Yup. Of course. You're paying, and you're getting commercials. CBS was, and perhaps still is, considering exactly that kind of tiered structure for CBS Access. And that's why I've been careful in my posts here to support only a single rate for all subscribers: make it free with commercials or have a flat rate for no commercials - just like broadcast TV versus HBO.
Ok, what if it's 52 cents/month with commercials and $6/month without? At some point, it becomes just principle, and it's not economic, right? Things always have price points and the people in the boardroom at, say Hulu, determined that some people will pay x amount of dollars and put up with commercials, and some people will play y amount of dollars to not have to deal with them. If all of the analysis says you can make money or subsidize part of your operation by charging for something, and people are going to pay for it, you probably should charge for it. And don't forget that a streaming service, even with commercials, is not the same as basic cable with commercials, or OTA with commercials. The most fundamental difference is what you get with a streaming service -- 24/7 on demand access to any episode of any TV show in that service's library on all of your devices. CBS is not taking their linear programming model (with scheduled programming, and no choice of when you get to watch, and limited to devices plugged into a wall) and duplicating that model online. TV and Streaming are different animals. Yes, the cheaper tier of things might have commercials, but you're getting way, way more than what you get with free OTA or basic cable options for that particular content provider. When I pay money to Hulu and Netflix, it's because I get to watch everything on there whenever I want, however I want. Yes, HBO's streaming service doesn't have commercials. That's exactly why they charge $15/month instead of $6. The reason they charge more than Netflix, who also doesn't have commercials, is because there's a metric ton of people willing to part with internal organs to get to watch Game of Thrones the minute it's ready to be viewed and HBO's accountants would rather have dollars than kidneys. I don't see a problem with $6/month at all. Star Trek: NuTOS. Actually, yes.
Heck, they play TV commercials before movie trailers at the theater these days. Sucks, but it's how it is.
I'm sure you feel like you made a very good point but it was lost on me when you said that I was being fleeced or that I'm acquiescing. I see tiered models of ad and ad free content across the Internet, as well as different pay scales for cable, TV and Internet service providers. But, CBS steps in to the game and says it will charge $6 a month and that apparently is unacceptable. I have no problem with a tiered system that reduces ads while increasing the costs. If I'm alone in that decision, then the model will fail and CBS will discontinue it. I don't have to sit here and imagine consumers accepting one or another because it will soon be tested in the marketplace.
To me, it's not a matter of principle, just budgeting. Is the price excessive? Can I afford it? How much do I want to watch the show when it debuts or am I willing to wait for the DVDs down the road? Same decision I make whenever I'm deciding if I want to spring for one cable package or another. How much extra am I willing to pay to watch HBO? To watch BBC America? It's not about "acquiescing." It's about not getting morally indignant over TV commercials of all things. (Something most of us have lived with for our entire lives.) I subscribe to at least five magazines. They come with ads. I pay to have my newspaper delivered every morning. It includes ads. I pay for my comics on Wednesday. They come with ads. Not sure why the brave new world of "streaming" should be held to some higher standard? Never mind. Clearly it is late and my Inner Curmudgeon is surfacing. "Kids these days think they can have TV with no commercials! In my day we had lots of commercials . . . and you couldn't fast-forward through them!"
To be clear -- this is "ala cart channel selection" -- paying only for the channels you want. This is exactly what practically every cable subscriber has been demanding for over a decade or more. And now we have it with on-demand content on top. Linear programming and channel bundles are going away.
I don't either. Without commercials. I might pay it if it had no commercials. Six dollars a month is fine. Without commercials. I might pay it if it had no commercials. But still probably not just to watch one show (the Star Trek series). I subscribe to Amazon Prime for the fast shipping without a minimum and the movies. There are no commercials. I don't really want to spend more than that for more streaming services. It was either Amazon or Netflix and Amazon won my $. I don't think any other examples have been given in this discussion of premium channels that also play commercials during the show. I would not count big, one-time special event shows and such. It is what subscribers have demanded from cable companies. But streaming got there faster. Now the complaint from subscribers is that streaming subscriptions per channel can add up to more than cable; death from a thousand cuts or nickel and dimed to death - choose your trite expression. Also, available content comes and goes with such fluidity that it presents a stability problem with subscriber trust in the services. People will start demanding something that looks like cable again, but nonlinear. The streaming model is too fractured. Expect consolidation.
This is largely my point (aside from the inner curmudgeon ). Ads are not different or new. $6 is also a lower price than the other channels listed. So, I'm still not sure what the issue is.
I'm just going to wait for the DVDs/BRs to come out, or iTunes availability. Not that I have any issues with CBSAA; but the turnaround time between each season of first-run shows and their availability on disk or iTunes is so quick that I'm fine being patient.
I have never "streamed" anything in my life and have no idea how it works, but I will learn for STAR TREK. And $6 is less than an twelve-inch chicken sandwich at Subway.
The issue is that it charges a premium but still plays commercials during the show. What other individual premium channel does that? This.
I have nothing to add or counter to this but have to highlight.... it's exactly what we're looking towards and as much as anyone's bitching baout the (low!) price, the streaming future is a hell of a lot better than what we've had so far. The cost of even the basic Sky of cable package in the UK is futile; it's paying for stuff that I can get on freeview with a bunch of stuff I'll likely never watch on top. If I want a specific channel, I have to get a specific package and pay for all the other channels. The Sports package is the worst for it. The way things lie now, I can pick and choose what I want to watch, what I'm spending and don't even have to wait until 7pm on a Thursday night to watch it. It baffles me that the concept of paying a small fee for content you want to watch is irksome. I can't comment on many services in the US, being British and all, but despite paying a premium for the WWE Network, I saw so much sponsorship and product placement that I wanted to throw things. I'm very happy to have ads that aren't intertwined with content so I can go do something else while they're on.
What other channel is charging $6 a month? If the model isn't sustainable, then it will fail. But, CBS is welcome to try. That's the whole idea behind trying this service. Maybe it will work, and maybe it won't. I certainly don't know. I just know that $6 a month, commercials or no commercials, doesn't strike me as any different than how my Internet works now with a tiered system of content. I can stream free on CBS.com but see ads, and have a slower connection. If, at $6 a month, it means a faster connection, more programming and some ads, then I'm ok with it. Obviously, if the majority of customers are not ok with it, then it will fail. And I'm ok with that too.
OMFG. Anyone who watches shit like the WWE deserves to be bilked out of their life savings in ads, product placement, and not only their first born, but all their borns. I have no problem with the WWE getting everything they can get out of any sucker who watches it. Maybe it and the steroids will reduce the gene pool of subscribers.
Exactly. It's an experiment, like launching TNG in syndication rather than on a network, or like using VOYAGER as a flagship of a new network. We'll see how it goes. Personally, I'm not inclined to draw a line in the sand over a couple of TV commercials. It's no big deal to me.
With the hubris of suits, they won't point to their own failure of a bad model, but to the scapegoat popularity of the content. Morons in a tie who are married to their own agendas often seem to confuse cause and effect because they are too brilliant to fail.
After working in the wrestling industry for 13 years, I'll make sure to pass your sentiments on to my first born and all my borns.
My condolences. But you're one of the bilkers, not one of the consumers. It's the consumers who don't get my sympathies. So congrat's.