Today, ViacomCBS—which controls the Star Trek franchise on film and television—reported their earnings for the first quarter of 2020, with $6.7 billion in revenue. While the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on theatrical release revenue and sports advertising, the overall financial results were ahead of Wall Street expectations and the stock jumped up 15% in early morning trading.
Star Trek helps drive record growth for All Access
ViacomCBS touted their streaming offerings as a highlight for the quarter, with their free Pluto service growing to 24 million active users, which makes it the #1 ad-supported streaming service. ViacomCBS also reported CBS All Access and Showtime OTT paid subscriptions were up 50% from the previous year, to a total of 13.5 million.
Star Trek was mentioned multiple times in the official earnings release related to the company’s streaming performance:
CBS All Access and Showtime OTT delivered record subscribers, sign-ups and consumption, reflecting original programming, including Star Trek: Picard and Homeland… Live TV and original programming, such as Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, The Good Fight and Survivor, drove consumption records in April on CBS All Access, with total streams and minutes watched up significantly.
Plan to expand All Access accelerating, with franchises key part of strategy
CBS All Access has been the home for the new Star Trek series, and even though All Access was an early entry to the streaming world, it is facing growing competition with the launches of Disney+, NBC Universal’s Peacock, and WarnerMedia’s HBO Max. Today, ViacomCBS announced they are accelerating their plans to build a new streaming service based on the All Access platform. This expanded service will take advantage of content from the newly combined ViacomCBS, offering entertainment, news, and sports. Today’s release promised this service will include “on-demand content from across the portfolio, including brands and extensions of iconic IP.”
During an investor call this morning, ViacomCBS CEO Bob Bakish outlined the streaming strategy:
Building off our CBS All Access platform, with major changes coming this summer, as we track towards a rebrand and relaunch of a transformed product. We believe audiences want their product on demand and their news, sports and events live. Through our expanded offering, we will be the service that gives them what they want, how they want it, all in one place, at a great value.
He also got into detail on the content this expanded streaming service will offer:
We start with what All Access has today: CBS Network programming, a very deep CBS on-demand library, and an expanding slate of originals. Add to that content from Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Smithsonian, MTV, BET, and Paramount. This starts with over 100 films launched this week on the platform, along with thousands of hours of TV and film arriving in coming months. And we will build on this incredible base of content with a catalog multiple times greater than many of the new [subscription streaming services], by expanding our original slate across the portfolio…Our biggest franchises will be key to this strategy, as will our broad programming strength across genres. From animation to sci-fi, comedy, reality, kids, crime procedurals, and more…Our originals strategy is designed to leverage our massive library of IP, fueling growth through a consistent and growing cadence of tentpole series.
There were no specifics given on the call regarding how this new service will leverage ViacomCBS’ franchises and brands, but it is already known that they are developing multiple original Star Trek television series, both live-action and animation. We may learn more later in May, when CBS holds their upfront presentations, including one for All Access.
No specific dates were given, but Bakish did reveal how All Access is going to see an upgrade this summer:
You will see a major move this summer, where we will introduce a fundamentally new [user interface] and add substantial content assets. As we do that we are prioritizing franchises and importantly, critical mass in genres, whether it is animation and kids, or crime, etc. for [ViacomCBS owned properties].
Bakish also talked about taking the streaming service global:
Internationally we will launch a broad pay streaming product in multiple markets over the next twelve months. This service will harness the full power of the ViacomCBS portfolio, including a meaningful brand presence in streaming video in key markets around the world.
No news on new Star Trek movie, but more Trek films added to CBS All Access
Today’s earning report and investor call did not discuss much with regards to Paramount Pictures, so there was no news regarding the Star Trek feature film currently in development by Noah Hawley. Theatrical revenue is down 3% from the previous year due to the COVID-19 quarantine, however, overall revenue was up due to increased home entertainment and licensing revenue. Paramount films planned for release this spring and summer have been moved to later dates in 2020 and 2021. ViacomCBS is hoping to return to production on both the film and television side starting in mid-summer.
Today, ViacomCBS also took a step towards leveraging the combined company’s assets by adding over 100 Paramount films to CBS All Access. The service now includes four Star Trek feature films: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Nemesis. Other Paramount library films now available include the Godfather trilogy, Airplane!, Terms of Endearment, Patriot Games, and multiple entries in the Friday the 13th franchise.
Keep up with all the ViaomCBS news at TrekMovie.com.
Ugh, between Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Disney+, NBC Universal’s Peacock, and WarnerMedia’s HBO Max, it’ll cost you more than traditional cable does if you wanted to get all of these services.
I have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. I use my sister’s Disney+ access. I would love to add HBO Max and CBS All Access, but I can’t afford that.
These streaming services need to come together, or use Netflix to show everything (like they do in the rest of the planet).
sisko you’re right, you don’t need to get all of them. It’s all about choice.
Like I said, I have Disney+, and Netflix. Getting HBO Max because I also have HBO Now. Used to have Hulu and Amazon Prime.
These streaming services should be on one platform similar to Netflix because it’ll be too expensive to have it all.
The thing I don’t get with the “too many streaming services” argument is you don’t have to subscribe to every service at the same to use them. Unlike cable, you’re free to take them month to month. I’ll cycle through services, cancelling Netflix while I subscribe to AllAccess, cancelling AllAccess when Trek’s not on, picking up Prime Video for a month to watch The Expanse, etc.
In the long run, media consolidation will likely lead to higher prices and less variety once two or three giant players dominate everything. I’d like to hang on to a wider array of options if at all possible.
Actually Evan it would likely lead to lower prices. It always does.
As would I; I’m thinking about doing the same thing. And I don’t want any consolidation, either.
Let’s run the numbers…
Amazon Prime: $9.92 ($119/yr)
CBS All Access: $5.99
Disney Plus: $6.99
NBC/Universal Peacock: $4.99
HBO Max: $14.99
“The most recent report from the FCC at the time of publication set the nationwide average cost of expanded basic cable TV per month at $64.41. Given the many factors that go into how this average is determined, your exact costs can vary quite a bit. The specific package you choose, your location, and the company that supplies your cable TV all influence your monthly bill. The average price listed by the FCC does not include taxes or other fees, which cause the total price per month to go up.”
Personally, I dumped HBO the moment the end credits on “Game of Thrones” rolled for its astonishingly bad finale. That’s $15 less on my total. I won’t get Peacock unless NBC shows leave Hulu, for another $5 less. So that $61.86/month is more like $41/month for me.
Definitely saving money versus Cable.
You are actually looking at $80 more realistically.
But for me cable is still more worthwhile. I don’t have to deal with terrible interfaces. The controls work a billion times better. The DVR works fantastically great. And when they return I will still get my local teams. None of which are available anywhere but cable. I pay about $120/mo for cable and it absolutely is worth it. The only add on is my personal Netflix account that is about $8 and my friend shares his Netflix streaming with me. The only streaming service I have ever paid for is the two month stretches when CBSAA has a Trek show on. The only other service that I have considered was Amazon as they have some shows I actually would kinda like to see. Unfortunately they do not share their shows with Netflix like Hulu does. So I might cave on that front eventually. But I haven’t yet…
And dropping and adding services all year long… That’s just a hassle I don’t want to have to deal with. I already do that for CBSAA and used my free week of Disney. I don’t want to add to that.
