What's new

Station Logos Complaint (1 Viewer)

John Royster

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,088
I'd tend to agree with some of the statements made earlier. The only way to really get the message across is by contacting each and every network you have a problem with. Some have changed their logos to transparent. You would think that they changed in response to customer demand, not because "gee, lets change something and spend extra dollars to make those video nuts happy".
Everytime I go into the larger chain stores (strictly for media, of course. :) ).
Most of the public is looking at and oogling a RPTV of some sort. This could be a more forefront concern for networks as more and more of their cusotmers complain.
Not just for a burn-in issue, but for content as well. I love the discovery channel and probably watch it the most. But the previous logo was WAY too distracting, so much so that a signficant portion of the show was lost. I'm not talking about an inconvience, I mean the primary focus of the scene was lost. (think coiled up snake on the left with mouse entering from the right/bottom)
 

David Sim

Agent
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
42
I am so nervous about the whole burn in issue with my new RPTV that I am turning the channel when I think it is a risk.
I'm sure that anybody who has "Discovery" permanently burned into their TV will stop watching the channel all together after being reminded on a daily basis whodunit.
Networks will eventually realize this and adjust accordingly. In the mean time I will send an email on the previously posted site and watch HBO, Showtime, etc..
Another thing, I don't see what it does for the network at all.
I have never stayed with a certain station because their logo was appealing.
Maybe they are hoping for a retinal "burn-in" so you will see their logo every time you close your eyes.
:laugh:
 

BruceSpielbauer

Second Unit
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
275
Regarding the stations' motivation for the logos, they will claim that it is to avoid "confusion" on the part if viewers, who have so many stations to choose from.

This is a fluff statement, though. The truth is that their motivation is an advertising concept commonly known as product recognition. This practice translates as "the more often people have to look at out name, the more likely they are to make use of our product (whatever it is).

As it trasnaltes to other corpporate worlds, this is the reason that Microsoft (by way of example) has insisted that (other) software makers abide by their installation rules for the Windows plateform, whereby a program is allowed to default to one new icon on your desktop, and only new item under your "Start / Programs" Menu. This is a part of the agreement if a sofware maker wants to be granted the "Windows compliant" permission, so they can stamp that label on their sofware. There is, of course, only one company which is allowed any exceptions. And, that is the reason that your brand new PC has items on the Start Menu say "Microsoft Briefcase" and "Microsoft Word" and "Microsoft Excel" and "Microsoft Scheduler" and "Microsoft Reference" and "Microsoft Binder," etc., ad nauseum.

Product recognition is all about greed. It works, on a conscious level. And, scholars can argue as to its effect on a subliminal level.

Since it came up in posts above, I am NOT in favor of the FCC dictating or decreeing whether stations can use these logos. I am in favor of them "urging" stations to quit them practice, due to its potential for damage.

I am very much in favor of users letting stations know how much we despise the logos, how distracting they can be, how potentially damaging they can be, how they do reflect negatively on the station, and how serious we are about this issue.

I am very much in favor of the use of boycott (I have removed two stations from the "Memorized channels" on my RPTV, and I let both of these stations know this via E-Mail. Both had especially bright, colored logos, and I believe them to be a high risk). I do not have the National Geographic Channel, but I have already heard that its logo is another "high risk" one, and I just came from a thread on another forum where users report it is no longer allowed on their sets, and they are letting Nat Geographic know.

I also believe that users can and should let advertisers know. To date, none of this has made a difference. This is simply due to a lack of organization, though. Only a few have spoken up. If there are 3 to 4 million RPTVs in American households, this could be a very strong voice. Right now, the protests have been feeble in number.

"Feeble in number" is the reason that we now must sit through local advertisements for Honest Eddie's Used Cars and Bill's Take-Out-Pizza-and-Laundromat prior to watching a film in a movie theater. There was a campagn of those who protested this when it first occurred, but most simply could not be bothered to voice their distaste and irritation. We were irritated, but not irritated ENOUGH. I fear the same is happening in this case.

I am also very much in favor of the use of the civil court system, for any individual user who has been affected by this, and also I am also very much in favor a class action lawsuit (I would think this would be a no-brainer for an attorney to take this one on, on a contingency basis). It should not be too hard to gather lists of those who have had logo "burn-in" (uneven phosphor burn of a logo). Those who have suffered this would probably jump at the chance of making a case against the networks. Yeah, I know that the individual RPTV owners would not get rich off of this, and they usually only end up with a token or a trifle. No one would get rich off this deal (except perhaps the attorney, and that does not make me especially happy, either), but stations WOULD certainly reconsider these logos after they got socked for some large monetary award. And, that is my interest.

