dslreports logo
 story category
CBS CEO Won't Say How Many Have Signed Up For Streaming Service

Back in October CBS announced the launch of a new, $6 a month streaming service solely for CBS content, that offers users the option to watch 15 primetime shows the day after they have aired on broadcast and cable. It's currently only available in fourteen metro markets, a list that hasn't grown since launch. It was an unclear value proposition, and many of our readers weren't particularly impressed.

This week CBS CEO Les Moonves refused to state just how many have signed up for the new service, only stating that sign ups were "ahead of projections" (though that could mean anything if projections were very low). Moonves then took the opportunity to take a shot at Netflix's notorious secrecy when it comes to releasing specific show "ratings":
quote:
“I’ve been extremely impressed with the product,” he said, adding that its subscriber base would grow as more affiliates sign up to provide a live feed of their stations’ programming over broadband. He added that the price of the service could change when CBS’ NFL games are added. He also said other content providers had inquired about making their programming part of the package. Pressed for a hard number of subscribers, Moonves replied, “When Netflix tells you how many people are watching House of Cards, we’ll tell you how many subscribers we have."
CBS executives took more than a few shots at Netflix this week over the company's viewership secrecy. In contrast, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos this week insisted that ratings are "irrelevant" for them because they're not an ad-driven entity, adding that ratings can sometimes be harmful when trying to develop quality shows:
quote:
“The reason we don’t give ratings is not to frustrate the press,” said Sarandos. “It’s an irrelevant measure of success for us." "Maybe it has been necessary for the business of entertainment, but it’s been terrible for the creative side of television," he said. "I do think that the ratings discussion has been negative for television."
view:
topics flat nest 

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

1 edit

davidc502

Member

Don't think so

I'm not going to pay for something I can get for free. It's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.

So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.

This is just a ploy to try to pick up some of the stray cable cutters. I'm sure subscriptions to this will be minimal until something major happens down the road.

My 2¢
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: Don't think so

At the end of the day this is essentially a way to pay for these mondo sports contracts. No doubt they will charge extra for the NFL, etc if customers want this. And it makes sense because live sports is one of those things best delivered live.

Popcorn and the like are wrecking that channel so if they don't get competitive they will be out some real profit...

He didn't want to say only his family signed up for it...

As for other providers, that is a pipe dream unless it's old syndicated shows... The real goldfinger reason for this is sports and think about it, public forums (bars, etc). DTV charges mondo amounts of money to have NFL ST. For smaller establishments this may be a more reasonable way to have the "game" on and still draw the sports crowd..

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx to davidc502

Member

to davidc502
said by davidc502 See ProfileIt's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.[/bquote :

True under the "use it or lose it" rules. Of course they could in theory run infomercials 20 hours a day and have some public interest programming for a few hours a day/week in order to meet the "serve in the public interest" requirements of their broadcast license. Considering what passes for broadcast TV on independent channels these days (WRNN north of New York City for example) I am sure they could get away with it.


davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: Don't think so

Surely, there would be a lot of inner cities across America that would be 'up in arms'... No?

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Re: Don't think so

said by davidc502:

Surely, there would be a lot of inner cities across America that would be 'up in arms'... No?

Since it appears of late all you need to do is run two hours or so of "E/I" programming on Saturday mornings and a half hour or so of news and you get to keep your license, what are they going to do? Every time a broadcast license comes up for renewal the stations do state on the air that comments can be sent to the FCC. Why bother? The only licenses I recall being yanked in recent memory were those for stations owned by RKO General back in the 1980's. And that was due to illegal activity which forced the government to revoke them. It was not public comment.

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour to davidc502

Member

to davidc502
said by davidc502:

So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.

Yup.

A couple $$/mo., maybe. But $6/mo.? Ain't gonna happen. Even if CBS killed-off their local OTA affiliate. In that case I just wouldn't see their programming any more. It would not be the end of the world.

Jim

burner50
Proud Union THUG
Premium Member
join:2002-06-05
Iowa

burner50 to davidc502

Premium Member

to davidc502
said by davidc502:

I'm not going to pay for something I can get for free. It's my understanding they won't stop OTA because if they do, they will loose very expensive spectrum.. and that's just for starters.

So not only do they want people to pay for access, but they want to you to watch the commercials... and on top of that 30% of every hour is dedicated to commercials! Also, to think I'm paying for something I have to wait the next day to watch is completely out of line.

This is just a ploy to try to pick up some of the stray cable cutters. I'm sure subscriptions to this will be minimal until something major happens down the road.

My 2¢

As a paying member of their streaming service (loads of people have been screaming for À la carte for decades), I find it to be worth the few dollars per month that I pay for it. I don't pay for cable / sat television, and I'm too far from transmitter sites for any reliable, convenient, service.
Albert71292
join:2004-10-31
West Monroe, LA

Albert71292

Member

I'd Subscribe...

...for the library of classic shows, IF they get the service on the Roku. Until then, no sale. Don't want to watch TV on my computer.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: I'd Subscribe...

Just get PlayOn (PlayOn.tv) and stream those CBS shows over to your Roku. Roku has a plugIn for Playon, so it works pretty nicely.

David
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

elefante72

Member

Re: I'd Subscribe...

Yeah thats consumer friendly... I know people on this forum are advanced and it seems simple to us, but to the average person running a media server is rocket science....They will need apps Roku, Amazon, ATV for sure...Maybe Xbox.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: I'd Subscribe...

