Will CBS All Access Remain Viable in the Streaming Wars?

[The Overlord]

I thought the point of this message board was to discuss Star Trek...? Its success or failure as such has no impact on my ability to discuss it.

But would anyone here want to see the franchise go on hiatus because CBS wouldn't get their act together in terms of handling streaming? I think its perfectly fine to criticize their approach, IMO.

I personally think this is taking the wrong approach. People are far more willing to be selective and choosy about content and do not possess the brand or network loyalty anymore. CBS is taking a more conservative approach and that may work. Or not. I don't know. We don't have all the information to make these decisions. And if Star Trek fails then so be it.

Yes, but the more variety of popular shows a service has, the more viewer sit attracts IMO.

If CBS All Access has one or 2 popular new shows (like the Star Trek ones) and Netflix or HBO Max or whomever, has 10 new popular shows, which service will people be more willing to shell out for?

At that point, I rather Star Trek be part of a service with more content I like over Star Trek is on a service that offers little besides Star Trek.

You can say one or two shows can carry a streaming service, but ultimately popular shows are what makes up a good library, the more popular shows a service has, the better the library is and the more they will thrive. In terms of popular shows, more is better, rather than less.

I was editing my post when you posted so I'll share some real world examples of why I think CBS will be OK:
To add a little bit of real world experience to this mix. I use to work in sporting goods retail management. Part of my job was managing and running the footwear department. One year, Under Armour decided to make shoes. Prior to that, Under Armour had pretty much had heat gear and cold gear, and small assortment of accessories.

Care to guess how many models of shoes Under Armour started off with? 3. 3 Men's Models. Then they branched and added two Women's models. That's a total of 5 shoes, vs. their competitors (Nike, Asics, New Balance) who easily had ten models in our store per gender.

Now go look at Under Amour's shoe line. It extends to multiple sports, hiking, tactical wear, kids, and cleats. It got a lot bigger.

It just didn't start big.

I think you comparing apples to oranges here. I know nothing about sporting goods, but I do think I know something about entertainment and streaming. For you know Under armor in this scenario could be Disney or HBO or Peacock or any other player in the game.

I think CBS needs to at a minimum put the Showtime stuff on CBS All Access, that would show some serious continent to this service, if they are unwilling to do that, maybe they should follow Viacom's lead and sell their stuff to other players.

In terms of buzz and general interest, I do not see that for CBS All Access the way I do for Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

But would anyone here want to see the franchise go on hiatus because CBS wouldn't get their act together in terms of handling streaming? I think its perfectly fine to criticize their approach, IMO.

I might want that until they can figure out how to handle it. I think that many would prefer CBS to not have led out with Discovery. A franchise on hiatus is not a bad thing, in my opinion. Largely, because, the Star Trek fanbase is large enough to carry forward.

Yes, but the more variety of popular shows a service has, the more viewer it attracts IMO.

If CBS All Access has one or 2 popular new shows (like the Star Trek ones) and Netflix or HBO Max or whomever, has 10 new popular shows, which service will people be more willing to shell out for?

At that point, I rather Star Trek be part of a service with more content I like over Star Trek is on a service that offers little besides Star Trek.

Again, to each their own. Since I don't spend money on many services, and less time watching things on them I am less concerned with how I get the content and more what content is being produced. It doesn't matter if they have more content if I'm not watching it.

Compared to CBS which has content I want to watch, both Trek and in the archive.

I think you comparing apples to oranges here. I know nothing about sporting goods, but I do think I know something about entertainment and streaming. For you know Under armor in this scenario could be Disney or HBO or Peacock or any other player in the game.

Exactly the point. I don't know who is what player in this scenario because the streaming market is still too new. The idea that Netflix could be competed with was laughable a few years back, and now that has changed. The strategies employed by different companies are likely not going to just have "winners and losers" but a huge variety in content and accessibility.

I think its an apt comparison because not every company needs to jump headlong into branching out its services in order to be successful. But, time will tell on this market.