Not really. HD On Directv beats the pants off most streaming services, who typically way overdo the compression algorithms.
That’s strange, because right now (8:12 AM, Toronto time) as I write this, I’m watching Avengers: Endgame on my HD set via Disney+, and it looks amazing as usual. Musts be something with my provider.
I’m keeping Netflix, getting rid of Amazon Prime for HBO Max, then I’ll hold on to CBS and Disney+. That’s all I can do. I give props to Disney for the Hulu/ESPN/Disney+ bundle option but yeah.
HBO Max over Amazon Prime? Seriously?
The Expanse. Nuff said.
But what if you already watched The Expanse? ;)
That’s the point, once you watch something you want to watch you can cancel until later. People are saying what they are dropping and adding, but all of this is temporary because it only takes the next show show or movie you really really want to see to reup again.
All these streaming sites will constantly be adding new content to get (or keep) people’s attention for years and years. In fact I did drop Amazon Prime for about six months a few years ago until the first season of Jack Ryan showed up. I subscribed again to watch it but never cancelled because I started watching other things on it. I still haven’t watched the second season of that OR the new season of The Expanse yet. I’m home practically every day now and I still can’t find the time lol.
I agree with you in general, but you made no attempt to compare Prime to HBO Max, which was my point. HBO Max is lame, from the offerings I have seen to date. Amazon has a huge library as well.
HBO Max hasn’t come out yet, so I’m not sure what’s on it outside of knowing there will be all of HBO, CNN, Warner Bros and other libraries they own. But for someone who owns HBO Now, I’m supposedly getting 10,000 hours of extra content when I switch over to Max for the same price I been paying over a year now; so I’m not being fussy about it.
Wonderful, like I would want to go back and watch the overrated Sopranos crap again, as well as the horrid Westworld or moronic over the top, silly Billions…and I already have all 8 seasons of GOT on Blu-Ray. No thanks. I’d rather have that Showtime streaming service, and that’s not saying much.
Amazon Prime’s content and catalog is vastly superior to HBO’s. I can always find something interesting that I have not seen before on Amazon Prime.
I never seen Sopranos and Billions is on Showtime. Again it’s hard for me to say which one I prefer because I don’t that much about Max yet but will be getting it since I have and love HBO Now. Westworld unfortunately has turned into a mess like Discovery has.
We finally agree on something — I checked out of Westworld awhile back. They have no clue how to plan a good story arc. All bling, no substance.
The business of television is changing drastically and I think it’s a really exciting time to watch the industry evolve. We’re going through a technological boom right now that is really thrilling to me. I’m sort of a hobbyist when it comes to studying the business of TV, I guess. Personally, I love that we’re able to ration services by beginning and ending streaming subscriptions at will. I don’t think that most people are binging shows on more than two or three platforms at a time anyway, so cut em loose and start em up again as you need. Heck, some of these platforms we just have for a single show anyway. Watch it before your free trials runs out. I hardly use HBO-Now, but kept finding things I liked after I finished Game of Thrones and just sort of kept it. I think about getting rid of it all the time and don’t because it just doesn’t cost enough to want to pull the plug.
But, of course there’s infinite diversity in infinite combinations and I don’t know your life.
Any way you look at it, I’ve been thinking for a while, and expect that at some point in the near to near-ish future we will see the dawn of a new platform that incorporates all of these platforms and allows you to bundle them. I expect that will be what keeps Dish Network or DirecTV in business. When that happens though we’ll be heading into the old trap of overpaying for 300 channels while still not having anything to watch.
Well… So far everything that is on HBO has made it to Netflix. If I am patient I will see HBO shows a little less than a year after they appear on HBO. I’ve watched all of GoT (the 8th season is in my cue) and Silicon Valley on Netflix. As well as a handful of others. Hulu shows have also made it to Netflix. So I imagine I will eventually see the 3rd season of The Orville when it gets released the following year. Unfortunately Amazon has been stingy with their content. For the record STD is now available on Netflix. I saw it in a search. So it seems that even CBS shares with Netflix.
Just to confirm: When you talk about Netflix here you are referring to their disk mail order service, not their streaming service, right?
Honestly I’m shocked they are still even doing the disc order. I don’t know a single person who does it anymore. I guess its still doing enough business to keep it going but its telling no other streaming site has ever tried to do it. I think its probably just a small side business for Netflix now.
Just 3 years ago the disc side accounted for 50% of Netfix’ profits. And that was with zero publicity about the service. It still survives.
Honestly I don’t see how? Everyone I know has Netflix and yet NO ONE has the disc service. It’s never advertised or promoted as you said. I’m curious if anyone here has it besides you? Is it offered in all countries that Netflix is in as well?
But if its still going, obviously it makes enough money to keep it going. But I still don’t think it’s that lucrative since no one offers it other than Netflix. I mean you have companies now like Disney who produces all their blu ray and DVDs for their own movies and shows so you would think that could be some kind bonus in addition to the streaming service as well but never seen to been even a thought.
The one company that did DVD rentals was Redbox that use to be very lucrative for them but even they have basically entered the streaming game. You just rent movies on their site these days although they do still have physical sites for DVD rentals.
Can you get DVDs for any movie or show? I remember you said you would wait and see if Discovery would be offered. Is it?
OK, I went and Googled to see what came up and yeah you’re right on one level, its still profitable BUT its pretty tiny revenue wise and nowhere close to their streaming side of things with a pretty small base of subscriber these days. This article lays it out well:
“While 2.7 million subscribers are a far cry from Netflix’s nearly 140 million streaming subscribers, that’s still a surprising number of people who are willing to wait for a DVD to arrive by mail. But there are a few benefits to the service.”
So it sounds like its enough for them to want to keep it going so its good for the people like you who still watches mostly physical media. But Netflix couldn’t even survive today if it did just relied on the rentals like when it first started.
I haven’t checked lately. Even three years ago it said subscribers were receding so it stands to reason the revenue percentage dropped some. However with that it really felt like despite many people claiming otherwise I don’t see the disc service going anywhere for a while. Further as was said below, the disc service costs very little to maintain. And the streaming side has NEVER made money for Netflix. Not since they started the original content at least. I like the discs. It’s cheap. It has a far larger library than the streaming side has. It’s unaffected by the rights deals for other studios content that will eventually get pulled when they all start their own streaming service. All of HBO’s and Hulu’s shows find their way to discs. So that’s two services I don’t need to buy. The discs often have extras you do not get from streaming. And I still find BD quality superior to streaming. The only place where the streaming has a better image is the odd time when they don’t have the BD but the DVD. For example, TNG through Netflix is DVD. Not the upgraded BD’s. But overall it is a very good buy and I highly recommend it.
Netflix’s disc service doesn’t bring in a lot of subscription fees but it’s profitable due to low operating costs.
I guess the question how long Netflix will keep it running depends on how well the disc service costs scale with dwindling subscriber numbers. As subscriptions go down the profit margin may go down as well. At some point Netflix may indeed decide that it’s not worth it anymore. Especially if they can get to a better ratio between investment into content and revenue from subscription fees for their streaming service.
