they play a helpful role in identifying the channel; so, although they may irritate, they can at least see the point of them. A minority of people (11%) both don’t like them in principle and don’t find them useful .

DOGs are changing

As of 4 April 2011 we’ll be moving our DOGs to help improve your viewing experience. Read on to understand more.

What has changed?

The BBC has moved the Digital On-Screen Graphics (DOGs) on its digital channels to a wide-screen (16:9) position further towards the top left hand corner of the screen. Up until now DOGs have been set for old-style (4:3) sets which meant that on wide-screen TVs they appeared closer to the centre of the screen.

Why has it changed?

We moved the DOGs to this position on our HD channels at the start of 2011 and received positive audience feedback on the improved viewing experience. Internal BBC surveys indicate that over half of all TV sets are now widescreen, though that rises to over 80% of TVs in the living-room. So in order to ensure the best possible viewing experience for audiences in the future we feel that now is the time to make this change.

What do I do if the DOG on my screen is obscured?

Don't worry. This will be because you have a digital TV box linked to an old style (4:3) TV and have the viewing option set to "centre cut-out". All you need to do is reset your viewing options to "letterbox". This way you will also be able to see more of the picture too.

I hope that helps explain the thinking behind why we have DOGs, and the way in which we tailor our services in a way that ensures they cater for the BBC’s large and varied audience in the best way possible.

Helen Normoyle is Director of Marketing and Audiences

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    I can only imagine that the research didn't cover the egregious large, animated DOG on CBBC which is so annoying we ended up just watching the whole of the last Sarah Jane Adventures on iPlayer instead. The CBeebies one is slightly better, but still distractingly animated.

  • Comment number 2.

    Research will always be designed to give the commissioners of such research the answers they want. Everyone in PR and marketing knows this secret truth.

    Why not just be honest and talk about things like unauthorised redistribution of video material and the need for DOGS to help minimise this (in a losing battle)? Surely the best of the current watermarking techniques are better for this?

    If people are too thick to know what they are watching then they are unlikely to remember anyway.

    DOGS as with internet banner ads just become invisible to the viewer eventually so why have them?

    Where they are not invisible it will be because the viewer always watches one channel and the bug gets burnt into their screen. I expect you still get complaints about this.

  • Comment number 3.

    I wonder how these people find their required channel in the first place? I presume they channel surf until they find the one they are looking for, with the DOG they recognise, that's the only conclusion I can come to from the above research.

    The way myself, and everyone I know finds, and recognises the channel they want, is either through the EPG which takes seconds, and a massive banner informs you of the channel details, or by memorising the numbers of the regular channels used.

    Why would one want to look at a DOG constantly to know what channel you're on anyway? If you're so inclined, might it be easier to press the enter button on the remote, which would bring up the info?

    After many complaints, Sky have recently made their DOG's more transparent on certain channels, and can hardly be seen now, well done to them.

    I personally do not know anyone who likes, or uses DOG's for any purpose, they are annoying and intrusive.

  • Comment number 4.

    'Around a quarter of ALL TV viewers hold negative views about DOGS'.


    If the research covered only 1,031 viewers I would hardly think that the term 'all TV viewers' is appropriate.

  • Comment number 5.

    I am one of the "quarter of all viewers" who "hold negative views" about DOGs, or in other words, detest the wretched things. They effectively lower the quality of the programmes on which they're imposed, are completely unnecessary as channel identification (see comments above) and insult the viewer's intelligence. If the DOGged programme is worth watching, the channel logo is an ugly blot on a carefully framed picture placed there not by the programme's makers but by people who obviously believe marketing a television channel is more important than what it is there for in the first place.

    As someone with a 4:3 set, I am pleased to read that BBC DOGs are being placed out of sight (I'll believe it when I see it) and can only hope that by the time I can afford or am forced to invest in a new TV they will have been removed completely.

    BBC4 has always removed its DOG during feature films and the occasional concert; a tacit admission if ever there was one that they are offensive - and not worthy of the BBC.

  • Comment number 6.

