Why do sky put on so many advertisements. We pay to watch programs not adverts

[RoaminNL]

@Mark39 

I have no problem watching Sky content via internet if Sky isn't willing to sell it.

There"s no tangible theft of anything of value to the detriment of any party at all.

Sky COULD obtain income but they decide to throw that option away.. tough crapper. 

Sky hasn't  lost anything whatsoever. 

[RoaminNL]

@Mark39 

I've no problem  watching Sky on Internet when they will not allow you buy it.

There's no tangible loss to anyone.. 

Sky's not lost a single cent.. they've just decided not to make an income they COULD have made.

[Pooppop]

BBC gains income via TV licences. 

ITV via advertising.

Sky requires subscription but yet still reels in financially on advertising gains.

Does a few adverts between rounds of boxing really annoy me? Not a great deal. Does the fact that I've paid £19.95 for a few hours entertainment and I'm still the second agenda annoy me? Quite a bit. Seems extortionate for what is essentially a transaction for a product. Generally seen as overpriced, and yet, further, quantifiably more so. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Pooppop wrote:

Seems extortionate for what is essentially a transaction for a product.

---

Well, the 'product' is controlled by people who think $50 million purses are reasonable...

[Pooppop]

Which coincides - off topic slightly - with how Povetkin was allowed to fight at the cost of the sport.

Do you think that if sky had a fair deal in front of them though that they'd not look to push the income however they could?

I kept up with the News Of The World debacle and at no point did I believe that Rupert Murdoch was humbled. What annoys me here is that sky has some great content and that content is at times not available elsewhere considering. I'd much rather the artistic sources looked toward much worthier outlets, which to be accessible from. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Pooppop wrote:

I kept up with the News Of The World debacle and at no point did I believe that Rupert Murdoch was humbled.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/26/rupert-murdochs-sky-reign-to-end-as-fox-sells-all-shar... 

[Pooppop]

Dirty hands swapping dirty money. 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/23/comcast-sky-rupert-murdoch-worldwide-news?CMP=Share_An...

[CnPx]

At the time this was posted this was accurate. But these days netflix is generating profits and can now pay off its debt. If Netflix can generate profit on £10 a month then Sky can when they charge much more. If you pay full price its something like £35 for movies and TV. The equipment is rented now aswell so it gets returned to them if you end your subscription. I understand that sky has more overhead costs like installations and stuff but still point being they can remove ads and still generate significent profits. 

Now TV a company owned by Sky charges twice as much as Netflix and has ads then you can pay even more to remove them them. The total cost of Now TV getting you the equivalent as what Netflix offers is around £25. Im guessing this is why Sky is working with Netflix as many people are most likely unsubscribing from Sky because they can pay a fraction of the price and get there TV entertainment.

(Sorry if I butchered some spellings. Im dyslexic and spellchecker doesn't work with this website.)

I don't know why they don't make the same approach as Amazon and have ads but allow them to be skipped instantly. 

[Mark39]

---

@CnPx wrote:

I understand that sky has more overhead costs like installations and stuff but still point being they can remove ads and still generate significent profits. 

---

I imagine Sky's bean counters know more about what they need to do to generate profits than you or I do.

[Chodley]

@CnPx  It's almost as though Sky and Netflix don't have the exact same financials.

It also doesn't matter, as a publically listed company (albeit now buried within comcast) what profit you make, it matters that it's more than last year.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@CnPx wrote:

. If Netflix can generate profit on £10 a month then Sky can when they charge much more. 

---

Comparing global streaming-only services with hundreds of millions of subscribers against nationally-based hardware platforms with a fraction of those numbers is very unlikely to be particularly informative, (and Amazon really don't need Prime to be profitable ; )

[Rand4678]

Sick of it. Thinking of getting rid if it altogether. adverts drive me mad!!!

[Chodley]

Why haven't you already then?

[Mark39]

---

@Rand4678 wrote:

Sick of it. Thinking of getting rid if it altogether. adverts drive me mad!!!

---

If you're nauseous, it's self-inflicted. Just don't watch them. You don't have to.

[RoaminNL]

@Chodley

‎28 Dec 2021 11:11 PM Why haven't you already then?"

Well I've sure have stopped PAYING Sky for their bluddy ads...
For just €80 a year, I get ALL the channels I want from all over the world, including all the Sky channels ...
If Sky didn't have the ads, I'd have considered a contract.. with ads ... NEVER.. They just don't deserve my money. This way I'll accept the extra drivel..