Yea, they will probably discontinue it soon.
(Raises hand) I subscribe to Netflix’s DVD service because it still fits my use-case. Physical discs have extras, like cast commentary; I can do accelerated playback using VLC on my PC; I can do frame-advance. Some shows I want are on Amazon Prime, but on the extra-fee sub-services (e.g., “Warehouse 13” on IMDbTV). There are titles that don’t exist on any streaming service. (As a separate matter, some recent titles have never been released on DVD.)
Phillip, I too enjoy the BD extras. I listen to the commentaries and the BTS bits. Yes, the controls work a billion times better on disc than on streaming. FF, RW, even pause works much better. I get that streaming is the up and coming format but the tech is still not as good as you can get with physical media. Even cable has better controls. The DVR works WAY better than streaming does. So my preference is still cable and discs. That is not to say I am anti streaming. That is coming and the tech will eventually become as good as the DVR or discs. But it’s not here yet.
I get the discs because the library is much greater. I can get shows from most other services so I don’t have to subscribe to other services if I have the Netflix disc service. Only Amazon and ironically Netflix seems to keep their original content to themselves. And there are things I’d like to see on Amazon. I just don’t want to spend the extra money.
Yes. I am talking about the discs. Which is still far more wide ranging than their streaming side. And even things that are gone from streaming due to rights ending still are on the disc side.
You information is really outdated. Very few subscribers to Netflix sill have discs shipped.
ML31 is an old-fashioned boy. haha.
Not as outdated as you might think. Quite a bit still use the service. If it was as low as you think it would not be worthwhile to continue. Besides, there are a lot more advantages that disadvantages to the disc service compared to their streaming.
Remember… Just three years ago the disc service accounted for 50% of Netflix revenues. It couldn’t have gone down THAT much in three years.
@ML31: I think you are confusing revenue and profit. Netflix surpassed 100 million subscribers three years ago whereas the disc service had about 3 million subscribers. So Netflix streaming had about 30 times the revenue of Netflix disc rental.
But you are forgetting that it costs Netflix a ton of money to make and produce their original content. The discs cost them next to nothing. Since they separated the two the streaming side has never made money. For most of Netflix’s existence the disc service has been what was propping them up. The dynamics of this change so we shall see what the future holds however my guess is with the rights fees to so much streaming content ending soon Netflix is going to need the disc side more than ever in the future.
I didn’t forget the costs to create original content. You were misusing terms. Revenue (which is what you were mentioning in your post) means money coming into the company. Netflix’s revenue comes mostly from subscription fees. Since Netflix streaming now has more than 180 million subscribers worldwide their revenue (= money coming in) far outweighs the disc rental service with its probably 2 to 2.5 million subscribers. Streaming revenue is 2 orders of magnitude higher than disc revenue, not 50/50 like you claimed.
If you want to go from revenue to profits you have to account for expenditures. This is where the streaming service really differs from the disc rental service because the streaming service spends all of the incoming money (and apparently even more) on creating original content. On the other hand the disc rental service has low operating costs which is why it is actually turning a profit.
Going forward, Netflix cannot really rely on the disc rental service to bring in money because those subscription numbers keep declining. So even if it stays profitable overall (meaning income > expenditures) those profits will continue to go down. They need to find a better way to balance streaming revenue from subscription fees with investment into content. Or they need to find other revenue streams like licensing for merchandise or releasing some of their original content in theaters or whatever.
Yea, it’s pretty clear that this dude doesn’t understand corporate financial terms very well. He keeps confusing revenue for profit, and his information on the Netflix disc market is way out of date.
Wrong, this “dude” knows exactly what he is talking about. I am not confusing profit and revenue. I know the difference. You speak about things that you know nothing about.
My claim is valid. I read the report 3 years ago. And I said it came 3 years ago. However, while it is possible that ratio has increased towards the streaming side I think it unlikely it has increased all that much. I myself was surprised to hear of the 50% thing 3 years ago. But then when I sat and thought it through it really made a lot of sense. I don’t think the disc side is going anywhere anytime soon. It just makes them too much money to abandon. And again, with the other content providers inevitably getting pulled from Netflix streaming, they are going to need the discs to help them out.
Netflix had 2.1 million subscribers to their disc rental service at the end of 2019 and apparently generated revenue of 297 million in 2019. That’s about 600 thousand subscribers less than one year before. Netflix’s total revenue was 20 billion in 2019. So the disc rental side contributed less than 1.5% to Netflix’s total revenue.
If you want to talk profits: According to Wikipedia, Netflix made 1.867 billion in profits in 2019. That means the disc service now makes up less than 10% of Netflix’s profits.
The disc rental service has lost around 600-700 thousand subscribers per year over the last few years so it’s basically bleeding out.
Yeah the disc service sounds like it will be on its way out in a few years because it’s only losing people, not keeping them. I doubt most people even realize they still have the DVD option because it’s never even advertised these days. And I’m betting a lot of the people dropping the disc service most likely still has the streaming option.
It’s nice that they still have it (and it was the service that created the company) but once it falls under a million subscribers I don’t see the point anymore? Especially when most of those people will keep the streaming service anyway.
For the record, when they split the disc and streaming I opted to keep the disc service because it had the better library to select from. Keeping the discs meant I didn’t have to subscribe to HBO or Hulu. It was absolutely the vastly superior deal. But, for reasons above I don’t think the disc service will be gone any time soon.
I would disagree. If the data was on wikipedia it really should be confirmed. But the fact is Netflix has had a negative cash flow for years according to investors.com, the Hollywood Reporter and a number of others. They are a profitable business lately so it is obvious they are making money through means beyond just subscribers. I suspect from investments and stocks. Also many have claimed that the disc service will be gone a few years for nearly a decade now. Yet it is still here providing a large income that costs very little. So I honestly do not see the disc service going anywhere any time soon.
Look it may not, but same time I don’t think anyone would be shocked the day it is gone too simply because the numbers keep dropping. And clearly the disc service has become less of a priority and more of a side business since its not even advertised anymore. So its clear they don’t see it as that important anymore. And not surprising because its only a few million people using it now.
But that said as long as its making money then its probably fine. No one has hinted it is leaving so that’s a good thing. And there are still people like you who depend on watching media this way so its nice they recognize that. But how long that will last, who knows?
As Spock said… Change is the nature of all things. One day streaming will be replaced with something else.
Well of course. And we’ll move on to that too (if most of us are still alive ;)). For the moment this is the new thing everyone is betting on. We’re only talking about new Trek shows today because of streaming. But yes I imagine in time something new will come.
It will probably be virtual reality embedded into our brains next and we can literally feel like we are on the Enterprise as if we are living the adventure ourselves! I’ll pay an extra $10 for that! :)
As others said, no one have to get ALL of them. It’s just nice that you have options. I had cable for over 20 years and out of the five premium movie channels I only have two of them and cable keeps rising and rising.
The great thing about streaming channels is you can sign up and cancel at any time. Its funny how people act as if they have to sign up to them for a year or something. That’s why they are great options. You like a show like Discovery, you can watch that for a few months and then cancel AA and try another one for a few months if they have a new show or film. You can switch around.
