News Moonves: CBS All Access And Star Trek: Discovery Doing Very Well

[STR]

Since CBS AA was adding 50,000 subscribers a month before it started its original programming, and then started adding 100,000 subscribers a month after, I gave Discovery "credit" for only 50,000 of them, since I assume the other 50,000 signed up for other reasons (based on the fact that the service was getting 50,000 subs/month with no original programming).

So my result was exactly half of this: $10.00 x (50k+100k+150k+200k+250k) = $0.5M + 1M + 1.5M + 2M + 2.5M = $7.5 million

That $7.5M is just one month's take. Also a dubious methodology. Without the data on what the signups are doing with their account (what they are watching), you really shouldn't divide up the subs.

Without that data we can't presume to know how many viewers were attracted by Discovery. We can only take subscriber revenue, minus the known production costs and then take a stab at whether or not the whole enterprise is sustainable.

As an aside, I'm not claiming 100% proof for my subscription numbers either. The method for deriving revenue is correct though.

Isn't this double-counting?

Only so far as an individual such as yourself pay $10 each month. Is $20 over 2 months double counting? No. If you signed up for the premiere and kept it until the finale, that's $50 of revenue.

 

[Wowbagger]

That $7.5M is just one month's take.

No, that's the combined take for the entire 5-month run, with the first month earning $0.5M and the fifth month earning $2.5M.

Only so far as an individual such as yourself pay $10 each month. Is $20 over 2 months double counting? No. If you signed up for the premiere and kept it until the finale, that's $50 of revenue.

Yeah, but we counted all $50 of that revenue in the first term. ($10/mo * 5 mos * 100,000 people). You can't go and put those hundred thousand people in again for the next term, because you already counted their revenue for all five months. You'd have to instead do this: ($10 * 100,000 + 10 * 200,000 + 10 * 300,000 + 10 * 400,000 + 10 * 500,000), removing the months term... and that also yields $15M for the 5-month run, as before.

You're right that we can only speculate on how many viewers are actually watching Discovery, and to what extent the revenue they produce for CBSAA is influenced by the existence of Discovery. (Heck, even CBSAA will have trouble sorting that out, despite having all the viewing data they could want.)

But, in order for Disco's production cost to equal its CBSAA revenue, it would need to draw something like 2 million new subscribers to CBSAA. Clearly, that hasn't happened. The Netflix deal certainly helps relieve that cost pressure for CBS, though, and I'm interested to see where that goes in coming years. Do they have to renew the deal annually, or was it a one-time fee?

I didn't bother reading all the different spins the users here are posting. It doesn't matter if it has more or less viewers that ENT did or Orville has.

If CBS would simply release its audience numbers, we wouldn't have to spend so much time speculating about it. These numbers matter, both for fans of the shows and for detractors. I really miss the days when the Nielsen ratings simply told everyone how all the different shows were doing. At least us ENT fanboys knew where we stood. (Even with Les Moonves, then head of UPN, said otherwise.)

 

[Succubint]

Don't forget there's also a distribution deal with the Crave TV and Space channels. The show apparently broke viewership records (for specialty TV channels) in Canada when it premiered.

 

[PixelMagic]

Discovery might be loss leader for now. Who knows?

 

[Ovation]

These numbers matter, both for fans of the shows and for detractors

Why? What possible relevance can the numbers have to anyone without a financial stake in the show?

 

[Vger23]

Why? What possible relevance can the numbers have to anyone without a financial stake in the show?

It's all about who's "right" and who's "wrong" obviously.

 

[Wowbagger]

Why? What possible relevance can the numbers have to anyone without a financial stake in the show?

They tell you whether the show is succeeding? How many more seasons it is likely to get? Whether it's time to start a letter-writing campaign to save it? Or whether it's "broken through" and become a hit you can casually joke about at parties without falling flat? I remember almost to the day when Doctor Who broke through to that extent in America, it was marvelous fun while it lasted, and I'm glad I was paying attention to things like BBC America ratings and streaming service figures.

But we're in a topic that is literally about Les Moonves's statements in the quarterly earning's call about how the Discovery is doing at holding an audience and generating revenue. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread or see the value of it, of course, that's fine. You do you. You don't have to read topics you don't like.

