Annoying adverts

Julie1Julie1 Member Posts: 1
edited 4 May 2017, 12:39AM in Archived Posts
I have just upgraded my BT Vision box to You View. before when watching catch up on commercial channels the adds we're cut out, now I don't have the choice even to fast forward through them. this is very irritating, I should have the choice! is there any solution to this?
«1

Comments

  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,103 ✭✭✭
    edited 26 February 2017, 2:39PM
    Hi Julie.

    And no, there isn't, unfortunately, as the catch up services are not hosted by BT, on the YV platform.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • MadcottoMadcotto Member Posts: 580 ✭✭
    edited 3 September 2014, 11:13AM
    if its free its a small price to pay
  • edited 26 September 2013, 8:33AM
    Hi Julie

    The catch-up services aren't part of the service you pay BT for, they're part of the core YouView features available on all boxes without subscription.

    Because ITV, Channel 4 7 5 aren't getting money form BT or TalkTalk for their content, the catch-up players are supported by adverts just as the online versions are.

    BT explain this on their website:

    "without the ads"

    http://www.productsandservices.bt.com...

    On the up side, the catch-up players are the full versions, not the 'best of" selection that Vision boxes are limited to.
  • VisionmanVisionman Member, Super User Posts: 10,103 ✭✭✭
    edited 26 February 2017, 2:39PM
    Martin 2 hours ago

    On the up side, the catch-up players are the full versions, not the 'best of" selection that Vision boxes are limited to.
    ---------------------------------------

    No, their not the PC (also) incomplete 'full versions' versions, Martin. Which is yet again to do with rights issues. And no platform holds them, either.
    I'm now happy with the disagree icon, because its gone.
  • drhowellsdrhowells Member Posts: 634 ✭✭
    edited 10 March 2017, 12:54AM
    There are definitely more programs available on the YouView box over BT and other platforms...which is nice :-)
  • edited 17 November 2012, 9:14AM
    Visionman said:

    Martin 2 hours ago

    On the up side, the catch-up players are the full versions, not the 'best of" selection that Vision boxes are limited to.
    ---------------------------------------

    No, their not the PC (also) incomplete 'full versions' versions, Martin. Which is yet again to do with rights issues. And no platform holds them, either.

    There's far more content on the YouView commercial PSB catch-up players than on Vision which, as the BT website states, are a 'best of' selection.
  • DM2DM2 Member Posts: 475 ✭✭
    edited 13 June 2014, 3:39PM
    Madcotto said:

    if its free its a small price to pay

    ...or we could sell our souls to Sky & pay to *still* sit through adverts ;)
  • edited 17 November 2012, 11:37AM
    Madcotto said:

    if its free its a small price to pay

    Quite. Or pay Virgin Media and still have to sit through adverts before their music videos even when provided PPV or as part of a subscription:

    http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/T...
  • alal Member, Super User Posts: 1,330 ✭✭✭
    edited 5 March 2017, 2:28PM
    If we could all choose to not watch any adverts on free tv who would be paying to make the programs?
  • stuart621stuart621 Member Posts: 616
    edited 18 November 2012, 1:33PM
    One thing I DO like about the adverts on catchup services is the countdown on the screen that lets you know how long till the programme starts. You know if there's time to put the kettle on, update your Facebook page etc while waiting for the programme.

    Without the adverts, we wouldn't have the programmes so it's no big deal, really.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 4 May 2017, 12:39AM
    The other alternative is to record programmes you watch regularly, and then you can skip the adverts .......
  • edited 4 May 2017, 12:39AM
    Hi churchwarden

    Agree, I made this point a couple of days ago so I wholeheartedly endorse your post.

    If something is important enough that you REALLY want to watch it, you should ALWAYS record it because there's no guarantee it'll be available via on demand when you want to watch it.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM
    Martin1 said:

    Hi churchwarden

    Agree, I made this point a couple of days ago so I wholeheartedly endorse your post.

    If something is important enough that you REALLY want to watch it, you should ALWAYS record it because there's no guarantee it'll be available via on demand when you want to watch it.

    It is Sunday - and we are singing out of the same hymn-book, Martin - LOL. Tra-la-la!
  • edited 18 November 2012, 5:00PM
    Martin1 said:

    Hi churchwarden

    Agree, I made this point a couple of days ago so I wholeheartedly endorse your post.

    If something is important enough that you REALLY want to watch it, you should ALWAYS record it because there's no guarantee it'll be available via on demand when you want to watch it.

    That's because we're very wise chaps ;-)
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM
    Martin1 said:

    Hi churchwarden

    Agree, I made this point a couple of days ago so I wholeheartedly endorse your post.

    If something is important enough that you REALLY want to watch it, you should ALWAYS record it because there's no guarantee it'll be available via on demand when you want to watch it.

    So true, not to mention humble, modest and retiring..... ;-D
  • MaxMax Member Posts: 75
    edited 5 November 2015, 11:33AM
    Hi Julie,The decision to include adverts alongside an On Demand content selection is set up and managed by each of the individual content providers within their own Players; this includes the number of adverts played and whether a viewer can fast forward through them or not. I hope this clarifies this further for you.
  • Amanda PalumboAmanda Palumbo Member Posts: 5
    edited 3 September 2014, 11:13AM
    Madcotto said:

    if its free its a small price to pay

    I would repeat the phrase "Two wrongs don't make a right".
  • Amanda PalumboAmanda Palumbo Member Posts: 5
    edited 3 September 2014, 11:13AM
    That is not quite true as itv player on my tv and iPad allow me to skip adverts.
  • stuart621stuart621 Member Posts: 616
    edited 31 December 2012, 5:00PM
    it's not wrong to have adverts - they pay for the programmes.
  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 6:35PM
    It's not wrong to have ads, but as this is a platform designed with the assistance of the broadcasters I'm disappointed that they couldn't see the potential to give customers the choice to pay a subscription rather than be forced to watch ads. I never subscribed to Sky simply because they are expensive AND they have ads, for me it has to be free with ads (like YouView today) or subscribed and ad free (like the BT Vision service provided).