    " * around a quarter of all TV viewers hold negative views about DOGs
    * a similar proportion (27% ) are broadly accepting of them
    * around half of do not have consistently strong views either ways"

    Ok so the holders of negative views make it clear they are negative.

    So what does broadly accepting them mean? It certainly doesn't mean they like them or you would say that. Being conditioned into accepting them sounds more like it.

    Why don't you actually put a TV in front of solitary individuals as part of your sample group and test them? See how they actually find the channel, by dog or by epg rather than just asking people?

    How can they find a channel while adverts/trailers are on for example when dogs go missing, which is when most people channel hop and need to know where they are?

    "A majority (6 in 10) agree that DOGs are a quick and easy way in which to identify the channel they are watching." So what!!! Is that information they continually need? No it isn't.

  • Comment number 7.

    Treating the viewer like a braindead gormless person is just insulting. When choosing which PROGRAMME to watch it matters not one jot nor tittle what CHANNEL it's on! Surely most intelligent viewers choose what they want to watch and then tune in to that programme. Once there why do they need an annoying identifier on screen?

    It just makes NO SENSE at all.

    The results of this very limited survey is practically useless and meaningless. Just ask one simple question: "Would you prefer no DOGs?" I know what the MAJORITY would say! YES, a 1000 times YES!

  • Comment number 8.

    Who did this research?? The majority of people don't notice the DOGs and yet the majority of people find them helpful? How can you find something helpful if you haven't even noticed that it's there? This sounds like extremely badly formulated research questions that lead to contradictory answers in the respondents.

    The REAL question is this: what possible advantage is there is having a DOG that persistently tells you the answer to a question that you weren't even asking? Seriously, how much time do people devote to the question 'I wonder what channel I'm watching?'

    DOG-ging is a pure and simple BRANDING exercise and has NOTHING to do with informing the viewer about anything.

  • Comment number 9.

    The answer of course is to find a way to make it optional. The quarter of viewers that dislike the DOG can then switch it off. Those that like it can leave it showing. Surely this must be possible.

  • Comment number 10.

    Even by the admission of this deeply flawed limited research, 'around a quarter of all TV viewers hold negative views about DOGs'. One in six were in strong agreement that 'they get in the way of the programme being shown', a third agreed that they are 'irritating' and nearly 40% agreed that they are 'distracting'. That is a huge number of people to annoy.
    The Ipsos MORI results appear to be contradictory in a number of areas:
    1) 'Those who were more anti DOGs tended to be more AB, although this group still comprised a mix of social grades' (presumably then the issue particularly annoys BBC4's target audience).
    2) 'Most (59%) claimed not to notice the DOGs, but did see that they can play a useful role in channel identification'. How can they simultaneously not notice them but also find them useful?
    3)The so called representative sample of 1,031 adults were shown two still images, each said to be a typical image that you may see on a television to see if they spotted the DOG. Both images were brightly lit. A typical image on a TV is of course a moving image and how many if they had been shown a clip of the relentlessly dark drama The Killing would have failed to have noticed and been distracted by the stark white BBC4 logo?
    4) 'Audiences prefer transparent or low visibility images, over bold and brightly coloured ones and 60% agreed that while static logos are fine, moving logos annoy'. This still leaves a huge 40% who think static logos are not fine and the other 60% presumably hate the animated logos on CBBC and CBeebies and the pink BBC3 logo.
    5) 'The survey finds that only 27% were broadly accepting of DOGs'. Why therefore do the remaining vast majority of 73% who are not therefore broadly accepting have to put up with them?
    6) Whilst the survey in Question 12 asked 'are there any kinds of programmes where you would not find it useful to see channel logos?', no mention was made in the overall conclusions regarding the results to this question. Whilst DOGs are perpetually annoying, they are particularly irksome when transmitted with feature films or dramas. BBC4 has tacitly acknowledged this as they show feature films without the DOG. Why then does BBC4 continue to broadcast dramas with the DOG?
    7) Why didn't MORI ask the simple question 'Would you prefer programmes to be transmitted without a DOG, yes or no? Was that a question which the Marketing and Audiences department would be frightened of getting an answer to?
    8) 'DOGs are the most commonly cited aid in helping people identify the channel they are watching' Viewers don't want to be constantly reminded throughout the whole length of a programme what channel they have tuned into, particularly with film and drama, they want to be engrossed in and enjoy the story. They know what channel they have chosen by means of the EPG, Radio Times etc.
    9) 'As of 4 April 2011 we'll be moving our DOGs to help improve your viewing experience'. 'We moved the DOGs on our HD channels at the start of 2011 and received positive audience feedback on the improved viewing experience'. Acknowledgement again that these things were and still are annoying and action needed to be taken, hence the change. Here's a suggestion, improve the viewing experience even more by getting rid of the things altogether or at the very least on all drama and film output on BBC3 and BBC4.