 

[The Overlord]

I might want that until they can figure out how to handle it. I think that many would prefer CBS to not have led out with Discovery. A franchise on hiatus is not a bad thing, in my opinion. Largely, because, the Star Trek fanbase is large enough to carry forward.

I think Discovery was fine, Star Trek had to start somewhere in the streaming era and I do think now is a good time to come back, because I think if CBS puts more of its A-game into streaming, Star Trek could thrive in this environment. May as well strike while the iron is hot, but CBS needs a more comprehensive streaming strategy, if CBS wants to be a streaming player it should put more of its trump cards into All Access (the Showtime and Viacom content), if they can't do that, maybe they should follow Viacom's lead and become a third party seller and give up on being a player of their own.

If CBS sold its content to Netflix, you could get all the stuff you liked and other people could go there for stuff they like. I am not sure we would get the same level of Star Trek content in CBS was just a third party, but if CBS/Viacom does not want to be a third party seller, Viacom should stop playing that role or CBS should give up and do what Viacom does.

Again, to each their own. Since I don't spend money on many services, and less time watching things on them I am less concerned with how I get the content and more what content is being produced. It doesn't matter if they have more content if I'm not watching it.

Compared to CBS which has content I want to watch, both Trek and in the archive.

But that's just an anecdotal opinion, I am talking about the actual market trends I am seeing and I would bet for the vast majority of consumers, rather than just Trek fans, those 2 things are not enough compared to what the competition is offering.

You say a streaming service can get by with a few popular shows, but what is a good content library? A bunch of popular shows, of course, in terms of popular content, more is better, not less.

I
Exactly the point. I don't know who is what player in this scenario because the streaming market is still too new. The idea that Netflix could be competed with was laughable a few years back, and now that has changed. The strategies employed by different companies are likely not going to just have "winners and losers" but a huge variety in content and accessibility.

I think its an apt comparison because not every company needs to jump headlong into branching out its services in order to be successful. But, time will tell on this market.

But here's why I do not think CBS All Access is Under Armor here, CBS All Acess is taking the conservative approach, while Disney and HBO are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at their streaming services, these other players seem more like they play for keeps then CBS does in terms of streaming.

Blockbuster tried the conservative approach, maintained its traditional business model while competing with Netflix and what happened to it, it went out of business. Being conservative is a luxury CBS cannot afford in media landscape that is changing this quickly. Disney absorbed Fox just be more competitive in the streaming wars, which is the biggest media landscape change I have seen in decades and CBS going to be conservative in the face of these massive changes?

At this point, I would bet against the conservative approach in this industry. Fortune favors the bold here.

I am not trying to be rude, but I do stick by my belief that CBS is mishandling Star Trek streaming and streaming in general in this more competitive environment.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Discovery was fine, Star Trek had to start somewhere in the streaming era and I do think now is a good time to come back, because I think if CBS puts more of its A-game into streaming, Star Trek could thrive in this environment. May as well strike while the iron is hot, but CBS needs a more comprehensive streaming strategy, if CBS wants to be a streaming player it should put more of its trump cards into All Access (the Showtime and Viacom content), if they can't do that, maybe they should follow Viacom's lead and become a third party seller and give up on being a player of their own.

If CBS sold its content to Netflix, you could get all the stuff you liked and other people could go there for stuff they like. I am not sure we would get the same level of Star Trek content in CBS was just a third party, but if CBS/Viacom does not want to be a third party seller, Viacom should stop playing that role or CBS should give up and do what Viacom does.

I think that's the telltale sign of AA, at this point. CBS is willing to continue forward. Now, when the merger is complete that might change, and that's fine. However, judging CBS as a more conservative player, yet investing heavily in a single brand is telling in their confidence, vs. turning around and just contracting it out.

But that's just an anecdotal opinion, I am talking about the actual market trends I am seeing and I would bet for the vast majority of consumers, rather than just Trek fans, those 2 things are not enough compared to what the competition is offering.

