Why so many adverts? Value for Money?

[Justfixitpls]

Why, Why, Why are there so many adverts. I cant even skip through a show without having to watch adverts. I pay sky a fee but still get bombarded with these repetative rubbish adverts. I I have have tried to give Sky the benefit of the doubt and work through issues with support. I'm constantly told to turn off the Sky glass at the wall which is a temp solution. Threads on this communiy get closed down for no reason. I dont understand why its so poor. I feel like a mug when Sky freezes in front of guests when watching standard TV. I'm so sick of this. I'm trying to watch Banshee on the xbox app and cant even skip through the adverts without having to watch that trash Vovlo be safe advert. Its getting silly now. If this doesnt get resolved and im not satisfied then im not paying another penny. Regarding adverts, I dont pay netflix, Disney etc money to watch their content just to be slapped with adverts, they get money for content. All Sky's on demand stuff, they still slap adverts on. Its absolutely nuts. They get money for the TV shows through subscription yet we still get adverts. What a joke. 
Whats more funny, I pay for add skipping! But manually have to hold the fast forward button down likes its 2002. Cant even make the skip button appear. Its not hard to do. 

FYI - I've not broken any community rules in this post so there is no reason to take it down.

[techman9]

@Justfixitpls  It's frustrating isn't it you pay a premium for a service (higher than other streaming vendors) and ad's are imposed on you.  Whatsmore the mechanism to skip these ads is mediocre at best and you pay for that priviledge too.

When Glass Launched boxsets didn't have adverts in them, it was a pleasure (considering all the bugs, bad hardware etc...)  Then they introduced them, that's when I ditched the product.

For sky related stuff (to be fair the content is that poor these days, I rarely watch it, I don't do sports) I use NOW TV which does not have adverts bombarded on to you and cheaper also!

Sadly it's a money making scheme, sky really haven't caught up with what a viewer wants these days, if you are unhappy cut the coard!

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Justfixitpls wrote:

Regarding adverts, I dont pay netflix, Disney etc money to watch their content just to be slapped with adverts, they get money for content. All Sky's on demand stuff, they still slap adverts on. Its absolutely nuts. They get money for the TV shows through subscription yet we still get adverts. 

---

'Netflix, Disney' etc are running on a different business model: Sky (Comcast) presumably find it necessary to run advertising to make what they consider to be an adequate profit (and I'd note that Comcast now feel they massively overpaid for Sky).  The chances of this changing are negligible.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@techman9 wrote:

Sadly it's a money making scheme

---

Well, yes.  What else would it be?

[techman9]

@TimmyBGood  There is making money and their is making money at the expense of the customers  (which eventually hurts the business as a whole)  these are two different things, but it's useless trying to have a reasoned discussion on these forums with some people.

[TimmyBGood]

@techman9 

All money making is at someone's expense. Personally I think that Sky has got this wrong (probably influenced by their new owners) but that's what they've chosen to do: could be the theory that Comcast are attempting to push up the apparent value of Sky prior to divestment is correct.

[bob1234]

I accept they all need to make money and adverts are an easy money stream, I would not mind paying a single fee to not see adverts but the skip adverts option, which I have cancelled is a farce.

I wonder if  there are many like me that just can't find anything worth watching and if people don't watch the programmes the whole finance model crashes.

However what annoys me more is how creative Sky is with their own advertising it is often misleading and sometimes just wrong but no one seems to want to swat them.

I know adverts should be taken with a pinch of salt and if you see anything described as "New and improved" it never is but the ASA etc etc need prodding with a big stick.

[Jason+Golding]

Comcast own peacock in the states. Peacock has three tiers. Free with ads (limited content) full content with ads (all content) and full content with no ads. So I doubt having ads is a Comcast decision. Sky  have run ads on their on demand programmes long before they were purchased by Comcast.  I have a feeling that going forward, that there will be a further premium add on/option for customers to remove all ads on Sky on demand programmes. I think I am right in saying that there aren't any ad's on the UHD on demand sky programmes 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Jason+Golding wrote:

Comcast own peacock in the states. Peacock has three tiers. Free with ads (limited content) full content with ads (all content) and full content with no ads. 

---

True, but it's very unclear if any such streaming service actually has a viable business model at the kind of subscription rates they currently charge: Peacock cost Comcast 2.5 billion dollars in losses last year.  

[SlenderRobert]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@Jason+Golding wrote:

Comcast own peacock in the states. Peacock has three tiers. Free with ads (limited content) full content with ads (all content) and full content with no ads. 

---

True, but it's very unclear if any such streaming service actually has a viable business model at the kind of subscription rates they currently charge: Peacock cost Comcast 2.5 billion dollars in losses last year.  

---

They're setting themselves up for more of the same as they're currently repeating their $19.99 offer for an annual subscription to the 'full content with ads' tier which is usually $49.99. 

I agree with what others have said - I would gladly pay Sky for a proper ad-free experience. I currently do that with YouTube, ITVX and several US-based streaming services as I can't stand the repitition on ads that are forced on us. The ad-skipping bolt-on with Glass/Stream is ridiculous. 

[TimmyBGood]

@SlenderRobert 

They are predicting a three billion loss this year, but then things are apparently going to 'steadily improve'.  Charging twenty bucks a year would certainly be a way to add users, though, as long as content doesn't actually cost more than dollar fiddy per month to provide  ; )

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/comcast-earnings-nbcuniversal-peacock-loss-... 

[Mark39]

---

@bob1234 wrote:

I wonder if  there are many like me that just can't find anything worth watching and if people don't watch the programmes the whole finance model crashes.

I'm certainly one of them, @bob1234  And the few I do watch don't come from Sky channels....

[Jason+Golding]

@TimmyBGood sky uk is very very profitable. Sky Italia makes a small profit. It's sky Germany that's being making a huge loss 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@Jason+Golding wrote:

@TimmyBGood sky uk is very very profitable.

---

It is now, but given Comcast thinks they significantly overpaid for the group as a whole back in 2018 one might expect potential purchasers to look at future earnings rather more sceptically should divestment ever happen: there are huge economic, demographic, technological and content availability issues looming.

[Jason+Golding]

@TimmyBGood  Yes sky uk is very profitable. The key wording here is that Comcast overpaid for the 'group' the group being Italy Germany and uk. They paid too much for the group factoring in the losses that the German operation and to a lesser extent the Italian operations are making. Sky uk makes money