Interesting results from a survey of younger viewers in US and Britain regarding watermarks (or onscreen channel logos).
It will be great if there is a similar survey for younger viewers in Australia, so their views can be compared to those of younger viewers in US and Britain in regards of watermarks.
Exploring the viewers’ reasons for preferring logos, Viacom’s study found that viewers in favor of logos thought the interface was better designed, more innovative, had better discovery and had “more current, desirable content.”
This makes absolutely no sense, but do we expect much from a study funded by a broadcaster?
And asking a subset of the population who have known nothing else but watermarks?
Dodgy methodology; put this “research” in the big round file.
I’m in the UK on holiday at the moment, and i’ve noticed that many channels only show their watermark for about a minute after returning from an ad break. Otherwise, it’s generally a clean feed.
The exception is the +1 channels, which have a little “+1” watermark permanently affixed to the channel (usually in the top right) through programming and ad breaks.
Fox are running a larger bug than usual for today’s NFL playoffs “Wild Card round” match, which is normal for Fox during special matches. Seven and Prime’s bugs are sitting over the top as a result.
Fox (via NFL GamePass):
7mate metro (via 7plus):
7mate via Prime
ESPN have their bug over on the left
For comparison, the normal Fox NFL bug
And so it should be.
‘Spark’ would have been a good name for one of the 10 multi’s.
Instead of peach, yes.
I’d go with a Ten Sports Network - or TSN for short.
Great channel for triple episodes of Sex and the City. 
