I have a solid understanding of the value of ratings with regard to old-style TV production, i.e. ad-supported general broadcast. When it comes to Picard (or, for that matter, STD, Section 31, Strange New Worlds, etc) I'm wondering how success is measured. My assumption has been that enough people must be signing up to watch a given show so that some percentage of the monthly fees will cover production. On retrospect this is almost certainly no true, or at least not completely true, as 1) CBS would have little way of knowing who was signing up to watch what, and 2) I have a hard time believing that one show, even a Trek show, can bring in enough profit to cover production costs and still have something significant left over. So what am I missing?
They're not revealing numbers. But if DSC were a failure, they wouldn't be making even more Star Trek shows. So the best I'm figuring is: if they're ramping up the Star Trek shows and they can maintain having some sort of Star Trek all year round (when they finally build up to that), it'll be successful -- or at least successful enough -- so they can keep it up. When they start ramping down, that's when it means it's not as successful as they want it to be anymore. It'll ramp down eventually. I'm just glad it's not there yet.
I so wish I could agree with you, but so far I'm meh on 50% of their output and actively dislike the other 50%. I have high hopes for S31 and SNW...but I had high hopes for Picard as well. With the direction I perceive Lower Decks to be going, I'm anticipating the Kirk and Spock Variety Hour to be the next announcement :-)
Not a lot is. I just looked up the Neilson Ratings for the most successful programs in the 2019-'20 Season and I'm shocked how low the numbers are across the board. Low compared to what we would've seen 20 years ago... or even 10 years ago. Let me cut-and-paste those numbers (and format it a little to make it easier to read). They have the Top 100, but I'll stick with the Top 30: Rank. Series (Network) Rating/Share (Viewers Aged 18-49) 1. NFL Sunday Night Football (NBC) 6.0/26 (7,819,000) 2. NFL Thursday Night Football (Fox/NFL) 4.5/22 (5,799,000) 3. NFL Monday Night Football (ESPN) 4.1/21 (5,370,000) 4. The Masked Singer (Fox) 3.2/16 (4,138,000) 5. The Last Dance (ESPN) 2.9/15 (3,811,000) 6. This Is Us (NBC) 2.9/13 (3,713,000) 7. The Bachelor (ABC) 2.4/12 (3,120,000) 8. Grey’s Anatomy (ABC) 2.3/12 (3,028,000) 9. 9-1-1 (Fox) 2.3/11 (2,983,000) 10. Chicago PD (NBC) 2.0/11 (2,605,000) 11. The Walking Dead (AMC) 1.9/8 (2,499,000) 12. Survivor (CBS) 1.9/10 (2,495,000) 13. Chicago Fire (NBC) 1.9/9 (2,480,000) 14. Modern Family (ABC) 1.9/9 (2,473,000) 15. Lego Masters (Fox) 1.9/9 (2,416,000) 16. The Good Doctor (ABC) 1.8/9 (2,386,000) 17. 9-1-1: Lone Star (Fox) 1.8/9 (2,325,000) 18. The Voice (NBC) 1.8/8 (2,308,000) 19. Chicago Med (NBC) 1.7/8 (2,240,000) 20. NCIS (CBS) 1.7/8 (2,207,000) 21. American Idol-Monday (ABC) 1.7/8 (2,183,000) 22. New Amsterdam (NBC) 1.7/9 (2,147,000) 23. Young Sheldon (CBS) 1.6/9 (2,100,000) 24. American Horror Story (FX) 1.6/8 (2,090,000) 25. The Conners (ABC) 1.6/8 (2,086,000) 26. The Voice-Tuesday (NBC) 1.6/8 (2,082,000) 27. A Million Little Things (ABC) 1.6/8 (2,020,000) 28. Station 19 (ABC) 1.5/8 (2,002,000) 29. American Idol (ABC) 1.5/7 (1,974,000) 30. Manifest (NBC) 1.5/8 (1,938,000) Obviously they left out the 50+ age bracket (and under 18) but those numbers are still really low compared to what they would've been before. If CBS All Access had 4,000,000 subscribers as of April 2019 (source), and a majority watched Discovery or Picard (meaning at least 50% of subscribers or more), then I'd say those numbers would be pretty good by 2020 Network Television Standards.
That was part of my thought as well. Especially with what Garth said above, if it was insanely popular they'd be bragging, and if it was a dog they'd be hesitant at least to produce other series.
In other words, Star Trek as a franchise may have finally found in premium streaming an economic model that's viable in the long-term, given that it has almost never been a mass hit on TV but has usually been able to maintain a modest but loyal audience base.
