Information overload

Depending on opinion, the BBC’s new onscreen programme reminders, currently being roadtested by the Corporation, are either a useful guide for viewers or an irritating and unnecessary distraction. But, asks Paul Hayes, do they set a dangerous precedent?

Viewers of BBC1 and BBC2 were in for something of a surprise over the weekend of September 25 and 26. Without any fuss or fanfare, that weekend the BBC began the trial run of a new type of digital onscreen graphic – DOG for short – which to dismay of many viewers began appearing on screen a few minutes before the end of the current programme, informing anybody watching what would be coming up next. At the moment this is just a trial process which will possibly be expanded to the entire BBC output. But the question many are asking is ‘why?’

Nearly all of those watching will have access to some sort of television guide magazine or even simply the listings in newspapers. Failing that there is teletext, the digital television on-screen programme guide or even the internet for finding out what’s coming next. Is it really necessary for the programme currently in progress to have a graphic placed across the bottom of the screen trying to attract all those watching to the next, especially in an environment when the BBC is attempting to defend claims that it is too focused on attractive viewing figures at any cost?

From the BBC’s point of view it is necessary. The standard reply from both the BBC press office and its general audience counterpart BBC information is that: “We know from audience research that some viewers appreciate extra information to help find their way around the BBC’s channels and schedules.” All well and good but surely this is what trailers between programmes and the voiceovers over the end credits are for? The ‘programme pointers’ as the Corporation has dubbed the graphics would doubtless be less intrusive if they were run over the end credits of the programme in question but interrupting the main part of the show has the same effect as if a voiceover had been added. It removes the viewer from the programme and irritates many.

Broadcasting writer and journalist MJ Simpson sums up the views of many of those who have voiced complaints to the BBC about the application of the new graphics. “The use of these ‘programme pointers’ is a perfect example of how the BBC is bothered about everything except (a) programmes and (b) viewers,” he says. “Evidently some focus group has said they want these things but they were probably asked, ‘Would you like to be better informed about BBC schedules?’ rather than, ‘Would you mind if a third of the screen was covered with a big box of text 20 minutes into your favourite sitcom?'”

The BBC has run into trouble over its DOGs before, when in the early days of its digital services it placed BBC1 and BBC2 logos permanently in the corner of the screen on the digital versions of those channels. In that case, public dismay forced the corporation to backtrack and remove the logos in a rare show of a broadcaster actually listening to the thoughts of its audience. But will it be the case this time? In recent years the BBC has shown an admirable trend in reversing some of the more dubious trends of modern television presentation, with the process of ‘credit squashing’ having also been scaled back but the new graphics perhaps indicate that they are now less concerned about the way their programmes are seen and enjoyed.

The BBC is not the only broadcaster to be looking at ways of using DOGS during programmes, however. Last month the Guardian newspaper reported that ITV is looking at appealing to European regulators to allow them to place sponsor graphics in the corner of the screen throughout the duration of a programme – for example, having a Cadbury’s logo run throughout Coronation Street. Current regulations guard against such blatant and permanent advertising but ITV’s argument is that the rise of advert-avoiding television recording devices such as the TiVo are putting their advertising revenues at risk and they need to find ways and means of making sure their sponsors names are seen by the audience. Charles Allen, the chief executive of ITV, comments: “We do think product placement has a part to play but it’s something that will require regulatory change.”

If regulators feel that a lack of advertising revenue will cause the collapse of major commercial broadcasters, it may not be long before such regulatory change arrives and stations are allowed to plaster any logos they please across the screen during a programme.

Many would ask whether this really matters. Doubtless many subscription television channels will be able to make money out of proudly-branded ‘DOG free’ services and those who are particular fans of a television programme will nearly always be able to buy a ‘clean’ version on DVD. But surely this is beside the point – an audience deserves to be able to watch a programme it has already paid a licence fee for, free from interruption by any graphic a broadcaster chooses to show it.

In 1955 at the Gala Opening of the ITV network in London, the then postmaster general Charles Hill declared very firmly that: “We shall not be bothered by a violinist stopping in the middle of his solo to advise us of his favourite brand of cigarettes, nor indeed will Hamlet interrupt his soliloquy to tell us of the favourite brand of toothpaste ordinarily used at Elsinore.”

Almost fifty years on and it seems that Hill’s statement is beginning to look a little less secure.