New Singer / Fuller Series?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...why not pay now for a show that gets 3 to 5 million veiwers now and makes a small profit. In order to make a larger long term profit from the above mention sources?

It's yet to be demonstrated that a Trek show that gets "3 to 5 million viewers" would turn even a small profit for the studio in the short run.

Also bear in mind that the studios choose between many projects every year, and they do have limited resources. If you can produce six or eight sitcom pilots for the cost of a single Star Trek pilot why would you go with Trek, given that you're more likely to have a hit with a sitcom than with an expensive science fiction melodrama.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Does CBS makes a large profit off the reruns, syndication, streaming contracts, DVD, and Blu-ray sales of old Trek shows? And if so why not pay now for a show that gets 3 to 5 million veiwers now and makes a small profit. In order to make a larger long term profit from the above mention sources?

And they've actually been doing that with the all the previous Trek shows. Just another reason why CBS isn't in a hurry to invest in another series right now.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

Why make a small profit when you can make a big one off doing Yet Another Cop Show?

So true!

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

Does CBS makes a large profit off the reruns, syndication, streaming contracts, DVD, and Blu-ray sales of old Trek shows? And if so why not pay now for a show that gets 3 to 5 million veiwers now and makes a small profit. In order to make a larger long term profit from the above mention sources?

And they've actually been doing that with the all the previous Trek shows. Just another reason why CBS isn't in a hurry to invest in another series right now.

They may not be in a hurry to invest, but they must see the potential? Sorry guys, I am just trolling for some hope. I miss having a weekly Trek series. Thank goodness I enjoy reading the books

 

[C.E. Evans]

Does CBS makes a large profit off the reruns, syndication, streaming contracts, DVD, and Blu-ray sales of old Trek shows? And if so why not pay now for a show that gets 3 to 5 million veiwers now and makes a small profit. In order to make a larger long term profit from the above mention sources?

And they've actually been doing that with the all the previous Trek shows. Just another reason why CBS isn't in a hurry to invest in another series right now.

They may not be in a hurry to invest, but they must see the potential?

They do, but in the sense that the success of Star Trek XI has really curtailed the need for a new TV series. The brand has been revitalized and CBS can collect millions from a widespread renewed interest in Trek merchandising (which includes DVDs and blu-rays) without having to sink millions in a new series instead. You can't beat profit with little to zero investment.

This is the Les Moonves philosophy and one that has served him well as the head of CBS, so he may not feel the need to change it. Someone else in charge might think differently and feel a new Trek series is in order right now, but that isn't the case.

 

[AviTrek]

Does CBS make a large profit off the reruns, syndication, streaming contracts, DVD, and Blu-ray sales of old Trek shows? And if so why not pay now for a show that gets 3 to 5 million veiwers now and makes a small profit. In order to make a larger long term profit from the above mention sources?

Does CBS make a large profit off of old shows that had 10+m viewers yes. Does CBS no what it will make in syndication, streaming, and DVD sales of a new show that will probably have fewer viewers? No, but it's a good bet the number will be lower than what they make from TNG. Any new show needs to have a chance to make money now, or it's not worth the risk. And as Temis pointed out, why spend $x to make $y when you can spend $x to make 2*$y?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They do, but in the sense that the success of Star Trek XI has really curtailed the need for a new TV series. The brand has been revitalized and CBS can collect millions from a widespread renewed interest in Trek merchandising (which includes DVDs and blu-rays) without having to sink millions in a new series instead. You can't beat profit with little to zero investment.

I have my doubts that this is a significant factor. Is merchandising that important for Star Trek? And if it is important, wouldn't it be boosted all the more by a new TV series, with new characters and new ships to use as the basis for toys, books, DVDs, etc?

It's far more likely they aren't thinking about Star Trek at all because it's space opera, and right now that's more a movie thing than a TV thing. CBS makes TV shows, just not space opera TV shows.

 

[C.E. Evans]

They do, but in the sense that the success of Star Trek XI has really curtailed the need for a new TV series. The brand has been revitalized and CBS can collect millions from a widespread renewed interest in Trek merchandising (which includes DVDs and blu-rays) without having to sink millions in a new series instead. You can't beat profit with little to zero investment.

I have my doubts that this is a significant factor. Is merchandising that important for Star Trek? And if it is important, wouldn't it be boosted all the more by a new TV series, with new characters and new ships to use as the basis for toys, books, DVDs, etc?

