The ABC isn't likely to use this argument officially, as the commercial stations use it and isn't really appropriate for them.

However, an ABC spokesperson on radio did say they are following the commercial networks lead in 'branding'. Here's a suggestion: If you want the ABC to stand out, promote it as 'watermark-free'. It certainly appeals to us! Aggressive branding is only a requirement to marketing products that are similar and becomes substantially less important when they are different. The ABC already holds unique market advantages in having no commercial content and being free-to-air. In fact, no other television station in Australia can claim to have both of these. If the ABC wants to stand out, it should stress this, rather than employ a commercial method for promotion on everything and therefore seriously compromising its own content advantage in the process! They may not consider the method they are using as aggressive, but what else can you call something that affects every frame of programs? There's also the danger of over-exposure. It is possible to make any corporate logo become over-used because it appears on everything. How counter-productive it is to make your audience loathe the logo which is an integral part of your identity!

The ABC has core values that are described in its Charter:
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACT 1983
- SECT 6
Charter of the Corporation [see Note 2]

(1) The functions of the Corporation are:

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and public sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:

(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
(ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;
(emphasis added)

It is possible to argue subjectively about 'high standards' in terms of artistic merit or entertainment value of programming, but not when it comes to the technical standards of television. And like it or not, technical standards form part of a reasonable interpretation of the above statement, since it is followed by the qualification 'as part of the Australian broadcasting system'. (emphasis added) before going on to mention programming content. For example, people might start complaining if luminance (brightness) or chrominance (colour) values for all content on the ABC did not adhere consistently from one program to the next to industry standard practice for the PAL system.

These practices exist so that people can view television without having to know anything about the technical details - i.e. everything conforms to a standard that allows viewers to engage in content the way program-makers intended. Watermarks throw up a barrier by being a distraction for some viewers (in the same way dark or out-of-focus pictures or distorted audio would annoy) and are therefore outside what is technically acceptable. It would be surprising if the people who made the decisions to apply watermarks have ever worked as cameramen or editors, who take great care in capturing and preserving high quality images.

The straightforward conclusion is that watermarks do not accord with the ABC Charter.

The ABC also has something to say about what it spends its money on in the current Corporate Statement.