• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Discovery's "cost per first stream"

Wowbagger

Commodore
Commodore
You know I love looking at Discovery metrics, from streaming signups to the ratings in Canada! So here's a new angle on it that I discovered today:

A bunch of internal Amazon Prime documents leaked a few weeks ago, which led Reuters to take a very interesting look at how Amazon measures the success of its shows. The whole thing is worth reading, but here's the key passage:

...the company credits a specific show for luring someone to start or extend a Prime subscription if that program is the first one a customer streams after signing up. That metric, referenced throughout the documents, is known as a “first stream.”

The company then calculates how expensive the viewer was to acquire by dividing the show’s costs by the number of first streams it had. The lower that figure, the better.
Basically, "cost per first stream" is the amount of money Amazon has to spend on a show in order to acquire a new Amazon Prime subscriber.

The article goes on to say that The Grand Tour Season 1 had a "cost per first stream" of only $49, which is well below the cost the streamer will pay for Amazon Prime, so that's money in the bank for Amazon, and probably explains why Prime keeps promoting it to me even though I've never watched a car show in my life and never will. This made Grand Tour Amazon's most successful show. By contrast, Good Girls Revolt, which was cancelled after only a few weeks despite critical acclaim, had a "cost per first stream" of $1,560, so its viewers would have to subscribe to Amazon Prime for more than 15 years before Amazon would start to show a profit on Good Girls Revolt.

Using the rest of the data in the article, we can reconstruct a pretty interesting chart showing the "cost per first stream" of several shows in Amazon's arsenal. Better yet, using other publicly available data, we can also come up with some estimates the "cost per first stream" of Star Trek Discovery. (Of course, our conclusions will vary enormously based on our assumptions; see below.) We can put that all into one chart, and... voila!

DzS1rUE.png

Finally, with this metric, Star Trek Discovery's financial logic begins to make some kind of sense.

The "optimistic" estimate for Discovery assumes a cost-per-episode of $5.2 million (which is the lowest figure I could find, from back when it was a 13-episode series) and that all 500,000 users who signed up for CBS All Access during Discovery's run were there for Discovery and streamed Discovery first. As you can see, if those generous assumptions are true, then Discovery is a considerable success, not quite paying for itself, but performing dramatically better than many streaming shows that have gone on to run for multiple seasons.

The "pessimistic" estimate for Discovery assumes a cost-per-episode of $8 million, as reported by the Hollywood Reporter. That would make it the most expensive show on this list, which is saying something, because the leaked figures from Amazon include the shows' marketing budgets, while the only figures we have for Discovery are for the (smaller) production budget. So if Discovery's production budget alone is nearly double the production plus marketing budget of The Man in the High Castle, that makes Discovery an expensive venture indeed. Nevertheless, there are indications that this is indeed closer to the true figure. The other assumption in this estimate is that only one-quarter of the 500,000 people who signed up for All Access during Discovery's five-month run streamed Discovery first (so DISCO is credited with 125,000 first streams).

As you can see in the chart, if these negative assumptions are close to correct, then Discovery is clearly a troubled program, which will probably need steep budget cuts in future seasons in order to continue to justify itself. On the other hand, it's still doing much better than Good Girls Revolt, and Sneaky Pete (with a similarly high cost-per-first-stream) got renewed for a second season, so, at the very least, we can say that CBS's decision to renew Star Trek Discovery was justifiable, not an insane move driven by a fear of losing face (which is a suggestion I have made previously).

The "average" estimate for Discovery simply takes the midpoint of the optimistic and pessimistic figures, assuming a budget of $6.6 million per episode and that half of CBS AA's subscribers during its run (aka 250,000 new users) were "first streaming" Discovery. On this average estimate, Discovery looks like an average streaming show. Which is, y'know, not terrible for fans and probably would ensure a run of at least 2-3 seasons even without steep cuts.

Based on everything I've read, I'm inclined to think that Discovery is more toward the pessimistic end of this, but it is worth bearing in mind that, as CBS struggles to build its streaming platform, it may be less sensitive to money-losing shows than more established competitors, simply because CBS AA needs all the content it can get right now to be an attractive proposition to consumers. Another factor to consider (and I have no idea how large a factor this is) is that Discovery comes with licensing deals and toy sales, whereas shows like The Man in the High Castle pretty much have to make their own profits.
 
