When you pay for a service you don't expect there to be ads on that service?
In addition the ads are unskip-able and often for things completely unrelated?
Why should you have to suffer through more adverts when you've already purchased it.
Is there a option to stop these happening and if not there should be.
You need to be very specific.
There are 2 types of “adverts” with NOW. This was explained in my previous post.
Also this is nothing new in the world of streaming. Most US streaming services all have different plans which have adverts at a small fee and at double the price to get rid of the adverts.
There is Hulu, Paramount+ and more recently Peacock TV (which is owned by Comcast who owns Sky).
Even Amazon have promos for Amazon content which of course can be skipped.
So again, what type of “advertising” are you seeing?
Are you dense? They’re specifically complaining that Now are advertising other Now services and shows on other now channels, but they aren’t skimp able. Amazon Hulu paramount etc all let you skip the ads for their own content. It’s a p*ss take you can’t skip the now “promos” as you like to call them. Stop making excuses.
I started to receive adverts recently; not trailers, they've always been there but advertisements for Domino Pizza and the like. I feel completely outraged by this. I don't expect to have to sit through obligatory adverts when paying £22 a month for on demand tv. I just checked my membership details and sky are very generously(!!!!) offering to get rid of the adverts and stream content in HD (!!!! hello 2010) for an additional £3 a month. So for a similar service to Disney and Netflix we have the privilege of paying an additional £19 a month. I think sky are losing the run of themselves and need to stop treating their customers like cash cows.
This practice is not uncommon in the US. We have been VERY lucky in the UK.
Services that have adverts evern when paying for content in the US.
Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock and soon to be HBO Max.
Well I think it would be easier to swallow if this extra revenue stream was subsidising subscription costs. However, up until today I was paying £10 for movies and £12 for entertainment (or perhaps it was the other way around) so £22 a month for what other suppliers manage to provide for a quarter of the cost. That's a great deal of money when you consider that I'm not even receiving content in full HD.
I appreciate that it's all business at the end of the day but charging so much more for a subscription service that doesn't match others in terms of broadcast quality and then commercialising it to boot feels insulting. It's ok though, I just have to pay an additional £3 a month if I want them to match other streaming companies quality and avoid sitting through adverts!