SBS
Locked Bag 028
Crows Nest NSW 1585

Wednesday 27th July 2005

Dear Sir,

I noticed with considerable dismay that SBS has begun using watermarks over general programming.

As a viewer, and also as an industry editor/ cameraman/ producer for almost two decades (for all the networks at one time or another), I believe this change in policy marks the end of high quality broadcasting in Australia. It is a dark and dismal day for Free-To-Air TV.

Being constantly distracted by an anomaly in the corner of the screen (therefore diluting the enjoyment of the program), viewers can and do switch off. Earlier this year, the ABC introduced watermarks, and, despite them having been the main part of my viewing for many years, I switched off immediately and permanently. In addition, I source any DVD’s of programs they may show from overseas, so their marketing arm gets nothing. I have continued to complain to them and ask that they reconsider their decision on more solid ground than the reasons that they have given publicly. I am not alone – I have spoken to others who have done the same.

Since February, I have researched the use of watermarks globally and found that there are TV stations that have actually begun to remove them, or switch them off altogether. BBC1 and BBC2 are two examples of these, which is interesting, because the BBC are often viewed as setting very high standards for broadcasting that are often used for guidelines for stations around the world.

Surely it is relevant to ask why other stations have found watermarks to be of, at the very least, dubious value. I believe you might have a tough time maintaining your integrity in respect of this policy change, when clearly, any reasons you could possibly give for the employment of watermarks has been considered by these other stations and found to be unconvincing. Surely experience beats theory.

Another example is Channel 5, also in the UK, which ironically was one of the first to ever use a watermark back in 1997. They switched it off in an image relaunch in September 2002, citing 85% market awareness and the adoption of digital TV as significant reasons why a logo was redundant. It does seem odd to me that precisely at the point where Australian Free-to-Air TV is adopting digital standards to maintain quality and also bring high definition into the market place, stations are actually spending technical resources to degrade the content of their pictures, in a misguided attempt for ‘branding’ or to increase market awareness.

Another benefit of digital broadcasting is automatic channel identification. Clearly, watermarks are redundant as identification and their use will likely serve to slow down the uptake on Digital sales.

One must also ask about the logical extensions of this policy – why should it be the broadcaster who is allowed to have a watermark for the duration of the program? Why not the name of the show as well? How about the production company too? The editing facility? The producers sure put in some hours as did the actors, the editor, the cameraman, sound guys, etc. Obviously this is an wild exaggeration but it serves to illustrate how even the justification for specifically the broadcaster logo is on dubious ground. Especially since people tend to watch shows, not networks. Otherwise, ratings would hardly change at all.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t any merit in promoting the network itself. But then, don’t you realize that you had a natural gap in the marketplace (ie. having a logofree environment) that you could have exploited to your advantage to promote your programs? It is a tried and tested marketing principle to make use of the weakness of a market leaders strength. The most famous of all was Avis Car Rentals years ago. Second in the marketplace to Hertz, they launched a campaign that admitted to that position but claimed therefore that “We Try Harder.” Another slogan was “Our lines are shorter.” It was very clever and very successful. There is an advantage to being unique, especially when the market prefers an aspect of what you have that your larger competitors cannot deliver. Unfortunately, it looks like you have given it up.

Anything other than program content itself can only detract and dilute the effectiveness of the content, which is why people watch! You don’t need the watermark!

I realize watermarks don’t bother some people, but for others like me, I feel compelled to switch off. I literally felt sick for hours after I found out about this, as for me it means that no clean broadcaster that fully adheres to technical standards in Australia exists anymore. I am about to assist shooting a documentary next month in Queensland, and it absolutely frustrates me that if I managed to capture some beautiful footage, no-one in Australia will get to see it broadcast the way it was shot.

