Trek 2017 TV Show Teaser

[JWPlatt]

Hulu. $7.99/month with ads, $11.99/month with no ads.

Thank you! And it is a significant channel.

I believe it should be simplified to a single rate to avoid commercials - free with commercials and maybe a flat $9.99 for no commercials, but the difference is similar to the trial balloon CBS spoke of publicly which was more like a $5 difference. That said, if every channel does that, the total of all subscriptions to have access to all the dependable content (contractual content arrives and expires per channel) the common subscriber watches can easily exceed the cost of cable. That's a problem.

 

[fireproof78]

With the hubris of suits, they won't point to their own failure of a bad model, but to the scapegoat popularity of the content. Morons in a tie who are married to their own agendas often seem to confuse cause and effect because they are too brilliant to fail.

That is more the nature of humanity that simply "morons in ties." Morons can be found who do not wear ties.

Hulu. $7.99/month with ads, $11.99/month with no ads.

Thank you. That was information I was trying to find but could not. Appreciate the details.

Thank you! And it is a significant channel.

I believe it should be simplified to a single rate to avoid commercials - free with commercials and maybe a flat $9.99 for no commercials, but the difference is similar to the trial balloon CBS spoke of publicly which was more like a $5 difference. That said, if every channel does that, the total of all subscriptions to have access to all the dependable content (contractual content arrives and expires per channel) the common subscriber watches can easily exceed the cost of cable. That's a problem.

Why is that a problem? First of all, I don't have a cable bill, because, when I did, there was so much fluff programming that I was paying for and not watching that my wife and I decided to cancel it.

The whole point of the individual channels or services is tailoring to the consumer's specific needs. So, the market won't support the price? Then some services will get cancelled. I'm not going to pay for channels that I am not going to watch.

As for the Hulu example, that's my larger point. Services can have tiered pricing, with and without commercials. Hulu doesn't seem to be suffering from this model. Still uncertain as to where the issue is

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

I'm very happy to have ads that aren't intertwined with content so I can go do something else while they're on.

This is valid too. I can probably afford the no commercials option of Hulu but I haven't even bothered to consider it because I'm always doing stuff while watching TV so I don't even think about it when a commercial comes on. As far as I'm concerned, I'm paying for on demand content. If they want to get a little extra cash from advertisers or no-commercials subscribers, I'm fine with it. The commercials are short enough. The interruptions are nowhere near as long as television.

At a more meta-level beyond Star Trek/CBS, there's an incredible amount of quality content on the Internet that is both free and without commercials. It works out for my budget. With Chromecast, my tablet is pretty much my whole-house remote. I pay for Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon and supplement it with Pluto.tv, YouTube, etc. Altogether cheaper than my cable subscription and I watch what I want. I don't have to pay another $100 for 500 channels I don't want.

Plus, some of these services will let you share an account. Whole families share a Netflix account, even ones that don't live together.

I wouldn't be worried until the cable companies decide that too many people have moved from "cable TV" to streaming. That's when we really get screwed and they just up their Internet rates to make up for the loss on TV subscriptions.

 

[JWPlatt]

That is more the nature of humanity that simply "morons in ties." Morons can be found who do not wear ties.

Agreed. That's why I was specific about which ones.

 

[FreddyE]

Remember these?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Love that video! I noticed how they revealed just a little bit more each new teaser. And the first two didnt have the final logo either. I guess its going to be the same this time. How much time was between the reveal of each new DS9 teaser?

 

[Commander Richard]

^ No idea, but as for those logos, I like the early one.

 

[JD]

I don't understand why people hate commercials so much. I've never really been that bothered by them, I even like some of them. I've actually watched whole show devoted entirely to commercials, mainly countdowns of the world's funniest commercials and best Superbowl commercials. Most of the time during commercial breaks I'll get on my phone or tablet depending if I'm watching through the TV or my computer.

 

[JWPlatt]

Commercials are like your crazy-cat-lady Aunt Marge at a party interrupting your conversation with stories of her cats just as you are about to ask your date home "for a drink."

 

[JD]

When you're watching live TV they're also a chance to go grab food or a drink or go to the bathroom, at least for those of us without a DVR.

 

[mos6507]

I don't understand why people hate commercials so much

"Commercials" covers a broad range of content. Consider superbowl ads that people actually want to watch. But I find demographic-targeting to be the most onerous. Like during the evening news you see mostly ads for drugs for senior citizens or fossil fuel propaganda trying to influence public policy. Or if you tune into Me-TV it's nothing but ads for catheters or reverse-mortgages. I don't like the crassness of advertisers presuming to know who is watching and even if they're right, presuming to know what it is that a particular demographic wants to buy. It makes you feel like you don't have any freewill, that your life just follows a prewritten script. Over 60? Catheter and oldies hits collections!

 

[fireproof78]

Commercials are like your crazy-cat-lady Aunt Marge at a party interrupting your conversation with stories of her cats just as you are about to ask your date home "for a drink."

Nah. It's like a break to grab a drink and the get back in to the conversation.

