Wait until Sky sees this ...

"David Marshall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
loz wrote:
Given Sky gets 8% of its revenue from advertising, I have never understood
why they dont provide an "advertising free" subscription level at a
premium
of say 10%.

Costs would increase by vastly more than that - they'd have to find an
extra
15 minutes of programming an hour to replace the missing adverts.


I'd be quite happy with programmes starting (say) on the hour, then
finishing at 45 mins past. They could show any number of things to fill the
space or nothing at all. A potters wheel for the 15 minutes would be an
improvement.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

"David Marshall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
loz wrote:
Given Sky gets 8% of its revenue from advertising, I have never understood
why they dont provide an "advertising free" subscription level at a
premium
of say 10%.

Costs would increase by vastly more than that - they'd have to find an
extra
15 minutes of programming an hour to replace the missing adverts.

No. They could just show a blank screen for 15 minutes at the end of the
hour so we can all go and make a cup of tea

:-)

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
I'd be quite happy with programmes starting (say) on the hour, then
finishing at 45 mins past. They could show any number of things to fill
the space or nothing at all. A potters wheel for the 15 minutes would be
an improvement.

I seem to have a dim recollection of potter's wheels :-)

Loz

Agreed. I'd certainly be prepared to pay a subscription for an ad. free,
logo free, red button free service. When I cancelled my $ky sub. they
asked me why I was cancelling, and I mentioned just these reasons. I was
told that I was far from the first person to cite these causes. $ky
clearly aren't listening, because they're loosing customers as a result.
When I cancelled, I'd been with $ky for 12 years. Still, right now, $ky
have it the best possible way: they sell advertising space and they have
people pay to watch it. Are they gonna change? Not a chance.

Clem

I'll pay Sky / the BBC / anyone £NIL for logo infected, advert saturated
****e.

I'd pay a very high price for logo-free, advert-free TV to my specification.

Sky don't want my money on my terms.

BitTorrent / DVD is my friend. Funny enough even bad old off-air US
BitTorrents are logo-free, at least the ones I view, or have **** on the
screen just for a few seconds after the edited out ad-breaks.

They really are dickheads to not offer products at quality loving discerning
viewers.

I'd personally invest in a Mercedes-Benz of the TV broadcast business if one
ever emerges here. It won't happen due to the problem of the ****-bags who
control the channels, are also the ****-bags who control the supply of
content.

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"David Marshall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
loz wrote:
Given Sky gets 8% of its revenue from advertising, I have never
understood
why they dont provide an "advertising free" subscription level at a
premium
of say 10%.

Costs would increase by vastly more than that - they'd have to find an
extra
15 minutes of programming an hour to replace the missing adverts.


I'd be quite happy with programmes starting (say) on the hour, then
finishing at 45 mins past. They could show any number of things to fill
the space or nothing at all. A potters wheel for the 15 minutes would be
an improvement.

I remember well Canal+ used to run Hollywood Reports type programmes to fill
in time for the next movie (Never saw one advert until I switched back to
the DOG infested Astra Satellite.

IF such channels were ever available as subscription, The programmes could
be made as an actual hour show (Who saying one programme has to start on the
hour or half hour anyway apart from advertisers?)

Until those types of 1 hour series were actually made, I suppose they could
run the dreaded promo's or play music or something with a logo onscreen
showing a countdown timer to the next programme starting ( Much like PPV
movies used to do on Skys old analogue service)

As Canal+ and TV1000 used to manage without adverts (As did The Computer
Channel on the 1 Degree West Satellite!) I'm sure Sky could do the same
thing ?

T.W.

In uk.media.tv.sky on Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Tumbleweed wrote :

I'd be quite happy with programmes starting (say) on the hour, then
finishing at 45 mins past. They could show any number of things to fill the
space or nothing at all. A potters wheel for the 15 minutes would be an
improvement.

Or they could show four 45 minute shows every 3 hours (or eight 22.5
minute shows)...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

Zero Tolerance wrote:

So you'd be paying a higher subscription just for Sky's
own channels to be ad-free, without affecting any of the third-party
channels which your subscription also funds.

Many of the encrypted channels that Sky trumpet as being part of the
pay package actually receive no income from the subscription payment
at all.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

David Marshall wrote:

Given Sky gets 8% of its revenue from advertising, I have never understood
why they dont provide an "advertising free" subscription level at a premium
of say 10%.

Costs would increase by vastly more than that - they'd have to find an extra
15 minutes of programming an hour to replace the missing adverts.

I suspect that many of the adverts on pay Sky channels cost much more
to produce than the programming on the same channels.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/8vef5
UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
BBC reception questions? ; http://www.astra2d.com/
Fed up with on-screen logos? : http://logofreetv.org/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:14:06 +0100, "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

I'd personally invest in a Mercedes-Benz of the TV broadcast business if one
ever emerges here. It won't happen due to the problem of the ****-bags who
control the channels, are also the ****-bags who control the supply of
content.

Or alternatively because there's just no significant market for it?

--

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message

agreed, I had to laugh when it said 'you'd have to watch the ads'. Not
unless they disable the 'off' switch it wont.

Probably the worst thing if it ever happened would be the adverts
between programmes. You wouldn't be able to change channels until
after they had finished, by which time the programme you want to watch
on another channel will have probably already started.

Its not gonna happen. The worst they would do is stop fast forward and that
is unlikely as they wouldnt want to antagonise their v loyal Sky+ viewers.
Oner thing they have considered is a different ad that only comes up when
you fast forward.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com