Just my thoughts on this irritating issue,

-Bruce in Chi-Town
 

Dave Poehlman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2000
Messages
3,813
Regarding the stations' motivation for the logos, they will claim that it is to avoid "confusion" on the part if viewers, who have so many stations to choose from.
The thing they don't seem to understand is, I don't watch a channel for the channel's sake, I watch it for what's on that channel! I could give a rat's a** which channel I am watching.
 

TerryMcc

Auditioning
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Messages
3
This burn in thing really annoys me also. I told my wife she can not let my son watch Noggin anymore. Their logo stays the same all day long, and since there aren't any commercials its really bad. I know contacting the networks and the fcc is worthless.. but, I did contact Nielsen Media Research which does all the "sweeps" ratings and other television ratings with my concerns and telling them that I am changing the channel on these stations that have these logos.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 1999
Messages
45
Real Name
stephenrabinowitz
Could we start posting the offending stations & networks with their email & snail mail addresses. As a group we can start writing our objections to them informing them we will boycott their station & their adverisers unless they correct this situation. Also if they insist on keeping the logos & we do watch they will be buying a new TV for every damaged one via small calims court or a class action lawsuit.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
We live in an ever-increasingly commercialized world
Which is why, IMO, those suggesting boycotts are getting at the best method: if the stations believe that showing logos will not help the bottom line (or even hurt it) then they will stop.
Personally, I'd rather see people do a boycott or somesuch than further clog our judicial system with another odious and frivolous lawsuit. :angry:
Out of curiousity, though, how much do these station IDs really hurt? I suppose watching one channel all day every day could cause problems. But does watching a few hours here and a few hours there pose any real danger of burn-in?
 

TerryMcc

Auditioning
Joined
Jul 14, 2001
Messages
3
I think my biggest culprit is the Noggin station. My son loves that station and since they don't have commercials, their stupid logo stays there all the time. I sat down with my wife today and showed her how to move the PIP over the logo. hopefully that will help.
 

BruceSpielbauer

Second Unit
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
275
>>>Which is why, IMO, those suggesting boycotts are getting at the best method: if the stations believe that showing logos will not help the bottom line (or even hurt it) then they will stop.
 

Jesse Skeen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 1999
Messages
5,033
Burn-in isn't even a concern to me, I won't watch anything with a logo just because it ruins the show! I did get a brief survey in the mail from Nielsen (with $5 cash) and I marked that I watched less than 1 hour of TV per week (used to be at least 2 hours per DAY!) and under comments I wrote that I do not watch anything with a logo and they're just going to have to stop if they want me to watch them again.
 

Aaron Cohen

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
468
How long does it take generally for something such as a logo or a static screen on a video game to burn in?

What station's logo is known to be a particular offender?

Anyone here experienced burn in?
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
The TV stations know this.
Your point is taken, though I disagree with the use of lawsuits.

It would also help if manufacturers put a clearly stated warning in the instruction manuals like, "Immediately turn brightness and contrast down to below 50%. Do not watch stations with static images (e.g. scrolling bars, station ids, etc.) for more than a few hours at a time."
 

John Chevalier

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
87
Look at it this way, Maybe you should sue yourself. Because you bought a RPTV, and you watched a channel that could possible cause burn in. Your negligent because you watched that channel. You have to understand that you do not own the station. You do not have a say so in what kinds of programming they put on. If they want to have a logo, that is their choice. If you don't like it, then boycott it, or write letters, or tell the advertisers of the stations. But lawsuits are just another way for people to squeeze money out of companies and drive up prices. There are lawsuits that should be allowed. Like if your TV was putting out radiation and it caused your toes to fall off. You had no idea that it would do this. That is not the case for burn in because you are choosing to watch the TV, it is ultimately your responsibility to watch it responsibly. My grandfather has an RPTV and he has had it for years. He watches history channel and other logo channels. He has his contrast down like he should be. He doesn't have burn in. This is because he is responsible for his TV and will take care of it.
Not one of you has gave any other proof, other than the few that this has happened to. I can give proof that burn in isn't caused only by TV logos. You say, that the TV stations are aware of this, and should go ahead and just bow to the wills of a few people who are complaining. Well, if you want to be heard, then get more people to get involved. None of this evidence anyone is using, can establish that the TV stations are completely at fault and are responsible to pay for your TV, that you had a choice to buy.
What if you do sue a TV station and win, would you use that money and then go buy a new RPTV, then sue them again? Or would you get yours fixed, and then just continue watching? Where does it end? When are people going to accept responsibility and not always put blame on someone else? It's never going to end.
You have a choice of what TV stations to watch. You have a choice to watch the history channel and possibly get burn in. You also have a choice of what sport to play. You have a choice to ski down a steep hill and possibly break your neck. If that happened, by everyone's logic, you should be able to sue the ski resort.
I know that i've run on and on about this, but it's ridiculous.
 