For us we currently have Netflix, Amazon Prime, All Access, Hulu, HBO Now and Disney+. And we only have HBO Now and Hulu for special reasons. We have HBO Now because our cable provider dropped HBO as a network so we decided to get the app when the last season of GOT started and kept it because there are tons of things on it. And we found out HBI Now members will be able to switch to HBO Max for ‘free’ because its the same price. In fact there is now a deal you switch earlier we can get it for $12 a month instead of $15 for a year. So we’ll be paying for less with tons more content. A great deal! ;)
For Hulu, we only signed up because they were offering a Christmas deal for just $1.99 a month for a year. Couldn’t turn that down lol. And its been great.
And I had no plans to get Peacock until I found out there is a free option (basically none of the new programs) so we’re going to get that too just because and then later decide we want to upgrade to the $4.99 price. But all the Law and Order episodes in one place will keep me busy for…years. ;D
So even though we have 6 sites, with the deals we have (and only the cheapest deals for Netflix and AA) we’re only paying $48 currently which is fine. And we can drop any one we want at any time if we have to. AA would probably be the first to go until another Trek show start but it sounds like they are going to get serious and make it a real site. So I’m excited to see what the ‘rebranding’ brings just as long as any additional costs (if any) stay at $10. But it really needs it. AA is just a joke, especially when you now have things like Disney+ and HBO Max to contend with.
Yeah CBSAA has a way to go if they want to compete with the big boys like Netflix – BUT they are also way ahead of NBC and others. With the rebranding and the expanded library, we shall see what the new CBSAA looks like this summer. Quite honestly, I selfishly want them to do well because they own the rights to the franchise I care most about – the better they do, the more Star Trek programming and movies.
I want them to do well too and one of the reasons why I have never cancelled the service as I still have it now. For all my whining over Discovery early on, its proof I want it and AA to succeed or I wouldn’t be paying for a service I think is very lack luster for a show I ALSO thought was lack luster. But end of the day I want more Star Trek. Now I’m paying only the cheapest option, but its really the only way to justify keeping it all year. If I was paying $10 a month, I probably would be cancelling in between seasons like so many others. I only pay $9 a month for Netflix and that has tons of more options easily.
I agree with Thorny. When living in the US, I dropped my premium Comcast cable package back in 2015 and kept the basic package and supplemented it with the likes of Netflix which I already had, while adding CBSAA (I think it was just called CBS.com back then), Hulu as well as NHL TV, MLB, ESPN, etc. Bottom line was that I was paying less than what I was paying Comcast. Of course for those who are using OTA broadcast antennas for free local network TV, the future is not looking good if you want the premium choices of programming and entertainment. Those days are long gone. This is the reason why I have never taken complaints about programming behind a pay wall seriously. Instead of paying the cable companies, now you pay the media and programming providers like CBSAA and Netflix.
I’ve been saying this for years. Eventually there will only be a few giant stand alone streaming services. The smaller ones will probably have to allow someone like Comcast or something to sell a bundled group of them together. Like cable for streaming services. I would wager real money that will happen eventually.
And if it happens you will probably be back to the price of a premium cable package for that streaming bundle.
It will certainly be less than the cost of getting them independently. Won’t work otherwise.
There never was going to be a free lunch. During the transition period there was savings, but no more. It’s kind of obvious when you think it through long term.
Soon it’s going to be so complex to sign up for all of these that people will actually be wishing for a return to Cable and Satellite, where they paid one bill per month.
Yeah, some people seem to forget that someone has to pay for all the content that’s available on these streaming services. When it was all just reruns of old shows Netflix may have gotten those for cheap. But as streaming services produce more and more shows and movies themselves (or have studios do them for them) this money has to come from somewhere. I’ve read that Netflix released 371 new movies and shows in the U.S. in 2019 alone. Allegedly they spent around 15 billion on original content. If the other streaming services catch up to that amount there’s just no way you will get them all bundled together for 10 or even 20 bucks a month.
I have read that Netflix has routinely lost money on their streaming side. In some senses it is a bit of a wonder they are even still in business. Obviously the disc side has to be doing some heavy economic lifting still to this day.
It’s valuation has grown by nearly 50% in the past year. And it’s one of the few stocks doing well during COVID.
I’ve owned Netflix stock for five years and I am super happy with it. Only Amazon for me has done better.
That is different from actual revenues. Stocks are all about confidence. Not reality.
Netflix’s revenue keeps going up continuously which is probably why people keep investing in its stock. What isn’t going up is profits. However, it seems that investors are okay with that, at least so far.
Exactly. Again, this dude keeps getting the financial terms, profit and revenue, all mixed up. He keeps using these terms interchangeably, as if they were the same???
Wrong. Again, this dude is not getting anything confused. It is you are confused and show it each time you try and show how much you think you know about the business.
Does it, though? Netflix continues to operate with a negative cash flow but maintains a positive net income due to essentially consumer confidence. They currently more than make up for that through other means.
I have Disney Plus because I love Star Wars and Marvel. I also have Netflix and plan to get HBO Max. I’m not getting another streaming service to save money.
Hbo Max is coming out soon and there are other streaming services like Quibi and Peacock if you’re interested.
ViacomCBS is way behind in the streaming wars. Disney is ahead of them with Disney Plus and Hulu. Good to hear CBS All Access will be getting more content soon.
Star Trek is nice but I would like to see more new content on the service to justify paying a monthly fee. ViacomCBS as other brands to use on the platform. Happy they added more movies too.
I would definitely watch Godfather trilogy. The Godfather looks good, haven’t seen it.
Wait, wait, wait, wait….you haven’t seen the Godfather?
I’ve seen bits of it while others in the house/dorm were watching, but I guess I’m an outlier… absolutely nothing about the mafia interests me. Never watched “The Sopranos”, either. Just born without the Crime Boss Fascination Gene, I guess.
I’m with you. In general mob movies do nothing for me. Just not interested in the genre. I tried to watch The Sporanos. Good god that was just plain awful stuff.
Even though I have had AA literally since May of 2017 (and never cancelled) I rarely click on it unless there is new Trek on so I didn’t even know they added some Paramount movies until now. I checked out the options, still nothing major but a few decent titles at least. But yeah the biggest issue with AA is their movie section which is a total joke. Thats why they had to have the Showtime option (but I already have Showtime) because they had 20 movies on there only. So its nice to see it a bit better. I’m excited to see what the rebranding will bring.
And defitinitely check out the Godfather movies. I haven’t watched them in ages but now that they are there I might give it another watch!
I know I’m in the minority on this but I finally watched The Godfather about 16 years ago. I found it to be dull dull dull so desperately dull. Possibly one of the most overrated movies all time.
On the other hand, the other highly rated film of all time, Citizen Kane… Fantastically great flick.
See also “Casablanca”. Amazingly great movie made for what looks like about $1.99.
All Access is a win for me. Lots of Trek content and my wife and I have been binging classic Twilight Zone episodes.
The new Twilight Zone doesn’t grab me. I keep tryin too. Can’t beat the classics though.
