paying for a one network subscription service, to me, is laughable. I can not fathom how a business practice like that can actually work in the long run.
Listen, I'd pay a subscription service for ONE SERIES if I liked it enough and the price was right, let alone one network. In fact, if they did that and offered an even cheaper rate, that might be an even better model - at least from this consumer's perspective.
It's more laughable (painfully so) to me that I pay for a cable service that has a crap to of stations when I only watch a handful. If all of the networks followed CBS' lead and offered subscription-based streaming apps, I'd save so much money. In that scenario, if a network starts getting crappy, well I'll just cancel my subscription until they get shows that I'd actually watch.
It is also questionable why anyone would add ANOTHER subscription streaming service when they are most likely to already be subscribed to a seperate, superior service.
Because the additional service would have other offerings that you can't get on the other services. Simple. Logic.
And as I said, those few offering would need to be exclusive, remain so [which is doubtful] and actually be worth buying. Extra money a month, when there are numerous other bigger subscription services, seems like a gamble for CBS.
It's cute that they want Trek to help this service but it may ultimately result in many not bothering to actually watch it. Simple. Logic.