You say a streaming service can get by with a few popular shows, but what is a good content library? A bunch of popular shows, of course, in terms of popular content, more is better, not less.

But, that isn't the trend right now it seems. More players entering the market, Disney pulling content to their own service, same with Apple.

But here's why I do not think CBS All Access is Under Armor here, CBS All Acess is taking the conservative approach, while Disney and HBO are throwing everything and the kitchen sink at their streaming services, these other players seem more like they play for keeps then CBS does in terms of streaming.

Blockbuster tried the conservative approach, maintained its traditional business model while competing with Netflix and what happened to it, it went out of business. Being conservative is a luxury CBS cannot afford in media landscape that is changing this quickly. Disney absorbed Fox just be more competitive in the streaming wars, which is the biggest media landscape change I have seen in decades and CBS going to be conservative in the face of these massive changes?

At this point, I would bet against the conservative approach in this industry. Fortune favors the bold here.

I am not trying to be rude, but I do stick by my belief that CBS is mishandling Star Trek streaming and streaming in general in this more competitive environment.

And you quite honestly you may be right. As I said, I'm not worried about it because Star Trek has always bounced back in the market. So, if CBS mishandles Trek then it will fail in the market and will come back again.

But, I see this being very similar to Under Armour venturing against Nike. It played small and conservative and then expanded after testing the waters. Not a fully conservative play, but not fully bold either. I don't think CBS is like Blockbuster and not changing. I think they are putting forth with their strongest names, rather than relying on quantity. And there are times when specializing in smaller places is beneficial. As the old adage goes, "jack of all trades; master of none."

In the end, I don't know. And, while I care about Star Trek, I don't mind a hiatus either. I am willing to allow them the benefit of working out their business plan and kinks, even if it means a short time without Trek.

 

[Lord Garth]

If CBSAA looks like it'll come to an end, that's when I'll wonder about what that means for Star Trek. Otherwise, wondering about both isn't just speculation but double-speculation.

But if it went on a hiatus (and it won't for a long time), I managed to get by during the '00s and most of the '10s just fine.

 

[The Overlord]

I think that's the telltale sign of AA, at this point. CBS is willing to continue forward. Now, when the merger is complete that might change, and that's fine. However, judging CBS as a more conservative player, yet investing heavily in a single brand is telling in their confidence, vs. turning around and just contracting it out.

But, that isn't the trend right now it seems. More players entering the market, Disney pulling content to their own service, same with Apple.

Then why is Viacom selling its content to Netflix and HBO Max, instead of putting their content on CBS All Access? You don't see Disney selling Fox content to other players, do you?

And you quite honestly you may be right. As I said, I'm not worried about it because Star Trek has always bounced back in the market. So, if CBS mishandles Trek then it will fail in the market and will come back again.

But, I see this being very similar to Under Armour venturing against Nike. It played small and conservative and then expanded after testing the waters. Not a fully conservative play, but not fully bold either. I don't think CBS is like Blockbuster and not changing. I think they are putting forth with their strongest names, rather than relying on quantity. And there are times when specializing in smaller places is beneficial. As the old adage goes, "jack of all trades; master of none."

In the end, I don't know. And, while I care about Star Trek, I don't mind a hiatus either. I am willing to allow them the benefit of working out their business plan and kinks, even if it means a short time without Trek.

Are they putting their strongest names if none of the Viacom or Showtime content on this service? It seems like they are leaving out several of their strongest names if they do not have Viacom or Showtime content on their service IMO. HBO max seems like they putting all the strongest names from across the Warner Brothers media empire on to HBO Max, which seems like their A-game, while CBS All Access is a half measure. Not having the Showtime or Viacom content is CBS tying one arm behind its back. HBO Max has Big Bang Theory and CBS All Access doesn't, they couldn't even get the streaming rights to their former flagship show.

