Someone has to pay...
This is usually the argument against free-tards and other people rubbishing the networks. Yes. Someone has to pay.
I agree totally. Either adverts. Or subscription. Or a blend of both.
What these networker execs and apologists don't realise is that maybe people are fed-up.
- Fed-up because the adverts are so noxious.
- Fed-up because since 1994 since we first had Sky in my home, he's seen the sub fee go up from £24 / month to a whopping £79 (that's all channels). That's a 229% increase in just under 20 years. Yes, it's gone digital, and we have Sky + boxes now, and HD tv streams. But as technology matures aren't prices meant to become commoditised / go down? Is there anyone out there that can actually justify >200% increase in price?
- Fed-up because the adverts have become longer, louder and more frequent.
- Fed-up, because to support adverts, networks will actually cut parts of films to stick to their advert schedule
- Fed-up because Pay-TV has pushed up the price for important events and shows for national broadcasters, therefore pushing up the sub cost.
- Fed-up because most people would actually be reasonable if the broadcasters weren't so fugging greedy. How about just one advert break in a 30 minute show?
- Fed-up, because much like the practice of raising the volume for singles on the radio so they sounded louder than the last, fed-up up that your fugging adverts come on louder than the program I was just watching.
- Fed-up that you invade the base reason I watch TV dramas - to escape reality, with fugging product advertising.
I have absolutely no sympathy. Why do they think ad-blockers are so popular on browsers. Because they're invasive, obnoxious and way too frequent. If they rescinded their greed and offered quality programming all the time, people might tolerate their shit advertising a wee bit more.
Death to sales & marketing goons.