Forbes feels it's a terrible move to make people pay to watch ST

[JWPlatt]

Cable was expensive. Streaming is cheaper. But now the fractured market, where each stream subscription contains only a small percentage of everything you want to enjoy, begins to add up to the same costs that made people unplug from cable.

Forget that.

You can get pretty much every streaming service and it would still add up to less your typical cable package.

So it's not a business model trend that will continue to accelerate in this relatively new market as every content entity tries to reproduce the success of others? At all?

 

[fireproof78]

Cable was expensive. Streaming is cheaper. But now the fractured market, where each stream subscription contains only a small percentage of everything you want to enjoy, begins to add up to the same costs that made people unplug from cable.

Forget that.

You can get pretty much every streaming service and it would still add up to less your typical cable package.

So it's not a business model trend that will continue to accelerate in this relatively new market as every content entity tries to reproduce the success of others? At all?

I'm curious to know if that would change anyone's opinion?

Cable has continued to go up, Netflix adjusted its pricing schedule, etc, etc. the price of any good or service is subject to change. If the product is good, then people will be willing to pay.

Thus far, having access to many CBS shows that I otherwise could not find is highly attractive to me. Obviously, YMMV.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I don't think its news to anyone that traditional broadcast television is on life support. The shows are shorter to cram in more commercials, they are cheaper to produce, and the ratings for a "hit" program would have gotten a show cancelled 20 years ago.
Fortunately, there are still live events and sporting events to serve as a lifeline but those are very expensive because the NFL, NCAA, what have you, know they control the terms of agreement.
Cable television is in a state of flux, because people's viewing habits are significantly changing. Cable companies are rapidly consolidating because they understand the future is not the glowing box in your living room, but rather that wifi router in your office. The cable companies understand that American consumers want freedom of choice, and the warm comfort of an overflowing selection of TV and movies at our fingertips.

So what can the broadcast networks do to adjust to the new reality? Well the streaming landscape is already dominated by the big players like hulu, Netflix, and Amazon, so it would be very difficult to start a new company and have it compete. Thus you have networks like FOX, ABC, and NBC working to get the best deals for streaming their IP.

FOX and ABC have monstrous corps behind them that get revenue from a wide variety of sources, so there isn't a motivation to build something from the ground up. NBC seems to be giving up and just trying to keep the ball rolling a few more years, so they don't have any motivation to invest in the infrastructure required to build a vibrant stand-alone streaming service.

So that leaves CBS. You may have noticed that CBS likes to do things on its own. They have a dedicated sports network, and have had one for some time. They have steadfastly stuck to the old school model of original programming, physical media sales, and stand alone streaming services, only occasionally making deals to stream their IPs on other streaming services. At the same time CBS has been fairly dominant in the broadcast network world, building formulaic programming that hits the current "sweet spot". They don't make sudden moves, and they are very self reliant.

So when they decided to move into the world of original streaming programming, they apparently made a calculated decision to tap into a group of fans that are desperate for new material, tech - savvy, and possess a decent amount of disposable income they are willing to spend on entertainment.

That's us.

I cannot think of any way that CBS' decision to make Star Trek exclusive to their streaming service is "insulting."
They have a fantastic product with a dedicated fan base. They have to adapt their broadcasting model or else fade away into the dusty folds of time. They have a culture of self-reliance. They understand that virtually every American household pays for either the Internet or cable or both.
So how is it "insulting" to use all that knowledge to assume that Star Trek's fan base won't mind paying 6 bucks a month to access a new show, AND what is sure to be a host of other original programming?

I don't see an insult, I see a large corporation recognizing what the future will look like, and acting accordingly. While a few die-hards or those who truly don't have the resources to afford access will not see the show online, I imagine that by time the new series is released, most Trek fans will gladly shell out the money to be able to enjoy new Trek on their TV or mobile device.

 

[Campe]

A few years ago, I worked for our local CBS and FOX affiliates in their sales department. I needed a change from years of working in the legal field and decided I'd try my hand at it. TV advertising is expensive. And it is not particularly effective. Advertisers know this. But, more often than not, they can't buy the programs they want (the big prime time shows), because it's expensive and there is limited availability. Because so many people are time-shifting or are eliminating the cable/antenna from their lives entirely. Needless to say, I didn't last very long in that job. When you don't believe in a product, it makes it hard to be able to sell it. I didn't think TV advertising was effective. I still don't.