Remember when UPN tried to use Star Trek to prop their network, how did that work out in the end? UPN crashing and burning helped cause the last hiatus.

In the end, no network or streaming service can survive on one or two new franchises and a backlog of old content from one network is not enough to be content, they need a ton of new content, the sooner the better.

Heck if NBC Universal put almost all their content on to Peacock, they would fit the Under Armor comparison better then CBS All Access would, NBC Universal be an underdog, but they using almost every trump card to get ahead if they did not, unlike CBS All Access which comes across as a half measure in a world where half measures get you nowhere. What makes CBS back catalog better ABC's or NBC's or Fox's? The Office is one of the most popular shows on Netflix, guess where it is going to end up? Peacock having content from NBC, Sci-Fi, Universal Pictures, DreamWorks, USA Network will put it leagues ahead of CBS All Access, if NBC Universal goes all out and CBS doesn't, I know who I would bet on to be the Under Armor in this scenario.

This era is a great time to bring back Star Trek, but no streaming service survives on one or two franchises, Star Trek needs to part of a bigger library to thrive in the modern era. There is no reason Star Trek needs to go on hiatus again unless CBS is use half measures when it comes to streaming.

If CBSAA looks like it'll come to an end, that's when I'll wonder about what that means for Star Trek. Otherwise, wondering about both isn't just speculation but double-speculation.

But if it went on a hiatus (and it won't for a long time), I managed to get by during the '00s and most of the '10s just fine.

But why is it necessary for Star Trek to go on hiatus again when it just came back to TV 2 years ago?

The only reason it would be in danger of going on hiatus again is because CBS and Viacom couldn't pick a streaming strategy and go for it, that's not problem with Star Trek, that's a problem with CBS not being willing to put in all the work necessary to create a great streaming service and greedily double-dipping by having a separate service for the Showtime content.

 

[Lord Garth]

ut why is it necessary for Star Trek to go on hiatus again when it just came back to TV 2 years ago?

You're putting words into my mouth and you know it. At no point did I say I think it was necessary for Star Trek to go into hiatus. I said I would get by just fine if it did, but that's not the same thing.

I've already said I think if CBSAA ends, the Trek series around at the time would probably go to Netflix or Amazon.

 

[fireproof78]

This era is a great time to bring back Star Trek, but no streaming service survives on one or two franchises, Star Trek needs to part of a bigger library to thrive in the modern era. There is no reason Star Trek needs to go on hiatus again unless CBS is use half measures when it comes to streaming.

At this point in time I'm in wait and see mode. I am not convinced that going all in is somehow the best move in this market, and just because Disney does one business choice doesn't mean everyone else should replicate it to. Again, we don't have enough data to know exactly the best move for CBS...except for CBS.

People can criticize their moves all they want; that's fine by me. I just don't think we have enough information, other than how much money they are currently putting into the Star Trek brand.

And, if Trek ends up in hiatus then it ends up in hiatus and everyone will yell at CBS and deride them. So, pretty much like now. So, nothing will really change.

 

[The Overlord]

You're putting words into my mouth and you know it. At no point did I say I think it was necessary for Star Trek to go into hiatus. I said I would get by just fine if it did, but that's not the same thing.

I've already said I think if CBSAA ends, the Trek series around at the time would probably go to Netflix or Amazon.

Fine, that was not my intent, I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

My point is ultimately CBS has to options, but way more effort into making CBS All Access better, by say putting the Showtime stuff and more Viacom content on CBS All Access or they should give up on CBS All Access and sell their stuff to other streaming services. CBS seems to want to make CBS All Access a player and Viacom wants to a be third party that sells to other players, those are contradictory strategies, Viacom/CBS should pick one or the other. I think Star Trek is weakened by this half measure approach CBS/Viacom is doing, IMO.

At this point in time I'm in wait and see mode. I am not convinced that going all in is somehow the best move in this market, and just because Disney does one business choice doesn't mean everyone else should replicate it to. Again, we don't have enough data to know exactly the best move for CBS...except for CBS.