Interesting, but I wonder if the metric is really transferable.

It seems peculiar already for Amazon, which promotes Prime as an all-things-to-all-people membership thing, from shipping to music, much more than just a video streaming service. It certainly provides no way of measuring the ROI of any show that's launched and promoted after someone is already a member of Prime... and given that Prime is a well-established service for a well-established online retailer, I'd imagine that new subscriptions don't measure up to old ones these days.

It would seem even more peculiar for CBS to use such a metric (even though it is just a streaming service, and is very concerned with new subscriptions), mainly because DSC is being marketed globally, and CBSAA is only a thing within the United States. Even before you get to merchandising (as you mentioned), DSC's revenue stream is going to come from deals with cable companies (as in Canada) and services like Netflix (in other countries).

Long story story, if DSC on its own can be used to make CBSAA look like a money-making proposition I'd be surprised (and Les Moonves would doubtless be ecstatic), but regardless that probably doesn't have much to do with the calculus that goes into the show's renewal and future budgets.
 
With so many variables in play, STD will probably stick around for at least one more season.
We'll be able to tell if STD is really successful if they announce Season 3 as soon as Season 2 starts. If CBS starts hinting, or outright says that they are working on second Trek show, we'll know that STD is all gangbusters.
On the flip side, if we don't hear anything about Season 3 quickly, if there is no news about any other future developments, then we'll know STD is not doing too good. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
That is fascinating information and analysis.

Why would you assume that only 25 percent of All Access subscribers during STD's run streamed it first, though?
 
With so many variables in play, STD will probably stick around for at least one more season.
We'll be able to tell if STD is really successful if they announce Season 3 as soon as Season 2 starts. If CBS starts hinting, or outright says that they are working on second Trek show, we'll know that STD is all gangbusters.
On the flip side, if we don't hear anything about Season 3 quickly, if there is no news about any other future developments, then we'll know STD is not doing too good. We'll just have to wait and see.

That sounds about the size of it.
 
Didn't I read somewhere that the international broadcasting/licencing fee almost covered the cost per episode on its own?

Regardless, the show could potentially save millions just by re-using the sets and FX footage for season 1, so it's not like it's bound to these numbers.
 
All Access will take a bath on Discovery and still renew, because they need to fake it till they make it.
 
If it makes any difference in your calculations, Discovery's Season 2 episodes have a budget of roughly $6 mil per. Don't ask me for a source on that info, because I can't tell you. Since alot of props, sets, costumes, etc have already been made, they can save some money.

Since the production is running much smoother for Season 2, they can also save costs with better planning.
 
The "pessimistic" estimate for Discovery assumes a cost-per-episode of $8 million, as reported by the Hollywood Reporter. That would make it the most expensive show on this list, which is saying something, because the leaked figures from Amazon include the shows' marketing budgets, while the only figures we have for Discovery are for the (smaller) production budget. So if Discovery's production budget alone is nearly double the production plus marketing budget of The Man in the High Castle, that makes Discovery an expensive venture indeed. Nevertheless, there are indications that this is indeed closer to the true figure. The other assumption in this estimate is that only one-quarter of the 500,000 people who signed up for All Access during Discovery's five-month run streamed Discovery first (so DISCO is credited with 125,000 first streams).

As you can see in the chart, if these negative assumptions are close to correct, then Discovery is clearly a troubled program, which will probably need steep budget cuts in future seasons in order to continue to justify itself. On the other hand, it's still doing much better than Good Girls Revolt, and Sneaky Pete (with a similarly high cost-per-first-stream) got renewed for a second season, so, at the very least, we can say that CBS's decision to renew Star Trek Discovery was justifiable, not an insane move driven by a fear of losing face (which is a suggestion I have made previously).

Huh. A decently popular show (esp. among rabid sci-fi geeks) whose creative ambition is continually at the mercy of budgetary limits. And those limits do sometimes show onscreen, despite it being one of the most expensive shows (if not THE most expensive) on all of television.