Merchandising is very important (ask George Lucas, Disney, Warner Bros., and Saban--the company behind the venerable Power Rangers franchise). It's big money. And addition to licensing fees, CBS gets a cut of every Star Trek product sold. As far as whether it would be more productive to have a new series as a source of new merchandising material, that's a question you have to ask Les Moonves, but it could very well be said that the new Trek movies are CBS' source of new merchandising material as such money goes more to CBS than Paramount.

It's far more likely they aren't thinking about Star Trek at all because it's space opera, and right now that's more a movie thing than a TV thing.

Not really. CBS was behind the remastering of TOS a few years ago and the current remastering of TNG. They're also behind the release of the various "best of Trek" home video collections over the years that continue today.

CBS makes TV shows, just not space opera TV shows.

Star Trek is just one of many properties that CBS owns and makes money from--http://www.cbstvd.com/shows_main.aspx--and I wouldn't even consider it their biggest one. Currently, CBS appears content to let Trek remain a property they can license to others rather than produce themselves.

It may be frustrating and may even make no real business sense to some fans, but a new Trek series really isn't a necessity for the current management at CBS, regardless of how well the new movies do at the box office.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

It may be frustrating and may even make no real business sense to some fans, but a new Trek series really isn't a necessity for the current management at CBS, regardless of how well the new movies do at the box office.

That is what I was afraid of I guess I will get my fix from the next JJ movie and Pocket Books.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

a new Trek series really isn't a necessity for the current management at CBS, regardless of how well the new movies do at the box office.

That would be true regardless of whether they make money off merchandising or what percentage it is of their overall business or whether they consider it a major or minor part of their business.

They'd be making that money in either case, so it's not relevant to whether or not they'd make a new Star Trek series. They're not going to be making any series for the merchandising alone; a new series would definitely offer new merchandising possibilities; the old possibilities would still exist (a new series isn't going to hurt what they're already doing); so the decision to make a new series is going to be about whether the series itself is worthwhile, and whether they could make more money doing a different series that has nothing to do with Star Trek, such as, yet another cop show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

a new Trek series really isn't a necessity for the current management at CBS, regardless of how well the new movies do at the box office.

That would be true regardless of whether they make money off merchandising or what percentage it is of their overall business or whether they consider it a major or minor part of their business.

It's apparently a major part of their business as far as Star Trek is concerned.

They'd be making that money in either case, so it's not relevant to whether or not they'd make a new Star Trek series.

Star Trek XI revitalized the brand and increased sales of Star Trek products across the board. That was not the case prior to that.

As far as being relevant to the making of a new series, I'd have to disagree because if the movies can keep the Star Trek brand strong for them, the current management at CBS may not feel the need to invest in a new TV series.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Your logic makes no sense. If more Trek = more merchandising bucks, then even more Trek = even more merchandising bucks. Why be happy with X profit if you can have X+1? (I think that's one of the Rules of Acquisition - one of the high numbers.)

CBS may be happy to coast on Paramount's efforts, but that doesn't mean the existence of the movies has any bearing at all one way or the other on their decision to make a TV series. It's just opportunistic - they're happy to take free money if it comes their way.

And that's what I think is happening. CBS was never planning to do a new TV series and Paramount giving them a boost hasn't changed their minds one way or the other. Apparently merchandising is not so important to CBS's business that they're willing to take advantage of the lesson being demonstrated by the movie's impact on merchandising revenues, which argues against the notion that they think it's particularly important in the first place.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Your logic makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. CBS licenses Trek to others, gets paid both their fee and cut of the profits, and doesn't have to spend money themselves.

If more Trek = more merchandising bucks, then even more Trek = even more merchandising bucks. Why be happy with X profit if you can have X+1? (I think that's one of the Rules of Acquisition - one of the high numbers.)

More questions to ask Les Moonves, but apparently the success of Star Trek XI was enough to satisfy CBS.

CBS may be happy to coast on Paramount's efforts, but that doesn't mean the existence of the movies has any bearing at all one way or the other on their decision to make a TV series. It's just opportunistic - they're happy to take free money if it comes their way.

And that's what I think is happening. CBS was never planning to do a new TV series and Paramount giving them a boost hasn't changed their minds one way or the other. Apparently merchandising is not so important to CBS's business that they're willing to take advantage of the lesson being demonstrated by the movie's impact on merchandising revenues, which argues against the notion that they think it's particularly important in the first place.

