Have just heard that a new watermark is on its way very soon - anything would have to be better than the current, heinous, lumbering blue blob...

Hi
PLEASE tell us where you heard this information MORE MORE MORE please

Hi Simon L,
You can view the info here, on the ABC "Have Your Say" messageboard:

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=81&m=105132&ps=50&dm=1&pd=3

I notice that the mod has since removed the link to view the new watermark though...

Crap!

The watermark is removed like yous aid which means I can't see it.

Darn, it would have been nice if ABC did this before January that has just gone by!!!!!!

Interested to see what it looks like!

Hopefully very light and non intrusive!

The watermark I propose is invisible. But failing that, anything's gotta be better than that horrid big blue oblong.

Hopefully the blue eyesore is gone in time for Wildcard

Well the new watermark made its debut during rage last night. Its still an eyesore, just not a blue one. If they could make it more transparent or get rid of the big number 1 it would be much better. Begs the question though:If they can swap watermarks halfway through the show , why can't they just switch it off at the start??

Just noticed the new watermark that made its appearance towards the end of Rage this morning. It looks a slight fraction smaller than the other one, is black and white but actually stands out more than the blue skid mark. This is even worse. It needs greater transparency added as the "1" is far to visible and distracting.

I think this is an improvement and WISH that this new Watermark was around in January BUT I must agree that the 1 is so full on :-(

Still like the new one more

No, I don't like it much either - but then again I don't like ANY watermark full stop!

Why does the 1 have to be so big? Really distracting. Also I find it interesting that nowhere can you see the letters 'ABC'. Isn't that the whole point of a watermark - to identify what channel the viewer is watching? Yes it does have the ABC logo on it although it's not that visible and the 1 totally dominates it.

Just like its dreaded blue predecessor, this new watermark gets a BIG FAIL from me!

Fu¢king horrible, it still is. I hate the 1.

Well, it's definitely an improvement on the previous one, being a bit smaller and less like a block of flats but it does need to be more translucent and I agree about the 1 being far too prominent.

Have yet to see how it looks on music clips as I didn't watch Rage on the weekend. That will be the real test of its actual degree of obtrusiveness....

It's OK on lighter clips but as the white logo has very little transparency when the background goes black it stands out like a glow in the dark neon sign.

All logos are crap but when you have a look at SBS at only half the size and a lot more transparent, I would much prefer that to the prominence of the new logo.

No doubt this is the result of 8 months of discussions the big wigs at head office had been going on about - that's money well spent.

Just had a look at the link on the Rage messageboard and you're right, Guru.
The new watermark blends in pretty well to a light background, especially the 1, but it really does stand out like a sore thumb against a dark background,(which of course means it will be just as obtrusive as the previous one regarding most music clips.)

Was hoping it would be less conspicuous but I guess that was too much to ask! They really have no clue, do they ?

The small ABC logo by itself would have been fine without that big "Sesame Street" 1!

Perhaps,by some miracle, Rage will shortly return to being watermark free but I won't hold my breath!

Play school or Sesame Street... the number for today boys and girls is the over-sized .....

FUC% off ABC you idiots.

My first email of complaint went in to ABC complaints about half an hour ago.I asked them if they could understand that something that big is still annoying and that a better solution could be a thin 1 put next to the new smaller ABC symbol.This way its big enough to see but small enough not to annoy.(Well not as much as that big fuc%ing over-sized childish 1)

Im pis s ed right off my expectations were shattered

If the ABC HAD to have a watermark on it, it would have been better had they kept the small ABC logo and put the 1 on the right hand side of it in the same size as the logo.

While it is a little less intrusive than the blue mark I don't like watermarks on TV at all - viewers would surely know what channel they are watching when they switch the remote wouldn't they?

Oh well another 'wonderful' aspect of 21st Century TV viewing - where's that time machine so I go back to the 80's when life was much simpler (and more exciting)??

I've heard that *NO* TV station in Britain has a watermark, and that TV bosses here got the idea from ABC America and CBS which had been using the watermark since the 1970s.

When the ABC first announced the introduction of the watermark more than ten years ago, the excuse they used at the time was that the ABC would be rebroadcast on pay TV and people needed to know what station they were watching.

Gaudy and overintrusive watermarks were one of the reason I cancelled Foxtel last year after more than 14 years. The last straw was when the a-pac station was introduced featuring a solid white neon sign (you couldn't call it a watermark) which took up almost a quarter of the screen.

Yes, Jason,
Wouldn't it be great if they just went with the small and compact vintage ABC logo on Rage?
The perfect compromise and that way nearly everyone, (except for the absolute purists), would be a lot happier...