I’m also grateful for all of the Star Trek content, and I am happy to pay their nominal fee in order to support my favorite franchise. And without commercials
It would be nice if they folded their other platforms into one offering. I want fewer bills and more content. That being said, as long as they have new Star Trek content, I’ll stay around. That is, until it costs too much.
“Fewer bills and more content” — wouldn’t that be nice for everything
In theory, I’m glad Star Trek is a valuable enough property to justify placing it at the head of an effort like this. In reality, the brand is being so badly misused that I wish it was being ignored. See also The Twilight Zone. The only other thing CBS has on deck that I’m interested in is The Stand, and I’m skeptical that that will (A) be any good or (B) actually appear anytime soon.
Rebrand however you want, but until CBS enters the 21st century and starts streaming in 4k and surround sound I’ll pass.
Doesn’t matter to me. I bought a 1080p/3D TV back when that was all the rage (2015 or so). Now there is nothing new being released in 3D, so… yippee. 4K is a little better, but in a year or two everyone will be going gaga over their new 8K TV being the greatest thing since sliced bread, so I’ll probably just wait for 8K.
I’ve heard it said that 4K is a greater resolution than the human eye can even see. Which would make 8K kinda pointless. But I understand that the tech is there now.
Not only that, they have to use so much compression on 4K streaming that’s it’s pretty much equivalent to watching a 1080P Blu-Ray…and Blu-Rays still blow away 1080P streaming services BTW.
I have found that BD is still better than streaming in general. But then, I do not own a 4K set up and don’t know anyone who does.
From a normal viewing distance you probably won’t see a difference. Of course, if you get a 100 inch TV and then walk up really close you might be able to see the difference in pixel size. But that’s not how you usually watch TV.
Even with 4K the visual improvement is probably more due to the higher dynamic range than the increased pixel count.
Great point — I agree.
The other thing I’m wondering is when will the other Trek shows be pulled from Netflix or is that something that won’t happen? I love seeing new Trek on CBS All Access but that’s literally the only thing I watch on the app. I watch the old Trek shows on Netflix (I like their interface so much better than All Access) and I’ve been watching the Trek films on Amazon. I think if Trekkie’s only had the option of watching all of Trek on All Access, that might change some minds. Right now, if you don’t want to see new Trek then it’s not a priority for you because you’re probably watching TNG, Voy, Ent, DS9 and TOS on Netflix.
CBS and Viacom have been eager to play the field – do some things exclusively and then also milk Amazon, Netflix etc for money as they sell them shows like legacy Trek, South Park and Jack Ryan which ViacomCBS technically owns and can keep for themselves after the contracts are up.
Trek is definitely ubiquitous, they sold it to everyone all the time – its been on multiple cable channels, it’s on every streamer. I’m biased, but I think offering remastered DS9 and Voyager exclusively to All Access or Pluto+ or whatever it gets turned into would be a boon.
From what I remember with the deal with Netflix on distributing Discovery is that it included all the other Star Trek shows to stay on that site indefinitely. So I don’t think they are ever really leaving Netflix. At the very least as long as Discovery is on that site, then all the others will stay there. But it is crazy, Star Trek is on FOUR streaming sites in America: Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix and All Access. I can’t think of any other franchises that on so many sites? Sure you might find a couple of Marvel movies in different places but you’re not going to find the MCU as a whole except 1 or 2 places. And Disney+ will basically be the one exclusive place you can watch all of them.
Of course I agree with you and said AA really should be THE place where you can watch as much Trek content as possible: shows, movies, documentaries, TV specials, etc, like how Star Wars is now becoming the exclusive place to watch those movies, documentaries and shows on Disney+. They just released a documentary series about the Mandalorian. That’s what AA needs to do (or just get all the TV specials through the years. How come I can watch them all free on Youtube????)
That’s the problem, I don’t think its ever going to be EXCLUSIVE because I have a feeling the money they earn from these sites to run Star Trek is just too good. I do hope though that if AA can at least have the MOST Trek content then that will help but currently that falls to Amazon which not only has all the shows, but a lot of the movies and also documentaries. AA should at least have ALL the movies there and hopefully that will happen when the Kelvin movies eventually run their course in terms of contracts.
“I like their interface so much better than All Access”
That floored me. The Netflix interface is just garbage. If I were a paying customer they would hear from me about it every day. It’s THAT bad.
All of you people whining about interfaces…just get Apple TV. All those problems go away and 100% reliability kicks in…and I mean ZERO interface problems since I bought the device 6 months ago. That’s the best $150 I ever spent.
It’s not just that the controls don’t work. They do but they seem to have a delayed reaction most of the time. But there are a TON of things Netflix does that just irritates the piss out of me. I HATE that it automatically takes you straight to the next episode perhaps 5 seconds into the closing credits. I often forget or don’t get to my remote fast enough to change it. Who decided THAT was a good idea? I HATE that if you leave the main screen up for a short time it will just start whatever it is on the top at the moment. Whether you want to watch it or not. There are just a ton of things that are wrong with it that go beyond just controls not working well. Even if they did work perfectly it would still be the worst menu and interface imaginable. This list goes on and on.
This is great news cuz CBS needs to get their act together! Honestly, their platform is an embarrassment. The interface is so so so bad. Even the ads don’t load sometimes! It just plays blank nothingness for 60 seconds, it’s so buggy. And there’s hardly any content – I’m glad I’m only paying $6/month for the Star Trek streaming service, because there’s nothing else on it that catches my eye. As others have said, I watch most of my Trek on Netflix; it’s just better.
CBS should do their homework!
Works perfectly on Apple TV == none of those issues.
You get what you pay for.
I have AppleTV in the living room and FireTV in the bedroom, and never have any problem with CBS All Access on either one. Way back in Discovery Season 1 there was a glitch that made Episode 4 or 5 (I think) unwatchable, so I gave up and watched the next day after it was fixed (it was apparently system-wide, judging by comments here.) That was the last time I had any issue with CBS All Access.
But… A customer really shouldn’t be expected to buy from a competitor just to get decent service. Service that it seems most others in the same business don’t seem to have much trouble with.
I’m not sure what you’re replying to. To watch CBS All Access on a TV, you have to get a streaming device such as those from Amazon, Apple, or Roku (unless you have one of those TVs with CBS All Access built-in, which is extremely rare.)
I actually have all three but seldom use the Roku. I’ve not had a problem on either device with CBS All Access streaming since 2017.
Yea, I just think all of the complaining about problems with the service is way out of date. CBA AA on Apple TV and Roku works just as well as Netflix and Amazon Prime…again, I have ZERO issues with it.
And again, you are wrong. There are still plenty of issues with CBSAA. Netflix still has loading and control issues themselves.
Must be your set-up or internet ISP. I could not disagree more. I don’t have any of those issues, not even at a small level.
It’s not the set up or ISP. Just because you haven’t found an issue doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And just because you have those issues doesn’t rule out your cheap devices, pc graphics card or ISP connectivity being the problem.
You get what you pay for.
Once again, you speak where you have no knowledge. You have no idea what I have paid for anything.
