Heck, I've spent most of my time on Disney+ reliving my childhood by watching The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. Nostalgia sells.
Will CBS All Access Remain Viable in the Streaming Wars?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Yup. I'd rather watch reruns or old shows.
Except if the point is to merge these companies to make them more competitive in the streaming market? How is CBS/Viacom supposed to be competitive, if Viacom does one thing and CBS does another?
I don't think Disney lets Fox do its own thing.
And that's before a ton of new players entered the market, that is why I started this thread now?
Do you think the market can support everyone and their brother having a streaming service?
If you like CBS content would it be the worst thing in the world if CBS threw in with someone else and put their content there? CBS' content works within a larger library, rather than on its own, eh?
I do not think the market can support this many streaming services, someone has to lose and throw in with someone else. You guys seem to CBS All Access can on coast on inertia.
I think CBS is trying to squeeze money out fans by tying new Trek into a library that you find appealing on its own, but that a lot of people wouldn't. How many Star Trek fans also love ''God Friended Me'', some maybe, but I lot of others I bet would not.
Plus isn't CBS content on other streaming services? How much exclusive content is on CBS All Access.
And don't the other streaming offer nostalgia as well?
Besides Star Trek, what does CBS offer that is unique?
The targeted argument that has been presented here, over and over again, does not work CBS offers something unique that others do not and not just Star Trek.
If you want to keep debating me, we can't just go in circles. I do not think you are acknowledging some of my points here.
Almost everyone offers nostalgia, that's not unique, Disney is the king of this.
What does CBS All Access offer that is unique? Heck does CBS All Access even have exclusive rights to own library of show or is CBS content on every other service?
What does CBS All Access have that is unique? Because it seems like people here think CBS can and should survive on inertia.
Everyone has comfort food, everyone has stuff that is by the numbers and safe, everyone offers that, so CBS has a targeted plan by offering that, does not make sense.
A targeted plan only works if you fill a unique niche, which CBS All Access does not do. The targeted strategy does not work without a unique creative vision, not a factory that runs by committee art.
Last edited:
What does it matter to you? You don’t have to subscribe to it, as you’re outside the US? Allow consumers here to decide whether it is worth it or not.
Well, they also don’t have everything under one banner like you insist CBS do. They also own Hulu, ESPN, and have content on other providers.
I think its bad for the franchise to tie to a streaming service I think is bad and has long term viability issues, like tying Star Trek to UPN did not work in the long run (UPN failed and Trek went off the air).
And they are bundling all that for 13 bucks. How much would you have to pay to get all CBS, Showtime and Viacom content?
Star Trek will survive the failure of All-Access should it happen. Just like it survived UPN and the ongoing collapse of Paramount.
How much to get all Disney-owned content? That content is also on providers not controlled by them. Besides, I’m not sure the endgame CBS wants is to undercut its other content providers.
Fair enough, I think the failure of UPN and Nemesis put the franchise on its back for a while.
At this point, 13 bucks will get you the vast majority of it, there is probably some stuff still tied to Netflix, but those deals will end eventually and it will get to the bundle eventually. The point is on streaming, Disney has all its part acting in concert, CBS/Viacom can't decide what it wants to do.
I do not like Disney, but I do think they have money, patience, and IP to dominate the market over time. The losers in the streaming wars will lose over time, death by a thousand cuts, who wins and who loses is a long term picture, but there will have to be winners and losers, the market can't handle this glut forever.
You can say CBS doesn't want undercut the other players, but that is what the players will try to do to get more market share. I think Disney at the moment is actively trying to kneecap Netflix and the players will make moves to capture more of the market over time. I think as we see the beginnings of digital migration for the big media players, things will get more cutthroat, not less.
We had Disney absorb Fox to win this war if that is not these companies being more cutthroat, I don't know what is.
Last edited:
That's because Disney owns Fox. Disney also swallowed Fox whole, whereas CBS and Viacom seem to be approaching this more as a partnership. But take a look at what Fox was doing in the lead-up to the merger. Projects were being green-lit left and right, because they were still two separate companies. They have to be until the merger is final. Doing otherwise would be non-competitive.
I love Star Trek: Discovery and God Friended Me. My parents and sister watch NCIS. Mom, Madam Secretary, The Unicorn, The Good Fight, The Twilight Zone, Survivor - all CBS or CBSAA shows watched in my household. Now, this is purely anecdotal, but CBS-watching households do exist. Just because you aren't willing to pay for it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of others who will.