You may not fully realize how it feels as a TV staffer to have to deal with watermarks. The inability to find ‘clean’ versions of certain shots for editing, and having to ‘fix’ content so that it can be technically acceptable is tedious and wastes time and money. This is not going to be as large a problem for SBS as it is elsewhere, but it will still occur. I can give many examples of jobs where previously watermarked content (within the same broadcaster!) had to be dealt with. If you don’t have lots of time, inevitably you end up with watermarks that jump around from shot to shot, or even doubling or tripling of the logo when it goes to air again. I have seen this - it happens and it is immeasurably frustrating - especially when you find out that watermarks are actually pointless.

What’s the difference between a spot on the lens and a watermark? It’s just as distracting. One of the tasks I have had to perform over the years with editing and mastering of programs is maintaining technical quality. You can sometimes spend hours or even days fixing (ie. dropouts, noise, etc.) and enhancing (ie. colour correction) content to make it technically acceptable. This is so that viewers can engage in content and have the best possible experience of the program, rather than being distracted by anything else when they watch it . I find it ironic and hypocritical that when it goes to air now, included is a logo that serves to do just that! - divert your attention away from the program. I have read the SBS document that is sent out to program makers that explains in very high detail the way SBS want a master tape to be delivered. But it seems pointless to worry about technical standards when the underlining reasons for having them are being ignored.

Why do LCD monitor manufacturers have policies that enable consumers to return units which have a very small number of dead pixels? (5 or less, depending on the company)
Why would you fix a chip in the windscreen of a car? Would a visibly darker spot on new carpet bother you? High standards are what should be expected from producers, so why should SBS be any different? Standards are employed so that consumers get consistent quality of product. The brand is associated with the product, but it is not the product. If Sony or Samsung started putting their logo on the screen itself, their sales would plummet. Why? Too many other manufacturers would offer a better alternative.

You should know that you were going to be first in line for the Queensland doco when it was complete, but now that you offer nothing unique from the other stations, it would likely be back to being the highest bidder. If we sell it overseas via a broadcaster that does not watermark, we may not worry about the Australian broadcast market at all.

On a different tack, it is worth mentioning that along with more people using PC-based TV tuners, software is currently in development that senses when static logos disappear for commercial breaks and mutes the audio. On recordings it will automatically skip past them. Your advertisers might not be happy to find out that an SBS watermark will contribute to diminishing their audience.

Also, if the introduction is for copyright protection reasons, you may not be aware that methods exist that add an invisible watermark to both vision and audio (such as the Philips WaterCast system) and prove extremely robust against removal. It can also survive digital compression and even VHS! Visible watermarks (particularly transparent ones) can actually be removed almost completely (with a bit of time and the right computer setup) and are ironically nowhere near as effective against piracy.

Just two weeks ago I wrote a two page submission to SBS for the Code of Practice review to consider implementing a definitive statement not to use watermarks on general programming. (I had no idea about this incoming policy change at the time) My letter could have been much longer (indeed this one could have been too), considering the time I have spent on this issue in the last six months, but I wanted to make it concise so that it could be easily understood. I believe my reasoning was solid and dealt with the issue in a fair and balanced manner that underlines a commitment to SBS and high technical standards.

It is incredibly disappointing that my contribution in this either came too late or has been ignored, and I can only wonder at whether or not experienced industry people (and also taxpayers) can have some input to an organization that is 90% government funded. I realize and respect that SBS has to maintain a level of independence, so my voice is always going to be limited. But you can still take advantage of my research on this issue. It has confirmed what I have always suspected - that watermarks are ultimately counter-productive, and those who advocate them cannot point to anything other than theoretical ideas about the advantages. The tangible benefits simply don’t exist. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose any viewers. Most certainly you will never gain any. And the programs sure aren’t improved either. In contrast, I can point to stations overseas that have removed them, including one of the best known of them all, the BBC.

Sadly, as a viewer, I feel compelled to switch off SBS. As an industry person, I feel compelled to gravitate towards broadcasters who fully understand and value the reasons for technical standards. I would also consider developing and/or promoting methods to make the removal of visible watermarks even easier and so render them even more redundant, since I know there is a market waiting.

Watermarks are counter-productive. Please reconsider your decision and effect a policy to keep your broadcast output of a high standard.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Rabich.