Really? I am wholly aware that CBS charges a monthly fee. $9.99 a month on my end, using the commercial free plan. I’m aware of all the services I pay for.
Last edited:
Will CBS All Access Remain Viable in the Streaming Wars?
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Really? I am wholly aware that CBS charges a monthly fee. $9.99 a month on my end, using the commercial free plan. I’m aware of all the services I pay for.
Nope. Not sure what that has to do with this but no, I don't care what CBS does with their content.
We don't know. CBS doesn't need everyone to subscribe. They are focused on their target audience, just like Disney+ is with nostalgia and kid's programming. Targeted audiences, rather than just "the general public" is becoming more the norm, when people have more power to choose what content they want.
As long as they have three to five million monthly subscribers, they are likely to continue with the service. Unless Viacom gets bought out.
I'm not really sure why this has become a pissing contest about who has better content. The fact is that there is money in it and so long as there is then there will be a product for it. Our perceptions and our opinions of our little corner of the market doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. People pay for it, so the product exists. Doesn't really matter if one is better than the other or one has more content or one has a better business model. So long as enough people subscribe, it will exist.
Again, not going to argue in circles with you again, but I do not think you have made a compelling case for that strategy in regards to CBS. We are not going to convince each other unless you or I have a new argument, there is nothing the 2 of us can debate at this point, that won't stop me from making my points in general on this thread.
And products never fail? There have been a lot of failures in the streaming market.
I think if Viacom believed in CBS All Access and put its weight behind it, I would be more convinced that CBS/Viacom was willing to put their best effort into this service.
Considering the merger isn’t even done yet, it is hard to know what the future holds.
Already covered that.
Sure it can fail, but the fact is right now it isn't. "As long as there is money, there will be a service." Not really sure why there is an expectation that it will fail simply because other products exist that some consider better. None of that matters as long as people continue to pay for it. We can believe whatever we want to, but again, and I cannot say this enough, as long as people pay for it, it will exist. And right now, people are paying for it.
Pretty much.
Exactly so. The business model isn't "get all the people!" It's "get enough people." We no longer live in a day and age where you have primetime programming slots and compete for people's attention. Now, people can purchase the content they want and watch it at their leisure.
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
I'm not trying to convince you. That's a rather fruitless endeavor. Nor am I trying to silence you-that's a rather strange assumption.
I am participating in discussion. And I can only work with the information that I know, which is that CBS continues to put money in to AA, meaning that there is some confidence. I have no idea why different programing isn't on there. But, at this point, I am highly suspicious of the "lack of confidence argument" that keeps getting laid out here with no proof. Just assumptions.
Viacom is selling its content to other players, not CBS All Access, while CBS and Viacom were discussing a merger, so either CBS could not convince Viacom make CBS All Access the exclusive home for Viacom content or CBS All Access doesn't think it has to put that content there, mainly CBS/Viacom is not putting its best effort forward in this service.
I think CBS All Access would be more impressive if CBS was able to convince someone else to put their content on it.
Pretty much.
Exactly so. The business model isn't "get all the people!" It's "get enough people." We no longer live in a day and age where you have primetime programming slots and compete for people's attention. Now, people can purchase the content they want and watch it at their leisure.
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
I'm not trying to convince you. That's a rather fruitless endeavor. Nor am I trying to silence you-that's a rather strange assumption.
I am participating in discussion. And I can only work with the information that I know, which is that CBS continues to put money in to AA, meaning that there is some confidence. I have no idea why different programing isn't on there. But, at this point, I am highly suspicious of the "lack of confidence argument" that keeps getting laid out here with no proof. Just assumptions.
I am just saying we argued I circles for a day, unless either us have new arguments, there is no real point in direct debate between the us, just because it is a kinda pointless time sink. Nothing personal, but arguing in circles is boring after a while.
You say I have no proof for my claims, but you have no proof that CBS' business plan for CBS All Access is a good one, so what is there left to discuss between the 2 us that is new? You can say CBS puts money into CBS All Access and I can bring up a million streaming services that a company supported, until they failed at the end (Crackle, Playstation Vue, that Yahoo Service), saying CBS is putting money into it is not proof it is a good investment in the long term, IMO, do you have a new point or should simply agree to disagree on this point? Lots of Hollywood companies screw up and mismanage their money (failed franchises like the new Terminator movie from Paramount, Disney mishandling the Star Wars movies by releasing too many too quickly, Warenr Brothers mishandling the DCEU for a long while from 2013 to 2017, resulting in Justice League being a huge money pit), so saying CBS knows what is doing is not a good assumption to make, IMO.
You can argue your points on this thread, but I do not see the point in further direct debate between us on this topic, unless either of us have different arguments that breaks the circle.
