Nick Cooper 625 wrote:
And that's just snide
Like I said - no more than the question deserved.
Hang on, we're now talking about two pretty broad-brush issues here - DOGs and recaps - not actual programme content
That's irrelevant. We're still talking about the content of research commissioned for internal use only, and as I'm sure you're aware, internal documents in any organisation are generally considered confidential unless they have been formally cleared for public release. Simply publishing the content of inter-company emails would be grounds for disciplinary action in most companies. If you want to read the relevant research for yourself, you'll either have to get inside the relevant organisations, or petition them to publish it. But you knew all that anyway, right?
And you have claimed that "all" the broadcasters are researching this sort of thing, so it's hard to see that one bit of research on either one is going to come up with some killer revelation that is going to be massively advantageous to whoever commissioned it
Quite possibly not. But in such a competitive environment, it's hardly surprising that everybody is researching the same stuff, and the fact that everybody is researching it doesn't mean that the individual broadcasters shouldn't exercise their right to keep their internal documents private. It's just possible that one piece of research happened to ask a certain question that identified a weakness that a competitor could exploit, for example.
As far as I know, only the BBC has ever - grudgingly - published research on DOGS, and an even then it was clear that a) the survey was designed to justify the practice, rather than work out whether they should be doing it in the first place, and b) the results were presented/spun contrary to the quoted figures accordingly. The most glaring omission was a simple and pretty obvious question of, "Would you rather watch a programme with a DOG or not?"
I've seen research that asked that very question, and only a minority of respondents replied with a definite "without" - the majority were largely noncommittal. One of the follow-up questions was to ask if the presence of a bug would make people actively switch off - with the majority answer "no". For me, that tallied pretty much precisely with my own purely anecdotal observations of how normal people watch TV.
As above, we're talking about two issues that - if one steps back and looks at the objectively (which obviously is often very difficult for those actual on the inside of the system in question) - don't really fit into that category. It's not "what type of programmes should we be making," but a simple, "would you rather were used these two presentations devices or not?"
As above, none of that alters the nature of the information as far as the commissioner of the research is concerned.
The reality is that in the case of DOGS, it has everything to do with constant brand reinforcement
Absolutely it is. There aren't many organisations out there producing something completely unbranded. As I look around my desk now, just about everything electronic has a prominent logo on it.
The reality of the latter is probably that they leave either immediately after/during the recap, or else do so after a few second/minutes with no recap, anyway.
"Probably". You really ought to do some research on that.