If you care about:

• Graphics that clutter up your screen
• Waste of public money on outdated technology
• Lack of accountability in a government organization

Then join the campaign to remove the ABC watermark!

In late January 2005, the ABC followed the commercial networks in Australia by adding a watermark logo (also known as a bug) to its general programming. Maintaining the quality of pictures obviously was no longer important enough. Viewers immediately protested and contacted the ABC directly, as well as writing to newspapers. The ABC reacted by changing the size, position and transparency of the logo, as well as issuing a blanket response to some of those with enough temerity to complain directly. This response (in many of its variations) can be found here. My advice to anyone receiving this response: Don't believe it. Don't accept it. As taxpayers we deserve better.

The essence of this response amounts to 3 arguments:

1. The watermark is useful for identification
2. The watermark is standard practice, locally and internationally
3. The watermark is a tool to thwart Copyright Protection

You will find a response to these arguments on the Bluster & Baloney page. (for other points, see the Furphies page)

No-one would accept a whispered 'Sony' or 'BMG', etc. throughout a music track. No one would accept a whispered 'ABC Radio' or 'Triple-M', etc. constantly throughout radio transmissions. No-one would accept sunsets brought to you by 'Coca-Cola.' Watermarks are the TV equivalent of these.

Shortly after introducing the watermark, an ABC spokesperson let it slip that part of the reason it was done was because a deal was struck with Foxtel to rebroadcast the ABC on Pay-TV. It is completely inappropriate for a publicly-funded broadcaster to make such a major change as a result of a commercial agreement. It undermines the independence of the ABC as described in its Charter.

Finally, there is the argument used by commercial stations, that of the watermark being a tool for branding and marketing, but generally, the ABC don't use this point, although it may also be a reason. Being publicly-funded, it is not surprising they would avoid something that sounds too commercial. For the sake of argument, however, this is discussed on the Branding the ABC page.

Heck, all we want here at LogoFreeABC is clear, clean pictures. For some reason, some people think this is a strange request, despite the fact we pay for it! It seems incredible that management would be so stupid to employ a watermark and then go on the campaign trail for a bigger budget.

Make a difference by joining in the campaign to remove the watermark. We want a LogoFreeABC!

Consider this - the latest LCD computer monitors are sold with policies on dead pixels - if you have too many then you will get a replacement. How many pixels need to be affected to qualify? Just 5. (Some manufacturers will replace it if you have less.)

Three questions: How many pixels on the smallest size computer monitor? (780,000+) How many pixels would a watermark cover - would it be more than five? (2,500+) Finally, how many monitors would Sony, or Philips, or Samsung, etc. sell if they had their logo on the actual screen?

Watermarks are the equivalent of retinal burn. They are the chip on the windscreen of a brand new car, the dripping tap at night, the permanent mark or tear on a new suit or dress. But with the ABC, every Australian taxpayer is paying extra for it!