I saw the logo for the first time, watching ABC1, last night. It is slightly better than the blue, but the design of the '1' looks crap. B l o o d y graphic designers always trying to make their mark!

Well, I posted a message on the Rage messageboard the other day, agreeing with someone that the new watermark was way too opaque and stood out like a bloody big glowing beacon or lighthouse against a dark background.
I also politely asked the Mod about the progress of the "discussions" re the watermark being included or excluded from Rage.
I mentioned that he/she had assured Rage viewers that they would get back to us with more info as soon as a decision had been made.
It has been nearly a year now so surely one has been made by now!!
Anyway, they have chosen not to post my message, preferring to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.
Really poor form that they don't even have the decency to acknowledge it.
Bloody typical and so rude!!

Christine they do this sort of thing all the time on the message boards.Happens to me all the time.

I found the best way to go about it is to just repeat the same comments But ad in at the beginning asking the moderator to print your comments without any bias as you are entitled to your opinion and comments especially when they are polite.

You got on this time Christina. They have allowed you your democratic right to voice your opinion but have not responded which is their way of saying yes it will stay but as that is unpopular we will not say anything. Can't blame the crew at Rage though as it is not their decision - they did a remarkable job keeping it off for about 6-7 years without any action from head office.

It's obvious they will now keep it so I don't see why they are playing charades about it - just tell us and we'll move on. With digital TV you know what channel you are on anyhow therefore the motive is not channel identification. No viewers want watermarks so the decision to keep it is purely as their choice of copyright.

That's spooky. Just after I mention they won't comment on your question they post your latest question and answer it. Is it time to queue the music from X-Files?

I actually think in this case they may not be strictly censoring your posts - just they're so tardy of late with updating the message board posts/displaying the new releases on "Thursday" (maybe Thursday in the Western-most point of Hawaii)/displaying the playlists on Friday afternoon.

Although there doesn't seem to be much traffic at all on the message board lately, so maybe they just wait until they've got 10 or so new posts before they bother to update it?

Yeah Nathan,they have been pretty slack in updating posts, playlists, etc, lately but over the last week, at least one of my questions regarding the watermark has gone MIA.
I submitted them on Sunday or Monday and other people's posts have gone through since then, so who knows what's happened to them.

Anyway, they finally saw fit to answer a later post - as a decision supposedly still hasn't been made perhaps there's hope for a watermark free Rage yet...

Good on you Christina

Don't give up on reminding them from time to time
that us viewers didnt ask for and still dont want a watermark.

I do and wont stop till its gone or we have a decision.

(I reckon this watermarks more noticeable than the last one....stupid over-sized one and the white really stands out) F...wits

Have just read this article and was a bit disturbed by it...

Seems the ABC News 24 morning show which is on ABC4 will be also be shown on ABC1. From what's written it seems it only a Monday - Friday thing at the moment but one cannot help fear the ABC will use this as an excuse to run it 7 days a week - therefore cutting into Rage time.

I hope this isn't a curtain raiser for ridding Rage altogether.....

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/04/abc-news-breakfast-making-the-switch-to-abc1.html

My only concern is that THIS had better NOT happen in January!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bloody hell, how much "news" can a person possibly need?

Do Gen X/Y/Z even care that much about watching the 'news' on TV? I rarely watch it, but if I do, I prefer SBS World News. It's funny to see the decline in the 'quality' (IMO) of ABC News in the last couple of years, with their re-capping of the main stories every so often throughout. The commercial 'news' shows are of course a joke, but it's also been interesting watching them veer into 'A Current Affair'-esque territory with their pointless "exclusives" that nobody actually cares about (well, least not I), and their tabloid "journalism" features like on that NSW state MP visiting a gay sauna . It's like the commercial stations' 'news' programs have become the new 'current affairs' shows, and the ABC News has become the old commercial channel news.

Also, with programs like this, and shows like Sunrise on the commercial channels airing 'news' in the 6-9am slot, what on earth do school kids watch these days when getting ready for school? I remember watching the Flintstones, the Smurfs, Secret Squirrel etc. before school when I was a wee lad... It must suck to be a kid today!

Christina and everybody looks like RAGE have made a decision about the watermark.

This is the Moderators response to my comments about no watermark on the show around the 7th of May.....

"Hi John, as far as we have been made aware, the decision has been made to keep the ABC watermark consistent on all ABC shows, including rage. The lack of a watermark on that day was probably a mistake. Cheers, mod"

So could somebody else please confirm this with them...SAD DAY

Yep we got treated like idiots.

What makes me angry is the fact the new watermark is worse than the old one..... better design(perhaps) but far more noticeable being white.

Its ruined my viewing.

Anybody know of anyway to filter out this white watermark??