However, one fact remains. Broadcast TV is not going away any time soon. Broadband internet remains a very expensive luxury for many. Not everyone can afford a high speed internet connection that would allow for the streaming of video content. But the television medium as a whole is changing. There is no doubt there. How it lands is anyone's guess.

 

[JWPlatt]

You can get pretty much every streaming service and it would still add up to less your typical cable package.

So it's not a business model trend that will continue to accelerate in this relatively new market as every content entity tries to reproduce the success of others? At all?

I'm curious to know if that would change anyone's opinion?

Cable has continued to go up, Netflix adjusted its pricing schedule, etc, etc. the price of any good or service is subject to change. If the product is good, then people will be willing to pay.

Thus far, having access to many CBS shows that I otherwise could not find is highly attractive to me. Obviously, YMMV.

It should change the balance of decisions when the à la carte streamer options to get what you want become close to the cost of cable. I don't think it even needs to match cable cost. The annoyance of so many charges and the need to create and attend to so many subscriptions begins to overwhelm the simplicity of a single full service.

This isn't just my thought. It is an emerging and reported issue as more streaming services come online.

As far as MMMV, with kids in college, and expenses well beyond income, every penny I spend puts me deeper in the hole. I will not be initiating anything that adds to my expenses. No vacations, no dinners out, no movies at the theater, no optional anything. Not even $5 or $6 dollars. Not even one penny. And this is a bad time generally to be asking people to spend more money. CBS Access just represents one in what will become a death of a thousand cuts.

 

[UssGlenn]

I just checked out the CBS All-Access site and noticed that their graphics for "Star Trek: Enterprise" feature the 1701 refit. All the other series ships are correct.

 

[fireproof78]

@JWPlatt

Ouch, I can understand that. I would send you 6 bucks then, if I could.

In graduate school, so I understand the financial crunch. That's why the last movie I saw was with my dad. I haven't been to the theater in a while, and probably won't any time soon.

I understand that a lot of people have to make difficult financial decisions. I just also get why CBS is doing what they are doing.

Thank you for the perspective though.

 

[The Overlord]

I just found out that CBS All Access is available in Canada, so I guess I will have to sign up for that service to watch this show legally.

I guess I will just sign up for a month, watch the Star Trek season and then ditch the service. If CBS is going to tie the health of this show to the health of this service, I think the show is big trouble, because its going to take a lot to convince me this service is worth keeping after I finish watching Star Trek (I have no interest in most of the shows CBS airs and this service does not have the variety Netflix has). Again, if this show was on Netflix, I think hardly anyone would be complaining now.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One question I do have, is that now that it's on streaming, rather than regular TV, will CBS take off the handcuffs?

Before, Trek was known to be dodgy about certain issues. Or just playing it safe. Some think that safeness is what lead to the 'franchise fatigue' in the first place.

Will it be more edgy, language, topic, and social wise?

 

[fireproof78]

One question I do have, is that now that it's on streaming, rather than regular TV, will CBS take off the handcuffs?

Before, Trek was known to be dodgy about certain issues. Or just playing it safe. Some think that safeness is what lead to the 'franchise fatigue' in the first place.

Will it be more edgy, language, topic, and social wise?

That has potential, though I see CBS playing it safe for a while until they get a feel for the audience.

 

[Lance]

On the other hand, TNG started out as quite edgy, but then kind of hit a safe spot.

Frankly, I'm gladdened by the press release saying that they plan to tackle topical issues, just like the best of Star Trek always did.

 

[eyeresist]

One question I do have, is that now that it's on streaming, rather than regular TV, will CBS take off the handcuffs?

Before, Trek was known to be dodgy about certain issues. Or just playing it safe. Some think that safeness is what lead to the 'franchise fatigue' in the first place.

Will it be more edgy, language, topic, and social wise?

I think they'd be crazy to play it safe, at least at first. It's a notionally niche show on a fairly obscure online outlet, so they really need to make it an event that people will talk about.

 

[SPCTRE]

Just a quick note on the thread title.

Under the name of the "Contributor" of the article.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

That's clutch here.