Last edited:
I think you are undervaluing CBS Sports content. Rights to certain events and individual games are usually exclusive to a particular network, currently CBS has rights to the NCAA Basketball tournament, the SEC (college football) and the NFL - so that content would be unavailable on ESPN. Perhaps you are unaware as a Canadian, but I promise you in the US there are more eyeballs interested in those than a bunch of genre TV shows. As it happens, a lot of sports content is being further Balkinized because people are willing to pay extra for specific sports streaming services.
You can step away. I'm enjoying the discussion, but I'll leave it up to you at this point.
I think that there is a devaluation of CBS' content in this argumentation. That somehow CBS' library is so valueless to people out there that it automatically equates to a failing system. To me, that is a begging of the question, and assuming that because some people won't pay money for it then it must be failing.
That's the assumption I struggle with. I don't CBS is handling it perfectly and I don't think they will. But, I also don't think they will fail, and I think that value is truly in the eye of the beholder, since CBS content is not designed to appeal to everyone, just like other services.
I just thought we were arguing in circles for a while, so I would rather not rehash the same argument we had, over and over again.
Here's a thing, I do not like network TV, I think it's being terrible for a long time and it survives mostly by being comfort food, rather than being actually good. I do not think Network TV is of the same quality as more premium stuff you see on cable or the best of the original streaming content. Something like ''God Friended Me'' sounds like it would be as about appealing as a root canal to me. That sounds like stuff made by a committee to be as generic and by the numbers appealing as possible, not a daring attempt to target a specialized audience.
This why I think this kinda a rip off for Trek fans, Star Trek is being bundled with a lot of stuff I think a lot of people not think is worth paying for on its own. You are saying CBS All Access is targetted rather generalized, but who's the target? Its hard to say they have an actual target when their library is full of safe shows that take no real chances. Shudder has a better-defined target then CBS does. I think of this library is filled with stuff that is bland, inoffensive, generic, by the numbers, and is just pap. Where is the target if most of the shows are this safe and by the numbers?
There is no focus on getting or making real premium quality content. I like Star Trek, but I like other stuff, would CBS All Access create something like The Wire or Breaking Bad? You can say maybe they will, I have not seen them take those steps yet, they seem to be playing things as safe they can and that's what they did with UPN, rely on Star Trek to carry, but not invent in real quality shows to see it through. I like Star Trek, but I think more than that and just a bunch of stuff that is already on TV or syndication or is safe by the numbers Network content, to make a streaming service that is worth an asking price for.
And you say Disney does not have that level of quality of content on their service and I would agree, but I think they can get away with coasting, they got the kids and nerd demographics sowed up, CBS All Access seems to have almost nothing for kids and Disney has both Star Wars and Marvel, they are going to get more nerds then just Star Trek on its own will. Disney can afford to coast, I do not think CBS has that luxury and how much of this CBS content is exclusive to CBS All Access? Are they just streaming stuff that can be gotten elsewhere (Netflix has the old Star Trek content)? It seems like they do not even make their library exclusive to CBS All Access. Are they asking for a fee just for the new Star Trek stuff, the Good Fight, and The Twilight Zone?
For 13 bucks, Disney is going bundle Disney plus, Hulu and ESPN for 13 dollars, so that would be 3 dollars more than CBS's asking price for the noncommercial service and that have all the ABC and Fox Network libraries and a million other things.
If ABC or NBC launched a service with only their Network content and few new shows, I would not think that be worth paying for.
If Peacock just had NBC content and a few new shows, I would say it's not worth it, if its all NBC stuff, the US Network Stuff, the Univeral film library, sci-fi, the Dreamworks stuff, etc, now you are casting a bigger net and now I think you have something worth the money.
Here's the thing, you like CBS's content right? But would you be bothered if it's a streaming service that appealed to more people, rather trying to make it on its own?
I think there is a glut in the streaming market and I think in the end some of the losers will have to join together, I do not think the market can handle everyone and their brother charging for a streaming service. I think it's better just having CBS content be part of a larger content library, rather than trying to stand on its own.
People who don't want change. People who want safe, familiar programing that takes no risks, maybe plays around with familiar properties, and provides it consistently. And sports. People like their sports.
Here's the thing. It's not valuable-to you. It is to others, sufficient that CBS is content with current production. That doesn't mean its perfect or they are handling the best way (I doubt it-no business does) or that I think they have some magical master plan. I think they'll do the business thing. Whether that is a good thing is in the eye of the beholder.
And, you are probably right that after this glut of services goes out, there will be some losers. And CBS might lose. They might not. I don't know, and I won't pretend to know.
My larger question remains-if AA fails why does it matter? Are we so convinced that if AA fails that CBS just washes its hands of Trek? Really!? Because I find that hard to believe. Even when UPN failed we had a Trek movie within four years. I saw a random article that stated that Paramount is working on finalizing negotiations with a new writer/director for another Star Trek film, not Tarantino (thankfully!).
So, my question truly is what is the worst case scenario if CBS fails in the streaming market?
ETA: Just to be clear this is not meant to be as argumentative as it reads at first. I am genuinely curious were the anxiety comes from regarding CBS' failure in this streaming market.
I do not like that on principle, more art by a committee rather than creators to maintain this status quo that has long served its purpose, while others will make more daring creative-driven content, CBS will make a home for bland, by the numbers content, thrown out by the network assembly line. That sounds like everything I dislike about modern Network TV combined into a nutshell.
I think that is a strategy that will fail, I think it deserves to fail, I hope it fails if its just art by committee forever, I despise that. That is the model of the past and frankly, it belongs in the past. Disney can coast, that's a luxury CBS cannot afford.
I think in this era, creative entities who do not take real chances do not grow and really trying to maintain the nostalgia-based ''golden era'' of inoffensive Network TV alive online, its trying to keep something that no longer serves a creative purpose alive forever, it sounds driven by nostalgia for the network era, than an actual creative vision.
I just happen to like the current shows and rather not have to be canceled due to CBS having a bad plan for streaming.
I rather the creators of the show let a show end on their terms, rather than shows be canceled due to corporate mismanagement, that's all.
I hope if CBS All Access is not working, CBS quickly changes gears and makes a deal to continue these shows and host themselves where that's all.
The business model you are describing sounds like something I would oppose in general, I do not like Disney doing this, but they can get away with it, I do not think CBS can.
You may not. I may not. But, there is a lot of people who do want that. Is it big enough? Time will tell. But, nostalgia is a huge seller right now and a network promising nostalgia, safety, security and familiarity is going to go far.
The problem is what you describing is coasting by comfort food, I am not even sure CBS All Access even has the best comfort food.
Disney would sow up more nostalgia based viewers with Star Wars, Marvel, their film library, etc. The most popular comfort food shows that were on Netflix were Friends and the Office and HBO is getting Friends, while Peacock is getting Office. HBO has Friends and a million other things, if Peacock only has NBC stuff, I would say they have the same problem CBS All Access if Universal throws everything behind it or even more stuff then CBS has (like the Universal films) would give it an edge.
And heck one of these bigger players could buy the sports rights CBS has, later on, CBS cannot coast on that either.
There is nothing wrong with comfort food per say, but CBS All Access being comfort food and nothing else, is going to backfire in the long run, IMO. Also, does CBS All Access even have the exclusive rights to their own library of content? If not, what are they offering outside of the new Star Trek and a few new shows?
I think would really foolish if their strategy was ''while others are making daring creative-driven content, we have the largest selection of by the numbers, by committee content of any online streaming services? Disney will have CBS beat in terms of comfort food, any day of the week and something HBO will offer comfort food and a million other things.
Not only do I think this is creatively bankrupt, I think its a bad play for a company like CBS, CBS is smaller than these other players, so they should take more risks to stand out, trying to play the comfort food game with Disney is CBS trying to match a tank with a butter knife.
You say CBS has targeted strategy rather a mass appeal one, but when you say their target is people like stuff that is creative safe no risk content, everyone is already doing at in one way or another, that is not unique, it's not a real target. Netflix has Fuller House for God's sake. To be targeted means you need to fill a unique niche, not just do what everyone else will do. Everyone is going to have comfort food, but I think only a player like Disney can coast with just comfort food.
I do not get Netflix for Fuller House, but I can see a lot of people who get it for that show. I wouldn\t have it if all it offered was Fuller House and shows like it.
Something like Shudder is targeted because it appeals to horror fans, its a unique niche. Targeted strategies only work, if they are a unique niche.
They have to do more than comfort food, I think that will be a big loser for them in the end.
Last edited:
I don't think you understand how mergers work. Up until everything is signed and the companies are officially merged, they are required to continue operations as normal. They still greenlight projects and negotiate deals. For all they know, the merger will fall apart, or the government will stop it. They have to be prepared for it to not happen.
If you don't like network TV, that's fine. But there's a lot of people who do - including me. That's why I signed up for CBSAA long before Discovery even premiered, to watch CBS shows. I found value in it. Clearly there are plenty of others who do, or else CBSAA would have fallen apart a long time ago. If you don't want it, there's a simple solution - don't subscribe.
Masiral has a great point. Others find value in it. And that's all that matters is that enough people find that value and are willing to subscribe.
Right now, we live in nostalgia time. We have multiple properties being reinvented, rebooted, as well as just flat out marketing nostalgic properties without any transformation.
Some may not find value in that-that's fine. But, it's clearly a much larger market than anyone will give it credit for. In the long run it might fail. But, it's not there yet.
Similar threads