    Helen Normoyle (Director of Marketing and Audiences) needs to look again at how this limited data has been interpreted and Richard Klein (Controller BBC4) needs to put some pressure on the Marketing Department to stop them ruining the drama output on his otherwise excellent channel.





  • Comment number 11.

    The DOGS on CBBC and CBeebies are both too distracting, and in the case of the last series of The Sarah Jane Adventures, sometimes obscured the faces of actors. Not at all helpful.

    And the dayglo pink for the BBC Three DOG, well that's too distracting too.

    How many of the sample audience were those who watch these three Digital Channels from the BBC?

  • Comment number 12.

    To establish one of the key findings 'Do viewers notice DOGs', the researchers showed what was said to be a 'typical image' (a photograph, not a moving image on a screen) that they would see on a TV. Both photographs carried the BBC4 logo against a brightly lit background.
    Would they have been more inclined to notice the brightly coloured BBC3 logo, or the animated logo on CBBC and CBeebies? Or would the respondents noticing the logos not have been the point of the exercise in producing the results that the BBC Marketing Department wanted. Was Iposos MORI researching Digital On Screen Graphics or researching BBC4 Digital On Screen Graphics?

    In answer to the question 'Are Dogs useful?', Ipsos MORI say 'Once we had introduced the idea of DOGs in the corner of the screen, the majority agreed that these DOGs play a helpful role in channel identification'. Drawing someone's attention to a BBC4 logo on a photograph and then asking would this identify what channel you were watching would fairly obviously elicit the response of Yes.

  • Comment number 13.

    "One in six were in strong agreement that the DOGs are intrusive – claiming that ‘they get
    in the way of the programme being shown’. A third agreed that they are ‘irritating’; and
    nearly 4 in 10 agreed that they are ‘distracting’."

    In any other situation annoying 40% of your consumers would be seen as disastrous.


    "Attitudes towards DOGs seem to be deep rooted as our results showed that views
    towards whether they would be useful or not did not change by channel."

    I don't believe those who accept DOGs have a deep rooted attitude, I expect most of them would not care if they were there or not.


    "As one of our first questions we split our sample into random halves and showed both
    halves a typical image that they would see on TV."

    This misses the point. DOGs are most distracting on a panning image, where its position remains static against the rest of the image that is moving. Also, neither test image showed the DOG drawn across a face, again incredibly annoying.

  • Comment number 14.

    Thank you for your comments. In answer to some of your questions, the research was conducted by Ipsos Mori - a reputable research company and one of the largest in the UK. The findings are based on a standard sample for this kind of research. It is not possible to interview everyone in the population therefore we always choose an appropriate sized sample that is designed to be representative of the UK population, for example ensuring that we cover people from all ages 15+, gender and socio-economic groups as well as a good geographical representation.
    The questionnaire is designed following MRS (Market Research Society) guidelines which offer best practice guidance so as not to influence the opinions of anyone participating or lead the respondent to a particular answer.

    We do acknowledge, both in the blog and the research summary, that there is a percentage of people who find DOGs intrusive, irritating or distracting. However, in our survey, only a small percentage of people (11%) both don’t like them in principle and don’t find them useful. 27% are broadly accepting of DOGS, which means that people did not agree that they were intrusive, irritating or distracting and on top of this, around half did not have consistently strong views either way.

    The research covered attitudes towards DOGs amongst viewers of a wide range of channels, including CBBC and CBeebies.