Also, while I don't care for commercials either, and find the ads stupid and annoying, I'm not offended by them to the point that I will stop watching something because of commercials. If commercials means money to keep making shows I like then I'm all for it. That goes for TV, radio, online, etc. In fact, I deliberately click on adds on sites, like this one, just in case that helps the revenue stream.

 

[JWPlatt]

Also, while I don't care for commercials either, and find the ads stupid and annoying, I'm not offended by them to the point that I will stop watching something because of commercials. If commercials means money to keep making shows I like then I'm all for it.

That's bullshit in the context of our ongoing discussion about commercials in premium content. My subscription will have to be enough. Add commercials on TOP of the premium channel's subscription? Can't do the math with subscriptions alone? Bye-bye. I'll wait for the DVDs and send them my money that way.

I deliberately click on adds on sites, like this one, just in case that helps the revenue stream.

You don't mention viewing the ads, and ultimately don't mention closing the click with a sale. The click model is fairly dumb and it has been in the news from time to time because of dissatisfied advertisers who feel ripped off. Smarter systems will make your clicks worthless without closing the sale. And just clicking to make money is a dishonest.

 

[fireproof78]

That's bullshit in the context of our ongoing discussion about commercials in premium content. My subscription will have to be enough. Add commercials on TOP of the premium channel's subscription? Can't do the math with subscriptions alone? Bye-bye. I'll wait for the DVDs and send them my money that way.

Ok. Fair enough. That's what this model will bear out.
Also, Hulu has already been held up as an example of tiered pricing with commercials. So, the argument that the subscription has to be enough when there are other models indicating that there is premium content with paid subscription that has commercials.

Right now, all the arguments against CBS All Access feels like "Boo! CBS is doing something different!" Even though other channels have done a similar model, and there are other models out there. The fact that CBS is trying something in the same vein shouldn't be so surprising.

You don't mention viewing the ads, and ultimately don't mention closing the click with a sale. The click model is fairly dumb and it has been in the news from time to time because of dissatisfied advertisers who feel ripped off. Smarter systems will make your clicks worthless without closing the sale. And just clicking to make money is a dishonest.

Just clicking to make money is dishonest...what?

If the click model is dumb, then I'll wait for it to be replaced. But, until it is replaced, I will work within that system to support sites that I want to support in the ways that I can. If that's problematic, then the system will change.

And to answer your question, yes, I do click on the adds, and some times buy based off of those adds.

Still not sure why this is offensive, but, YMMV. All Access will bear out based upon consumer dollars.

 

[JWPlatt]

Just clicking to make money is dishonest...what?

Lawsuits on this topic call it "click fraud" when "the clicker has dubious intentions." As opposed to my views on commercials on top of premium content, my sympathies are with the advertisers for matters of click fraud. I would consider clicking only to make money for a website as theft from the advertiser.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Wondering if the rusted, worn and split Starfleet arrowhead means we're getting a post-apocalyptic Trek series, in which a war-torn Starfleet has broken into two factions (not entirely unlike the DS9 Millennium novels)

 

[JWPlatt]

Some likened it to the golden borg collective look of First Contact.

 

[fireproof78]

Lawsuits on this topic call it "click fraud" when "the clicker has dubious intentions." As opposed to my views on commercials on top of premium content, my sympathies are with the advertisers for matters of click fraud. I would consider clicking only to make money for a website as theft from the advertiser.

How odd. I really wish I could understand your point of view.

To add to this and clarify, I don't just randomly click on ads to perpetuate fraud. I click on ads of businesses that I already support (Lego, sporting goods, entertainment earth, etc). In other words, advertisers that I already do business with.

As for commercials with premium content, this seems to be a circular argument. I don't have a problem with All Access having commercials due to the price. I'm certain some people will. The market will tell which will be supported by consumers.

 

[JWPlatt]

In fact, I deliberately click on adds on sites, like this one, just in case that helps the revenue stream.

To add to this and clarify, I don't just randomly click on ads to perpetuate fraud. I click on ads of businesses that I already support (Lego, sporting goods, entertainment earth, etc). In other words, advertisers that I already do business with.

You already said that you click on those ads to help the revenue stream of sites like this - not to help the advertiser. You're not supporting advertisers with which you already do business. You're costing them money through click fraud. It's only supportive if you buy because of that click - not because you've bought something from them in the past. It's not like a stock investment with dividends paid to third parties (this website). If you call the advertiser and ask them to send money to this website for no good reason, or you told them you like to click on their ads just to give their money to someone else, what do you think they'd say?

 

[fireproof78]

You already said that you click on those ads to help the revenue stream of sites like this - not to help the advertiser. You're not supporting advertisers with which you already do business. You're costing them money through click fraud. It's only supportive if you buy because of that click - not because you've bought something from them in the past. It's not like a stock investment with dividends paid to third parties (this website). If you call the advertiser and ask them to send money to this website for no good reason, or you told them you like to click on their ads just to give their money to someone else, what do you think they'd say?

Well, that's a different perspective.. Not sure I quite follow, but as a concession, I won't click.
My original post was not clear but I feel no need to derail this thread further. I thank you for the different perspective.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So, it will be fun to see what they mean by "new crews"... any chance Terry Crews will be part of the new cast?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies