Paramount loses more than a quarter of its value, analyst believes they should "just quit streaming"

[The Wormhole]

Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred it when I could watch Trek on BBC channels for no extra cost on top of television licence I have to pay for anyway.

The joy of being Canadian, I can watch the current Trek shows on a cable channel I was already getting for the past twenty years anyway.

 

[Weyoun 251]

The joy of being Canadian, I can watch the current Trek shows on a cable channel I was already getting for the past twenty years anyway.

We still get them, albeit somewhat sporadically, on CBS Horror on Freeview but it is a proper backwater channel that you have to search around for.

Tend to be at awkward times when one would have traditionally been at work too

 

[Dee1891]

I'm not surprised about any of this. Paramount+ has never been profitable, and the whole "we will make it profitable at SOME point, let's just throw out expensive Star Trek series after expensive Star Trek series, maybe this will get us enough subscribers" tactic was... weird at best.

I don't think most of the streaming services are making money. Including Disney Plus. I hear that particular studio wants to put less money into its streaming service.

 

[donners22]

Star Trek & Star Wars & Marvel & DC Comics are all large "Established Franchise" with plenty of back-catalog content along with new content & merchandise coming out of the pipeline.

Those who have established a history of success will continue to survive and gain new audience over time.

Those three have a far higher audience ceiling than Trek does. Trek's popularity peaked in the early '90s and it hasn't been great at pulling in new fans since then.

It's bad enough that Paramount wound up pulling Disco from Netflix for its far smaller platform and has continually failed to put out a film. To lock Trek behind a la carte payments pretty much gives up on any interest in building the fanbase.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Those three have a far higher audience ceiling than Trek does. Trek's popularity peaked in the early '90s and it hasn't been great at pulling in new fans since then.

It's bad enough that Paramount wound up pulling Disco from Netflix for its far smaller platform and has continually failed to put out a film. To lock Trek behind a la carte payments pretty much gives up on any interest in building the fanbase.

So what do you suggest that Trek does to build a larger fanbase?

 

[Farscape One]

STAR TREK shows could be licensed back to Netflix. (At least, have them there as well as Paramount +.) ST was clearly being watched by at least a fair amount of people on Netflix. Personally, Netflix is a more user friendly service than Paramount +.

It's a band aid solution for Paramount +, but it might be enough to help recoup some of the losses they've had.

 

[Guy Gardener]

STAR TREK shows could be licensed back to Netflix. (At least, have them there as well as Paramount +.) ST was clearly being watched by at least a fair amount of people on Netflix. Personally, Netflix is a more user friendly service than Paramount +.

It's a band aid solution for Paramount +, but it might be enough to help recoup some of the losses they've had.

Tv is like golf.

If 2 million people are par, and they think that they are going to make par, and then don't, someone is going to make a scene.

If Paramount needs 2 million people watching Discovery on Paramount + to justify it's slot, but there's 40 million people watching Discovery on Netflix... Someone is going to make a scene.

The vice president licensing Star Trek, and the Vice President in charge of streaming Star Trek are two different assholes in competition with each other, and their money does not touch. The money mingles eventually, but not until after the two people I just mentioned kicked the shit out of each other trying to win, and destroy the other one.

F&ck, I am so 80s.

 

[Weyoun 251]

So what do you suggest that Trek does to build a larger fanbase?

It is about making the shows accessible to as many viewers as possible, in as easy a format as possible.

It was a bad move taking Disco off Netflix in the UK as P+ is a bit wank and you now have the weird situation of the TOS - Ent series being on both Netflix and P+, the films being on Amazon (for a price) and P+, LD and Pic on Amazon and P+, and Prod on P+ only.

Considering there are roughly 13m UK prime subscribers and 17m Netflix then to me it would make sense to push Trek out through those to get as wide an audience as possible rather than making people have to work at it to find where it is showing

 

[donners22]

So what do you suggest that Trek does to build a larger fanbase?

Put everything on a reasonably popular streaming service.

Putting Disco and some of the old series on Netflix was a great start. Splitting them across multiple services was bad, pulling series between services (and especially moving them to the least-popular service) was worse.