    As a public service broadcaster trying to serve lots of different people with different views this means that unfortunately we cannot please everyone all of the time, but given the research findings, we believe that we are doing the right thing for the majority of our audience.

    Helen Normoyle, Director of Marketing & Audiences BBC

  • Comment number 15.

    Helen Normoyle has obviously preferred to focus on the supposed 11% who don't like them and don't find them useful, rather than the 40% who find them distracting, 25% who who are negative towards DOGs and 60% who find brightly coloured or animated logos annoying,

    This whole debate seems now to focus on the majority who find them 'useful'. 'Useful' being defined as 'if you are distracted by a BBC4 logo or find the logo annoying, then this is still obviously useful in telling you that you are watching BBC4. Seems a very perverse way of justifying continuing with DOGs.

    Why cannot the BBC be more selective in using the DOGs and carry forward the ban on BBC4 feature films' DOGs to all drama output on all digital channels as well as films on BBC3?

  • Comment number 16.

    This whole exercise , using a very small sample (regardless of what is said in 14 above) is typical of what passes for customer feedback these days.

    Helen Normoyle has a background in market research and therefore probably cannot ever be openly critical of the value of research (burning bridges etc.). Later in her career Helen worked in Marketing and Media Literacy. Again with this as a background the unquestioning mantra of "brand" is likely to have become ingrained.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/02_february/28/normoyle.shtml

    I have worked with enough marketing and brand people in the past to know that they truly believe that they know best and can set the trends.

    DOGS are all about brand. Brand awareness is fashionable. No research will be allowed to undermine this.

  • Comment number 17.

    Ms Normoyle takes great care not to give us her own opinion of DOGs. Presumably she likes to see branding applied to everything, since marketing and research into levels of brand awareness are her livelihood. It would be nice to hear the opinions of programme makers - it's their efforts that most of us want to watch on television, not channels.

  • Comment number 18.

    May I also meak a plea for No DOGs on premier showings of Doctor Who Confidential, and no continuity announcements and credit squeezes for the first time these are shown?

  • Comment number 19.

    When are you going to move the annoying DOG on BBC Four to the edge of the screen (wide screen) and dim it to be but a translucent watermark rather than an irritating intrusion onto our viewing? Better still kill it altogether as I know what channel |I am watching as I tuned to it using the EPG.

    For goodness sake we know what channel we are watching and don't need it to be emblazoned across the forehead of people during first class dramas like Wallander, The Killing and Spiral.

    Come on BBC lose the intrusive DOG and please stop interrupting end credits with chirpy continuity announcements when you screen such deeply atmospheric dramas as Wallander, The Killing and Spiral.

  • Comment number 20.

    Wow - some fascinating interpretation there!

    "27% are broadly accepting of DOGS, which means that people did not agree that they were intrusive"

    No, 27% are broadly accepting of DOGS, which means that 27% of people did not agree that they were intrusive

    To summarise

    11% of people detest them and would be happier if they went
    27% do not mind them, but would not likely be bothered if they went
    50% have no strong feelings either way and would therefore not be bothered if they went

    "As a public service broadcaster trying to serve lots of different people with different views this means that unfortunately we cannot please everyone all of the time, but given the research findings, we believe that we are doing the right thing for the majority of our audience."

    No, you are pleasing 27% of the audience, the rest don't care or detest them.

  • Comment number 21.

    The BBC, like every other broadcaster, is just 'keeping up with the Jones's'. What others do, the BBC must do. The Marketing elements within the corporation are following established patterns. They are interpreting statistics to ensure the status quo.

    Isn't it a pity that they can't see this from the 'viewers' angle?

    We watch programmes - the channel is irrelevant. DOGs are intrusive and NOT what the original programme or film-maker had intended to be on-screen.

    As for 'channel loyalty', I'd be prepared to abandon the BBC - if I wasn't obliged to pay for it!

  • Comment number 22.

    To summarise the actual quote from the MORI poll research findings 'Once we had introduced the idea of DOGs, 52% agreed that logos are helpful for identifying the channel'.