Okay, but the end result is Viacom and CBS are merging, but the Viacom content is not CBS All Access. The Fox content is in Disney's streaming avenues.
This article puts well, that CBS will lag behind everyone else, except maybe Peacock:
https://observer.com/2019/09/amazon...hbo-max-peacock-streaming-wars-who-will-fail/
That article also mentions that CBS could use Viacom content to bulk up, but if Viacom sold their assets to other players, they can't really help CBS All Access can they?
Well that depends, are enough people willing to pay solely CBS's library and few new shows? People here keep saying CBS can thrive on smaller margins than the bigger players, but what is that assumption based on?
I keep hearing people here saying that CBS has a targeted strategy, rather than a mass appeal one, what specific niche does CBS target that is not filled by other players?
Network shows are based trying to appeal to as many people as possible and often playing it as safe as possible, that is not good for a targeted strategy, would CBS really get bold creatively with this service? What would they offer that you could not get anywhere, because I do not even think a lot of CBS shows are exclusive to CBS All Access. What makes them really unique?
Last edited:
Disney was a different story. It's not an exact comparison since the business relationship appears to be different.
Again, there are details that are not prived to the public, and CBS is not going to start running things the Viacom way or vice versa until the merger is complete. That's how business works.
I have acknowledged several points you have made. I don't agree with the basis of the conclusions, because I think much of this discussion is based upon speculation and not facts. And the speculation is largely based upon a personal value judgment that CBS content is not worth your money.
But, nostalgia will hit different age brackets. Disney nostalgia is not going to hit the same demographic as CBS nostalgia. My family is a perfect example. My parents and wife, love police procedural, mystery style shows like NCIS, Blue Bloods, etc. CBS has plenty of that. Plus multiple seasons of older shows that people still enjoy watching, like Survivor and Big Brother.
At the moment, Star Trek and the Twilight Zone, as well as their sports and news division.
Nope, I don't. But, I also don't believe CBS will remain static with AA.
A couple of years, maybe? Preproduction on Star Trek (2009) began in 2005/6. It didn't take very long.
Again this is all a value judgment. It's not that we are arguing in circles so much as we are reaching different conclusions with the same information, which is highly limited at this point. It's attempting a future prediction without all the relevant facts.
But what's the end result? The Viacom content is not CBS All Access. As a consumer I would not care about this backroom stuff, would care about who has the best content.
I don't think you are acknowledging one main point, you insist that CBS had a targeted strategy, not a mass appeal one.
When I asked who the target, you said people who want Network shows that are safe and risk-free.
You can't have a targeted strategy with shows that are trying to be safe and appeal to everyone, that should be in a mass appeal strategy and doing that means you to try to beat Disney its own game and that will
Targeted strategy only works if you fill a particular niche, that is what you are not acknowledging.
Don't the other networks have similar shows?
How many people would want to watch Survivor episodes from 2004? I am actually curious about how many people watch Survivor episodes from 15 years ago.
I do not think 2 unique franchises are enough, I am not sure what makes CBS news better than other news and how long do they have sports rights for?
You said their bread and butter would be risk-free, safe shows, relying on that is being static.
I think if CBS is going to bring Network TV mentality to the digital age, that will cost them in the long run, it's like a 78-year-old man trying to make products that appeal to kids while having no idea what kids actually like. A medium requires a new mindset in this case.
Fair enough, I just think if CBS is going to act an old TV Network just online rather then on the TV, that strategy will fail to connect ultimately.
Then why do you keep talking about the merger? It isn't complete so it doesn't enter in to CBS AA plans...yet.
My brother, but he's weird.
I thought you didn't care about the backroom stuff. Asking about rights is backroom stuff.
And you might be right. But, what you won't acknowledge, or answer, is what happens when AA fails? Why is this so important to pour a thread in to and try to assess all the different factors that we genuinely do not know, nor do you seem to want to know. There is simply the value judgment that you wouldn't pay for it, therefore it is not worthwhile.
Which, is fine. Please, don't pay for it.
My thoughts are this-CBS is doing a conservative play, for a huge amount of factors. Safe, nostalgia-driven programming, is good for them in the short term. In the long term, we don't know. We do not know.
And it might fail. That's OK. Let it fail. Please, please let it fail. A Star Trek movie was already in the works before the lights went out on Enterprise. You honestly think that Star Trek could not wether AA failing? Really?
