A lot riding on the new series' pilot episode....

[jefferiestubes8]

Wait, are there ads on the paid CBS streaming service?

On CBS All Access $5.99/month subscription service yes.
Last week CBS president Les Moonves said they were considering a no advertising $10./month subscription also.

 

[RAMA]

There's a lot riding on the pilot but according to the CBS execs themselves, CBS has already basically made their money back with international sales. They'll be fine.

STNG , despite some early issues, exploded in the ratings, avging far more viewers than most top 10 TV shows of modern times. In some cases, syndicated stations and network affiliates that carried STNG increased ratings by more than 1000% over what was aired in the time slots before STNG. Encounter at Farpoint had 27 million viewers and STNG avged 17 million per episode.

Enterprise, aired on UPN which only aired in a much smaller fraction of markets than other networks, premiered to 12.5 million viewers. At it's low ebb, new episodes avged 3-5 million viewers(still more than 1 million more than NuBSG at it's high). By comparison, currently hot shows in the genre like Flash and Arrow, avg somewhere in the 1-1.5 ratings range, which is 3-4 million viewers. Add to this, the Star Trek shows historiccally are some of Netflix's most viewed programs. Even on All Access, I expect the pilot to have 12-15 million viewers and following episode to have 5-10 million.

I just rewatched all the pilots after the new show announcement. I hadn't seen Emissary or Caretaker in a long time. Caretaker out of all the pilots was much better than I remembered. I rank the ST pilots this way:

1. Emissary
2. Broken Bow
3. Caretaker
4. WNMHGB
5. The Cage
6. Encounter at Farpoint

 

[Squiggy]

I doubt that CBS is worried about losing a single trekkie subscription as a result of the pilot. There are no "deal breakers" in that sense.

What does the pilot need to have to attract new, younger viewers who have no previous interest in Star Trek? That's the pertinent question.

Frankly, if you want younger viewers the first thing to do would be to premiere the show on a broadcast network other than CBS.

For that reason, I wonder if they'll end up doing a simultaneous premiere on the CW as well?

If they wanted to pick up a couple dozen more viewers, sure.

 

[Mudd]

Yes, but that would be a couple of dozen viewers not on respirators.

Does CBS really want to have to concern themselves with average number of subscribers lost to natural death each season?

 

[eyeresist]

Frankly, if you want younger viewers the first thing to do would be to premiere the show on a broadcast network other than CBS.

Is the pilot also going to be free online? That would make sense.

As far as what the pilot will contain specifically, it will need high stakes and character relationships of ongoing interest. Maybe the big question is: Will the pilot end on a cliffhanger? I'd say issues should be left open, but a cliffhanger might piss off viewers who aren't yet committed to the show.

Today's television audiences (as well as the suits paying the freight) are a lot less forgiving than back in the late 1980s. The new pilot, as well as the subsequent episodes, are going to have to basically knock it out of the park right off. Really devoted viewers will likely hang in, but less invested ones and more casual viewers won't have much patience if the pilot and the series doesn't fly right off.

We really are looking at a new TV environment, with viewers paying directly for content, rather than advertisers paying based on vaguely accurate ratings. Which model is more profitable? There's no way for us to know, but it's easier to calculate in theory what needed income will be. Say each ep costs $4 million to make, and they release four per month. To cover this they will need $16 million. If viewers are paying $6/month, they will need [16 mill. divided by 6] viewers. That's about 2,700,000. Is that doable? Bear in mind they will also be counting on "long tail" income from rewatches and home video sales.

 

[IndyMac]

We really are looking at a new TV environment, with viewers paying directly for content, rather than advertisers paying based on vaguely accurate ratings. Which model is more profitable? There's no way for us to know, but it's easier to calculate in theory what needed income will be. Say each ep costs $4 million to make, and they release four per month. To cover this they will need $16 million. If viewers are paying $6/month, they will need [16 mill. divided by 6] viewers. That's about 2,700,000. Is that doable? Bear in mind they will also be counting on "long tail" income from rewatches and home video sales.

I don't know what television is like in Australia, but in the US people have been paying for content for a long, long time. Cable and satellite television has existed for over 30 years, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime have millions of subscribers, often for just one show like Game of Thrones or Dexter. Netflix streaming will have been around for 10 years when the new Star Trek series premiers in 2017.

 

[Squiggy]

Yes, you pay for cable. But you also have advertisers. If you want a network without sponsors then you have to pay again.

 

[AviTrek]

Yes, you pay for cable. But you also have advertisers. If you want a network without sponsors then you have to pay again.

Right, but that's been the HBO/Showtime model for years. Oz premiered in 1997, Sex and the City premiered in 1998, and The Sopranos in 1999. There were shows before that, but I think they were the first mainstream hits. If people wanted to watch the shows, they had to subscribe and pay HBO. All Netflix did was replicate the model in 2013 with House of Cards. CBSAA is now replicating it in 2017. That means it's 4 years after Netflix did it and 20 years after HBO. There is nothing really that groundbreaking about it besides that CBS is trying it.

 

[Takeru]

If CBS is serious about this they should consider moving more shows there. NCIS for example, it shouldn't be exclusively on All Access obviously but why not have episode premiers there a week early? People who want to see it early will subscribe, those who don't watch it on the network.

If many people do it the show could take a hit in the Nielsen ratings but who cares, those losses would be offset by new subscribers and broadcast television is dying anyway. CBS should actively try to get people away from broadcast and onto their streaming service as fast as possible, Star Trek alone won't do it.

 

[eyeresist]

We really are looking at a new TV environment, with viewers paying directly for content, rather than advertisers paying based on vaguely accurate ratings. Which model is more profitable? There's no way for us to know, but it's easier to calculate in theory what needed income will be. Say each ep costs $4 million to make, and they release four per month. To cover this they will need $16 million. If viewers are paying $6/month, they will need [16 mill. divided by 6] viewers. That's about 2,700,000. Is that doable? Bear in mind they will also be counting on "long tail" income from rewatches and home video sales.

I don't know what television is like in Australia, but in the US people have been paying for content for a long, long time. Cable and satellite television has existed for over 30 years, and premium channels like HBO and Showtime have millions of subscribers, often for just one show like Game of Thrones or Dexter. Netflix streaming will have been around for 10 years when the new Star Trek series premiers in 2017.

You are right that it is different in Australia. We have a couple of pay channels, but they're not hugely popular because free-to-air buys up most of the good US cable shows.

The way I was looking at it was specifically Trek-related All Access subscriptions, which I think can be looked at as a distinct set.