Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scotty

A possible therory about this lead?

134 posts in this topic

$8 a month, adds up when you have other streaming services.  Plus a cable bill.

 

It's not the money per se, but it's the logic. If I have no desire to get this streaming service, paying for one TV show isn't enough.

Plus, I remember reading they are only going to release one episode a week to prevent binge watching.

 

Syndication was still free.  Yes, TNG did a great job there and thrived.  I doubt on a network it would have had a second season even.  But no one was asked to pay to watch TNG.

 

I don't fault anyone for going for it and spending their money on this network.  If they want it, and can afford it, good for them.  But, who is going to do that other than the hardcore fan?

And what do you think should be more important?  Selling the CBS streaming or getting this show popular and visible to as many people as possible? 

 

And if only the hardcore fan is going to do this, might as well cater to that audience. 

Edited by StillKirok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but CBS streaming didn't exist until recently, and they are not entitled to my money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then don't give it to them. No problem exists.

It doesn't matter how long CBSAA has existed. It exists as a platform, and CBS isn't a big ol' bunch of meanies because they'd like to see if they can monetize something they own in a new way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the result is going to be a far smaller audience and they will end up with less than with big time ads on a network.  Plus, there will be plenty of pirating going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain that they care about audience size just now, since the show has already made them money before they've even shot a frame of film.

And, "with big time ads on a network" come expectations as to ratings on that network; ratings that Discovery was never going to meet because science fiction on a major network in primetime simply, historically, does not succeed. Hell, the reason they shipped off Supergirl to the CW was because it cost too much for the ratings it was getting.

Discovery has no chance of success on network.

And piracy goes on anyway. If I wanted, I can get a bootleg of pretty much anything, if not before it airs, within an hour of it doing so; that's just the way it works now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain that they care about audience size just now, since the show has already made them money before they've even shot a frame of film.

And, "with big time ads on a network" come expectations as to ratings on that network; ratings that Discovery was never going to meet because science fiction on a major network in primetime simply, historically, does not succeed. Hell, the reason they shipped off Supergirl to the CW was because it cost too much for the ratings it was getting.

Discovery has no chance of success on network.

And piracy goes on anyway. If I wanted, I can get a bootleg of pretty much anything, if not before it airs, within an hour of it doing so; that's just the way it works now.  

^
This.

And yes, if one can't fork over a measly $8 a month for 4 or so episodes?  Fine.  Even if you Netflix it, you're still paying for it.  If you see it in theatres you're paying for it.   If you pay $80-$100 a month for cable you're paying for it.  

$8 is not a deal breaker.   If it is?  Fine.  Don't watch.  

As noted, the show is already profitable just by the deals made thus far; it'll be OK without a few disgruntled viewers who won't pay 'extra' for new ST (like we fans aren't paying for Star Trek all the time anyway... :laugh: ).   Besides, if the show is good?  I'm pretty sure most of the remaining 'principled' holdouts will cave... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, if one can't fork over a measly $8 a month for 4 or so episodes?  Fine.  Even if you Netflix it, you're still paying for it.  If you see it in theatres you're paying for it.   If you pay $80-$100 a month for cable you're paying for it.  

It's a matter of more. I'm already paying for Netflix, or Hulu, or Charter, why should I pay more to get Trek? 

The unacknowledged subtext here, is, "I already pay for these other streaming services, so why are you forcing me to choose? Cater to me."

Which takes us back to...CBS is not a charity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, if one can't fork over a measly $8 a month for 4 or so episodes?  Fine.  Even if you Netflix it, you're still paying for it.  If you see it in theatres you're paying for it.   If you pay $80-$100 a month for cable you're paying for it.  

It's a matter of more. I'm already paying for Netflix, or Hulu, or Charter, why should I pay more to get Trek? 

The unacknowledged subtext here, is, "I already pay for these other streaming services, so why are you forcing me to choose? Cater to me."

Which takes us back to...CBS is not a charity. 

To boldly go... and make new profit.  :Ferengi:

I don't blame them; it's a business, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBS doesn't have to be a charity, but they have to offer me something more than one TV show with 13 episodes or so.  Networks can make plenty of money and have for many years, on free tv with commercials.