But that means CBS All Access will not have the full weight of the merged CBS/Viacom company behind it.
I don't think many people would do the same thing. Excepts prove the rule.
I was using the word ''me as a consumer'' in a more metaphorical sense, I myself actually like the backroom stuff, but what if I didn't, because of a lot of consumers won't care. I like weird show business stuff, but a lot of consumers do not care about it.
I just think Star Trek would reach more people if it was on a more popular streaming service, that's it.
I don't think CBS has the size to be this conservative, to that me that is the play that would work for a titan like Disney, Disney is the huge mega-company that can ride things and rely on nostalgia IP, not CBS. This conservative approach may work if they had the combined CBS/Viacom assets on All Access, but if they don't, I think they will have to be the smaller scrappy company that takes risks, they are not the big player online that they were in the TV world, to an extent they are playing a new ball game and they have to learn the new rules rather than trying to play by their old ones, that is all.
Look at CBS' sister company Viacom, I think they lost a lot because they overvalued themselves, took an overly conservative approach that did not fit with their smaller size. The owners of Viacom had disdain for the digital realm for a long time, which is why they fell behind in the streaming realm and have to team up with players like Netflix now. Heck, I think the split of CBS and Viacom back in 2006 was likely a boneheaded move that hurt them in the long run.
Being the highest rate Network in America will soon mean nothing, so CBS should go to back square one and rethink things, rather than thinking they can just take their old model business, just put it online.
For CBS All Access ending, I just don't these programs to get canceled on a cliffhanger if All Access gets canceled, that's all.
It does? Based upon...what, exactly? Because they haven't done it yet? Because, business mergers are slow, contractual things.
Well, we all know about how you feel about anecdotal evidence.
So, ultimately, not germaine to the conversation?
You're right.
And they probably won't.
Takes me back to 1990. ALF ended on a cliffhanger, then it took six years to find out what happened next, through a TV Movie. 
So far DSC's seasons have ended in such a way that there's room to continue but the series could've stopped there if necessary. Swap out the Enterprise scene with the deleted S31 scene with Georgiou, and DSC could've theoretically ended at Season 1 with a certain sense of closure. Of course, I'm glad that didn't happen.
So far DSC's seasons have ended in such a way that there's room to continue but the series could've stopped there if necessary. Swap out the Enterprise scene with the deleted S31 scene with Georgiou, and DSC could've theoretically ended at Season 1 with a certain sense of closure. Of course, I'm glad that didn't happen.
Last edited:
Well, I think Mandalorians will have a bigger audience then Discovery because it is on a bigger platform. I would rather Star Trek have the biggest audience it could possibly have.
Okay, here is an interesting article about the fall of Viacom, which touches upon the CBS merger:
https://redef.com/original/archive-update-why-viacom-fell-and-why-it-can-come-back
Viacom being too conservative and not willing to change with the times (along with that boneheaded split in 2006) really hurt it in the long run.
There is one paragraph that is really relevant here:
''That doesn’t mean the future is clear or simple, or just about being different. ViacomCBS will ultimately need to decide whether it’s in the network TV business, the OTT D2C video business, or the content supplier (or “arms dealer”) business. It can’t prioritize three different channels with three different business models, especially when they will often want the same (and ViacomCBS’ most valuable) content (e.g. Star Trek: Discovery, the Jack Ryan TV series, the Mission Impossible films). The combined company will also needs to rationalize (and bundle) its ever-expanding roster of OTT video assets, which now includes Showtime, CBS All Access, MTV, Noggin, BET+, and PlutoTV. In 2022, CBS’s most important rights deal (NFL) will also come up for renewal. And fending off tech giants like Amazon will take more than money – CBS will likely need to offer the NFL a fundamentally overhauled digital viewing experience (not Twitch exactly, but something that looks more like it than CBS via antenna).''
They do not have the NFL forever, someone could outbid CBS in 2022. What CBS/Viacom needs is a combined vision, if CBS wants to be a player in its own right and Viacom wants to sell its content to other players, this combined entity has a confused strategy.
Viacom went with the conservative play and it hurt them in the long run, maybe being conservative is a luxury CBS can't afford, if Viacom is just to sell its assets to others to make cash, CBS will have to be really creative to get a better edge, not be conservative to the point of being static.