 

[ananta]

Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred it when I could watch Trek on BBC channels for no extra cost on top of television licence I have to pay for anyway.

The only problem was the BBC was a good 2-3 years behind the US broadcasts. I used to spend a ridiculous amount buying the latest episodes on VHS.

 

[El Maestro]

I don't think Trek will go away, but I think the pace of releases and the overall amount of shows going on will drop, especially if P+ is sold and they have to get someone to buy a Trek show to put on another service. Netflix started making their own shows because they didn't want to pay for third party content.

 

[Sci]

STAR TREK shows could be licensed back to Netflix. (At least, have them there as well as Paramount +.) ST was clearly being watched by at least a fair amount of people on Netflix. Personally, Netflix is a more user friendly service than Paramount +.

It's a band aid solution for Paramount +, but it might be enough to help recoup some of the losses they've had.

I mean, if they're gonna do that they might as well shut down Paramount+. P+ only has value if its streaming content is exclusive. If customers can get the same content at other services that also offer programs that aren't in the Paramount vault, then enough existing P+ customers will probably decide it's not worth the cost to keep P+ as to further harm P+'s income.

 

[Farscape One]

I mean, if they're gonna do that they might as well shut down Paramount+. P+ only has value if its streaming content is exclusive. If customers can get the same content at other services that also offer programs that aren't in the Paramount vault, then enough existing P+ customers will probably decide it's not worth the cost to keep P+ as to further harm P+'s income.

True. But is Paramount + as worldwide as Netflix? Meaning, does that service not work in some countries, vs. Netflix which is used in pretty much every country?

This could be done for areas that P+ doesn't work.

 

[Sci]

True. But is Paramount + as worldwide as Netflix? Meaning, does that service not work in some countries, vs. Netflix which is used in pretty much every country?

This could be done for areas that P+ doesn't work.

They've already been licensing Star Trek to other streaming services in countries where there is no Paramount+. They've been doing that since day one.

 

[FederationHistorian]

While that might make some business sense, my only apprehension, as a viewer and fan, would be putting Star Trek in the hands of a company with a reputation of quickly canceling original dramatic content after 1 or 2 seasons unless it hits certain metrics within their algorithm.

Its also putting it in the hands of those that will vary the season and episode format so that stories don’t drag on. If the story only needs 8 episodes or 2 season to tell its story, that will be allowed. Currently, Trek has to produce 10 episodes no matter what, even if there isn’t enough to stretch the story that long. And its usually wrapped up in 45 min to an hour, instead of episodes that are regularly 65-75 minutes long.

That would be horrible -- it would decimate jobs and merge two companies together that have no business being the same corporation. Far better to just license new Star Trek shows for Netflix to distribute.

Um, that’s what usually happens in a merger. They find “efficiencies”, which means letting people go. As there’s a surplus of employees they don’t need, or cannot afford to keep.

And what makes you think that a merged Paramountflix would not just carry over Netflix's practice of cancelling after two seasons?

Black Mirror is about to have its 6th season. One more season and it’s the classic 7 seasons synonymous with Berman era Trek.

It would just mean that those that produce Trek would have to produce something that’s watchable and popular that could be continued over multiple season. And that each season would need to be contained and have a proper resolution, which current Trek already does.

And what makes you think they wouldn't just carry over Netflix's subscription practices, especially since Netflix is more successful than Paramount+?

The Netflix model needs to change to grow subscribership. And blocking password sharing ain’t it. Nor is regularly raising the monthly subscription rate. A flat subscription rate per year needs to be offered by Netflix at some point to keep subscribers around.

Sure, but what's in it for Netflix to merge with Paramount then?

a) The content library, because that where the money is.

b) They’ve been footing the bill for producing Trek (ex. Discovery) anyways. May as well merge so that they can push the envelope with Trek like with DIS S1.

Apple and Amazon, maybe, because they're attached to larger corporations that seem willing to take a loss on their streaming side for the sake of prestige. Max? I dunno man, it's not clear to me that that one's going to last.

People will always watch HBO, as it fills the need for prestige tv. So MAX will stay.

That is an argument for Paramount to license the shows for Netflix to stream. It's not an argument for the two companies to merge.

Or maybe I’m just keeping it on topic, and it triggered a need for you to flex for some bizarre reason.

I think the most probable result is a joint venture between Paramount+ and Peacock. Why? They already do it in Europe with SkyShowtime.


A major barrier to tie ups in the US are the ABC, NBC, and CBS networks with their assorted FCC regulated TV stations in major cities (for people outside the US... ABC, NBC, and CBS all own their TV stations in say Los Angeles, while once you get out of the top 20 metros areas, almost all of the TV stations are owned by third parties that affiliate with their respective networks). This is why Disney could buy 20th Century Fox, but not the Fox TV network and their major city TV stations.


Streaming will likely "rationalize" before the dam breaks of Disney, Paramount, or Comcast divesting ABC, CBS, or NBC. CBS and NBC can't merge, but maybe their streaming platforms could. Throw Fox network programing as well, and you've effectively recreated Hulu, if not in name.


But the US has suffered greatly from the already existing consolidation. I'd prefer joint ventures that preserve some degree of local programing over more mergers.


Remember when Data said TV would die out around 2040? That might prove to be just about right!

They had the right idea with Hulu. It just needed to be an international service (and to dump the ads). Now with so many services around, it feels like Hulu missed its moment, and I don’t know what a P+/Peacock merger would do differently.

Now, its still possible that Peacock and P+ merge. Its also possible that Amazon absorbs P+, as Bezos loves Trek. Its just as like Disney absorbs P+ and does a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover.

But I said smart money. Since I’m sure that Netflix would want their content library, and one of the former content providers back under its umbrella.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Too many streaming services with everything spread over them, so i just went back to good br player and box sets, cost me nothing a month and i already ownd everything Trek wise anyway right up until Enterprise, and the only new Trek i like past that point being SNW, which i will be happy to buy in boxset form.....ok i will buy season 3 of Picard which to me is season 8 of TNG. :-)

 

[James Cole]

They had the right idea with Hulu. It just needed to be an international service (and to dump the ads). Now with so many services around, it feels like Hulu missed its moment, and I don’t know what a P+/Peacock merger would do differently.

Now, its still possible that Peacock and P+ merge. Its also possible that Amazon absorbs P+, as Bezos loves Trek. Its just as like Disney absorbs P+ and does a Star Trek/Star Wars crossover.

Amazon buying Paramount could make sense. But the question then would be if they were also buying the CBS network and its local stations. That would open them up to a lot of regulatory intervention through the FCC.

US politicians currently depend on political ads and being covered in local media. They'd likely intervene if the network - affiliate model was in danger of going away. It's thanks to congressional intervention that at one time you had over a hundred ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox stations on satellite, instead of just having one feed per time zone. Eventually local TV will go the way of local newspapers and radio, but it won't go smoothly. Plus, there's still a significant portion of the US population that doesn't have access to high speed internet, let alone streaming.

CBS and Warner Bros recently sold a majority stake in the CW to Nexstar, a local TV station operator that bought the CW television stations in Los Angeles, New York, DC, and many other cities. They're canceling a lot of CW original programing and replacing it with imported TV shows and reality TV. CBS still owns a few CW stations, like in San Francisco and Seattle, but they will ditch the CW later this year.

Something similar could happen with CBS proper, but that one is a political question as much as an economic one.

 

[Sci]

Um, that’s what usually happens in a merger. They find “efficiencies”, which means letting people go.

Yes, and that is a bad thing that ruins people's lives. Corporate mergers are often bad things.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And what makes you think that a merged Paramountflix would not just carry over Netflix's practice of cancelling after two seasons?

Black Mirror is about to have its 6th season. One more season and it’s the classic 7 seasons synonymous with Berman era Trek.

1) Black Mirror's first, second, and fifth seasons only had three episodes each. Its third and fourth episodes had six. The production model is so different that it's not comparable.

