Will CBS All Access Remain Viable in the Streaming Wars?

[The Overlord]

Please do. I'm just saying we don't have all the information and that if we follow the argument to its logical conclusion then the failure of the model is inevitable.

Maybe if their strategy didn't seem confused and contradictory, then things would be more clear and people could see how CBS intends to make its streaming model work well. I think CBS should take some blame for having a muddled message.

Like this Nickelodeon announcement, now that is something I said they should do, but a week before this Nickelodeon said it was working with Netflix to put content on their site. So who is getting what?

All the Cartoon Network stuff is going to HBO Max and all the Disney kids stuff is going on Disney plus, they are not putting their content their sites and selling it to others.

You said they didn't appeal to kids, but clearly CBS has decided it does, but does CBS/Viacom have mastery over its library or they sharing it with others?

What did Nostadamus have to say about the subject? That's what I want to know.

And people can never see the writing on the wall and make sound predictions based on ongoing trends?

Did one have to tell the future to see that Blockbuster held on to it's old business model for too long and that would cost them dearly in the internet age?

This is a simplification of what actually happened. UPN and WB merged to form CW. CW is still around today and is, ironically enough, owned by CBS.

Toward the end of UPN's run, before the merger, it felt on secure(-ish) enough ground that it could threaten to cancel ENT if the series didn't improve. Otherwise, a shake-up wouldn't have been forced upon them for the third season and Paramount wouldn't have had to negotiate with UPN to get a fourth season, to reach (almost) 100 episodes.

Don't they only own half of it and the other half was owned by AT&T?

It seems like both WB and UPN failed on their own if they had to merge together rather then suceed as separate entities. Regardless I do not see how UPN's strategy of relying mostly on Star Trek to thrive worked out well for them. Maybe CBS All Access cannot stand on it's own if it is repeating UPN's mistakes and may again need to merge with another player, like WB and UPN did.

 

[Lord Garth]

And people can never see the writing on the wall and make sound predictions based on ongoing trends?

Did one have to tell the future to see that Blockbuster held on to it's old business model for too long and that would cost them dearly in the internet age?

The traditional way most people watch television will end. It's happening right now. But it'll take longer than what you think. It's going to be a gradual process that won't finish until Baby Boomers and Generation X die off. People are creatures of habit. I do very little of my viewing on "normal" television. But my 68-year-old father? Good luck getting him to stream everything.

 

[Lord Garth]

It seems like both WB and UPN failed on their own if they had to merge together rather then suceed as separate entities. Regardless I do not see how UPN's strategy of relying mostly on Star Trek to thrive worked out well for them. Maybe CBS All Access cannot stand on it's own if it is repeating UPN's mistakes and may again need to merge with another player, like WB and UPN did.

See what I added into the rest of my post. They were starting to be able to get by without Star Trek toward the end. Or ENT would've gone into a fifth season for sure.

 

[The Overlord]

See what I added into the rest of my post. They were starting to be able to get by without Star Trek toward the end. Or ENT would've gone into a fifth season for sure.

But ultimately UPN had to merge with WB to be viable. CBS All Access will need more than Star Trek to stand alone or it will have to merge with a different player, like UPN did.

The traditional way most people watch television will end. It's happening right now. But it'll take longer than what you think. It's going to be a gradual process that won't finish until Baby Boomers and Generation X die off. People are creatures of habit. I do very little of my viewing on "normal" television. But my 68-year-old father? Good luck getting him to stream everything.

Except things are changing very quickly now. Blockbuster was a big player at one point, but collapsed pretty quickly in the face of streaming.

Disney took over Fox to bolster its streaming content, one of the major media companies is now gone as an independent player.

These are huge changes that happened quickly, do you really change will happen later rather than sooner?

 

[Lord Garth]

But ultimately UPN had to merge with WB to be viable. CBS All Access will need more than Star Trek to stand alone or it will have to merge with a different player, like UPN did.



Except things are changing very quickly now. Blockbuster was a big player at on point, but collapsed pretty quickly in the face of streaming.

Disney took over Fox to bolster its streaming content, one of the major media companies is now gone as an independent player.

These are huge changes that happened quickly, do you really change will happen later rather than sooner?

I'm aware of how fast the world changes. What I'm also aware of is that there are people who need to be catered to who aren't interested in any of that. I work for public access television. I deal with a lot of older people. A lot of them watch the channel on TV not online. It's going to be a balancing act as long as people like that exist. You can change technology but you can't change people. At least not as much as you would like. One of the harsh realities of the world we live in.