300 million Americans have access to CBS.  There's probably less than 1 million CBS Access subscribers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 million Americans have access to CBS.  There's probably less than 1 million CBS Access subscribers. 

^
And you can't understand why they'd want to grow that number a bit?  What better bait than Star Trek... 

For better or worse, streaming is the future.  I think the networks are taking the hint.  Netflix and Hulu have (till now) enjoyed something of a monopoly but it's going to get a whole lot more crowded very soon, I think... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do think that yes, it will get some subscribers because of Star Trek, but people aren't going to pay $8 for every streaming service that has one good show.  That's why I don't have hulu even though that 11/22/1963 show looked very interesting to me.  And the reality is that they are putting it on netflix everywhere but the US and Canada, alienating what should be their largest audience.

Only the hardcore fans would buy CBS for Star Trek, so while yes, they will make money on that, they will lose money on the ad revenues they would have had with a much larger audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why they are putting other programs on the thing like the Christine Baranski Good Wife spinoff. They're trying to build the platform and you don't do that by selling off your assets to let other people show their properties off.

And, again, WHAT ad revenues with WHAT larger audience??? Netflix doesn't have ads at all.

Then there's the fact that science fiction languishes and dies a slow death on network television. So the choice is to have, at this point, a guaranteed profitable audience, or premiere and keep it on CBS in January and watch as it's cancelled by episode seven.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do think that yes, it will get some subscribers because of Star Trek, but people aren't going to pay $8 for every streaming service that has one good show. 

^
I remember people (including my own dad) saying the exact same thing about cable TV 30 years ago.   

"It only has HBO and Showtime, it's not worth it, etc. etc." 

Once the service is established, new content will follow.  Netlix, anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do think that yes, it will get some subscribers because of Star Trek, but people aren't going to pay $8 for every streaming service that has one good show. 

^
I remember people (including my own dad) saying the exact same thing about cable TV 30 years ago.   

"It only has HBO and Showtime, it's not worth it, etc. etc." 

Once the service is established, new content will follow.  Netlix, anyone? 

Yup. Back in the day Showtime was a joke and HBO literally only aired from 6 pm to 6 am because they basically had nothing to air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also thought that Star Trek Voyager would make UPN a real network. 

Today, CBS streaming is not going to catch up to Netflix with Star Trek. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also thought that Star Trek Voyager would make UPN a real network. 

Today, CBS streaming is not going to catch up to Netflix with Star Trek. 

^
Pretty soon, all of the broadcast networks are going to go into the streaming direction.   It seems kind of a natural, inevitable marriage of network TV and the internet.   CBS is going to go all-in first, and probably make all of the mistakes; but those that follow will have an easier time of it, no doubt. 

As for VGR?  Yes, the intention was to launch a network, but it's pretty tough when VGR was about the only decent thing on that fledgling network.   It wasn't enough, clearly.  Besides, looking back with 20/20 hindsight?  Adding yet another broadcast network was clearly the wrong direction to go, historically-speaking.   

Streaming is the future, for better or worse.   Just as cable was, 30 years ago (and a lot of people fought and kicked at that one too). 

 

Netflix has a huge head start, just as HBO did 30 years ago, but the landscape changed.   And no one suggested that all cable channels be commercial-free either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also thought that Star Trek Voyager would make UPN a real network. 

Today, CBS streaming is not going to catch up to Netflix with Star Trek. 

^
Pretty soon, all of the broadcast networks are going to go into the streaming direction.   It seems kind of a natural, inevitable marriage of network TV and the internet.   CBS is going to go all-in first, and probably make all of the mistakes; but those that follow will have an easier time of it, no doubt. 

As for VGR?  Yes, the intention was to launch a network, but it's pretty tough when VGR was about the only decent thing on that fledgling network.   It wasn't enough, clearly.  Besides, looking back with 20/20 hindsight?  Adding yet another broadcast network was clearly the wrong direction to go, historically-speaking.   

Streaming is the future, for better or worse.   Just as cable was, 30 years ago (and a lot of people fought and kicked at that one too). 

 

Netflix has a huge head start, just as HBO did 30 years ago, but the landscape changed.   And no one suggested that all cable channels be commercial-free either...

