A Trek for Everyone! (good or bad).

[eschaton]

TV is completely different than the 90s and when Enterprise was on the air. Back then live viewership ratings and demographic was hugely important because of advertising revenue. For network shows, it is still important but the viewership levels have reduced exponentially since then. However, streaming series have to be viewed with a different model. They are mostly paid for with subscriptions and the amount of subscriptions needed is far lower than the number of viewers needed on network television for ad revenue. That's how HBO survived on shows like The Sopranos and how AMC could afford to have Mad Men on for 7 seasons and Breaking Bad on for 5 seasons. Their viewership ratings don't compare and yet the budgets are often higher. The creative freedom is greater. It's all because of the subscription model.

Star Trek Discovery's premiere had 9.5 million viewers on network TV in the US. How many of those viewers subscribed to CBS All Access? Even if it's "only" 3 million, that is hugely successful for a subscriber based service. Now let's factor in the 180+ other countries it airs in (first time ever this has happened where a new Star Trek episode has aired in that many countries within 24 hours of it first airing) and it turns out Star Trek is a huge success. There's no way CBS would have 4 series officially in various stages of production, with a possible 3 more in development, and be losing money. They're not a charity, they're a business. I bet the Michelle Yeoh series' Chinese audience will pay for the show by itself. Also, think of all the new fans these shows will attract to the greater Star Trek universe.

I understand all of this. Here's the problem:

I currently pay for Netflix. I get a lot out of Nefflix. My kids have their own accounts and watch some shows almost every day. I watch less - mostly old Trek, documentaries, and some sci-fi shows. But I get my money's worth for sure. I have Amazon Prime for other reasons mostly, but they have a wide array of older content (Babylon Five, BSG, etc) which I watch sometimes, and they'll have the next season of The Expanse too.

CBS All Access right now has Discovery for me. Just Discovery. I'm not interested in anything else. I browsed through the other day, and aside from the Twilight Zone revival, nothing even seemed borderline interesting to me. I'm not a TV guy, I'm a sci-fi guy. More of my free time is taken up by reading books, playing RPGs, or shitposting on the internet than watching TV or movies.

So, at the end of last season of Discovery, I canceled my subscription. I reupped this month and caught up with the Short Treks. I can say with 100% certainty I will drop it again as soon as the season is over. Paying $10 per month for four episodes (or less) of Trek isn't a great deal, but spending $10 per month for nothing is a terrible deal. I can see why they decide not to drop the whole season at once, Netflix style, because with their limited content I would just pay for a single month and be done with it. In order to keep people like me on CBS All Access, they'd need to have close to - if not exactly - 12 months a year of exclusive content that I was interested in. It wouldn't have to be Trek, but it probably would have to be SFnal, because frankly I don't give a flying fuck about police procedurals or sitcoms. They're a waste of time for me.

So yeah, I will check out all the new shows when they come out - give them a chance. But if they aren't my cup of tea, I'm certainly not going to watch episode-by-episode come their second seasons. I'll watch them between episodes of Discovery, or the Picard show, or whatever. Which means that instead of getting $120 a year out of me, they might only get $40-$80. Which means significantly less revenue going to CBS All Access, presuming there are lots of people like me.

Again, as a fan of the franchise, I don't think there's anything wrong with the creation of Trek series which aren't really appealing to the modal fan. But if the idea behind expanding this exclusive content was to woo die-hard Trekkies into continually being subscribed, I think it's wrong-headed, and won't make them anywhere near as much money as they think it will. It seems that once again CBS is trying to forge an awkward middle ground between broadcast TV and exclusive streaming services - a middle ground which is fraught with peril.

 

[The Habs Fan]

Again, as a fan of the franchise, I don't think there's anything wrong with the creation of Trek series which aren't really appealing to the modal fan. But if the idea behind expanding this exclusive content was to woo die-hard Trekkies into continually being subscribed, I think it's wrong-headed, and won't make them anywhere near as much money as they think it will. It seems that once again CBS is trying to forge an awkward middle ground between broadcast TV and exclusive streaming services - a middle ground which is fraught with peril.

Of course this is just speculation, but I foresee television as we know it dying and everything moving to streaming. Every single channel is starting their own streaming service. For example, it was just announced yesterday that NBCUniversal is launching its own streaming service. This is happening because more and more people are cord cutting. So basically instead of cable, you can choose which channel's content you want.

Now here is where it's different in the US than we have up here in Canada as far as streaming services go. Here in Canada, between Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Crave (owned by Canadian media conglomerate Bell and has all of the HBO and Showtime shows), we have almost every television show worth watching spread across those 3 services. Nothing covers FX or AMC yet but I'm sure that will come. However, in the US, every channel and studio is creating their own streaming service. For example, you have Disney launching there's this year. If you want to watch any Marvel show and Star Wars show, you'll have to subscribe to Disney. Netflix has already cancelled almost every Marvel show that used to be a Netflix exclusive. I agree that subscribing to all of these different streaming channels can be expensive, but that's the way TV is going. Soon it will all be like this (pure speculation on my part but it's definitely moving that way).