You know what I watch my stuff on? YouTube. Netflix. Amazon. Yes, CBS All Access (only because I'm a fan of Discovery and very likely will be of Picard). I don't watch TV on TV ever. Maybe once in a blue moon. But I'm also aware that there are other people who aren't like me and I don't pretend that's not the case. I don't try to force them to do things they don't want to do.

Respectfully, you're starting to come across as extremely pushy.

And when people are posting jokes, you don't need to hit them with paragraph after paragraph. There are times to do it and there are times not to do it. You kind of have to get a feel for it. There are different modes to operate on when posting. One size doesn't fit all.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe if their strategy didn't seem confused and contradictory, then things would be more clear and people could see how CBS intends to make its streaming model work well. I think CBS should take some blame for having a muddled message.

Bad, CBS, bad.

Like this Nickelodeon announcement, now that is something I said they should do, but a week before this Nickelodeon said it was working with Netflix to put content on their site. So who is getting what?

Whomever wins out the negotiations wars, or perhaps those merger negotiations changed it up.

Business stuff that we can only speculate at.

You said they didn't appeal to kids, but clearly CBS has decided it does

Good, CBS, good.

 

[eschaton]

As far as I'm aware, Nickelodeon's deal with Netflix is basically that Netflix now has the right to develop its own original content based upon Nick's already existing IP. Plus Nickelodeon will develop some new Netflix-only content for them. But there's no evidence that Nick's current back catalog - or the shows currently airing - are going to end up on Netflix.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm aware of how fast the world changes. What I'm also aware of is that there are people who need to be catered to who aren't interested in any of that. I work for public access television. I deal with a lot of older people. A lot of them watch the channel on TV not online. It's going to be a balancing act as long as people like that exist. You can change technology but you can't change people. At least not as much as you would like. One of the harsh realities of the world we live in.

You know what I watch my stuff on? YouTube. Netflix. Amazon. Yes, CBS All Access (only because I'm a fan of Discovery and very likely will be of Picard). I don't watch TV on TV ever. Maybe once in a blue moon. But I'm also aware that there are other people who aren't like me and I don't pretend that's not the case. I don't try to force them to do things they don't want to do.

Respectfully, you're starting to come across as extremely pushy.

And when people are posting jokes, you don't need to hit them with paragraph after paragraph. There are times to do it and there are times not to do it. You kind of have to get a feel for it. There are different modes to operate on when posting. One size doesn't fit all.

I am not trying to be pushy, I am just saying my piece. My piece is things are going to change no matter what and I do think changes will happen faster. These changes will happen regardless of our feelings towards them.

For a long time VCRs and VHS were part of the home entertainment and those went away in the face of DVDs pretty quickly. Heck I have seen old people use smart phones.

And hey, I said this deal with Nickelodeon is a step in the right direction for CBS All Access. So I am not just doom and gloom here.

I think the pace of change happens faster now then in the past, in the 80s and 90s changes did not happen as quickly.

As far as I'm aware, Nickelodeon's deal with Netflix is basically that Netflix now has the right to develop its own original content based upon Nick's already existing IP. Plus Nickelodeon will develop some new Netflix-only content for them. But there's no evidence that Nick's current back catalog - or the shows currently airing - are going to end up on Netflix.

That makes sense and I do think that would be a feather in CBS All Access' cap.

 

[fireproof78]

It is quite correct that the pace of technology is rapidly changing. So, attempting to predict the outcome of this business model is a rather challenging one. One aspect of business is learning to control what you can control. What we lack is all the information around all the details of CBS' current contracts, how those could be impacted by the merger, or their actual strategy.

I get that speculation is part of this discussion. It just feels like the discussion is lacking important information to make any sort of conclusive statements.

 

[The Overlord]

Another update, it looks like now that the merger is complete, Paramount Pictures library of films on CBS All Access and try to retain that NFL deal:

https://deadline.com/2019/12/viacom...y-tv-renewals-nfl-rights-and-more-1202804622/

I think to put the Nickelodeon and Paramount Pictures stuff on CBS All Access is important (even if Netflix has some of the Nick stuff too). Also if they can keep the NFL around, that would be big too, so they are doing some of the stuff I suggested in this thread.

 

[fireproof78]

 

[Mudd]

No, All Access will not make it for the long haul (5+ years). I imagine top management are already looking ahead and formulating exit strategies.

From the beginnings of the service, some business-savvy observers saw one objective of the thing as being to create a scarcity in the home market of CBS and Paramount's film and TV properties; when they finally license all of that to Netflix or another successful service, perhaps it'll bring in more cash...

