Trek 2017 TV Show Teaser

[JWPlatt]

But if you have to pay for one singular channel it better be ad-free!

Yup.

What if you could get ad free for $10 and with ads for $5, would going with the cheaper option still be paying for commercials?

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.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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.

Although I do kinda agree with those who are hoping it gets a subtitle. We've already had one live action show called just "Star Trek", one animated show called just "Star Trek", and one movie called just "Star Trek". I just sorta prefer it to have some built-in official differentiation. But perhaps that's just the weird way my mind works.

Star Trek: NuTOS.

Did they manage to keep Pike in a cell and do weird alien things to him for the rest of his life? No.

Actually, yes.

 

[mos6507]

Yes, they are.

Does HBO play commercials during the show?

I'm a little mystified by the willingness... no... advocacy by a consumer of showing commercials within premium content. A big advantage of cable used to be that the premium channels avoided the commercials of free broadcast TV.

Heck, they play TV commercials before movie trailers at the theater these days. Sucks, but it's how it is.

 

[fireproof78]

HBO may be ad free but also... what?

Let's say HBO charges $15 per month without ads. Now they start putting ads in the content. Should they drop the price of a subscription since there is now ad subsidy (broadcast TV is free because it is supported by ads)? Should the price stay the same? Would you readily accept it if they also raised the price of your subscription? How about increasing the quantity of ad time across these permutations?

I suppose it's submissive advocacy by so readily accepting being charged for premium content with commercials. Acquiescence, seemingly for the sake of argument because it is difficult to imagine consumers saying it is okay to pay for a service and then have ads on top of that. I guess it gives the content companies a great excuse to fleece willing customers. The polling data here says customers will love it!

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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!"

 

[Mudd]

People are complaining about the cost of this, again?

Jesus Christ.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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.

 

[JWPlatt]

I don't see a problem with $6/month at all.

I don't either. Without commercials. I might pay it if it had no commercials.

But, CBS steps in to the game and says it will charge $6 a month and that apparently is unacceptable.

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.

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.

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.

 

[fireproof78]

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!"

This is largely my point (aside from the inner curmudgeon ). Ads are not different or new.

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.

$6 is also a lower price than the other channels listed. So, I'm still not sure what the issue is.

 

[Dukhat]

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

 

[JWPlatt]

$6 is also a lower price than the other channels listed. So, I'm still not sure what the issue is.

The issue is that it charges a premium but still plays commercials during the show. What other individual premium channel does that?

I'm just going to wait for the DVDs/BRs to come out... I'm fine being patient.

This.

 

[jamestyler]

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 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.

The issue is that it charges a premium but still plays commercials during the show. What other individual premium channel does that?

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.

 

[fireproof78]

The issue is that it charges a premium but still plays commercials during the show. What other individual premium channel does that?

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.

 

[JWPlatt]

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.

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.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

 

[JWPlatt]

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.

 

[jamestyler]

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.

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.

 

[JWPlatt]

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.

 

[AviTrek]

The issue is that it charges a premium but still plays commercials during the show. What other individual premium channel does that?

Hulu. $7.99/month with ads, $11.99/month with no ads.