    Translated, this means that 'even if you find the DOG intrusive (17%), irritating (33%) or distracting (40%), once you have been annoyed by say the BBC4 logo and had your eye drawn to it, then it still nonetheless informs you that you are watching BBC4 and ergo it is useful in this regard'.

    The Marketing Department is going to use this survey for years to come to justify continuation of the status quo and in particular the claim that only a small percentage of people (11%) both don’t like them in principle and don’t find them useful.

    What they should be asking is not are they useful?, but are they necessary?

  • Comment number 23.

    DOGs are verry annoying ,why deface a HD channel with a Logo in the corner, its quality is the main reason for the expense of going HD in the first place so why deface it with a DOG

  • Comment number 24.

    I presume now Sky is now DOG-free, they no longer need viewer loyalty and Sky's viewers no longer find them 'helpful'?

  • Comment number 25.

    I just started reading the survey and already the conclusions seem a bit forced. Of course the majority find the logo 'helpful' in identifying the channel. It doesn't ask if it's 'necessary' to identify the channel. If DOGs were not there, I doubt if anyone would be unable to find the channel they wanted.

    As noted above, people don't care about identifying a channel whilst they are watching it. But that bothers the broadcasters because it means there's no brand loyalty. So DOGs are added in order to identify the brand. It's useful for the broadcasters but is not necessary for the viewer. After all, if I'm watching a programme I like, why do I need to 'identify' the channel?

  • Comment number 26.

    Am I the only one with the settop box that tells me what channel I am on?

  • Comment number 27.

    I just tried to watch The Kennedys (which was actually OK, and paid rather more attention to the political context than the discussion programme that preceded the broadcast of the series had led me to believe, hence my dropping in on a later episode) on BBC HD.

    The DOG was a constant annoying presence, pitching me out of the drama far too frequently to make it a viable viewing experience. I was going to abandon it altogether when I found it was simulcast on BBC 2, which I switched to for the remainder of the show. What a relief, but what a grotesque scenario where the choices are between a technically very good but spoiled picture and a significantly less good but clean picture.

    Yes, I’m in the group of viewers the survey identifies as disliking DOGs, but the way that debatable intepretation of dubious data (I found the naivety of trying to assess the noticeability of DOGs on the basis of that pair of stills breathtaking) has been firmly translated into “we believe that we are doing the right thing for the majority of our audience” sickens me for the future relationship between the BBC and its audiences. There is no need to rehearse any further the excellent critiques of this survey and its conclusions set out in previous comments. Just to summarise using a current phrase, the race to the bottom is in full swing. The BBC needs to think again.

  • Comment number 28.

    Typical weasel words from a marketing "person". You've heard of the expression that if all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail? Well, to marketing "people" all content is one big swill-bucket in which to rattle their sticks. I know, I've had the misfortune to have had to work on the fringes of the marketing "profession" in my time. They have no respect for the artists and craftsmen who create the works they slap their logos on, or jabber over the end credits of. Nor do they pay more than lip service to the opinions of the viewing public (or the swine to continue my paraphrasing of George Orwell.) Marketing is doing enough damage to society via the corporate world, but somehow it is even worse when it comes from an institution like the BBC, where it is so completely unnecessary.

  • Comment number 29.

    Even if the survey had proven that 90% of those questioned wanted them to be removed for ever, the marketing department would have found a way of making this a positive, in favour of them.

    Currently the BBC are going through an exercise in reducing costs. I could save them lots in one fell swoop.Get rid of all the people responsible for marketing and all their stupid nonsensical ideas.

    Result ------------- Happy viewers.

  • Comment number 30.

    Savour this classic response received from BBC Complaints:

    "All digital channels use DOGs to help viewers navigate in a world of many channels. For HD simulcast channels they are particularly useful, in confirming for viewers who are less conscious of picture definition which version of the channel they are on."

    So, not only are DOGS there for the benefit of people who are too thick, or can't be bothered, to work out what channel they're watching. They're also there to tell people who wouldn't otherwise notice that the picture they're looking at is of a particularly high quality.