It's all about who's "right" and who's "wrong" obviously.

Viewership figures are no reflection the quality of any show. They are a tool for forecasting its future. If I wanted to prove somebody "wrong" about the quality of Discovery, I'd be in the season review thread bashing the leaden monologues that pockmarked this season or the way Burnham betrayed and belittled herself in the final kiss-and-make-up scene with Tyler. And you'd come right back at me by pointing out that "The Last Outpost" was also a garbage fire, which is true. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Plenty of shows are great and have lousy financials (Star Trek and Star Trek: Enterprise each come to mind). Plenty of shows are lousy and have great financials. (The undisputed king of American scripted television is Chuck Lorre, because life is unfair.) Financial success and quality often have nothing to do with one another. But, after watching my beloved Enterprise wither and die because of the way it wilted in the ratings (with no small amount of help from Les Moonves, who strangled the show in its crib), I learned to pay close attention to ratings on every show I watch, good or bad, because I want to know how many more seasons there are going to be almost as much as I want to know what happens in them. (I also learned to distrust Les Moonves.)

By traditional measures, Discovery appears to have lousy financials. But Les Moonves does not seem to be treating this show by traditional measures. Given all the uncertainty about both Discovery's goals and its outcomes, figuring that stuff out is going to remain a rich topic of discussion for as long as Discovery remains on the air. If you aren't interested in that, you, too, are free to leave the threads about it.

 

[Skipper]

Probably only the accountants at the CBS know the truth. For all we know, the rights on the t-shirts tipped the balance. So, what are we arguing about, then?

 

[Paul Weaver]

You don't have to read topics you don't like.

This, a thousand times this.

 

[Vger23]

They tell you whether the show is succeeding? How many more seasons it is likely to get? Whether it's time to start a letter-writing campaign to save it? Or whether it's "broken through" and become a hit you can casually joke about at parties without falling flat? I remember almost to the day when Doctor Who broke through to that extent in America, it was marvelous fun while it lasted, and I'm glad I was paying attention to things like BBC America ratings and streaming service figures.

But we're in a topic that is literally about Les Moonves's statements in the quarterly earning's call about how the Discovery is doing at holding an audience and generating revenue. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread or see the value of it, of course, that's fine. You do you. You don't have to read topics you don't like.



Viewership figures are no reflection the quality of any show. They are a tool for forecasting its future. If I wanted to prove somebody "wrong" about the quality of Discovery, I'd be in the season review thread bashing the leaden monologues that pockmarked this season or the way Burnham betrayed and belittled herself in the final kiss-and-make-up scene with Tyler. And you'd come right back at me by pointing out that "The Last Outpost" was also a garbage fire, which is true. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Plenty of shows are great and have lousy financials (Star Trek and Star Trek: Enterprise each come to mind). Plenty of shows are lousy and have great financials. (The undisputed king of American scripted television is Chuck Lorre, because life is unfair.) Financial success and quality often have nothing to do with one another. But, after watching my beloved Enterprise wither and die because of the way it wilted in the ratings (with no small amount of help from Les Moonves, who strangled the show in its crib), I learned to pay close attention to ratings on every show I watch, good or bad, because I want to know how many more seasons there are going to be almost as much as I want to know what happens in them. (I also learned to distrust Les Moonves.)

By traditional measures, Discovery appears to have lousy financials. But Les Moonves does not seem to be treating this show by traditional measures. Given all the uncertainty about both Discovery's goals and its outcomes, figuring that stuff out is going to remain a rich topic of discussion for as long as Discovery remains on the air. If you aren't interested in that, you, too, are free to leave the threads about it.

This, a thousand times this.

What's more nonsensical?

Me reading a general topic that may (or may not) contain a post or two that I "don't like" or believe is a bunch of rationalizing BS in a forum dedicated to discussion of a show that I am a fan of and watch / discuss because I enjoy it?

Or

People regularly posting in a forum dedicated to a show they don't like and hope fails, just to get a stir out of the people who don't view the world their way...and even regularly watching said show / reading articles about it in order to be well-informed enough to argue with those people?