After just over 50 years, we've come full circle. :vulcan:
 
It certainly provides no way of measuring the ROI of any show that's launched and promoted after someone is already a member of Prime
True. That's both more difficult to measure and (most importantly) not something that was included in this Amazon data leak (or else I would be all over it). "Cost per first stream" is a metric with obvious limitations. I think it's the best metric we have out here in The Public right now, but its limitations are worth bearing in mind.
... and given that Prime is a well-established service for a well-established online retailer, I'd imagine that new subscriptions don't measure up to old ones these days.
Though there's something to this, it's worth keeping in perspective: these numbers seem pretty clearly to be from late 2016, and are mostly about shows from 2015, which was when Amazon launched its first tranche of serious attempts to break into the TV market. (The Man in the High Castle's 2015 launch was really the moment when Amazon Prime stopped being the butt of jokes about Alpha House.) At the start of 2015, Amazon Prime had an estimated 40 million subscribers worldwide; by the end of 2016, it had something like 70 million. (Today, everyone I read cites 90 million, but I'm not sure where that number comes from.) So, yes, Prime is an incumbent, and an incumbent is bound to care more about established subscribers than a new competitor with few established subscribers... but, on the other hand, Prime's growth over the period we care about was explosive, so I think its "cost per first stream" numbers are still a very valuable way to measure a show's success, even compared to a show on an upstart competitor's platform like CBSAA.

CBSAA is only a thing within the United States. Even before you get to merchandising (as you mentioned), DSC's revenue stream is going to come from deals with cable companies (as in Canada) and services like Netflix (in other countries).
You know, that's fair, and I should have made some mention of The Netflix Deal in my post. The Netflix Deal reportedly "paid for" the initial production budget of Discovery Season 1, which was (at the time) somewhere around $90 million (roughly $6 million/episode). Undoubtedly, a lot of this went to Discovery's unaccounted-for worldwide marketing costs, which appear to have been pretty big... but you're still going to have a substantial fraction of $90 million left over after all the marketing's paid off.

So, yes, this would certainly help lower Discovery's actual "cost per first stream," perhaps by large amounts. Just to see what would happen, I went back to my spreadsheet and took $45 million off the cost in each of my three estimates as a very rough stab at "how much did The Netflix Deal and Bell Media (Canada) help defray production costs."

This changed the "cost per first stream" to $600 for the pessimistic model, $216 for the average model, and a mere $63 for the optimistic model -- which would officially put Discovery in "hit" territory if we buy the other optimistic assumptions.

Of course, as far as I understand it, the Netflix fee was a one-time thing, and international distribution is now a done deal. (There's not much to go by in public releases, but that's how I understand the terms.) So CBSAA will surely be looking at how much revenue Discovery Season 1 generated domestically, on its own, in making decisions about how to proceed from here.

That is fascinating information and analysis.

Why would you assume that only 25 percent of All Access subscribers during STD's run streamed it first, though?

If STD were driving people to CBSAA during its run, then I would have expected to see CBSAA's subscriber numbers jump as well. (Since CBSAA has so little original programming, the impact of any new original programming is fairly obvious.) But we didn't see that at all.

As of January 2017, CBSAA was (pretty steadily) accumulating about 50,000 new subscribers per month -- that's without any original programming on the service at all. In February 2017, their first original show (The Good Fight) premiered, and the monthly sub rates immediately jumped up to about 100,000 per month. I think it's fair to say that The Good Fight was driving a large fraction of that new business, although some of it was undoubtedly just thanks to CBSAA advertising itself more aggressively in general. In October 2017, Star Trek Discovery premiered, and CBSAA's monthly subscriber rate changed... not at all. CBSAA continued to get about 100,000 subscribers per month throughout Disco's run. So there's an established baseline of around 50,000 CBSAA monthly subscribers with no original content, and there's another 50,000 who must be signing up each month for one of two original shows: either The Good Fight or Star Trek Discovery. The question is what proportion of the new signups "first-streamed" each show between October 2017 and January 2018.