The reason why Star Trek is on CBS All Access and not Netflix is because it's owned by CBS. CBS needs their streaming service to succeed so of course they are going to put their biggest franchise on it. Disney's doing the same. NBC will be following suit. Netflix is pumping out Netflix Originals like crazy to keep people subscribed. CBS is not unique in what they're doing with Star Trek. Yes, they have less other content to offer (probably because they are very new when compared to Netflix) but how is it any different than subscribing to HBO to watch Game of Thrones? Or subscribing to AMC to watch Better Call Saul? It's a very similar business model. Star Trek can't survive on network TV. It can survive on cable, and streaming is the new cable.

And what happens if CBS reunites with Paramount to become Viacom again and CBS All Access has all of the Paramount movies as well? They will pull everything off Netflix just like Disney is doing. Sure, Netflix was first and has the biggest library right now, but that may soon change.

 

[fireproof78]

Which means that instead of getting $120 a year out of me, they might only get $40-$80. Which means significantly less revenue going to CBS All Access, presuming there are lots of people like me.

They will have accounted for this as well.

 

[eschaton]

Of course this is just speculation, but I foresee television as we know it dying and everything moving to streaming. Every single channel is starting their own streaming service. For example, it was just announced yesterday that NBCUniversal is launching its own streaming service. This is happening because more and more people are cord cutting. So basically instead of cable, you can choose which channel's content you want.

Now here is where it's different in the US than we have up here in Canada as far as streaming services go. Here in Canada, between Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Crave (owned by Canadian media conglomerate Bell and has all of the HBO and Showtime shows), we have almost every television show worth watching spread across those 3 services. Nothing covers FX or AMC yet but I'm sure that will come. However, in the US, every channel and studio is creating their own streaming service. For example, you have Disney launching there's this year. If you want to watch any Marvel show and Star Wars show, you'll have to subscribe to Disney. Netflix has already cancelled almost every Marvel show that used to be a Netflix exclusive. I agree that subscribing to all of these different streaming channels can be expensive, but that's the way TV is going. Soon it will all be like this (pure speculation on my part but it's definitely moving that way).

The reason why Star Trek is on CBS All Access and not Netflix is because it's owned by CBS. CBS needs their streaming service to succeed so of course they are going to put their biggest franchise on it. Disney's doing the same. NBC will be following suit. Netflix is pumping out Netflix Originals like crazy to keep people subscribed. CBS is not unique in what they're doing with Star Trek. Yes, they have less other content to offer (probably because they are very new when compared to Netflix) but how is it any different than subscribing to HBO to watch Game of Thrones? Or subscribing to AMC to watch Better Call Saul? It's a very similar business model. Star Trek can't survive on network TV. It can survive on cable, and streaming is the new cable.

And what happens if CBS reunites with Paramount to become Viacom again and CBS All Access has all of the Paramount movies as well? They will pull everything off Netflix just like Disney is doing. Sure, Netflix was first and has the biggest library right now, but that may soon change.

I don't disagree with any of this. The problem with the new paradigm though is it has some of the same problems that the old one did - it still "bundles" - just into smaller packages.

Historically of course, basic cable worked via bundling. But few people realized, for example, that sports channels made up a huge proportion of the cost of cable TV. Basically the major sports associations charged ESPN very high fees for broadcasting rights. It was believed that sports viewers would not be willing to pay the full cost of these fees, so they decided to make ESPN a "basic cable" channel and charge everyone for it, splitting the cost. In effect non sports-viewers like myself ended up subsidizing people who watched sports. We pay money for things we don't want to have.

The same thing is true, albeit on a finer-grained level, with all the johnny-come lately competitors to Netflix/Amazon Prime. They simply do not have the same breadth of older and newer content that the "big two" have. But they're also not narrowly focused for a particular type of viewer. So, if you're someone like me - who is only interested in watching sci-fi TV - you have to either pay a lot of money for non-SFnal content, admit you're not going to see a large number of shows (legally anyway) or do what I do, and admit in some cases you'll have to buy them by the episode on Google Play or something (shame I can't do that with Game of Thrones...)

The ideal setup would be that all shows would be ala-carte. I mean, it's the way that going to the movies works, or buying an album, or buying a book. This would, admittedly, make it hard for new content to break through, so some sort of "channel" which is narrowly focused on a particular type of viewer would be good too. But I don't see why I need to pay for The Good Fight just because I want to watch Discovery. Well, I see why - because CBS wants me to - but I don't see how it makes good business sense.

 

[gblews]

I bet the Michelle Yeoh series' Chinese audience will pay for the show by itself. Also, think of all the new fans these shows will attract to the greater Star Trek universe.

This is an excellent point. And not only will Chinese, Chinese be attracted to the show, so will Chinese Americans.

So, this will make the Discovery-verse, not only the first Trek series to, among other things, make it's main protagonist character a black woman who is not a captain, it will soon spawn the first Trek series to feature a Chinese woman as main protagonist who is also not a captain.

DSC is leading the franchise into the 21st century and the diversity hall of fame, well for Trek anyway.

 

[F. King Daniel]

A Chinese woman portraying a character who has commited some of the worst atrocities in Star Trek history, including genocide and consuming sentient beings as luxury food. They'll be thrilled.