News Discovery isn't on TV because no-one would watch it

I love that you can really only get All Access via Smart TV or computer; if you own a blu-ray player that would normally have Netflix and Hulu or Amazon Prime, you're screwed.
Like me.

 

Plenty of cheap options on there. Like the Amazon Fire or a Roku. You'll be fine.

 

Yup. Roku works like a champ. I have 4 of 'em.

If you look around you can find a factory refurb Roku Stick for less than the regular street price.

 

Ahem--that's ALL executives.
https://www.amazon.com/Car-Guys-vs-Bean-Counters/dp/1591846226

Ah--I forgot the other thread here--about what one would do with Q's powers. Make all the suits vanish. Except for folks in chanrge of collectibles. No, no--they burn.

Hey Don Draper wanna-be, If H&I can show a whole block of Trek instead of cops shows, so can CBS for one freaking hour!

IDIOTS!

 

As a middle-aged technophobe, I share your pain, but let's be honest here: Trek fans are typically early adopters when it comes to new technology; we're the exceptions to the rule.

And chasing after that "growing segment of the population" is exactly what the franchise should be doing if they want to keep Trek a going concern.

Who in their right minds targets a shrinking demographic?

 

No one is safe.

 

But, from a strictly pragmatic POV, what if a cop show would do better in that time slot?

The question is not whether they can air STAR TREK for an hour, but whether TREK would do as good or better than a different kind of programming in that same hour.

If, in their estimation, STAR TREK would get 3 million viewers, but, say, a cop show would get 5 million viewers . . . .they're not obliged to serve up a weekly hour of STAR TREK as a public service.

Again, it's not a value judgment. It's a business strategy.

 

Advertising drives what is programmed on network TV. If a network doesn't think a show will draw the numbers to bring in big ad money, the show doesn't make the cut.

CBSAA and its partners behind Discovery don't have to rely solely on ad revenue, as subscribers are subsidizing the difference.

 

Exactly. This was not a jab at Star Trek or its fans. Just a professional assessment of the best way to market and distribute a new series . . . at a time when the TV industry is experimenting with new platforms and recognizing that the old models may not apply anymore.

It's nothing personal. Just the realities of show business during a time of transition.

 

Well, first of all, if a small demographic is rapidly growing while a large demographic is slowly shrinking, it makes sense to target the large one as much as the small one. We'd need to look at actual statistics to determine whether there are still enough people interested in Trek who rely on free network TV that it would be worth targeting them. But for now, my basic point is that the wisest move is not necessarily to cater exclusively to the growing demographic, regardless of other circumstances.

And speaking of exclusivity, from what I understand (and my technical understanding is limited), network television is easily available to almost everyone with any kind of television set. So it's not as though CBS would be excluding the folks who also love the internet stuff if they put Discovery on network TV, but by putting it on a paid internet service, they are excluding folks like me. I would think CBS would do better not to chase the fastest growing demographic, but to cast the widest net to include multiple demographics.

But I could be wrong. Maybe the growing segment turning the TV into the internet will quickly leave people like me in the dust. The point of my previous post (unlike the above paragraphs in this one) was not to suggest what CBS should do with its shows, but to correct the attitude among technophiles that those of us without access to Discovery are just being cheap and petulant or something. However few of us there are, we live a completely different lifestyle than the technophiles and cannot watch Discovery without sacrificing a great deal of time and money to alter that lifestyle.

 

Surely CBS did the research and found that the best platform for a new Trek series is not in a traditional environment. These folks aren't idiots, they do this for a living. If the suits thought that Discovery would pay for itself on broadcast TV, that's where it would be.

Apparently they've found that it won't.

So they found a place to use a property that has an existing fan base, and that place is a service that they want to build for the next generation of viewers.

Historically, Trek fans are loyal but damned persnickety. The people in the big corner offices are aware of this, and they're making a new show anyway.

 

They might be putting it on a paid internet service because (a) that's the best place for it. Or they might be putting it on a paid internet service even though it would do better on network TV because (b) some other kind of programming (a crime procedural or something) would do even better than Discovery in the same slot. So they're doing what's best for the network overall, not for Discovery.

I don't know whether (a) or (b) is correct, but my main point isn't even about what's best for Discovery. I'm just trying to point out that there is a group of us being excluded, whether it's a good business decision to exclude us or not.

 

Every advertiser is only willing to spend x number of dollars to air y number of ads, which is usually a fraction of the air time that the network needs to sell, that gets even smaller as the price, dollars per second increases...

Ratings justify or nix "bets" made weeks/months earlier by the network and the Sponsors.

