News CBS All Access To Expand

[AutoAdmin]

A new news article has been published at TrekToday:

Later this year, CBS All Access will expand and the changes might even include a different name. During an earnings call earlier...

Continue reading...

 

[Vger23]

Fake news.

Everyone knows than NOBODY likes the Kurtzman Star Trek shows and certainly NOBODY would ever pay to watch Star Trek, when it should be free for all the people of the Earth to enjoy, as Gene originally intended.

 

[Keith1701]

Sounds good.

 

[Qonundrum]

Later this year, CBS All Access will expand and the changes might even include a different name.

Usually, a name change means they want to get the people in the market excited for something "new" - though other reasons can exist. But that's obvious and a given. The service cannot be doing so super-awesome-fun time-great if they feel a need to change its name. Unless it is, but are planning to do something big that might otherwise drive away those signed up. Based on complaints in the past from customers on various forums allegedly about the lack of available shows... assuming those people complaining are legitimate and not paid or trolls or anything else...

As for its mention of Star Trek, it hypes up record sign-ups but that doesn't mean people didn't cancel after the trial period. And while not all countries are the same in terms of how they respond to a show*, with Canada's viewing figures for PIC dropping substantially, it's still possible the ratings were dropping in the US as well. Or maybe they weren't.

* and who the target audience is, which isn't always a grouping of ages but can be nationalities

 

[Qonundrum]

Fake news.

Everyone knows than NOBODY likes the Kurtzman Star Trek shows and certainly NOBODY would ever pay to watch Star Trek, when it should be free for all the people of the Earth to enjoy, as Gene originally intended.

What those people don't understand is that it's never been free. The show was paid for (in part or complete) by sponsors. That's why we see commercials for products during "commercial breaks". For those products, the cost is spread across a portion of each unit sold. So if a butter company is sponsoring Trek in 1966, that tub in the store costs a bit more because it's also paying for a bunch of TV shows - of which you've not seen all of, or had but didn't like all of them. (It's also not unlike that furore over YouTube some time ago, when advertisers got upset over some channels' content because the ads were being played as sponsoring content they didn't like. Sorta the opposite of customer boycotts but I digress.) The same goes for any brand (and/or its parent umbrella company) that sponsors shows. It gets more complex and intriguing from here and in many directions...

As for ratings, that's a complex beastie to boast about as well. There are clearly many people, on this forum and not, who enjoy the show. I don't know of anybody damning them. Just some more voraciously disagreeing with the style and/or format of the shows. More power to 'em, in the end it's just a TV show.

 

[Warp Coil]

Usually, a name change means they want to get the people in the market excited for something "new" - though other reasons can exist. But that's obvious and a given. The service cannot be doing so super-awesome-fun time-great if they feel a need to change its name.

I suspect the name change may be due to ViacomCBS's desire to have a SVOD service with a global reach. CBS is an American broadcast network - its name does not resonate internationally. Someone who lives in, say, Europe may not know what CBS is nor would they be particularly interested in signing up for a service based on the current naming convention of CBS All Access. They need something that they can take globally to compete against Netflix, Disney+, etc so they need to come up with branding that has broader appeal.