In my social environment, streaming already *is* the present.

I don't really know any people my age or younger who still switch on regular tv to watch a series or movie. For the past 10 years or so, fans of a particular series or movie would either illegally download it, get it from friends who do, or rent or buy it on DVD/BD. If you told one of them that you want to watch a certain show at a certain time in the week, they'd look at you and ask: "Seriously?". :P All of them are now using streaming, as it's become available.

Many of them haven't even bothered programming the channels into their tv sets, or getting an antenna or cable. Just like many don't use stationary telephones anymore -- they bought the telephone/internet flatrate, but only use it for WiFi. Likewise, tv sets are used for gaming, streaming and BDs only.

Regular tv has gone down the way of the radio: You only switch it on when you don't care about the program, but when you just want some background noise. The only thing regular tv is still good for, are sports events or certain breaking news events.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Streaming is A present, but they can't reach the same volume of people as they do now.  What I think is going to happen is the illegal download route, which will end up costing them money. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also thought that Star Trek Voyager would make UPN a real network. 

Today, CBS streaming is not going to catch up to Netflix with Star Trek. 

^
Pretty soon, all of the broadcast networks are going to go into the streaming direction.   It seems kind of a natural, inevitable marriage of network TV and the internet.   CBS is going to go all-in first, and probably make all of the mistakes; but those that follow will have an easier time of it, no doubt. 

As for VGR?  Yes, the intention was to launch a network, but it's pretty tough when VGR was about the only decent thing on that fledgling network.   It wasn't enough, clearly.  Besides, looking back with 20/20 hindsight?  Adding yet another broadcast network was clearly the wrong direction to go, historically-speaking.   

Streaming is the future, for better or worse.   Just as cable was, 30 years ago (and a lot of people fought and kicked at that one too). 

 

Netflix has a huge head start, just as HBO did 30 years ago, but the landscape changed.   And no one suggested that all cable channels be commercial-free either...

In my social environment, streaming already *is* the present.

I don't really know any people my age or younger who still switch on regular tv to watch a series or movie. For the past 10 years or so, fans of a particular series or movie would either illegally download it, get it from friends who do, or rent or buy it on DVD/BD. If you told one of them that you want to watch a certain show at a certain time in the week, they'd look at you and ask: "Seriously?". :P All of them are now using streaming, as it's become available.

Many of them haven't even bothered programming the channels into their tv sets, or getting an antenna or cable. Just like many don't use stationary telephones anymore -- they bought the telephone/internet flatrate, but only use it for WiFi.

Regular tv has gone down the way of the radio: You only switch it on when you don't care about the program, but when you just want some background noise. The only thing regular tv is still good for, are sports events or certain breaking news events.

^
Pretty much this.

I'm an oldster (turning 50 later this year; as old as TOS ST), and not usually an early-adopter of new things.   My wife and I only got into blu ray about 4 years ago (seriously).    But even I'm watching a lot less broadcast TV these days.  Mostly when a local news story breaks, or a special event, like the Super Bowl, or the Academy Awards.

Whole days go by in our house where the TV isn't even turned on anymore.   
When I exercise on my stationary bike (a daily ritual for my arthritis), I usually pop in a DVD on my desktop for entertainment (using my keyboard as a remote), or I put my iPad up on the bike's mast with me.  When I travel?  I usually bring my laptop and stream Netflix (via the hotel's wi-fi) and/or I bring a few DVDs.    My wife and I only have a handful of must-see TV shows we track on broadcast (Dr. Who, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, etc).  And most, if not all of those can also be streamed online.   If my wife misses Game of Thrones?  She'll watch it via HBO-on-the-go. 

I used to be a news junkie, but these days it's much easier to just go to CNN.com or BBC.com and pick/choose what I want.   If I'm cooking in the kitchen?  I just bring my iPad with me and stream it there.

As for radio?  The only thing I listen to on the radio is National Public Radio, and I stream it when I'm home.

In a few years, broadcast TV is going to go the way of radio, I agree.   

Streaming is A present, but they can't reach the same volume of people as they do now.  What I think is going to happen is the illegal download route, which will end up costing them money. 