richard plumb

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 5, 1999
Messages
109
The digital channels in the UK can display overlays for a short time after you turn over to them (eg, 'press RED for interactive').

So its perfectly feasible for them to use the same technology to display their station logo for 30 seconds, then it disappears. If the stations are adamant that the only reason they display logos is to help people know what channel they've tuned to, then they shouldn't mind limiting logos to 30 seconds.


As an aside, how about a project for those nice DScaler people? Have an option to overlay the logo area (defined by the user) with a repeat of another section of the screen. This would at least give you similar usage as the rest of the screen.
 

elMalloc

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
787
Real Name
Reuben
It would be sad if RPTV dissappears and nobody cares about opaque objects again..

-ELmO
 

John Chevalier

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
87
"The purpose of the lawsuit is to exact change. And, there is a long history of using the courts for such purposes. The airbag lawsuits of recent years should be an obvious example. If you need more, just ask."

The airbag lawsuits were about the safety of the airbags and how the car companies were marketing them as safer devices. That has nothing to do with a TV station that is not targeting the RPTV group to show their programming. Again, no one is able to show anything that indicates that the owner of a RPTV is not responsible for how they use their TV.

Bruce, even with your last reply, you stated that your users manual states not to watch stuff like that. How are you not liable for burn in if you watch a TV station with a static logo? Personally, I think that if anyone was liable for any burn in, is the manufacturers. They need to completely warn against burn in from TV stations. TV stations are a third party in this. It's like using Netscape Navigator with Microsoft windows. If you install Netscape and it completely messes up your configuration and you have to reinstall everything, and you lose data, would a lawsuit against Netscape be the correct action?

I am not debating the fact that lawsuits like this do occur, I know they occur, and personally, it's sad. The reason that prices are so high today, is partly because of all these people that dont want to be held accountable for their choices they make. It's the "American way" to get away with a mistake that you would make. I can go and drive unsafe and wreck my car, but because my tire blew out and I was not driving safe enough to control my car, I'm going to sue the people that made my car.

If I get a skateboard, and I ride it and break my arm, should I sue the skateboard company? By most accounts, I should be able to.

Lawsuits should be meant for people that actually incur damages from no fault of their own. It is the fault of the owner of a RPTV if they watch a TV channel that they know could cause burn in.

When the TV stations have to go to court, they are going to be paying more money for lawyers, then they will be charging advertisers more, then the advertisers of the products will in turn raise prices. How is that fair to the average joe? It's not. Lawsuits like these are ruining the economy. People, get smart. Research before you make a purchase. Go after the manufacturers, or the stores that sold them to you without warning you of potential burn in. You will have a better chance with them. For every one person that may have burn in, over 1000 more people watch that same channel with no problems. But i'm sure that common sense doesn't work for some people that are completely oblivious to the fact that they are in control of their own actions. I cant wait for another 10 years and see what prices are like. I'm sure I'll have a job defending the corporations that get screwed by nit picky people who just want to complain about something.
 

BruceSpielbauer

Second Unit
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
275
>>> Again, no one is able to show anything that indicates that the owner of a RPTV is not responsible for how they use their TV. > It's like using Netscape Navigator with Microsoft windows. If you install Netscape and it completely messes up your configuration and you have to reinstall everything, and you lose data, would a lawsuit against Netscape be the correct action?Lawsuits should be meant for people that actually incur damages from no fault of their own. > It is the fault of the owner of a RPTV if they watch a TV channel that they know could cause burn in. Research before you make a purchase. Go after the manufacturers, or the stores that sold them to you without warning you of potential burn in. You will have a better chance with them. >For every one person that may have burn in, over 1000 more people watch that same channel with no problems. >But i'm sure that common sense doesn't work for some people that are completely oblivious to the fact that they are in control of their own actions. I cant wait for another 10 years and see what prices are like. I'm sure I'll have a job defending the corporations that get screwed by nit picky people who just want to complain about something.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,535
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top