 

[Takeru]

No, All Access will not make it for the long haul (5+ years). I imagine top management are already looking ahead and formulating exit strategies.

From the beginnings of the service, some business-savvy observers saw one objective of the thing as being to create a scarcity in the home market of CBS and Paramount's film and TV properties; when they finally license all of that to Netflix or another successful service, perhaps it'll bring in more cash...

If they wanted to create a scarcity they could just use the Disney vault method, there's no need to spend money on a streaming service for that, they could just not license or sell some things for a few years.

And why should they prop up the competition by making Netflix even more attractive to customers? Network TV is going to die sooner or later and I think it makes more sense for them to establish their own streaming service now. CBS All Access doesn't have to be one of the big players immediately or ever really, there's nothing wrong with being a smaller scale operation. Licensing all of their content to another service could bring in more money now but in the long run having an outlet they control 100% will be a benefit.

 

[JD]

Another update, it looks like now that the merger is complete, Paramount Pictures library of films on CBS All Access and try to retain that NFL deal:

https://deadline.com/2019/12/viacom...y-tv-renewals-nfl-rights-and-more-1202804622/

I think to put the Nickelodeon and Paramount Pictures stuff on CBS All Access is important (even if Netflix has some of the Nick stuff too). Also if they can keep the NFL around, that would be big too, so they are doing some of the stuff I suggested in this thread.

Have they said anything yet about what Nickelodeon shows will be on CBSAA? I almost bought Avatar: The Last Airbender on Blu-Ray yesterday, but then it occurred to me it was a Nick show, so it might end up on CBSAA in the near future.

 

[Q2UnME]

The whole merger was to make the combined company a better package to be sold off later (in a few years). Would not be surprised in the least if ViacomCBS isn't sold to Amazon, Apple or some other Silicon Valley tech giant by 2023.

Q2

 

[EnderAKH]

No, All Access will not make it for the long haul (5+ years). I imagine top management are already looking ahead and formulating exit strategies.

From the beginnings of the service, some business-savvy observers saw one objective of the thing as being to create a scarcity in the home market of CBS and Paramount's film and TV properties; when they finally license all of that to Netflix or another successful service, perhaps it'll bring in more cash...

Wait, 5 MORE years, or 5 years total? It launched in October of 2014 so it's already 5 years old.

 

[Mudd]

Another five.

 

[The Overlord]

If they wanted to create a scarcity they could just use the Disney vault method, there's no need to spend money on a streaming service for that, they could just not license or sell some things for a few years.

And why should they prop up the competition by making Netflix even more attractive to customers? Network TV is going to die sooner or later and I think it makes more sense for them to establish their own streaming service now. CBS All Access doesn't have to be one of the big players immediately or ever really, there's nothing wrong with being a smaller scale operation. Licensing all of their content to another service could bring in more money now but in the long run having an outlet they control 100% will be a benefit.

But what's the logic behind the idea that CBS does not need to be a big player when the big players are direct competition. when the other big players are CBS's competition? This variety article says the streaming wars will be really cutthroat and a zero-sum game.

https://variety.com/2019/biz/featur...s-netflix-hbo-max-apple-tv-amazon-1203439700/

And this article says Disney is willing to play hardball against CBS/Viacom when it comes to sports.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dbloom...-about-disney-viacomcbs-mergers/#4d33e8dd3046

The amount of money consumers will pay for streaming is not infinite and it seems like there will be winners and losers.

I think CBS/Viacom will have to pick a path and stick with it, either putting all its effort into making CBS All Access the best it can be (which means content from all over the company, not just CBS and be exclusive), sell its wares to third parties and solely be an arms dealer in the streaming wars or sell itself to a different bigger company to get more resources to stay in the game long term.

CBS trying to be a player and Viacom trying to be an arms dealer does not work, it's very confused.

 

[Takeru]

A streaming service really only needs a few shows a customer wants to see to make them cough up the money, so CBS not having the biggest library isn't a problem as long as they have enough worthwhile content.
I don't see why being in fifth place would be a problem as long as the service makes a profit, not being number 1 (or 2) is not a failure and being in control of Star Trek for example does have huge advantages, they're not at another company's mercy when it comes to renewals, no clauses in contracts that stops them from putting the show elsewhere etc.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, making a profit is the important part, to both CBS and Viacom. It isn't a short term play, either. They will evaluate it quarter by quarter (if not more often) to determine their strategies going forward. As long as it makes a profit they will move forward.