I think you misunderstood me. I think CBS regards Star Trek as just something that generates revenue mostly through licensing to others (most of whom are interested in producing and selling Star Trek merchandise). Star Trek XI did wonders for the brand--it not only increased sales of Trek merchandise across the board, it also brought in new clients wanting to sell Trek merchandise, and both mean more money ultimately for CBS.

Yes, it's free money and CBS just being opportunistic, but I believe that's exactly the business model CBS is taking with Trek. They're not looking at it from the perspective of "more Trek=more merchandising money" but from "getting paid without having to invest in more Trek."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Getting a return on an investment is never a sure thing.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Yes, it's free money and CBS just being opportunistic, but I believe that's exactly the business model CBS is taking with Trek.

I wouldn't call that a "business model" - it's just nothing, really. Not brand management, not anything.

If Abrams' movies didn't exist, would CBS be doing more with merchandising? No, because there would be even less activity in the Star Trek universe. If they're going to do the same thing or even less regardless of the movies, then obviously the movies aren't really a factor.

If and when Star Trek returns to TV, it will be because of CBS actually deciding to do something, such as CBS Studios making a series for the CW, for Showtime, or maybe for AMC or FX.

But merchandising or JJ Abrams won't be the deciding factor. Being able to make money on a show like that - and more money than if they did something else with the same resources - will be the deciding factor.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Yes, it's free money and CBS just being opportunistic, but I believe that's exactly the business model CBS is taking with Trek.

I wouldn't call that a "business model" - it's just nothing, really. Not brand management, not anything.

Actually it is the way CBS is managing the Trek brand. You may not like it or agree with it, but it is the approach they are taking with Trek.

If Abrams' movies didn't exist, would CBS be doing more with merchandising? No, because there would be even less activity in the Star Trek universe. If they're going to do the same thing or even less regardless of the movies, then obviously the movies aren't really a factor.

The thing is, however, is that the movies do exist and CBS is going to capitalize on them without having to really do anything.

If the movies didn't exist, CBS' options are to either revitalize the brand themselves with a new TV series or allow it to quietly fade into the background with the rest of their many licensable properties that are no longer in production like I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show, The Brady Bunch, and Cheers (just to name a few).

If and when Star Trek returns to TV, it will be because of CBS actually deciding to do something, such as CBS Studios making a series for the CW, for Showtime, or maybe for AMC or FX.

That's really an obvious point, but the thing is that CBS doesn't feel that they have to do something like that yet.

But merchandising or JJ Abrams won't be the deciding factor. Being able to make money on a show like that - and more money than if they did something else with the same resources - will be the deciding factor.

Actually the real deciding factor is whether or not CBS feels they need to do anything more with Trek than what is currently being done.

Despite what fans think, CBS doesn't really have to do another Trek TV series again ever.

 

[Sjaddix]

true besides cbs dominates network tv anyway so no real incentive.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

I thought I read somewhere that CBS wanted to give Star Trek a ten year hiatus from TV? Since Enterprise stopped in May of 2005, fans might have to wait until 2015 for a new show

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I thought I read somewhere that CBS wanted to give Star Trek a ten year hiatus from TV? Since Enterprise stopped in May of 2005, fans might have to wait until 2015 for a new show

So we just have to wait for 3 more years.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Actually the real deciding factor is whether or not CBS feels they need to do anything more with Trek than what is currently being done.

Which is what I've been saying the whole time. It's got nothing to do with the movies. They'd be doing exactly the same thing - nothing - if there were no movies. Because there are a large number of better/easier ways to make money that they can spend their time on instead. Just because they own a brand doesn't compel them to manage it or even think about it.

And you have a very generous idea of "brand management." I wish I could get away with that kind of "brand management" at work and still get a paycheck. They're doing some obvious and opportunistic stuff to make easy money, but nobody's going to hire an actual brand manager to do that kind of thing.

I thought I read somewhere that CBS wanted to give Star Trek a ten year hiatus from TV?

I'd need to see a link on that one, please. I haven't noticed CBS saying anything that pro-active about their Star Trek plans, to indicate they have any plan for it at all. A statement like "we're going to wait ten years" would have been highly memorable in the context of deafening silence.