I would assume the directed audience of anyone posting on these forums to the advanced enough.

Of course we know what happens when we assume

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: I'd Subscribe...

I'm advanced enough to be able to run a media server and stream videos to my Roku box. Practically speaking, though, I can't afford to. We only have laptop computers right now. Buying a desktop computer just to use as a media server would cost money at a time when money is tight. However, a Roku channel requires no additional hardware purchase.

Yes, the CBS subscription would cost money, but if they - as Albert71292 See Profile proposed - included a back library of all of their content then I'd make a judgement as to whether that small monthly fee was worth it.

If I had already decided that the CBS online subscription was worth it, requiring additional hardware just to get it on your TV reduces the value of the service and makes it more likely that I'll cancel.

Hall
MVM
join:2000-04-28
Germantown, OH

Hall

MVM

CBS executive(s) are idiots

First, they report "self-reported numbers" on Netflix, pretty much say they don't believe them or know if they're accurate, and think they will trick Netflix into releasing better data. Oooh, I bet they almost fell for it !

The numbers that matter to Netflix are how many pay their subscription each month. It doesn't matter how many watch anything at all - Netflix got their money. Shows just how stuck in the past the CBS folks are.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: CBS executive(s) are idiots

It does matter to Netflix. The content contracts are based upon volume/windows/ or both. The reason that Starz went away is because they signed a purely window contract (x amount of years and access to their catalog). Well when Starz signed they never thought NFLX would be as popular as it was... Oops. In resign that went away and then they wanted too much and NTFX walked. Many of the early contracts were volume. After show xxx is watched 1,000 times it goes away...

Even though it is a subscription, like a cableco they need to balance their costs to make a profit, and w/ Netflix its content contracts, delivery, and native content...

They don't want to publish that because those are private contracts and to release that would give the networks ammo into their pricing/strategy/etc.,..
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError

Member

Bringing you yesterday's news today!

If I was paying $6/month directly to a TV network instead of the $1-2/month they get through the BDU (or nothing at all for OTA), I would expect same-day availability of their premiere content.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Wow!

That many???? LOL

(If the numbers were outstanding they would be standing on the roof shouting it for everyone to hear)

Sadly I am becoming less impressed with CBS corporation every day and that says a lot as I can recall when they were the premier network back in the day. William S. Paley would not recognize the place now (nor would Edward R. Murrow).
unclexrico
join:2014-03-28
Brooklyn, NY

unclexrico

Member

Re: Wow!

said by n2jtx:

That many???? LOL

(If the numbers were outstanding they would be standing on the roof shouting it for everyone to hear)

Proves what you know. You can't even count the amount of people who want to pay 5.99 a month for cheers with commercials and no football. It's so many they're not even done counting.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
I lost all respect for them when they forced CNET to pull Dish's Hopper's award for CES product of the year. Not only was it dishonest, it blew up in their faces big time. CNET lost any credibility it had left in the tech industry, Dish got more free publicity than it could ask for, the CEA dropped CNET from judging future shows, AND, in the end, the CEA handed the award to the Hopper anyway.

Hey Les, that was a brilliant bit of stategery on your part.

psiuuu
@104.10.89.x

psiuuu

Anon

Re: Wow!

Whenever I wonder how any of the shows I would be watching on network TV are doing, I just look at the Aereo logo in the middle of my Roku channels and seethe.

Don't really miss them much at all, honestly.

newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD

newview

Premium Member

I'd be willing to wager ...

that numbers are way up there in the double digits ... maybe even 100
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: I'd be willing to wager ...

Yeah, those are great numbers, but how many of them aren't CBS employees and their families?
Kuro
join:2014-10-01

Kuro

Member

The one

Is this going to be the thing that every other network points at to 'prove' streaming doesn't work and cord cutters are a myth/have no money?

Bagnon
Snoogans
join:2000-11-19
Hamilton, ON

Bagnon

Member

I hope more networks do this

If CBS wants to provide a streaming content service, so be it. I think it's great. I hope other networks do this. This may be what the future will become. I can see it becoming an app service within your TV or set top box. Select the network you want to watch and choose a show or channel. I'm sure eventually there will be guides that will access all app channels. It'd be kind of like a la carte but, content provider packages.

odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL

odreian615

Member

It should be $6-10 for ALL of the channels National Amusements owns

Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958

Premium Member

Re: It should be $6-10 for ALL of the channels National Amusements owns

said by odreian615:

Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free

Besides, there aren't $6 worth of show to watch on CBS anyway!

AnonDude
@97.95.147.x

AnonDude to odreian615

Anon

to odreian615
said by odreian615:

Who the heck would pay for OTA broadcast when you can get them for free

People with cable or satellite are paying for them now aren't they? Also not everyone can get in OTA. Yeah I can CBS on a SD sub channel. ABC and PBS are the only channels I can get in HD reliably.

NJxxxJon
2 0 1 7 Mmm Here We go man!
Premium Member
join:2005-10-22

NJxxxJon

Premium Member

Tried the free trial.....

I tried the freeness....and it lagged/froze pretty bad. And that was mid day when everyone should be at work.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD

devolved

Member

If he won't say how many

If he won't say how many, that means not many have signed up.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

Flyonthewall

Anon

Smoke screen

This is just an attempt to make a cable subscription over the internet, so when you order those services, you get commercials, help pay for sports even if you don't watch it, and support crap programming.

I wouldn't bite, but I'm sure some will.