Will CBS All Access Remain Viable in the Streaming Wars?

[The Overlord]

A streaming service really only needs a few shows a customer wants to see to make them cough up the money, so CBS not having the biggest library isn't a problem as long as they have enough worthwhile content.
I don't see why being in fifth place would be a problem as long as the service makes a profit, not being number 1 (or 2) is not a failure and being in control of Star Trek for example does have huge advantages, they're not at another company's mercy when it comes to renewals, no clauses in contracts that stops them from putting the show elsewhere etc.

But that Variety article made an argument that the streaming wars may be more cutthroat and more of a zero-sum game than people here are willing to admit and mentioned scale is important.

A family that signs up for Disney Plus or a couple that signs up for HBO Max, may not want to pay for CBS All Access as well There is more direct competition here in terms of streaming dollars.

Now there is no guarantee CBS/Viacom will be a loser in the streaming war, but there is no big reason to see them as a winner at the moment as well unless as a merged company, they present a more coherent strategy.

 

[fireproof78]

There isn't the long term aspect though, like cable packages. A family may opt to have HBO max for X number of months and then switch.

 

[Takeru]

A family that signs up for Disney Plus or a couple that signs up for HBO Max, may not want to pay for CBS All Access as well There is more direct competition here in terms of streaming dollars.

The keyword here is "may". They may want to pay for CBS All Access too if what they get is worth the money to them or they may cancel Disney+ when whatever they watched is over and switch to CBSAA for a few months before cancelling that and going on a two month Netflix binge. There are no long running contracts with streaming services, people can rotate their subscriptions and only ever have one or two active at a time while still getting content from all of them.

 

[Alan Roi]

But what's the logic behind the idea that CBS does not need to be a big player when the big players are direct competition. when the other big players are CBS's competition? This variety article says the streaming wars will be really cutthroat and a zero-sum game.

https://variety.com/2019/biz/featur...s-netflix-hbo-max-apple-tv-amazon-1203439700/

And this article says Disney is willing to play hardball against CBS/Viacom when it comes to sports.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dbloom...-about-disney-viacomcbs-mergers/#4d33e8dd3046

The amount of money consumers will pay for streaming is not infinite and it seems like there will be winners and losers.

I think CBS/Viacom will have to pick a path and stick with it, either putting all its effort into making CBS All Access the best it can be (which means content from all over the company, not just CBS and be exclusive), sell its wares to third parties and solely be an arms dealer in the streaming wars or sell itself to a different bigger company to get more resources to stay in the game long term.

CBS trying to be a player and Viacom trying to be an arms dealer does not work, it's very confused.

ViacomCBS just merged. I'm sure we'll see what happens soon enough. They just, however, bought a 49% stake in Miramax and exclusive distribution of its properties, so it looks like the company is looking at adding content not selling it off.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

I know I'm in the small minority and have taken on-line punches for my view, but I resent CBS holding Star Trek on their streaming services only. If the show played on network TV, I would be much more likely to buy the streaming service, but because they hold it close to their vest, I basically decide not to play their game.

My feeling is that a major network like CBS has a huge advantage that they don't capitalize on. One of the great memories I have of Star Trek and many other shows is having a specific time to tune into these shows. Even now, the few shows I watch are all on NBC and I tune into them and only watch on stream when I miss them on TV. NBC does not charge for me to catch up on these shows (The Voice and Meet the Press, for instance), but if they did, I would be willing to pay 5 bucks (maybe more) per month to have the freedom to watch these when I miss the schedule due to another commitment.

If CBS were to ever want my advice (and I have been reminded many times that they don't) I would suggest a strategy of trying to lure people with best content simultaneously on stream and on-air. And, then give many advantages and perks to those who subscribe. They could sucker me in so easily if the shows I liked were available on TV for free and on stream (computer and phone) for a reasonable fee.

 

[fireproof78]

The keyword here is "may". They may want to pay for CBS All Access too if what they get is worth the money to them or they may cancel Disney+ when whatever they watched is over and switch to CBSAA for a few months before cancelling that and going on a two month Netflix binge. There are no long running contracts with streaming services, people can rotate their subscriptions and only ever have one or two active at a time while still getting content from all of them.

Exactly. With the market circulating content faster and faster people are more likely to jump service to service depending on what they want to watch.

They could sucker me in so easily if the shows I liked were available on TV for free and on stream (computer and phone) for a reasonable fee.

And they might recognize that down the line. I know I am one of the few who actually believes companies can make adjustments based upon market trends, and I think that the nostalgia aspect will carry some weight in their figuring.

