HD charges

[Mark39]

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

Sky make a vast amount of revenue from advertisments, should we as subscibers have to watch 20min an hour of adds. 

---

How much more are you willing to pay for ad-free viewing?

[seandrews]

I look at the Sky apps and often see a 20odd second video click on it and I need to see around 1 minute of ads before it will play. 

Sky is the best advertising for VPN's and Piracy in this country.
Plus were in a cost of living crisis

pay for endless ads and massive disruption in viewing or don't pay and download or stream HD & UHD quality TV ad free.

on the morality scale people will sooner pirate than commit other 'crimes'

[d2h]

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

Sky make a vast amount of revenue from advertisments, should we as subscibers have to watch 20min an hour of adds. 

---

How much more are you willing to pay for ad-free viewing?

---

You wouldn't need to pay a penny more as customers already pay a premium.

Sky could quite easily do as they were forced to do by their German customers and show all live/linear programming uninterrupted, with ads in between programmes - not during. And no adverts during on-demand content. 

UK customers continue to get shafted by them.

[Mark39]

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

Sky make a vast amount of revenue from advertisments, should we as subscibers have to watch 20min an hour of adds. 

---

How much more are you willing to pay for ad-free viewing?

---

You wouldn't need to pay a penny more as customers already pay a premium.

---

Advertising revenue forms a major part of Sky's UK income. Do you really think Sky and more significantly their investors would accept the reduced profitability arising from reduced income? It will have to be made up elsewhere which almost certainly would be from increased  subscription charges.

[nolte]

Based on the last public accounts from sky prior to takeover by comcast, ad revenue was about 10% of income. In order to replace this, sky would have to increase cost to consumer by 11 percent.

For example, for on demand boxset and catchup access ad free for Now Tv (also owned by comcast), it is 5 euro per month (but not applying to linear broadcast)

As it, sky q allows people fastforqard through ads on boxsets, catch up and recordings.

[daveNOS]

Some of the comments here show the lack of understanding that people have about business, and the mentality of those who think piracy is motivated by costs and the amount of adverts shown.

And revenue is lucrative, it's why companies use it and it's why non advert services are either changing models(Netflix so they can finally make a profit and cute huge loans they owe) or changed model(Amazon Prime) and now charge a fee to remove them.

Piracy has nothing to do with thr amount of ads a service shows, it's solely down to people not wanting to pay, there is no justification for piracy, if you can't afford a non essential service then you do without it.

[d2h]

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@d2h wrote:

---

@Mark39 wrote:

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

Sky make a vast amount of revenue from advertisments, should we as subscibers have to watch 20min an hour of adds. 

---

How much more are you willing to pay for ad-free viewing?

---

You wouldn't need to pay a penny more as customers already pay a premium.

---

Advertising revenue forms a major part of Sky's UK income. Do you really think Sky and more significantly their investors would accept the reduced profitability arising from reduced income? It will have to be made up elsewhere which almost certainly would be from increased  subscription charges.

---

It forms a part of operating revenue but it's negligible in comparison to D2C revenue, i.e. subscription charges etc. The revenue in isolation is not enough to pay for a high-profile Premier League package, never mind dividends. They also defer a portion of ad revenue for debt. 

Sky earn advertising revenue at the point of broadcast - that means that they can continue to earn revenue by placing pre- and post- advertising, while allowing the paying customer to enjoy a higher quality product without the interruption throughout. That was the point of German customers, not advertising as a whole. 

Sky Cinema earns the same level of revenue as Sky Max at the most basic level. It's irrelevant when the adverts are broadcast as the sum total is the same. 

[TimmyBGood]

---

@d2h wrote:

Sky could quite easily do as they were forced to do by their German customers and show all live/linear programming uninterrupted, with ads in between programmes - not during. And no adverts during on-demand content. 

---

Perhaps not coincidentally, media reports this month suggest Comcast is apparently seeking to divest itself of Sky Deutschland.

