[Christopher Halsey]

You can view the article at https://ufplanets.com/content.php?749-CBS

[O'Neill]

The fact that CBS has made the new series exclusive to their online streaming service has made me lose confidence in what the executives are doing. Then again, I've lost confidence in all television executives regardless of network for the past few years already.

[vonLuden]

It may be because I read Mad Magazine in the 1960s, but the idea of having confidence in TV executives strikes me as ridiculous.

[Christopher Halsey]

The fact that CBS has made the new series exclusive to their online streaming service has made me lose confidence in what the executives are doing.

To some extent I do get their decision. If I had a digital streaming platform then I would probably use the content I owned to try and drive people towards it. Star Trek is one of the biggest brands that they have so it would make sense for them to use it to try and get people to subscribe. If you are going to go in to the business of trying to put a subscription pay wall around your content then you aren't going to leave out some of your most lucrative content.

That said I don't see why they couldn't just sell it to another streaming service, there are enough out there already, I'm sure Netflix or Hulu would consider paying for CBS' content, they might not make as much money initially but it would mean more people could watch their shows which would make their properties more valuable and result in more merchandising sales, it would also eliminate all of the costs of setting up, maintaining, updating and running their own streaming service.

CBS All Access, a service I admittedly have not tried, seems to be a solution to a problem no-one had. From the perspective of a consumer I don't understand how it's existence makes things better. The biggest benefit of services like Netflix is that you can go so much content in one place rather than having to switch between hundreds of different channels and paying money to dozens of different operators, now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon with subscription streaming services that we're heading back to where we started.

[Bar'ol]

Gene wouldnt agree. Guarantee it.

[Sysil]

That said I don't see why they couldn't just sell it to another streaming service, there are enough out there already, I'm sure Netflix or Hulu would consider paying for CBS' content, they might not make as much money initially but it would mean more people could watch their shows which would make their properties more valuable and result in more merchandising sales, it would also eliminate all of the costs of setting up, maintaining, updating and running their own streaming service.

CBS All Access, a service I admittedly have not tried, seems to be a solution to a problem no-one had. From the perspective of a consumer I don't understand how it's existence makes things better. The biggest benefit of services like Netflix is that you can go so much content in one place rather than having to switch between hundreds of different channels and paying money to dozens of different operators, now everyone is jumping on the bandwagon with subscription streaming services that we're heading back to where we started.

CBS only wants to do what HBO is doing with Game of Thrones and Netflix is doing with it's various successful series. A big name (Star Trek) and an exclusive network is not the key to success. They have to make the effort to make a good series, which is a lot harder to pull off.

[Christopher Halsey]

I agree Sysil. It's something the consumer doesn't want and it's something that is massively reducing CBS' viewers not increasing them.

[O'Neill]

I agree Sysil. It's something the consumer doesn't want and it's something that is massively reducing CBS' viewers not increasing them.

I am among those consumers. What CBS is doing appears to be motivated by greed, to me at least. I understand they are a business and have to make a profit but they are pushing the envelope here. Streaming sites like Hulu gives subscribers access to new episodes the day the said episode airs on tv and people who watch for free would be able to watch it at a later date depending on which show it is. The thing I like about Hulu is that even though there is a subscription to watch episodes there is an option for people to watch it for free at a later time. As long as I am able to watch any episodes for free, I don't mind waiting.

Seems like everyone everywhere is trying to run their own version of a popular service. While competition can be healthy, it can get toxic if there's too much of something and consumers may simply give up trying to figure out which service is right for them.

[Silynn]

CBS All Access is currently $5.99 (US) per month. Now Netflix is $8.99 (US) per month. For the most part, the commercial and advertisement free content is worth it if you are not paying for a full cable/satellite TV package (over $100 per month not including the added fees you pay). I didn't include Hulu, as you pay $7.99 (US) per month but you get advertisements. If I'm going to pay for streaming, I want it add free. Advertisements take up bandwidth.

With that said, I don't know... I'm kind of on the fence. What else does CBS All Access offer that I'd like? Would I get it *just* for Star Trek? Probably Not.

My concern is that this new Star Trek series has the same ending as Firefly. A totally great and wonderful show... absolutely adored and loved by fans, yet the "TV Execs" decide to kill the show due to 'low ratings" or "low streaming". I understand that studios/networks are out for profit, but when you limit the distribution (or time slot) you are putting yourself at a huge disadvantage in the long run.

TNG was a huge resurgence for Star Trek fandom for a new generation. Look how that went and what it spawned in relation to TV spin-offs, movies, books, etc.

I guess TV Executives don't look at things that far down the line... they probably only see that fiscal year's profits and how much of a bonus they will get that year.

[Christopher Halsey]

Seems like everyone everywhere is trying to run their own version of a popular service. While competition can be healthy, it can get toxic if there's too much of something and consumers may simply give up trying to figure out which service is right for them.

I definitely think that is going to be a problem. The more streaming services there are, each with shows that have as exclusives, just means consumers will have to sign up to more and more services to access the content they want, Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix are convenient for customers as you can access a lot of content and your subscription gives you access to a huge range of content.

The more competing services there are the less convenient it all becomes for the consumer as the more fragmented content becomes which is likely going to mean consumers picking one or two services that offer the best value or the most shows they like (which is unlikely to ever be CBS when you look at the catalogue Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix have) or they are going to watch the shows via other means where the producers don't make any money.

[Christopher Halsey]

CBS All Access is currently $5.99 (US) per month. Now Netflix is $8.99 (US) per month. For the most part, the commercial and advertisement free content is worth it if you are not paying for a full cable/satellite TV package (over $100 per month not including the added fees you pay). I didn't include Hulu, as you pay $7.99 (US) per month but you get advertisements. If I'm going to pay for streaming, I want it add free. Advertisements take up bandwidth.

Definitely agree that if I am paying a premium for a service I don't want to be having to watch adverts as well. Surely they can make a decent profit either by charging customers or by selling advertising spaces. Both seems like overkill. I know that is basically the case with a number of TV channels/packages (you pay for certain channels from the providers of those channels but they still feature advertising) but for subscription streaming I've been spoiled by Amazon Prime and Netflix, I pay them for the content I want and they don't make me watch adverts.

I believe CBS All Access is free of advertising (correct me if I am wrong) so that is one thing but still I can get access to a far larger (and in my opinion far better) catalogue of content for a similar price.

With that said, I don't know... I'm kind of on the fence. What else does CBS All Access offer that I'd like? Would I get it *just* for Star Trek? Probably Not.

I'm in a similar position. CBS doesn't really make anything else I would want to watch, certainly not enough to pay a monthly subscription at any rate. If I were in a position of the only way of being able to watch the new Star Trek as soon as it came out was to pay a monthly subscription I would just wait until I can watch it elsewhere.