South Park is going to HBO and almost everything from Nickelodeon is going on Netflix, so CBS/Viacom as a merged company is not putting its full weight behind CBS All Access, does it? The full weight would mean almost all the assets after they merge would be on All Access, what if any, Viacom content would be on CBS All Access after the merger? Viacom sold 2 of its crown jewels already, what is left for CBS All Access after the merge?
Most consumers will not care about these backroom deals. If someone loves South Park, they are more likely to get HBO Max over CBS All Access, if someone has kids that love Nickelodeon stuff, Netflix would be more appealing than All Access, I just described consumers who care more about what is on which service, rather than caring what backroom deal lead to it being there and I just am interested in the backroom stuff, doesn't mean that affects my consumer choices in streaming services
The Fox content was already on Hulu, because Fox owned a share of Hulu. When Disney acquired Fox, it acquired that stake too. If Disney+ had existed before the merger, Fox content would not have been on it.
Honestly, all of this doesn't matter until the merger happens. It's entirely possible it might not. It's just academic at this point.
And if someone loves Star Trek or NCIS more, they're more likely to get CBSAA over HBOMax. It works both ways.
Exactly! That's the point. Consumers will buy what appeals to them. So, you want Trek to expand to the widest audience? Well, now the person doesn't have to worry about tuning in, recording it, or trying to catch it. They can subscribe to the service and give it a go.
What is constantly being described is consumer choice and that CBS isn't your choice. That doesn't make it no one's choice. Quite the opposite. We have such parity in the streaming market that consumers can choose to try multiple networks and services at different times.
Quite right, article. The future is neither clear or simple, and that's the point. We are running our mouths about things that we have limited information about. So, all speculation is just that. Convinced that CBS AA is going too conservative this thread has decided that it is doomed, and somehow that means Star Trek is canceled, ending on a cliffhanger, and a generally dissatisfied audience.
It's all rather black and white it seems. And it makes no sense.
I thought its mostly a done deal at this point.
Maybe CBS and Viacom could have had a better-united front if they had not split in the first place, I think these companies are the smallest of the big media players because a lot of stupid things the Redstones and the greedy execs did at the time.
And if someone loves South Park, Star Trek and NCIS, a service with the combined CBS/Viacom's assets would have no brainer, wouldn't it? Now they may choose CBS All Access or maybe they choose HBO Max instead. Same deal with Netflix, they got a better lock on the kids market then CBS All Access does with the Nickelodeon content.
Except people can just ditch a service and not pick it up again unless it can add a lot of new content from somewhere or really innovates somehow. You do realize there a ton of failed streaming services, correct?
You keep on saying CBS approach is a conservative one, but why is that is a good approach for a smaller company, rather than a titan like Disney? I think smaller companies have to be more lean, quick, nimble and willing to experiment, I think being conservative is a luxury that megacorps like Disney can afford, not CBS, their too small for that to work for them.
It makes sense if its sister company Viacom crashed and burned for being too conservative and not changing fast enough.
And frankly I think you are trying to strawman my arguments, I just want Star Trek to be run that truly innovates, rather then a company that is so conservative that it seems like it just to take its old business model and putting it online, rather than actually being truly creative and innovative, I think that is a fair criticism.
You are one who constantly calls CBS conservative, your description of them makes them seem like some old out of touch dinosaur that can't decide either it wants a service that targets a niche or wants to engage in a mass appeal campaign as Disney does or an actual targeted campaign. You make it seem like their plans are incoherent. No offense, but that is the vibe you are presenting for them.
Thinking that old Survivor episodes is a selling point, sounds really out of touch, IMO. Like tone-deaf out of touch. No offense to anyone who likes that, but that seems like one of the smallest demographic appeals I think of, I do not think that is a selling point to anyone but a small handful of people. I am not trying to insult you or your brother, but that comes off as the smallest niche thing ever and CBS executives who think this is a selling point come off as out of touch 87-year-old men who still think kids watch VHS tapes.
Last edited:
Mostly a done deal still isn't a done deal.
And if Viacom shows were on CBS All Access, they might still chose HBOMax, because of Game of Thrones, or Friends, or The Big Bang Theory. There's no guarantee that anyone will pick any streaming service. And so what if Netflix has the kids market? One - so does Disney+, with everything Disney, and HBOMax, with Sesame Street. And two - you know there's a lot of people who don't have kids, right? Or at least not young ones. They'll be looking for more grown-up fare, and what do you know, CBS All Access has that!
Similar threads