I have my thoughts on which of those behaviors is more confounding.

And it's not the one your criticizing me for.

But I'll put a buck or two on the idea that there is rationalization in some people's minds perfectly explaining the second behavior. Because rationalizing is what the disgruntled minority does. It's more important to prove that the obvious is wrong and that your view is "really" correct. Because it's not enough to simply have an opinion and move on. The disgruntled minority NEED to be "correct" too.

 

[Ovation]

They tell you whether the show is succeeding? How many more seasons it is likely to get? Whether it's time to start a letter-writing campaign to save it?

That would be true if the show was judged by its Nielsen ratings—but it isn’t. Neither are Netflix shows. As the show is NOT stuck in a Nielsen “contest”, then other factors become more important. As the show is private property, CBS does not owe the general public reports on its internal metrics.

All that said, my point was not made as clearly as it should have been. These “numbers” are often used as “bragging rights” or “bludgeons” in puerile “my dad is stronger than your dad” contests (often started in the manner displayed in the second post of the thread, and degenerating from there). It’s clear you aren’t going down that road, so apologies.

 

[Lord Garth]

All that said, my point was not made as clearly as it should have been. These “numbers” are often used as “bragging rights” or “bludgeons” in puerile “my dad is stronger than your dad” contests (often started in the manner displayed in the second post of the thread, and degenerating from there). It’s clear you aren’t going down that road, so apologies.

Yup. That's why I compared it to high school. I know high school when I see it.

 

[Rahul]

Those subscriber figures are of course, for the US only. While US (legal) viewership is limited to the 2.5 subscriber base, let's not leave out the show's availability on Netflix's International services. Which reaches over 50 million.
Its safe to assume that DISC's total viewership is alot higher than whatever percentage of Trek fans that watch on All Access. No need to try and ratings shame it by bringing up The Orville.

Thiswasn't intended as a slight at anything. Just comparing apples to apples.
Netflix doesnÄt give audience numbers. And even if it did: The previous Trek shows had a market outside the US as well! I'm just comparing US audiences against US audiences.

 

[Rahul]

What's more nonsensical?

Me reading a general topic that may (or may not) contain a post or two that I "don't like" or believe is a bunch of rationalizing BS in a forum dedicated to discussion of a show that I am a fan of and watch / discuss because I enjoy it?

Or

People regularly posting in a forum dedicated to a show they don't like and hope fails, just to get a stir out of the people who don't view the world their way...and even regularly watching said show / reading articles about it in order to be well-informed enough to argue with those people?

...yeah,.. that would be you.
Definitely you.

"Is the show we are watching financially successfull" is certainly a very niché-type discussion to have. But we are having it here, in this specific threat. No need to derail that.

But I'll put a buck or two on the idea that there is rationalization in some people's minds perfectly explaining the second behavior. Because rationalizing is what the disgruntled minority does. It's more important to prove that the obvious is wrong and that your view is "really" correct. Because it's not enough to simply have an opinion and move on. The disgruntled minority NEED to be "correct" too.

It's actually fascinating how people can't see the forest because of all the trees...

So far, in this thread, YOU have been the ONLY one talking about "quality" of the show. Everyone else is talking audience figures and profitablity. You know? The topic of the threat. But YOU are also the ONLY one equating financial success with quality, and thereby falling yourself for the whole "rationalizing" of arguments. Because you can't settle in your head that DIS - a show you no doubt think is unequivocally "good", just HAS to also be a beacon of financial success and a highmark of audience participation. Because you can't separate the two.


For the rest of us?
We're going to continue this discussion (althoug it went into fuzzy math FAST).Because it's an interesting topic in and of itself - for the future of television. It asks questions about what is the prize for entertainment - is it actually GOOD if a show has less audiences, but "makes more money", because a fewer number of people are squeezed of more money than ever before, because the US doesn't have any kind of consumer protection in any way? But also: Is the show successfull with it's audiences, or maybe itself in need of a retooling (in whatever direction that may go?). All of these are interesting topics in itself, with the debate geting straight facts for the first time by Moonves' talking points.