That’s why I listed multiple options in what you may have given you specifically ruled out Roku and Apple TV (and yes the other options are mostly cheaper). It’s quite simple to list the other options given you have ruled these out.
But by all means, please share what device or method you use to stream?
And yet you still claimed I went “cheap” without any information or data to suggest it.
I asked you a clarifying question: “please share what device or method you use to stream?”
“I asked you a clarifying question: “please share what device or method you use to stream?” — NO RESPONSE in 3 days.
Since you obviously don’t want to answer my question on what streaming device you are using, any objective person would be forced to conclude that my deduction that you were using a cheap streaming device was correct.
Thanks for the indirect confirmation!
Why are you still on about this? It is very obvious I do not want to discuss this with you because you have no idea what you are talking about. I know you think you do and I’m sure in your inevitable response you are going to infer you do. But you don’t. Therefore you are not worth any more of my time. I’m through with you in this thread. Go ahead and make your response saying whatever it is you feel you need to say so you can feel like you ‘won’. I will not be reading it. So knock yourself out.
I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in subsequent threads unless you continue to pull this kind of garbage.
Live long and prosper.
I said what I had to say already. Have a nice day.
You are saying that in order for you to have a bug free stream from CBSAA you needed to get Apple TV. My point is it is absurd that in order to get a glitch free stream you need to buy a high end device. Now I admit, over the last 3 years the glitches have subsided some but they still exist. Even Netflix can be glitchy from time to time. But CBS still has them beat with glitches. And for the record, I irritatingly had to go buy a chromecast when CBSAA started. Again, pretty crappy of them to require that.
Get a Roku then. If you are running this of your PC, then it’s probably your computer/graphics card that is causing the problem.
I got an Apple TV and I have no issues with AA or Netflix. You get what you pay for. Why would someone buy and expensive TV and then try to go cheap on the important device that feeds it HD content when that device’s cost is a fraction of the TV’s cost? Makes no sense? I get that Apple TV is premium, by Roku is mid-range. No way I am ever going back to PC streaming.
Why would I do that? I already bought a device to cast to my TV. Which quite frankly I shouldn’t have had to do to begin with.
Ah yes, but are they gonna increase the cost? hope not. Frankly, it’s not currently worth it. I cancelled right after Picard.
A canceled right after Picard as well. I also canceled right after Discovery S1 & 2.
I’d be impressed if they fixed the danged website so that I can actually sign in. Definitely not impressed enough to go pay once the free trial runs out.
Too much streaming services, but you do not have to get all of them. At least we have the choice to pick what we want.
Gosh, between Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Disney+, Peacock, and HBO Max, it’ll cost you just as much as cable having all of them.
CBS All Access is pretty nice but not worth it. I cancelled right after Picard was finished.
Too much streaming services, but you do not have to get all of them. At least we have the choice to pick what we want.
Gosh, between Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Disney+, Peacock, and HBO Max, it’ll cost you just as much as cable having all of them.
CBS All Access is pretty nice but not worth it. I cancelled right after Picard was finished.
Anybody else having issues with comments you’ve subscribed to not generating emails?
Cut the cord six years ago, never looked back. Even with Netflix, Amazon,HBO, Showtime and Hulu, still leaps and bounds cheaper than cable. Paid for CBSAA for two months each of the past two years, then cancelled. No value there, imo. And like others have said, all the older Trek you’d ever want to watch is on a number of those I listed above. Currently enjoying the original TZ on Hulu. Riding free on my daughter’s Disney account. Fyi, Philo is a good option, good selection of channels if you want some live TV (DVR included), if you don’t care about sports.
While I was living in the US, in 2015 I so called cut the cord, believing that paying for basic cable and then supplementing it with various streaming services was far more economical than paying for a premium HD cable package. And looking at the posts above, that seems to be the case. Of course those who use OTA antennas will disagree with pay walled programming, but for the rest of us, services like CBSAA, Netflix and NHL TV are great. I am a little surprised that CBSAA didn’t publicize this fact more, when some of the naysayers were complaining about Discovery premiering behind the AA paywall.
I’m going to say this every chance I get… because I want it. Now is the time to start remastering DS9 and Voyager in HD. Pandemic makes it tough to shoot anything. CBS AllAccess could have these two shows exclusively in HD. They just have to do it.
You don’t need to tell me why it won’t happen – I know all about the process the CGI, the rebuilding of the shows, the expense… Let’s focus on why it SHOULD happen.
Am I reading this right? Is CBS planning on offering out ANOTHER streaming service? Good grief… What do they plan to put on it? There is next to nothing on CBSAA already.
I’ve also never heard of Pluto service. But if it has ads you cannot FF past I’m not interested.
They are transforming CBSAA into the main Paramount-CBS streaming service is what I get from the article.
Exactly. Is is just me, or do some fans here need remedial reading comprehension training…I mean, come on people, just take the time to read the article, right?
I’m not illiterate, Sparky. What do you make of this?
“Today, ViacomCBS announced they are accelerating their plans to build a new streaming service based on the All Access platform.”
Sounds very much like they were looking to create another streaming service.
You were saying something about actually reading the article?
And BTW… Even if I had made a mistake and misread something you don’t have to be a dick about it.
Reads to me like they’re upgrading and rebranding All Access.
I would read it that way too… IF they said they were ending CBSAA as we know it and replacing it with a newer and better streaming service.
OMG. I give up. :-)
You pasted the quote from the article yourself: “Today, ViacomCBS announced they are accelerating their plans to build a new streaming service based on the All Access platform.”
That’s perfectly clear. They are going to soup up expand the existing AA platform, not have two separate services. Yet you then said yourself:
“Sounds very much like they were looking to create another streaming service.”
NO, IT DOES NOT AT ALL? PLEASE READ AGAIN THE ARTICLE QUOTE: “a new streaming service based on the All Access platform.” They are building this upon the existing AA platform — it will have AA content plus new Paramount content. It WILL NOT be two separate services.
Seems pretty obvious to me, son.
Dude, check out the quote. It says they have “plans to build a NEW streaming service”. They already have CBSAA. So when they say they are going to build a NEW one, to most who understand English on a below average or above level that means there will be ANOTHER one. It’s like when someone says they are constructing a NEW building. If they were replacing an old one, they would say that! If you don’t, the implication is the old one remains and a new one is going up elsewhere.
You might want to re-read your comments before you post so you don’t make mistakes like that.
It says “build a new streaming service based on the All Access platform.” You seem to be the only one who reads this as them making a copy of All Access, then turning that copy into a new service while keeping the old service intact. Everybody else seems to read it as turning All Access into that new service.
I see where ML31 is getting a bit confused on it but yeah its just renaming and adding content to AA basically. You wouldn’t need to ‘rebrand’ a completely new service if that was the case, right?
And what would be the point of having two services with the same stuff on it basically, one just MORE stuff on it? It would just make AA look even less worthy to have so what would be the point?
Well.. What is the point of HBO Max? At this point it looks like it is doing exactly what you just described.
But then I never made any comment about what the content wold be of the new service. In fact, I questioned what they could possibly put on it when their original service was so amazingly barren.