People can criticize their moves all they want; that's fine by me. I just don't think we have enough information, other than how much money they are currently putting into the Star Trek brand.

And, if Trek ends up in hiatus then it ends up in hiatus and everyone will yell at CBS and deride them. So, pretty much like now. So, nothing will really change.

I think I can see where the trends are going, Disney's bold moves have made it the most powerful entertainment company around. You can disagree, but I am convinced the more conservative approach will fail in today's media landscape.

Again I am not asking for the moon, I am saying if CBS All Access really wanted to make CBS All Access the most viable streaming they could make, they would have put the Showtime and Viacom content on it, that's all I am saying. If that content was CBS All Access, in addition to the CBS library and Star Trek, it would have a better chance of thriving. Would you disagree with that? I think that is kinda obvious. Maybe CBS All Access will thrive without the Viacom and Showtime content, but I think their chances of thriving would have better if they had that content there.

 

[fireproof78]

Would you disagree with that?

Yes, I kind of disagree with it. Largely because the content feels more targeted. Maybe that's counterintuitive, but I'm not convinced that larger library=better platform.

 

[The Overlord]

Yes, I kind of disagree with it. Largely because the content feels more targeted. Maybe that's counterintuitive, but I'm not convinced that larger library=better platform.

Alright, I completely disagree with that. I think more content appeals to more people and brings in more customers.

All CBS All Access brings in now is Star Trek fans and people who happen like CBS back catalog, that is too narrow a customer base to thrive.

Imagine if CBS All Access had classic Paramount movies like the Godfather or heck just have Spongebob so the kids can watch something on it. That would being in more people, not fewer.

 

[fireproof78]

Alright, I completely disagree with that. I think more content appeals to more people and brings in more customers.

All CBS All Access brings in now is Star Trek fans and people who happen like CBS back catalog, that is too narrow a customer base.

Imagine if CBS All Access had classic Paramount movies like the Godfather or heck just have Spongebob so the kids can watch something on it. That would being in more people, not fewer.

Maybe they will. Again, we just have speculation at this point. We have no idea what might be impacting their decision-making process. It's not just more content=more profit. It's not that simple.

Again, it's too short of a time span to declare them losers in this market. But, the people I know who enjoy CBS programming usually are focused on similar content, not looking for films or cartoons. I don't know. My and my family's media consumption habits are nowhere close to being the average.

 

[Masiral]

Fine, that was not my intent, I did not mean to put words in your mouth.

My point is ultimately CBS has to options, but way more effort into making CBS All Access better, by say putting the Showtime stuff and more Viacom content on CBS All Access or they should give up on CBS All Access and sell their stuff to other streaming services. CBS seems to want to make CBS All Access a player and Viacom wants to a be third party that sells to other players, those are contradictory strategies, Viacom/CBS should pick one or the other. I think Star Trek is weakened by this half measure approach CBS/Viacom is doing, IMO.



I think I can see where the trends are going, Disney's bold moves have made it the most powerful entertainment company around. You can disagree, but I am convinced the more conservative approach will fail in today's media landscape.

Again I am not asking for the moon, I am saying if CBS All Access really wanted to make CBS All Access the most viable streaming they could make, they would have put the Showtime and Viacom content on it, that's all I am saying. If that content was CBS All Access, in addition to the CBS library and Star Trek, it would have a better chance of thriving. Would you disagree with that? I think that is kinda obvious. Maybe CBS All Access will thrive without the Viacom and Showtime content, but I think their chances of thriving would have better if they had that content there.

You mention Showtime content a lot, but is there really anything there that would drive people to CBS All Access? I think their biggest show is probably Ray Donovan, and most people have no idea what that is. Plus, Showtime is a premium channel. Add it to CBSAA, and the price will jump, just like how HBOMax has a much higher price point because it is including HBO content.

And I don't even think Viacom content will do much. What brands do they have that are as big as Star Trek? Spongebob maybe? People aren't going to subscribe to a service just to watch The Godfather.