Personally, I'm not a fan of entertainment being hidden behind crass paywalls, and a criminalization of everyone who wants to watch it but doesn't have the means to pay for it. I think entertainment should be an equalizer for society of sorts - something everyone should be able to participate in. Creating a class system for pop-culture dependend on income is something I would be against even if I thought DIS was the best show ever.

But all of this is way above your "I like it, so everyone must like it too, and it therefore must be successfull and everything else is fake news"-apporach.

 

[Noname Given]

They tell you whether the show is succeeding? How many more seasons it is likely to get? Whether it's time to start a letter-writing campaign to save it? Or whether it's "broken through" and become a hit you can casually joke about at parties without falling flat? I remember almost to the day when Doctor Who broke through to that extent in America, it was marvelous fun while it lasted, and I'm glad I was paying attention to things like BBC America ratings and streaming service figures.

But we're in a topic that is literally about Les Moonves's statements in the quarterly earning's call about how the Discovery is doing at holding an audience and generating revenue. If you don't want to discuss the topic of the thread or see the value of it, of course, that's fine. You do you. You don't have to read topics you don't like.



Viewership figures are no reflection the quality of any show. They are a tool for forecasting its future. If I wanted to prove somebody "wrong" about the quality of Discovery, I'd be in the season review thread bashing the leaden monologues that pockmarked this season or the way Burnham betrayed and belittled herself in the final kiss-and-make-up scene with Tyler. And you'd come right back at me by pointing out that "The Last Outpost" was also a garbage fire, which is true. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Plenty of shows are great and have lousy financials (Star Trek and Star Trek: Enterprise each come to mind). Plenty of shows are lousy and have great financials. (The undisputed king of American scripted television is Chuck Lorre, because life is unfair.) Financial success and quality often have nothing to do with one another. But, after watching my beloved Enterprise wither and die because of the way it wilted in the ratings (with no small amount of help from Les Moonves, who strangled the show in its crib), I learned to pay close attention to ratings on every show I watch, good or bad, because I want to know how many more seasons there are going to be almost as much as I want to know what happens in them. (I also learned to distrust Les Moonves.)

By traditional measures, Discovery appears to have lousy financials. But Les Moonves does not seem to be treating this show by traditional measures. Given all the uncertainty about both Discovery's goals and its outcomes, figuring that stuff out is going to remain a rich topic of discussion for as long as Discovery remains on the air. If you aren't interested in that, you, too, are free to leave the threads about it.

Um, if the show was renewed - that means CBS feels it's profitable enough to continue. Also, Netflix is cancelling shows left and right that don't meet it metrics either. If ST: D's 'financials were that lousy, they wouldn't have greenlit a second season. Moonves isn't known for charity. The only reason ENT got a 22 episode season 4 was to pad the syndication package to 98 (100+ is usually minimum) - so they could syndicate it (which they did to HD Net in 2006 for a good return.)

If ST: D wasn't meeting or exceeding expectations for either CBSAA or NETFLIX, it wouldn't have received a second season order. They'd be pushing the Blu-Rays at this point and making whatever else they could right now.

As for viewers VS money: Remember the ONLY reason viewership numbers matter to the traditional networks is because that's how they set advertising rates and/or attract viewers to pay for commercials to be aired during said show. It's also why total viewership often doesn't matter - only the viewership is certain demographics are worth more to advertising rates then others.

And since some bring up "The Orville":
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-orville-season-one-ratings/
4.7 million average overall (about 3.6 million for most of the run after the premiere.)|

BUT - in the advertiser coveted 18-49 demo:
1.25 million overall (about 1 million for most of the series run).

My point? Both shows use different revenue models, but given that beyond just CBSAA subs, CBS got money from Netflix (which is using ST: D to boost subs outside of the U.S. and Canada); plus whatever they got from the SPACE and other Canadian networks airing ST: D.

But if you just want to talk about 'eyes wathing' - I'd say, given the worldwide reach ST: D has more people watching it then "The Orville" too; especially given there are ways for those intersted to see the show without paying a dime (just a fact of life with the internet).

But in the end, profitability is all that CBS cares about - and given the various revenue streams and that ST: D has boosted both the subs and the visibility of CBSAA for CBS; again, as long as CBS likes the ROI from ST: D the show will continue.