    I think the TV industry needs to think long and hard about how it should generate its income. What percentage of people rarely see ads at all these days because they can either fast forward them, or simply ignore them and play with their smartphone or tablet until they're over? I'd rather pay a modest amount and watch uninterrupted programmes than pay nothing but be repeatedly distracted.
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 2 January 2013, 6:24PM
    Pay a little time and attention and you can record anything you do not want to watch with ads.
  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 6:32PM
    gomez said:

    Pay a little time and attention and you can record anything you do not want to watch with ads.

    Indeed that's what I usually do. I even record my favourtite BBC programmes as it's still more convenient than the YV catch up service. But if we're all doing this, then why are advertisers still content to pay the commercial channels?!

    Apparently the viewing numbers (at least in America) don't include those that Tivo programmes. So some shows (e.g. FlashForward, The Event) which are popular get canned after one series because the demographic watching it tend to record rather than watch live.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 4 May 2017, 12:39AM
    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.
  • edited 2 January 2013, 7:38PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Problem is the "modest amount" people are willing to pay is unlikely to compensate the broadcaster for the very substantial amounts the advertisers pay.

    I'd go further and suggest that the "modest amount" would in fact not even cover the building of the payment system, its integration into the Player, the banking/card handling fees for taking the payments and manning a support desk to deal with billing queries/complaints.
  • churchwardenchurchwarden Member Posts: 795
    edited 2 December 2016, 8:27PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    You again .... (good evening, Martin) LOL
    I (reluctantly) agree with you re. the cost to put a system in place etc. but they would be largely one-off costs with an ongoing income stream. It would also be interesting to speculate whether the revenues from advertising would reduce by implementing such a system - the broad idea being that the new income stream would be in addition to the current advertising revenue.
    The key question would be how you would pitch the 'modest price'. On the whole, I prefer the BBC licence fee (which effectively achieves the same thing) and which I think is incredibly good value for money, given the range of TV and radio programmes it covers.
  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 8:13PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Also businesses hugely value reliable sources of income - so a subscription system can be desirable even if the individual subscription level is quite low. Consider Lovefilm Instant and Netflix. And they're reselling content. Our commercial channels own quite a lot of their content, so they should be able to provide a subscription based ad free On Demand viewer for a few quid a month.
  • edited 2 January 2013, 8:22PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Me again!

    I am - as I think you know is often the case - just playing devil's advocate. I'd be interested in paying to remove ads from 4oD because I watch a quite it a lot. I just don't see it happening.

    You mention the LF, that's £140ish for all that TV, radio and web content. With that as a benchmark/comparitor how much would people expect to pay to enjoy a catch-up service add free?

    I suspect few would pay more than £10-30 for the year and that most would expect the cost to be at the lower end of that scale. And yet the nearest comparable service is Netflix - like broadcasters, it has content acquisition costs - which costs £72 per year.

    How many will pay even close to that just to watch old episodes of Desmond's and Wose Line is it Anyway?

    And just to complicate things further, do the catch-up rights the broadcasts have even allow charging an access fee for the content?
  • gomezgomez Member Posts: 2,073 ✭✭
    edited 2 January 2013, 8:30PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    What I do is listen to the news or music or summat on the radio for a few minutes while I wait for *all* the ads to play out by moving the play point to the end of the programme after the last ad break. Then start playback from the beginning and Voila! Uninterrupted viewing.
  • Keith StarsmeareKeith Starsmeare Member Posts: 22
    edited 2 January 2013, 8:31PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    YouView is clearly trying to shift our watching patterns to using the Catch Up, possibly more than using the PVR. That won't happen for me as long as there are unskippable ads. BT Vision sold a Catch Up Service for just £4 (now £5) a month, so £60 a year. It didn't have as much content as the online players, but I found it very useful and would happily pay a similar amount for unlimited ad free access to ITV, Channel 4 and Five.
  • edited 2 January 2013, 8:40PM

    I think Keith Starsmeare has a valid point. There is a model for this with smartphone apps, where they often exist in both free-with-adverts versions and paid for-without-adverts. I have paid for very good apps without adverts, despite there being a free version, as I am well aware that they have worked hard to produce something I am benefiting from. I would like them to be able to continue to develop the app, as well as feed their families and themselves ...! The 'free' culture of the internet has tended to devalue things - if you get it you pay for it - one way or another. So adverts are a way for broadcasters to fund our free viewing. Fact of life.
    Like Keith S, I would pay a reasonable amount to allow me to skip all adverts. The broadcaster gets more out of me, I am willing to pay for an easier advert-free life, and everyone benefits. What is wrong with that? Those who choose not to pay still get adverts and work around them. But even they would be benefiting from my contribution. Be interesting to see how things pan out in the future.

    Seems to me Keith that you'd be happier either reverting to BT Vision or with a Pay-TV contract from Sky or Virgin Media.

    YouView offers far more than the pokey selection of catch-up content that BTV's 'best of' selection because advertising allows broadcasters to monetise the content at better rates than the pennies per user they got from BT for the content.

    A subscription to remove the ads could only be offered on a per Player basis, you would therefore find yourself paying around £60 to each of the commercial broadcasters, not between them.
Sign In or Register to comment.