 

[The Overlord]

You mention Showtime content a lot, but is there really anything there that would drive people to CBS All Access? I think their biggest show is probably Ray Donovan, and most people have no idea what that is. Plus, Showtime is a premium channel. Add it to CBSAA, and the price will jump, just like how HBOMax has a much higher price point because it is including HBO content.

And I don't even think Viacom content will do much. What brands do they have that are as big as Star Trek? Spongebob maybe? People aren't going to subscribe to a service just to watch The Godfather.

Showtime has Homeland and Shameless.

Putting all that stuff there and keeping the price at the same rate would make it more competitive. Netflix's original pitch was a ton of content at 10 bucks a month.

I think kids would care more about Slongebob then Star Trek. Titanic was a Paramount film and one of the biggest films of all time, you don't think that library of films would not attract more customers ? Does CBS All Access even have all the Star Trek films? How are they using Star Trek to its fullest to promote CBS All Access if they did not have the films there?

No streaming service will survive on the back of one franchise.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think CBS is planning on riding on Trek alone. I think that's an odd assumption.

 

[BillJ]

Netflix's original pitch was a ton of content at 10 bucks a month.

Yet I'm paying seventeen dollars plus tax per month, and I doubt the price is going to stabilize based on the content they produce.

I don't think CBS is planning on riding on Trek alone. I think that's an odd assumption.

There's more on there than Trek now. It mystifies that people think this is all that the platform is ever going to be. Fuck, HBO didn't hit the scene fully formed in the 1970's and neither did Netflix in the late-2000's.

Seriously, I look at Disney+ and they just don't have much I'm interested in beyond Star Wars movies I've already seen a dozen times (and already own). If not for The Simpsons reruns, I doubt I would ever seriously boot the service up on my own.

 

[fireproof78]

Yet I'm paying seventeen dollars plus tax per month, and I doubt the price is going to stabilize based on the content they produce.

No, probably not. And I'm not convinced that the content produced is worth the money at this point.

There's more on there than Trek now. It mystifies that people think this is all that the platform is ever going to be. Fuck, HBO didn't hit the scene fully formed in the 1970's and neither did Netflix in the late-2000's.

Exactly. All this speculation and hand wringing seems predicated on the idea that AA will remain static and not change. Which, is ten levels of absurdity to me. The whole point of business is adapting to the market rather than being fixed in place.

CBS seems to be testing the waters with Trek, and Twilight Zone and expanding their archives as contracts allow. Thus far, I don't have the sense that CBS is just like "Whelp, that's all they get." and leave AA as it is. Since streaming market is still relatively new there is going to be changes and adjustments all throughout the process. Your HBO and Netflix examples are perfect, and even Disney+ doesn't have all of Disney's content on there due to contracts.

As I have stated and reiterate, we don't have enough information to judge how CBS is doing, aside form the fact that they are willing to put up money in to Trek. That's a good sign.

 

[BillJ]

As I have stated and reiterate, we don't have enough information to judge how CBS is doing, aside form the fact that they are willing to put up money in to Trek. That's a good sign.

Right now, I don't see any sign that they are planning on slowing their spending on either Trek or the All-Access platform. Will All-Access go on forever? I haven't a clue? But CBS has the money and content to stick around for the long game, if that is what they chose to do.

Besides, the savvy consumer (of which I am not), will bounce around these services on a month-to-month basis. Finding things they want to watch on one, subbing, watching it and whatever else tickles their fancy for a month, then bounce to the next service, and so on. I imagine as we go forward and add more and more services, they will all see wildly fluctuating paid subscription numbers on a month-to-month basis.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Yet I'm paying seventeen dollars plus tax per month

Is that for more than streaming? I've just got streaming and it's still under $10.

 

[BillJ]

Is that for more than streaming? I've just got streaming and it's still under $10.

I have 4K streaming for up to four devices.