Maybe. If being in fandom and around fandom has taught me anything, it's that fans are fickle things. A lot of people have blamed the end of Enterprise on franchise exhaustion, so I question whether being able to constantly access new trek, with 6 shows running, will ultimately be a good thing. At the quality level they're doing it, I question that all the more.
Well, I already said I expect it to take a downturn eventually. CSI lasted 15 years between all the shows. Law & Order still has one show left, but at one point there were four or five. And L&O was pretty strong from about 1990 to 2010. I didn't watch it and I'm not going to look up the details, so I don't know offhand. But, looking at how CSI and L&O did, and looking at how second-generation Star Trek did (1987-2005), I don't think it's unreasonable to think we'll probably get 15-20 years out of third-generation Star Trek. If CBSAA's numbers pick up over time, then anyone who stops watching DSC, PIC, etc. will just be replaced with another viewer. The subscriptions are still climbing. And there are people who joined because of Picard who are now going back to look at Discovery.
You may be right. Your second point brings up another idea I had considered though: are Picard and Discovery being run as loss leaders? In other words, they're not expected to recoup their production costs, but rather to just bring in subscribers.
I figure it would be pretty simple to determine which shows are getting the most attention. Look at when someone subscribes in which show they first go to. Look at which show they keep going back to and how much of each episode they watch. I signed up for CBS and immediately started watching Picard and only fired up the CBS app to watch Picard for the first few weeks. That should give more weight to Picard. Eventually I tried watching Discovery, and from then on all I watched was Picard or Discovery. Not long after Picard ended I canceled my CBS subscription. That should count as high value for PIC and DIS and no value for anything else. It’s obvious I only cared about Star Trek. I would not be surprised if plenty of other subscribers use the CBS the same as I did, to watch only Star Trek and then cancel. Even if the Star Trek shows aren’t doing well by any standard outside of the CBS app, if they are the strongest performers on CBS that alone might be enough for CBS to invest in more Star Trek. That would be even more likely if other viewers do stick around to watch non-Trek.
You make some good points. They might be putting more shows into production to keep subscribers from bailing in the off season.
Yeah, the landscape of TV has changed dramatically over the years. HBO's highest rated GAME OF THRONES episode barely touches TNG's "Unification", but that's mostly because it has a great number of viewers who don't subscribe to cable but watch via HBO's app.
But they are certainly keeping track of what shows you watch, and they probably have all kinds of metrics on the back end to determine what shows are getting the most viewings from which users. Kor
Everytime you pause, which thumbnails work best for attracting you. They know you better than you do. I just cancelled! till SNW.
I do think it's amusing that because streaming platforms don't bother putting out viewing numbers, the haters like Midnight's Edge have no real basis to determine how unsuccessful show like STID are, so they resort to toy sales. "OHHH LOOK MERCHANDISE IS NOT SELLING! IT HAS TO BE A FLOP!!!"
Meanwhile, if they ever bothered to release Discovery or Picard in Playmates figures, I don't care how old I am. I'm getting those.
Everything is relative. Standard Neilson TV ratings don't directly apply to the new world of streaming. It's each companies expectations on viewers, growth, costs etc as to if its worth it. A show like Discovery has its own variables like the fact Netflix pays for a good chunk of the show for international rights.
It's making enough that they're making more. A lot more. Really, that's all that matters. Streaming is weird in that they get 100% of profits instead of splitting with networks, so they can thrive with a smaller audience than TV.
By spreadsheet data. A quick and somewhat simplified summary may include this: You look at number of subscribers, which plan they're on (commercial-subsidizeds vs non-commercial), which shows are being made, viewer optional: reaction from social media.) Non-commercial subscribers get a bit more freedom since, as the youtube fiasco from last year suggested, subscribers don't always like shows their adverts are attached to. Even though it should be a given the advertiser doesn't reflect the opinions put out in the show. But YT is more complex than that and I digress... As long as subscriber count doesn't go down they can take the revenue and distribute it to any project they want, even if it's not in the top 10, 100, or 1000 list. Or even if the subscriber count went down, they might still buoy a show for various reasons - even the name alone can be significant. "Star Trek" would be such a name, it is a big franchise. Relative granularity can make small points seem big and vice-versa... It's their umbrella covering numerous shows, while often is the case that the most watched show would get truckloads of more money, that is not always the case either: Planet of the Apes and V from 1968 and 1983 respectively, they were wildly successful but their budgets kept going down anyway. They still want to have a maximum return, even in using loss leader strategies (sell at an initial loss, knowing it'll be made up for long term. Or by peripherals that revive revenue, such as printer ink cartridges. The main device can be sold absurdly low, but ratcheting up the price of cartridges makes up for the initial loss.)