2) A handful of exceptions does not disprove the general trend. Netflix tends to cancel its shows after only one or two seasons.

And what makes you think they wouldn't just carry over Netflix's subscription practices, especially since Netflix is more successful than Paramount+?

It would just mean that those that produce Trek would have to produce something that’s watchable and popular that could be continued over multiple season.

I hate to tell you this, but Star Trek just isn't that popular. It never has been and never will be. It has always been middling in terms of popularity. That's not a bad thing, and it's been consistently middling, which is its own form of success. But the idea that it just needs to become more popular just means you're dooming it to cancellation, because some things are just never going to be to the tastes of most people.

The Netflix model needs to change to grow subscribership.

It's not going to. You can't have infinite growth, and Netflix has just reached its natural plateau. It's a mature service and it's not gonna keep growing.

Sure, but what's in it for Netflix to merge with Paramount then?

a) The content library, because that where the money is.

Netflix has got plenty of content already, and it can get content by licensing instead of merging.

b) They’ve been footing the bill for producing Trek (ex. Discovery) anyways. May as well merge so that they can push the envelope with Trek like with DIS S1.

... do you hear yourself? You're honestly suggesting Netflix should pay billions of dollars to acquire Paramount Global because it already pays a small fraction of that to subsidize production of a TV show?

Just... please, do this math here. An episode of Star Trek: Discovery costs between $8 million and $8.5 million. So a season of 10 episodes costs $85 million. Paramount Global has total assets of $58.39 billion. That's 686.94 times the cost of subsidizing a season of DIS. Which I'd really like to see a citation on the claim that that's even still happening.

People will always watch HBO, as it fills the need for prestige tv. So MAX will stay.

It won't if it keeps bleeding money.

Or maybe I’m just keeping it on topic, and it triggered a need for you to flex for some bizarre reason.

No, I just don't know how else to respond to such an absurd assertion. The idea that it's a good idea to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to acquire a multinational conglomerate because you want to avoid license fees for a handful of old TV shows is just absurd on its face. That's like deciding to buy the local movie theater because you don't want to pay for movie tickets anymore.

 

[El Maestro]

I hate to tell you this, but Star Trek just isn't that popular. It never has been and never will be. It has always been middling in terms of popularity. That's not a bad thing, and it's been consistently middling, which is its own form of success. But the idea that it just needs to become more popular just means you're dooming it to cancellation, because some things are just never going to be to the tastes of most people.

This is true, and oddly enough, the crux of the argument for why Trek isn't really a blockbuster movie property. The Kelvin movies did "fine" at the box office, but measured against blockbuster/tentpole metrics, they did badly. Paramount wanted them to be on that level but the franchise never really was. On TV, there is an audience there, and it's a good investment as part of a portfolio of programming but I don't think it can be the centerpiece of a streaming service. We'll see how paramount views its performance on P+. I'm sure it's one of the better performing properties for them, but given modern economic concerns re: value for for shareholders I am not sure if it is good enough to keep investing in at the current level. The ending of DSC seems to suggest there is an appetite for some reduction there.

 

[Noname Given]

This is true, and oddly enough, the crux of the argument for why Trek isn't really a blockbuster movie property. The Kelvin movies did "fine" at the box office, but measured against blockbuster/tentpole metrics, they did badly. Paramount wanted them to be on that level but the franchise never really was. On TV, there is an audience there, and it's a good investment as part of a portfolio of programming but I don't think it can be the centerpiece of a streaming service. We'll see how paramount views its performance on P+. I'm sure it's one of the better performing properties for them, but given modern economic concerns re: value for for shareholders I am not sure if it is good enough to keep investing in at the current level. The ending of DSC seems to suggest there is an appetite for some reduction there.

Star Trek is not currently the 'centerpiece' of Paramount+ Streaming - Yellowstone is (And Paramount suits have said as much in that 25% of P+ subscribers are subscribing for Yellowstone and its related shows.)

Star Trek is to them a valuable IP and asset and part of their streaming strategy and portfolio, but it hasn't been the centerpiece for a few years now.

And it's no the only IP P+ is using to bolster its streaming library either.