The Average estimate assumes that new streaming for The Good Fight, after a very successful spring and summer bringing in new business for CBS, suddenly hit a brick wall in October and stopped pulling in any new subscribers at all. So 0% of the 50,000 are credited to The Good Fight and 100% of them are credited to Discovery. But TV ratings rarely fall into such nice, neat patterns. So the Pessimistic estimate says, yes, The Good Fight did probably fade a little, since it was over, but didn't collapse completely. So the Pessimist credits 50% of the 50,000 to The Good Fight and 50% to Discovery... in other words, Discovery gets "first-stream" credit for 25,000 new subscribers per month (125,000 over the season's full run), or one-quarter of CBSAA's overall monthly subscriber growth during that period.

This might be a little too pessimistic, but, on the other hand, the "average" estimate seems very probably too optimistic to me. (And the "optimistic" estimate is pure fantasyland.)

Did that make sense, or was it just an impenetrable maze of words and numbers?

If it makes any difference in your calculations, Discovery's Season 2 episodes have a budget of roughly $6 mil per. Don't ask me for a source on that info, because I can't tell you. Since alot of props, sets, costumes, etc have already been made, they can save some money.
Yes, this is very useful. For one, it pretty definitively rules out the "Optimistic" model's assumption that Discovery's per-episode budget was under $6 million in Season 1. For another thing, it gives us a much better idea of what kind of streaming numbers Discovery needs to hit in order to justify a third season. (Lower budget = easier to justify... but second season = lower audience acquisition = harder to justify, too, so the race is on.) For a third thing, the fact that the budget has only been cut by 25% in the second season strongly suggests that CBS has been telling the truth about having some confidence in the show. They haven't grown the budget, but they aren't just cutting it to bare-bones and waiting for a syndication deal, either.

Thank you for sharing. I don't suppose you've heard -- anonymously, of course -- anything about how the studio actually feels about Disco's performance? Obviously they say they're thrilled in press releases, and maybe that's true, but I'd love to hear it from the horse's mouth. Or at least the horse's friend's cousin's former roommate's mouth.
 
I really didn't understand that :( All I know is that I paid ten dollars a month after one free month. Watched Discovery episodes each week. It had its break and I kept my (Netflix) service then started up again. Cancelled Netflix last month. Saw about two or three movies and one episode of Designated Survivor and didn't like it.
 
I don't suppose you've heard -- anonymously, of course -- anything about how the studio actually feels about Disco's performance? Obviously they say they're thrilled in press releases, and maybe that's true, but I'd love to hear it from the horse's mouth. Or at least the horse's friend's cousin's former roommate's mouth.

Sorry, I have not heard. My information trickle has dried up big time lately, probably because production hasn't ramped up into gear yet other than prepping for resuming filming in about a week.
 
Your capacity for rationalization is matched only by your tireless (and tiresome) comments about a show you supposedly don't watch and don't care about.

So...nope.

My only rationalization is that they have fuck all original programming.

They don't have enough fresh media available to junk something they are confident about making even if it doesn't currently have the greatest audience, which is unlikely to be the case with Discovery.

Current Original Programming.

Big Brother: Over the Top Reality competition September 28, 2016 1 season, 10 episodes 39-96 min. Ended

The Good Fight Legal drama February 19, 2017 1 season, 10 episodes 49-53 min. Renewed[2]

Star Trek: Discovery Science fiction September 24, 2017 1 season, 15 episodes 40-49 min. Renewed[3]

After Trek Talk show/Aftershow September 24, 2017 1 season, 12 episodes 35-57 min. Pending

No Activity November 12, 2017[4] 1 season, 8 episodes 26-28 min. Renewed[5]
CBS All Access has 4 tv shows that are currently running.

2 of them are Star Trek, three of them have been renewed, and only one of these series is still posting new episodes.

Quantity is more important than quality at this point if they want their customers to keep renewing their subscriptions every month, for the original programming, which is hardly the draw for this service.
 
Part of me thinks there actually will be another Star Trek series before long, if CBS All Access wants to pad out the year if subscriptions take too much of a hit between seasons of Discovery.
 
Part of me thinks there actually will be another Star Trek series before long, if CBS All Access wants to pad out the year if subscriptions take too much of a hit between seasons of Discovery.

That was the word through the grapevine last year. If that is still the case, maybe they'll announce it at Comic Con this year? I dunno.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top