No, I didn’t say anything abut making a copy of AA. The article just implied they were making a new service. Presumably to go along with AA. But it wasn’t clear on that. Only that they were making another one. If that was not the plan then the article was very poorly written.
Exactly. ML31 pulled out that part of the sentence because he can’t simply say he was wrong on this. LOL
Now you are just pretending something happened that did not. I am happy to carry on a conversation but not if you are going to ignore what was said or make up things.
You know what you did — you said:
“Dude, check out the quote. It says they have “plans to build a NEW streaming service”.
You deliberately left out the rest of that sentence which then said ” based on the All Access platform.”
DIGINON called you on it, and I agree. Any objective person can look at your posts and see this lame tactic. Nice try!
Good grief… I already gave the entire quote earlier. It was referencing that. Even including that part does not invalidate what I said. I’m done here. I’m not going continue to slam my head against this wall.
Enjoy your last word. You know you want it.
DIGINON called you out on it. You are not fooling anyone.
Have a good day!
There has been rumor and speculation all year that CBS would be adding Paramount content to All Access this summer, so that’s probably what is going on.
PlutoTV is horrendous. I don’t mind commercials, but their implementation of commercials is terrible. In the middle of a scene, as an actor is saying something… CUT — COMMERCIALS! … then after the commercial or two they jump back into the scene with the actor finishing his/her line of dialogue. It has to be free, no one would pay a dime for this failure of a streaming platform.
I don’t watch TV with ad breaks anymore but here (outside US) it was common practice to cut to commercials right in the middle of a scene. They would then run several minutes of ads and when they returned to the program they would rewind it like half a minute or so.
Can I have a 5.1?
I refuse to sign up for Amazon Prime because they don’t offer 5.1 surround sound on the PC. And Prime is much bigger than CBS All Access.
So silent here now?
Where are all of those Einsteins here who have been posting for several years here that CBS All Access is not financially successful?
Ah, the silence! LOL
Well clearly its not that successful if they feel they have to rebrand it. ;)
But yes I always said as bad as it is, its clearly doing well enough to stay alive. NO streaming service has gone under yet and why so many are jumping into the game. Its weird though because you read so many business articles that states they are all actually LOSING money but sees the growth in it so keep at it. I read an article just yesterday Disney+ now has 50 million subscribers. That’s over 5 times what AA has in just a few months of operation and yet its still not making any money for the company. But of course that’s because of the billions they are spending on new content (and its super low subscription price) and Netflix is still doing the most out of all of them.
So no, I actually think most people are right and that AA still isn’t making real money yet BUT probably growing enough to see potential that it eventually can. But that’s probably said of all of them.
They aren’t rebranding it because it is unsuccessful. Quite the opposite, in that they are using it as the foundation for CBS-Paramount’s overall streaming service.
I think its in the middle. Its not unsuccessful but its not really very competitive to the other sites either. I don’t know one person who has AA where as I know at least someone who has the others and nearly everyone has Netflix.
Almost all my friends have AA, and only a couple have Disney. I don’t have Disney either, nor do I have Hulu. I have Amazon, Netflix, Apple+ and AA.
Everyone has a different mix. Relax, that’s OK. IDIC
Yeah…but why? I mean 90% of the service is just old CBS shows you can already watch for free? Hey I’m not downing it, I’m the one of the guys whose had for 3 years too lol. But honestly its ONLY for the new Trek shows. And I always tell myself I will rewatch them. I’ve seen a few episodes here and there but not enough to justify still keeping it.
And Disney+ is brand new. It will have its 6 month birthday literally this week. AA has been around over 5 years now and I don’t it has made much of an impression on many unless you are a big CBS or Trek fan. That’s why it needs to rebrand, that’s not going to cut it for people who want actual variety.
Simple. I re-signed up before Picard, and got a great one year deal for $55. That gives me Picard, DSC S3, Twilight Zone, The Good Fight, and would have given me The Stand mini-series had COVID not delayed it. Throw it the entire Star Trek catalog, and I am very happy with my $4.50 per month investment.
Regarding Disney, why would I want to shell out $ for that to just get access to the movies of theirs that I already have on Blu-Ray?
You seen to think that everybody should have the same selection of streaming services as you? Everybody does the own cost-benefit on which services they want. You don’t have to agree with it. Seriously, this is OK! IDIC
LOL I keep telling you I HAVE All Access. I’ve had it for three whole years now. So I’m not saying that people can’t like or want the service, I just find it hard to believe it would be a MORE popular service for majority of people, that’s all because I don’t know what is on AA that would get the masses excited if they aren’t Trek fans or loyal watchers to CBS. And I know there are a lot since its clearly a well watched network I just don’t know if people are tied to stuff like NCIS or Criminal Minds like the way they are to Star Wars and Marvel I guess. But yes if you already have Blu Ray to that stuff then obviously I get your point. But many people like me haven’t bought a Blu Ray disc in over a decade and probably why streaming is becoming so prevalent now.
And none of the original AA shows has seen to made a big imprint outside of the Star Trek shows. No one seems to talk about them as water cooler shows the same way people rave about Stranger Things, Mandalorian, The Witcher, etc. Twilight Zone had a lot of hype going in but then the first season was supposedly really bad. I’ve only seen one episode so far because of the bad reviews of most of them but I keep saying I will give it a chance. And I am excited for The Stand too. That might make waves.
I’ve never once heard anyone I work with or friends I talk to all the time bring up Stranger Things and The Witcher.
Mandolorian, sure. But then I also hear “water coooler” comments on Picard as well.
@Tiger2: When you said that you haven’t bought a Blu Ray in over a decade I was going to protest that Blu Rays haven’t even been around that long. Then I remembered that the very first Blu Ray I ever bought was of Star Trek (2009). And that was years after the format had popped up. Damn, time flies ;-)
Regarding your point about stuff like NCIS or Criminal Minds. I don’t watch any crime procedurals because they simply don’t interest me but those shows seem to go on forever and some of them have loads of spinoffs that also run forever so surely there must be an audience for that kind of stuff. Do these shows have a fan culture around them like Trek or Star Wars with conventions, fan fiction, cosplaying etc.? No idea. But there’s an audience. Why wouldn’t they want to stream that stuff at a time of their choosing instead of being tied to a TV schedule?
Just want to address the concept of being “tied to a TV schedule.” With my DVR I am not tied to the schedule. I record stuff and watch whenever I want. And skip the ads, too.
No I agree with you, there are HUGE attachment to those shows. WAY more people are watching NCIS then they are watching Star Trek Discovery lol. So I’m not putting them down, I’m only saying CBS is mostly procedural stuff so there isn’t a lot of variety for people who DON’T watch those shows and why its hard for a lot of people who are not big CBS fans to get into All Access. I mean I looked at the CBS line up this year and my god its the same stuff: FBI, Seals Team, FBI Most Wanted, NCIS Los Angeles, Blue Bloods, SWAT and on and on and on. It’s mostly procedural crime shows.
Clearly there is an audience for these shows and why so many are on. But if you’re trying to attract people to PAY for a service it has to have a lot more variety than what AA has.
And obviously they KNOW that and why they are diversifying the content. For most of use, we are just happy we are getting more Star Trek, hence why we are getting more Star Trek ;). But if you take that away, I’m guessing most Trek fans would not have this site at all, hence everyone dropping it after a season airs.
