Why do sky put all these adverts on channels we pay for ! This is not on !

[gazzagoldie]

This is absolutely doing my fruit in .we pay for this so that they do not have to advertise ! It's costing us more and more each year and the adverts are getting literally like ITV ! Shocking isn't the word we are being ripped off again 

[oldfella]

---

@gazzagoldie wrote:

This is absolutely doing my fruit in .we pay for this so that they do not have to advertise ! It's costing us more and more each year and the adverts are getting literally like ITV ! Shocking isn't the word we are being ripped off again 

---

Afraid that without the Adverts @gazzagoldie    there would be no TV

[GD1]

@gazzagoldie  You don't pay for it so they don't have to show advverts.  I'm not even sure why you think that is the case.

[Daniel0210]

---

@gazzagoldie wrote:

we are being ripped off again 

---

@gazzagoldie 

And without advents the subscription costs would no doubt rise considerably.

[TimmyBGood]

@gazzagoldie 

Even the most successful of the commercial channels listed in the Sky EPG only receive a small proportion of their operating revenue from their percentage of the fees paid by Sky subscribers, and most get nothing at all because their audience share isn't large enough to qualify: that's always been the business model of satellite television distribution.

[bob1234]

I know they get their revenue from advertising but there do seem to be more and more OFCOM are considering allowing more adverts per hour.

However what annoys me more is the BBC although not external adverts everytime I look at one of their channels it is either promoting their iPlayer or sports coverage or trailers for programmes some of which they have already shown. There are sometimes enough trailers so no need to watch the programmes as you already know the plot.

[TimmyBGood]

@bob1234 

I would assume that's because if the BBC falls below a certain percentage of viewers then their claim to licence fee revenue looks even flimsier.

  I do find their habitat of inserting spoilers for the next episode of a series right over the credits of the one just finishing to be particularly annoying.

[Anonymous]

---

@gazzagoldie wrote:

This is absolutely doing my fruit in .we pay for this so that they do not have to advertise ! It's costing us more and more each year and the adverts are getting literally like ITV ! Shocking isn't the word we are being ripped off again 

---

It's very simple, Sky earns £2 million / €2.3 million from ad revenue. If there was no ads, this would need to be payable by the customers.

Sky also has to pay the likes Astra (the satellite owner), BT Ireland (for the use of phone line/broadband services), eir (for the use of their phone line), any fees related to broadasting their channels, rights for programmes, presenters (like on Sky Sports and Sky News), app providers (like Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Paramount+, etc). 

Do you want your subscription price to increase to accomadate all these? 

[daveNOS]

@Anonymous according to several trusted sources the ad revenue made by Sky is considerably more than £2 million, looking back to pre pandemic stats they made roughly £449 million in the 3rd quarter and £367 million in the 4th quarter of 2019.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@daveNOS wrote:

@Anonymous according to several trusted sources the ad revenue made by Sky is considerably more than £2 million

---

Maybe based on a misreading of this graph where the scale is in millions of GBP, so '2,018' is over two billion pounds...

[d2h]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@gazzagoldie wrote:

This is absolutely doing my fruit in .we pay for this so that they do not have to advertise ! It's costing us more and more each year and the adverts are getting literally like ITV ! Shocking isn't the word we are being ripped off again 

---

It's very simple, Sky earns £2 million / €2.3 million from ad revenue. If there was no ads, this would need to be payable by the customers.

Sky also has to pay the likes Astra (the satellite owner), BT Ireland (for the use of phone line/broadband services), eir (for the use of their phone line), any fees related to broadasting their channels, rights for programmes, presenters (like on Sky Sports and Sky News), app providers (like Netflix, Disney+, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Paramount+, etc). 

Do you want your subscription price to increase to accomadate all these? 

---

As at the release of the last full accounts, advertising revenue equated to £1,027m. That was a drop from £1,814m in the previous year, which was attributed to the pandemic. 

As for the satellite owner - Astra is merely the brand name. The actual owner is SES. 

[Fabs7885]

I just don't really understand the point of the adverts though (from a marketing point of view) as I simply fast forward all of them and I genuinely couldn't tell you the name of any brand or product being shown. If I worked for one of the brands I wouldn't be willing to spend money like that, as you're basically wasting budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm super happy I can at least skip them, so kinda just playing devil's advocate here, but I was wondering that the other day, what is the point? Maybe some type of subscriptions don't let you skip ads? I know you can't on Sky Go and that's why I don't use it.

[Mark39]

@Fabs7885 companies advertising in Sky wouldn't do so if it didn't generate income for them, I don't watch the ads either, but plenty do, as evidenced by the posts we regularly see here complaining about their content!

[Anonymous]

@daveNOS @TimmyBGood @d2h 

This is not a conversation on what Sky makes from ad revenue, but why ads exist. Even though my figures may be wrong, my point still stands. 

[TimmyBGood]

@Anonymous 

And I think our point was that two billion in revenue is a whole lot harder to give up than two million...