But they WILL.   That's the point of an eventuality; it's not the standard just yet, but it is rapidly becoming so.   How many (functional) TV antennas do you see on suburban rooftops these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also thought that Star Trek Voyager would make UPN a real network. 

Today, CBS streaming is not going to catch up to Netflix with Star Trek. 

^
Pretty soon, all of the broadcast networks are going to go into the streaming direction.   It seems kind of a natural, inevitable marriage of network TV and the internet.   CBS is going to go all-in first, and probably make all of the mistakes; but those that follow will have an easier time of it, no doubt. 

As for VGR?  Yes, the intention was to launch a network, but it's pretty tough when VGR was about the only decent thing on that fledgling network.   It wasn't enough, clearly.  Besides, looking back with 20/20 hindsight?  Adding yet another broadcast network was clearly the wrong direction to go, historically-speaking.   

Streaming is the future, for better or worse.   Just as cable was, 30 years ago (and a lot of people fought and kicked at that one too). 

 

Netflix has a huge head start, just as HBO did 30 years ago, but the landscape changed.   And no one suggested that all cable channels be commercial-free either...

In my social environment, streaming already *is* the present.

I don't really know any people my age or younger who still switch on regular tv to watch a series or movie. For the past 10 years or so, fans of a particular series or movie would either illegally download it, get it from friends who do, or rent or buy it on DVD/BD. If you told one of them that you want to watch a certain show at a certain time in the week, they'd look at you and ask: "Seriously?". :P All of them are now using streaming, as it's become available.

Many of them haven't even bothered programming the channels into their tv sets, or getting an antenna or cable. Just like many don't use stationary telephones anymore -- they bought the telephone/internet flatrate, but only use it for WiFi.

Regular tv has gone down the way of the radio: You only switch it on when you don't care about the program, but when you just want some background noise. The only thing regular tv is still good for, are sports events or certain breaking news events.

^
Pretty much this.

I'm an oldster (turning 50 later this year; as old as TOS ST), and not usually an early-adopter of new things.   My wife and I only got into blu ray about 4 years ago (seriously).    But even I'm watching a lot less broadcast TV these days.  Mostly when a local news story breaks, or a special event, like the Super Bowl, or the Academy Awards.

Whole days go by in our house where the TV isn't even turned on anymore.   
When I exercise on my stationary bike (a daily ritual for my arthritis), I usually pop in a DVD on my desktop for entertainment (using my keyboard as a remote), or I put my iPad up on the bike's mast with me.  When I travel?  I usually bring my laptop and stream Netflix (via the hotel's wi-fi) and/or I bring a few DVDs.    My wife and I only have a handful of must-see TV shows we track on broadcast (Dr. Who, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, etc).  And most, if not all of those can also be streamed online.   If my wife misses Game of Thrones?  She'll watch it via HBO-on-the-go. 

I used to be a news junkie, but these days it's much easier to just go to CNN.com or BBC.com and pick/choose what I want.   If I'm cooking in the kitchen?  I just bring my iPad with me and stream it there.

As for radio?  The only thing I listen to on the radio is National Public Radio, and I stream it when I'm home.

In a few years, broadcast TV is going to go the way of radio, I agree.   

For me personally, streaming wouldn't be an option if I couldn't conveniently connect it to my tv set.

But thanks to the Amazon Fire box/stick, it couldn't be easier, and since we bought them almost 2 years ago, we hardly watch regular tv anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time that happens, this show will be long gone.

The bar for monetary success is vastly different for a show on a streaming service. This is why CBS can already tout its profitability.

Profitability no network would give it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time that happens, this show will be long gone.

The bar for monetary success is vastly different for a show on a streaming service. This is why CBS can already tout its profitability.

Profitability no network would give it.

 

A network show has to make all of its money back with one showing. Many shows on modern networks aren't owned by the networks that show them so if they haven't make a profit from the one showing, they won't ever. 

Places like Netflix make their money on their libraries. They have a bunch of shows that they own outright and have available for years. ST Discover is already paid for. It will sit on CBS all access drawing in new customers for the next 50 years if this works. 