"Forbes" doesn't think anything, random dude with a keyboard "thinks" this.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One question I do have, is that now that it's on streaming, rather than regular TV, will CBS take off the handcuffs?

Before, Trek was known to be dodgy about certain issues. Or just playing it safe. Some think that safeness is what lead to the 'franchise fatigue' in the first place.

Will it be more edgy, language, topic, and social wise?

That has potential, though I see CBS playing it safe for a while until they get a feel for the audience.

It's a logical move, but would that be risky for a move like this though -- People seem to be already lining up to scrutinize it.

The main thing I think they will be scrutinizing is, 'is it boring or not?"--especially if they're paying for it.

On the other hand, TNG started out as quite edgy, but then kind of hit a safe spot.

Frankly, I'm gladdened by the press release saying that they plan to tackle topical issues, just like the best of Star Trek always did.

I noticed that happening around the 4th season or so.

I think they'd be crazy to play it safe, at least at first. It's a notionally niche show on a fairly obscure online outlet, so they really need to make it an event that people will talk about.

I wonder what's going to happen to things like technobabble, "the hero bubble", conversations about pet cats etc,.

I don't think they should necessarily copy the Game Of Thrones format-- I think it may be getting too late to do that for shows now.

It's starting to get common now. It's real entertaining, but all the other shows are starting emulating it.

But I don't know if they can keep doing the hero bubble thing either. Or solving a problem at the end of each episode.

The CBS name brand is still too far out in the mainstream, whereas Netflix and HBO has that independent sense to it.

And have some of the wildest, most entertaining shows on.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I don't think its news to anyone that traditional broadcast television is on life support. The shows are shorter to cram in more commercials, they are cheaper to produce, and the ratings for a "hit" program would have gotten a show cancelled 20 years ago.
Fortunately, there are still live events and sporting events to serve as a lifeline but those are very expensive because the NFL, NCAA, what have you, know they control the terms of agreement.
Cable television is in a state of flux, because people's viewing habits are significantly changing. Cable companies are rapidly consolidating because they understand the future is not the glowing box in your living room, but rather that wifi router in your office. The cable companies understand that American consumers want freedom of choice, and the warm comfort of an overflowing selection of TV and movies at our fingertips.

So what can the broadcast networks do to adjust to the new reality? Well the streaming landscape is already dominated by the big players like hulu, Netflix, and Amazon, so it would be very difficult to start a new company and have it compete. Thus you have networks like FOX, ABC, and NBC working to get the best deals for streaming their IP.

FOX and ABC have monstrous corps behind them that get revenue from a wide variety of sources, so there isn't a motivation to build something from the ground up. NBC seems to be giving up and just trying to keep the ball rolling a few more years, so they don't have any motivation to invest in the infrastructure required to build a vibrant stand-alone streaming service.

So that leaves CBS. You may have noticed that CBS likes to do things on its own. They have a dedicated sports network, and have had one for some time. They have steadfastly stuck to the old school model of original programming, physical media sales, and stand alone streaming services, only occasionally making deals to stream their IPs on other streaming services. At the same time CBS has been fairly dominant in the broadcast network world, building formulaic programming that hits the current "sweet spot". They don't make sudden moves, and they are very self reliant.

So when they decided to move into the world of original streaming programming, they apparently made a calculated decision to tap into a group of fans that are desperate for new material, tech - savvy, and possess a decent amount of disposable income they are willing to spend on entertainment.

That's us.

I cannot think of any way that CBS' decision to make Star Trek exclusive to their streaming service is "insulting."
They have a fantastic product with a dedicated fan base. They have to adapt their broadcasting model or else fade away into the dusty folds of time. They have a culture of self-reliance. They understand that virtually every American household pays for either the Internet or cable or both.
So how is it "insulting" to use all that knowledge to assume that Star Trek's fan base won't mind paying 6 bucks a month to access a new show, AND what is sure to be a host of other original programming?

I don't see an insult, I see a large corporation recognizing what the future will look like, and acting accordingly. While a few die-hards or those who truly don't have the resources to afford access will not see the show online, I imagine that by time the new series is released, most Trek fans will gladly shell out the money to be able to enjoy new Trek on their TV or mobile device.

Thats an interesting way of putting it and has reassured me.