    It's a bit like plastering your luxury car with labels: "THIS IS A ROLLS-ROYCE, YOU KNOW!"

  • Comment number 31.

    One click of the remote will instantly tell you which channel you are watching.The fact is that people watch programmes and NOT channels.If I enjoy a programme I'm really not that bothered which channel it's on.It is impossible to navigate to a channel without a banner coming up on screen to tell you which channel it is.This applies whether you scroll through or key in a number.DOGs and IPPs are an annoying and unnecessary intrusion and are only there as a branding exercise

  • Comment number 32.

    I do not even have to click the remote, it is shown on my set top box.

  • Comment number 33.

    I had always associated these things with satellite channels but now it seems the reverse is true. Sky have removed them from all their non-sport channels - well done Sky. I find them very intrusive and an insult to our intelligence. It was a big improvement on BBC ONE HD for one or two days this month when I think somebody forgot to switch it on. They are not required for copyright as the channel may not be the copyright owner. This is shown at the end of the program with a small c in a circle.

  • Comment number 34.

    I don't have a Freeview or satellite box and I don't pay the TV licence anymore. DOGs are one of the reasons why I stopped watching television as it is broadcast. They are part of the general dumbing-down that has occurred over the last 20 years. They cheapen the programmes and prevent the viewer from becoming fully engrossed in what they are watching. Good luck with all your market research, you know best, but I am one viewer who has voted with the off switch and I suspect many more will do so in coming years.

  • Comment number 35.

    I think some weighting needs to be put on the survey results because the people against them have far stronger views than those who constantly need to know which channel they are on. People against them find it intrusive and annoying whereas the people for them don't really seem to be up in arms against the channels that do not show them. I do not remember in the past when they were not there, anybody complaining that they needed them! Has anybody complained about the Sky channels that do not have them. If you went to the cinema would you like to have 'Odeon Leicester Square' permanenty written on the screen? When listening to the radio would like to have a voice in the background repeatedly saying 'you are listening to Radio 2' ?

  • Comment number 36.

    The very last series of The Sarah Jane Adventures was still plagued by the DOG 9not K9 of course) on its debut on CBBC. Ah, well.

  • Comment number 37.

    Totally agree that DOGs need to go! Totally ruin the viewing experience. Many DOGs are displayed far too left on the screen on wide screen TVs.

    GET RID OF THEM! PLEASE!

  • Comment number 38.

    If I remember correctly the BBC put DOGS on the digital version of BBC 1and2 when digital first started and after a high level of complaints removed them. Now with the move to HD where the HD version of BBC1 has a DOG on it seems like de-ja-vu! Why can't the BBC learn from there mistake of putting a DOG on BBC 1 and 2Digital.
    Also I find the DOG's even more irritating on films and program's shown in 2.35 aspect ratio as it stands out much more against the black bars. I wish they could at least bring back the policy of removing the DOGs on dramas and films on the HD channels which they stopped doing since BBC 1 HD started.
    Or they should adopt a sky style to DOGS and show them for a few secs at beginning of the program!

  • Comment number 39.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 40.

    I also just went to watch a program on cbbc BBC but stopped after five minutes due to the animated BBC cbbc Logo.

    These things are bad enough by why on earth does it have to be even more distracting by being animated?

    I myself cant see why they are of any use at all to the viewer as just about every TV, Cable or satellite box will tell you what channel you are on.

    If they are for copyright protect, just pop a very small message up every 15 minutes with just the BBC Logo.

  • Comment number 41.

    Nice to see sport relif was DOG free on both BBC 1HD AND BBC HD, shame they can't be DOG free all the time!, if they are not needed on certain shows why are they needed at all. I doubt any less people watched the HD channels less last night as a result!

 

About this blog

Senior staff and experts from across the organisation use this blog to talk about what's happening inside the BBC. We also highlight and link to some of the debates happening on other blogs and online spaces inside and outside the corporation.

Here are some tips for taking part.

This blog is edited by Jon Jacob.

Subscribe to this blog

You can stay up to date with About the BBC via these feeds.

If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Follow this blog

Other BBC blogs

More from this blog...

Categories

These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.