Products generally don’t get rebranded if things are gong great. At best they will get this treatment if things are stagnant. But usually because something is underperforming or having difficulties.
When CBSAA was established it was still a separate and competing entity with Paramount, despite having common ownership. Now that they are one entity again they are launching a united streaming service, based on the technological guts and core of CBSAA. The changes are already noticeable. The movie selection on CBSAA has tripled in the last week.
Agreed, I mean it’s pretty freaking obvious this is the approach based on this article. I’m not getting the weird alternate interpretation by some here?
Are they changing the name? Then there really is no rebrand. They are just adding the Paramaunt library to their amazingly weak arsenal. But the original comment is still valid. More often than not, rebrands are just not done when things are going well.
Salt’s correct that a certain amount of rebranding is typical when product lines merge.
If one is clearly dominant, then sometimes that’s chosen, but especially when a brand is making a move to global expansion, renaming is fairly typical. Sometimes, the American name works elsewhere, but sometimes consumer research finds that it would be a disaster.
(Living outside the United States, one tends to notice it more.)
The discussion here has been pretty American market focused, but ViacomCBS has bigger ambitions. They need to land and stick to a name that will work in the US and globally.
Netflix, Disney and Amazon are global names. Hulu and NBC/Peacock or Universal are not. (And ABC stands for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation outside North America. Yes, really.)
While CBS has networks and streamers in other countries, CBS is not a global brand. Neither are most of the movie studio names, including Paramount. Showtime is a brand name that was sublicensed in other countries and doesn’t have much to do with ViacomCBS content.
So, it will be interesting to see what name they land on.
You apparently didn’t read the article. The are combining it with Paramount’s huge movie database. They are obviously re branding this because of the corporate merger. Like, duh! :-)
Yes, we know!
This has been discussed here before when it was originally first proposed last summer. Even you disused it at the time:
The point remains, AA is still a pretty bad service, so yeah they should’ve done this YEARS ago and just struck some deal with Paramount sooner to run movies on that site but I know Paramount already has a deal with Epix so maybe that was an issue. But up until a few months ago it had like 20 movies on that site lol. It’s just a joke but I’m glad things will get better in the future. It needs to, it’s no way it will ever really compete against Disney, Warner Brothers or Amazon as it is now.
Huh? The Viacom Merger just went through, so of course they could not have done this years ago. Makes no sense?
I literally just said they didn’t try to make any third party deals which they COULD have. How do you think Netflix exists??? It made deals with practically every studio and network out there. Paramount and CBS were both owned by the same freaking company, they could’ve entered a deal with them from the start. But if that was not feasible then try other ways. If a mail in DVD distribution company can find a way to ink deals with half of Hollywood INCLUDING CBS for content then why not one of the oldest media companies in Hollywood? They are literally doing joint ventures with Netflix now with Discovery. Why not do something like that with AA if they were serious a bunch of old reruns and a dozen old movies?
That’s why AA is bad service for most, they only relied on CBS shows and nothing more and that’s just not enough for most people. Yes they have a big library but its not one with a lot of variety or movies. And they don’t have a lot of iconic stuff. They have tons of other places they could’ve made a deal with under the same parent company if they couldn’t get Paramount, they just never tried.
But yes I’m glad its happening obviously, but AA just dropped the ball IMO from out the gate and now its playing catch up with the ‘rebranding’.
@Tiger2: The reason Netflix started out with all those deals with other studios is that they didn’t have any content of their own. It’s only years later that they started adding original content. And as they have been adding their own content they’ve dropped third party content.
CBS on the other hand did have content of their own when they started All Access. And they are now expanding their library to include content from other brands within ViacomCBS.
It’s the same with the other new streaming services: Disney Plus is based on Disney content (and subsidiaries of Disney). Apple’s service is also based on original content, as far as I know. They’re not licensing libraries from other studios.
So basically all the new streaming services are doing what CBS has been doing. Meanwhile, Netflix is gradually moving from how they started (all third-party content) to what the other streaming services are doing: relying on original content.
Exactly. And the business/investment reasons behind each of the streaming services makes is pretty difficult for them to merge with 3rd Party deals now. There is a reason why we are not seeing a lot of that yet. That consolidation may eventually happen, but it’s early still in the develop of these services.
I have multiple services including AA. It’s not really a big deal that a couple of these have less original content. So what, that’s to be expected, and I am seeing them add more content over time. IDIC
Yes I know all of that.
Of course with Netflix, it started this entire game and yes it had no content at the time, so it had to. My only point is there are many options out there and CBS look like it has done none of them.
And yes I get CBS is using its own content the PROBLEM is its own content is clearly not enough to compete with the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon because it lacks variety and it’s movie library is practically non-existent. They looked far behind to their competitors and still do today.
And I’m not saying it has to be third party content the way Netflix did it (which was anyone who gave them a licensee) but at least something what they are actually doing now and using content from the parent company. If CBS wanted to only keep their shows from their network, fine, but you can’t expect to compete without a real movie library and that’s where it really hurts them. So eventually something was going to have to be done long term.
But yes we now are seeing it with the merger so that’s a good thing. But it really really needs it too obviously.
I’ve always been on both sides of the fence with AA. I’ve always defended its existence but I always been critical of its actual content and programming which I feel is still lack luster. Yes maybe if this was 2010, then it wouldn’t be much an issue, but being 2020 now this site now feels like its ten years behind. It’s not just lack of original content, there is just no real variety outside of what CBS gets as a network, mostly appeals to white older males. I’m trying to imagine what a 10 year old black girl or most college kids would watch on that network for example? It works as a network when its free I guess (although everyone say when it comes to advertising you should skew a bit younger but it seems to work for them) but streaming works more for younger people and they have to know that would hurt the service long term.
That’s exactly why Disney+ is hitting it out of the park because it appeals to families and people of all ages in every category and sex. And they just have way more cooler content in general.
Epix was created because of a licensing dispute several studios (including Paramount) had with Showtime. Since Showtime is under the CBS umbrella, that wasn’t likely to lead to Paramount movies on CBS All Access.
OK thanks. I figure there might be a reason but I don’t pretend to know. But I can see how that might have stopped Paramount.
Remember when cell carriers decided we didn’t need unlimited data anymore and then a few years later unlimited plans were “invented” again. Give it five years or so and you’ll see someone “invent” a service that combines all of these streaming services into one at a flat fee called “cable.”
Yep. That is the obvious outcome here. I’ve actually been saying that for years.
You’re behind the times, bassmaster22. You can already bundle many of those services in the US. Amazon Channels, Roku Channels, Apple TV, etc. all let you sign up for HBO, CBS, Hulu, etc. through their service.
There is a difference between letting one sign up for things one at a time (like you can already do without Amazon) and actually bundling a bunch of services in a package.
No, there isn’t. You two were specifically citing cable. With cable you can pay for an additional HBO package, a Showtime package, and Encore package, etc. Sound familiar?
True but that doesn’t invalidate my comment. Further there are bundles with those premiums where you save when you package two or more of them together.