 

[Vger23]

...yeah,.. that would be you.
Definitely you.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I can't imagine it's meant to be flattering though.

So far, in this thread, YOU have been the ONLY one talking about "quality" of the show. Everyone else is talking audience figures and profitablity. You know? The topic of the threat. But YOU are also the ONLY one equating financial success with quality, and thereby falling yourself for the whole "rationalizing" of arguments. Because you can't settle in your head that DIS - a show you no doubt think is unequivocally "good", just HAS to also be a beacon of financial success and a highmark of audience participation. Because you can't separate the two.

I'd like you to locate a quote for me anywhere in this thread where I have been the ONLY one talking about the "quality" of the show. I haven't made a single mention of quality in this thread. So, I'm in no way sure what you are talking about...other than rambling on about something you made up in your head.

For the rest of us?
We're going to continue this discussion (althoug it went into fuzzy math FAST).Because it's an interesting topic in and of itself - for the future of television. It asks questions about what is the prize for entertainment - is it actually GOOD if a show has less audiences, but "makes more money", because a fewer number of people are squeezed of more money than ever before, because the US doesn't have any kind of consumer protection in any way? But also: Is the show successfull with it's audiences, or maybe itself in need of a retooling (in whatever direction that may go?). All of these are interesting topics in itself, with the debate geting straight facts for the first time by Moonves' talking points.

You all can talk about whatever you like. I'll continue to talk about what I like, which is the incessant need for people to take absolutely any "positive" story about DSC and attempt to debunk it through various mental gymnastics. That's what I enjoy talking about. It's an interesting topic because it gets into psychology and the individual need to be proven "right," particularly for people who feel as though they are in the desperate, repressed minority-opinion position.

Personally, I'm not a fan of entertainment being hidden behind crass paywalls, and a criminalization of everyone who wants to watch it but doesn't have the means to pay for it. I think entertainment should be an equalizer for society of sorts - something everyone should be able to participate in. Creating a class system for pop-culture dependend on income is something I would be against even if I thought DIS was the best show ever.

I'm sorry, but you just went off the rails here.

But all of this is way above your "I like it, so everyone must like it too, and it therefore must be successfull and everything else is fake news"-apporach.

I never said that anywhere. I never even implied that. That's you being defensive for some strange reason. I just assert that trying to debunk positive news or reviews about the series is an exercise in mental masturbation for those who desperately need/want/wish it to be otherwise. It's a splendid example of how people create their own little truths and universes to live in so that they can feel better. It's the exact same thing we saw in 2009.

I mean, it's frigging hilarious:

Reviews are generally positive (mostly 80's and 90's on RT with some 70's and 100's)
Nope! The reviews are fixed, and meaningless! And RT is awful! And whatever!

Show was renewed for a 2nd season, so this is good!
Nope! Renewing it was a given. It is only getting a 2nd season because reasons and stuff. Has nothing to do with money or success of the show in its mission!

DSC is very popular in the "talked about online" metrics!
Nope! That's meaningless! Like....it's stupid and it doesn't mean anything! NOTHING!

CBS says they are pleased with the show and it is successful!
Nope! It's not a successful show! And my metrics are far more meaningful and relevant than the studio who is making the financial decisions to proceed or cut it lose, obviously!

The facts are simple- If CBS feels that Star Trek: Discovery is driving subscriptions and growth of All Access, it is a success. If it is not, it is a failure. They seem to feel it is a success, which is the only opinion on the entire planet that matters. What a bunch of dweebs on a message board need to gyrate and rationalize in their own minds to debunk that, so that they are "right" in front of their different-thinking peers, is about as irrelevant as a llama wearing panties onboard a stealth bomber.

 

[Rahul]

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I can't imagine it's meant to be flattering though.

It was meant as an answer to the question you posed before - which I even directly quoted right before.
I didn't meant this as a personal attack - I was just very annoyed at another topic becoming totally derailed and overtaken by "DIS is awesome" and "there is no discussion to be had anymore" - even if the topic had only the barest connection to to that at all.