[nolte]

@d2h wrote

• Sky earn advertising revenue at the point of broadcast - that means that they can continue to earn revenue by placing pre- and post- advertising, while allowing the paying customer to enjoy a higher quality product without the interruption throughout. That was the point of German customers, not advertising as a whole. 
  
  

  Sky Cinema earns the same level of revenue as Sky Max at the most basic level. It's irrelevant when the adverts are broadcast as the sum total is the same

What is your source for stating sky cinema earn the same ad revenue as sky max.

I mean if I was an advertiser I'd be more willing to pay for an ad in the middle of peacemaker, than 8 minutes after "aisha" ended and 7 minutes before "phantom of the open" starts.

I know it is not a specific ad placement but it comes as a package of a series of ads but I see more value in ad during programme than in a 15 minute break. I feel like the big viewing group in the 15 minute series of ads between films on sky cinema as "people who fall asleep with the TV on", but in my case I usually wake up as the last scene before the end credits

Anyway I think even if income from ads has fallen from 10% to 5% in the last 4 years, i don't feel 5% of turnover is not negligible.

[nolte]

From an article on 9 months results for comcast to september 2022 on their sky division (stated in us dollars as comcast reporting currency

• Revenue for Sky decreased 14.7 per cent to $4.3 billion in the third quarter of 2022. Excluding the impact of currency, revenue was consistent with the prior year period. Direct-to-consumer revenue of $3.5 billion was consistent with the prior year period, reflecting increased revenue in the UK, driven by higher broadband and mobile revenue, offset by decreased revenue in Italy and Germany. Advertising revenue decreased 1.6 per cent to $471 million, reflecting lower revenue in Italy and consistent revenue in the UK and Germany. Content revenue increased 6.4 per cent to $273 million, primarily due to the timing of licensing of content to other platforms.

So ad revenue for sky is 11.9% of total turnover

[d2h]

---

@TimmyBGood wrote:

---

@d2h wrote:

Sky could quite easily do as they were forced to do by their German customers and show all live/linear programming uninterrupted, with ads in between programmes - not during. And no adverts during on-demand content. 

---

Perhaps not coincidentally, media reports this month suggest Comcast is apparently seeking to divest itself of Sky Deutschland.

---

That's getting 6 from 2+2. 

The reason for the exploration of Sky DE sale is because they're feeling the strain of increased competition in the sports rights market. Their rivals are getting stronger and Sky DE is getting weaker as a result. 

[Steve+D+1]

I totally agree that HD should now be the standard transmission, at the price that sky charge now without it, while customers are still defending the HD option Sky are happy to charge this.

Maybe Sky should give the option of fibre broadband or dial up

[rscott]

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

I totally agree that HD should now be the standard transmission, at the price that sky charge now without it, while customers are still defending the HD option Sky are happy to charge this.

Maybe Sky should give the option of fibre broadband or dial up

---

Sky wouldn't just absorb the HD charge - they'd increase the base pack price to cover any loss in revenue, so the service wouldn't be any cheaper for most people 

[oj01]

---

@rscott wrote:

---

@Steve+D+1 wrote:

I totally agree that HD should now be the standard transmission, at the price that sky charge now without it, while customers are still defending the HD option Sky are happy to charge this.

Maybe Sky should give the option of fibre broadband or dial up

---

Sky wouldn't just absorb the HD charge - they'd increase the base pack price to cover any loss in revenue, so the service wouldn't be any cheaper for most people 

---

And would become dearer for those who currently choose not to pay for HD. 

Could be interesting after the BBC SD switch off, after which there will be very few SD only boxes out there. This might encourage other channels to switch off SD too, making HD a necessity. 

[xenon81]

Worth reassuring any SD viewers that may be upgrading, the Sky HD pack isn't required for the BBC HD channels or ITV (including HD versions of ITV2, 3 and 4 - they became free in November). Channel 4 HD is free but not E4/Film4/More4 and Channel 5 HD is also free.