If this hypothetical cop show gets 2 million more viewers than Discovery, then the adbuy for that time slot increases, and who ever was buying that block of advertising, can no longer afford to advertise in that timeslot, and they have to find a shitter timeslot broadcasting flimsier media to advertise in or admit that they can only afford to advertise their product on Radio. Also there is only a limited number of sponsors out their willing to pay for plus plus premium advertising, if the networks continue to raise their prices, they will end up airing a lot of dead air.

It's a finely balanced ecosystem.

 

That's a nice, pithy way to put it. Much more concise than my own long-winded attempt to say the same thing.

As for the technophile thing . . . I know what you mean. It also irks me sometimes when people assume that everybody is up to speed on the latest cutting-edge new tech. (Says the guy who still doesn't own a smartphone or know how to "text" people.)

But, at the same time, one has to acknowledge that times change and we can't expect the world to stop moving just because we haven't kept up. And eventually there comes a point when that "cutting-edge" stuff is the new normal, and you have to break down and join the 21st century or risk getting left behind when it comes to new entertainment mediums.and platforms.

I mean, I still prefer "dead tree" books, but I'm not blind to the fact that ebooks are a big deal and getting bigger. Ditto for this new-fangled "CBS Access" thing . . .

 

The network will always do what's best for the network. What's best for one show, regardless of the anticipated audience, comes somewhere way down the line. That's how the show business works.

Bottom line, Trek is one little property of a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. You and I aren't even fruit flies buzzing that banana.

Be happy that they even want to try another series.

 

*rolls eyes* The franchise has a ready made fanbase from a franchsie that has done just fine on TV so far. It might be more of a matter of the differences in production. a digtal platform like All-Access or Netflix or Amazon, etc. is not tied by the same issues as networks like CBS, ABC, etc. This is mainly because digital platforms, and some paid subscription cable channels like HBO, are not hampered by censorship and Commercial concerns. platforms like Netflix and such are also not hampered by timeslots and episode lengths.

The result is that shows made for digital platforms like netflix for example will be a bit more progressive then otehr fair. mainly because they don't have to worry about their profit margins being effected my Commercial and public opinion (to an extent). Hell, if you examine the GLAAD 2015 report, programing from these digital platforms is actually higher altogether in racial and queer presences then on regular television.

Star Trek Discovery, from what little we all know of it so far, is that it is being made even more all-inclusive and with a possible higher rating then the present idea of family friendly entertainment. these elements are likely why the fellow thought it wouldn't so well on livingroom TV (though shows like How to Get Away With Murder, tend to work against this mentality, though it is still a dominant belief at some of the older channals like CBS, which has some of the lowest scores on GLAAD's latest report).

 

Some truths are better kept to the self.

 

I expect the network executives to do what's best for the network and understand why they do. But there's no reason for me to be personally happy about a Star Trek show I'll never get to see.

Don't get me wrong. I've misrepresented myself if I come across playing a tiny violin and crying, "Woe is me!" Personally, I have some discretionary income. I just prefer lobster tails to computer gadgets; and I'm willing to risk getting left behind on new entertainment because I'd just as soon pop in a DVD with original cast Star Trek. I don't like much of the new entertainment on an aesthetic level anyway.

But there are a lot of people less well off than I am. Television has never been available to everybody, but for a long time in much of the world, television programming over the airwaves has been affordable for a lot of people. I was close to a family in a third-world country, and they didn't have an indoor bathroom but had a television and got programming through the airwaves, and they weren't atypical in that country. So it saddens me to see television become more and more costly; and I don't like it when people underestimate the cost, because for many, it's not a choice to just move on to the next new thing, to "break down and join the 21st century," while for others, it's a choice that eliminates other choices, precludes other kinds of leisure that used to be easily enjoyed along with cheap television.

Along those lines, I think there's value in much of the same programming reaching people of widely different socioeconomic backgrounds. Yes, some of the niche programming and the arguably more progressive content won't survive, when programming is geared to mass audiences; but that specialized programming loses some of its value when the only people who see it are (a) comparatively privileged and (b) the people who already want it, anyway. The original Star Trek was a highly creative show, artistically speaking, and pretty darn progressive show, socially speaking, that had a major cultural impact because all kinds of people were exposed to it on network television and syndicated reruns over the airwaves.

 

Dummies scared of new technology, can rejoice, that Discovery will be on DVD in the not to distant future.

Direct from Streaming is a step above direct to DVD.

Barely.

Your parents/grandparents still use VHS?

That's on you buddy.

 

. . . and there it is again. The assumption that the only reason for not having the latest technology is some irrational, childish fear of it. Whatever.