The facts are simple- If CBS feels that Star Trek: Discovery is driving subscriptions and growth of All Access, it is a success. If it is not, it is a failure. They seem to feel it is a success, which is the only opinion on the entire planet that matters. What a bunch of dweebs on a message board need to gyrate and rationalize in their own minds to debunk that, so that they are "right" in front of their different-thinking peers, is about as irrelevant as a llama wearing panties onboard a stealth bomber.

And that's were you are wrong.
This is an entire discussion worth having. An important one. I don't care for how many cotton candy marketing buzzwords Les Moonves uses to display his numbers. I care about the numbers.

DIS - as a Trek show - has less viewers than any season of any Trek live-action show ever had before. That's depressing, and IMO a clear indication something's not going right at the moment and needs to be changed. It's less certain if the show itself needs to change, or it's distribution model. But either way, this is not the way Star Trek can thrive and grow as a franchise in the future.

Regardless - this simple fact, the comparable lack of (legal) viewers, made up for by the business model of All Access - which is just another piece of puzzle in the splintering of the television landscape - is a suspicious development all of it's own, DIS being completely disregarded. A development which will become even more drastic, once Disney starts it's own subscription channel to dominate the market. This is serious stuff to talk about. Both on it's own terms, but also because it explains so much about DIS - the production rush job, and because it determines the future of the show - arguibly probably even MUCH more than the quality of the show itself.

 

[ITDUDE]

Good. Now make more shows. Make more movies. Remaster DS9 & Voyager.

More shows = yes, more movies = likely (thought it's not CBS territory, yet). Remaster DS9? They would have done it by now if they wanted to. Same for Voyager.

 

[Wowbagger]

Um, if the show was renewed - that means CBS feels it's profitable enough to continue.

Or, at least, that they have confidence it will become profitable enough in the future. Or, as Blooded noted, it means they got the entire first season paid for by Netflix and have little to lose by running it for a second year. Or, as V'ger noted with bitter sarcasm above, Discovery's renewal could have been inevitable because of the embarrassment of cancellation. Or the goal isn't to make Discovery profitable at all, but to plump CBS's MVPD revenues.

All that said, Occam's Razor makes your hypothesis is the most likely: the show is making enough money for CBS to be happy with it right now in the present. It's not the only possibility, but it's the simplest, and it's the one CBS is claiming, which is pretty strong evidence in its favor. If that's so, though, where's the money coming from? That's what I'm trying to figure out. It doesn't seem to be coming from domestic subscription dollars.

Which brings me to this...

Don't forget there's also a distribution deal with the Crave TV and Space channels. The show apparently broke viewership records (for specialty TV channels) in Canada when it premiered.

I actually had no idea about these deals. They could definitely help a lot. Are the terms of the deal public? Are the ratings for these channels public? (If you don't know, I'll go look, but thanks for sharing this information here.)

Moonves isn't known for charity.

Moonves has been known to be charitable toward shows he likes. Enterprise was a show he notoriously never liked, and it showed in the way that advertising was rapidly pulled out from under it when the ratings started to collapse. As early as Season 2, Enterprise started to get routinely pre-empted by sports games, which hurt a show that might have recovered. On the other hand, Moonves was very charitable to a show with much lower ratings that ran at the same time: Veronica Mars. It certainly helped that Veronica Mars had lower production costs, but Moonves notoriously was a big fan himself, and kept it limping through a run that was definitely longer than could be financially justified. (I'm grateful to him for that: Veronica Mars is fantastic, and it would have been a great loss to me personally had it been cancelled after one season, despite its financials.)

But in the end, profitability is all that CBS cares about - and given the various revenue streams and that ST: D has boosted both the subs and the visibility of CBSAA for CBS; again, as long as CBS likes the ROI from ST: D the show will continue.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Succubint]

According to Netflix, DISCO was #4 in its Top Ten Shows that Brought the Family Together (to watch). I have no idea how they arrive at this or any of the other Top Ten categories, but it's an indication that by at least one metric where viewer numbers are assessed, Netflix considered Discovery one of its top shows for 2017.

https://trekmovie.com/2017/12/12/st...st-watched-together-toronto-studio-expanding/