A show on broadcast TV needs to get a certain percentage of households watching in order to be successful. It doesn't really matter if they only like the show and watch it because they really like the show that comes on before it and stay watching because its better than anything else on. Netflix type networks need shows like Orange is the New Black and House of Cards and the Marvel shows that people love and are willing to wait for. But they also need a lot of pretty good shows to fill in as well.

Networks are better off with a bunch of pretty good shows that appeal to a lot of people but most people don't really love them. Netflix type networks need shows that people people love. They are better off with a bunch of niche shows.  ABC's Agent of Shield is just barely staying on the air. But an online streaming service would love to have 20 or 30 shows that have 1/4 of the viewership of Agent of Shield.  That way viewers would have multiple shows they really love and would have new episodes every month or two and a bunch of shows they like at any time. 

Right now CBS all access has two shows and (Hopefully) a 60 year library of shows owned by CBS. I'd love to see them put on a bunch of old episodes of their news programs with a sortable database. It's a niche market but you only need to convert them to digital. That's a lot cheaper than hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode for new programs.  It doesn't have to be all at once. In some ways its better not too. "New from the archives.."  You might even allow customers to set up suggested play lists for other customers. You're interested in a musical band from the 60's. Click here we'll show you their appearance on 60 minutes and an obscure show from 1968 where a famous bands music was used as a soundtrack.....   

Right now there's not much but CBS has deep pockets and 60 years of experience in producing TV programs.  In 5 years, they might have 30 or 40 shows made for all access as well as their current shows and tens of thousands of hours of shows from the archives. They could show sports events a few hours after they happen. Another niche market but who cares. If I'm a fan of an out of state team that isn't shown much and want to catch a game once in a while, I might enjoy it. So CBS shows several games of the week locally. Fans can only see the local team but CBS has access to others. All of the games CBS has access would be on access for a month and are available starting a few hours or days after they happen. Maybe I'm unusual but I'm a football fan. I record every game that my team plays and watch them again. That way I can fast forward to the parts I like. I really don't care if they make me watch 30 seconds of commercials for every 10 minutes of game I watch, If I can see games that I wouldn't have been able to see. 

I can see ten years from now, instead of paying a hundred dollars a month for cable you get Netflix, Hulu, Amazon for $10.00 each. You can get CBS,ABC, NBC, Fox, ESPN etc. for $5.00, $6,00 a month with commercials or $10.00 a month without. It's like a la cart cable tv. The advantage of this for viewers is when you buy CBS, you're not just getting the 15 or 20 shows they're airing now, you're getting access to everything that CBS ever showed that they own and still have a good copy of. And you get niche shows that aren't shown on the network. 

Shows like Star Trek are expensive. They won't exist if someone, somewhere won't pay for them. They're not on the air now because they don't quite have enough viewers for broadcast but too expensive for cable. CBS has deep enough pockets to pay the upfront costs and wait for a few years for the profits. A steady profit stream is very useful to a network. It will help them during the times between big hits. 

Pirating is an issue but how is it different with CBS all access that with any other show that's not on basic cable or something similar. I'm not a fan but the Game of Thrones is a big hit on HBO. I had HBO years ago and they had a lot of good stuff but what would happen is that I'd click on HBO, 90% of the time what was on, I'd either seen before or wasn't interested in. Then they forced me to change boxes and under the new system, I couldn't just buy HBO for $10 a month, I had to upgrade to a new tier for $30 extra a month plus $10 a month for HBO to get 50 more channels like the farm channel 2, 3, 4, and 5 where you could spend hundreds of joyous hours watching goats fart. So in effect I had to pay $40 a month for 10 episodes of a show on HBO that I really wanted and a bunch of shows that I was marginally interested in at best. The cable company was pleading with me to pirate. If I could pay $10 a month to stream HBO and it included a library of all the shows on HBO for the last 35 years, that would be a much, much better option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past 10 or 15 years, I can't think of a single show that was worth watching which was on a Network (except perhaps "The Big Bang Theory" maybe).

All shows I really loved or at least liked, were either cable or streaming.

Let's face it, the many constraints for networks only allow them to produce dumbed down mass appeal shit. Cable and streaming are not limited by these constraints, which is why they are the only place where quality and creativity can florish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0