 

[AlanC9]

The downside of putting all the content up for free is that most of the incentive for buying the streaming service goes away. Paying for a CBS-only TiVo service is too silly for me to contemplate.

Hey, anyone else remember when we all hated cable packages and everybody said they wanted to be able to just buy individual channels? Were we wrong about that, or is it just that we don't like where the price points end up being?

 

[fireproof78]

The downside of putting all the content up for free is that most of the incentive for buying the streaming service goes away. Paying for a CBS-only TiVo service is too silly for me to contemplate.

Hey, anyone else remember when we all hated cable packages and everybody said they wanted to be able to just buy individual channels? Were we wrong about that, or is it just that we don't like where the price points end up being?

It's nostalgia glasses effect. It sounded good when we didn't have it but now that we have it we don't want it and long for the "good old days" when we complained about commercials, and show times.

 

[JD]

Looks like they've started adding some of The Nickelodeon stuff to CBSAA, The Legend of Korra and Same & Cat are both up. They've also added a bunch of other kids cartoons including Heathcliff, Inspector Gadget, and two versions of Danger Mouse.

 

[Alan Roi]

Exactly. With the market circulating content faster and faster people are more likely to jump service to service depending on what they want to watch.

And they might recognize that down the line. I know I am one of the few who actually believes companies can make adjustments based upon market trends, and I think that the nostalgia aspect will carry some weight in their figuring.

For anyone like me, and I suspect a lot of people in the younger age brackets, nostalgia is the last thing on the mind. I watch mostly just genre shows and that alone accounts for 20+ hours a week of new content with 3 new streaming services joining the field in a couple months to add to that. Anyone who isn't a nostalgist or who doesn't have a really narrow range of interest, really wouldn't see value in back catalogs or devotion to any one streaming service in particular.

 

[Masiral]

For anyone like me, and I suspect a lot of people in the younger age brackets, nostalgia is the last thing on the mind. I watch mostly just genre shows and that alone accounts for 20+ hours a week of new content with 3 new streaming services joining the field in a couple months to add to that. Anyone who isn't a nostalgist or who doesn't have a really narrow range of interest, really wouldn't see value in back catalogs or devotion to any one streaming service in particular.

Disney+ is about 95% nostalgia, and the younger age brackets are going crazy for it. Friends and The Office were some of the most popular shows on Netflix, which is why many millions of dollars were being spent to license them. Back catalogs are definitely a thing.

 

[fireproof78]

I can subscribe and unsubscribe at will. I see no issue in this.

 

[Danja]

CBS All Access gets ready for major revamp:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...gets-ready-for-a-major-revamp-under-viacomcbs

 

[CaptainXaviOfEarth]

I reckon they do a completely free with more ads version and then change the $10 a month version to include everything (Showtime, and all films and series).

 

[Ralphis]

Welp... new ViacomCBS streaming service coming...

EDIT: I guess it's actually just taking CBS All Access and adding some needed meat to it (Showtime, Paramount TV, Nick, etc.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/via...MVMKiS2lYVdoa-WA3YN7OvaAlbCFiI-FqKrHfh08K_iD4

 

[The Overlord]

CBS All Access gets ready for major revamp:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...gets-ready-for-a-major-revamp-under-viacomcbs

This is pretty well what I said they have to do to thrive in today's streaming market. I wonder how this is will affect their deal with Netflix.

 

[Alan Roi]

This is pretty well what I said they have to do to thrive in today's streaming market. I wonder how this is will affect their deal with Netflix.

It was guaranteed to happen once the remerger with Viacom was finalized. The age of Network TV and Cable has a foot in its collective gravegrave. Streaming is the future.

 

[BillJ]

...I basically decide not to play their game.

What game? CBS is beholden to its shareholders to get the best bang for its buck. They see All-Access with Star Trek as its flagship doing that. I can see not wanting to shell out cash for it, fuck I don't want to shell out cash for it. But it is what it is.

Heck, in three or four weeks, you could order a month of All-Access and have access to three different "new to you" seasons of Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

Hey, anyone else remember when we all hated cable packages and everybody said they wanted to be able to just buy individual channels? Were we wrong about that, or is it just that we don't like where the price points end up being?

Guessing a lot of folks have learned that the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Me? I pay for what I want and am happy with having options that are incredibly flexible.

 

[fireproof78]

Welp... new ViacomCBS streaming service coming...

EDIT: I guess it's actually just taking CBS All Access and adding some needed meat to it (Showtime, Paramount TV, Nick, etc.)

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/06/via...MVMKiS2lYVdoa-WA3YN7OvaAlbCFiI-FqKrHfh08K_iD4

Good for them. It's almost as if they know how to plan things out.