Obligatory ST Convention, and the definition of the verb "Riker":
In a sense, you could say that Wheaten Rikered the hell out of Ashley Judd.
BL.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Star Trek: Alpha to Delta Quadrants & Everything In Between
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obligatory ST Convention, and the definition of the verb "Riker":
In a sense, you could say that Wheaten Rikered the hell out of Ashley Judd.
BL.
So it seems the ratings are out for Star Trek: Academy 2.1 million viewers, seems kind of low. I saw one reddit thread where they did some basic math
That's assuming those viewers are new subscribers, which is certainly not the case. Basically they're spending money and not getting any benefit back - if I'm understanding things.
That's assuming those viewers are new subscribers, which is certainly not the case. Basically they're spending money and not getting any benefit back - if I'm understanding things.
Well that math means very little I'd say.
How do the ratings compare to other shows in that price range and what kind of of viewership number would they need to make a profit?
Something fishy in the whole streaming/subscription industry which makes me wonder what is their "big plan" or if there even is one.
How do the ratings compare to other shows in that price range and what kind of of viewership number would they need to make a profit?
Something fishy in the whole streaming/subscription industry which makes me wonder what is their "big plan" or if there even is one.
I'd be the first to admit that I have very little knowledge in how streaming works from a financial perspective. But if you're spending 100 million dollars a star trek series (10 episodes @ 10 million) and people are largely not viewing that series then is that money well spent?
Tbh, not sure how streaming companies value ROI, worth, and success
Plus with streaming, the goal is to increase the subscriber base to draw advertisers because ads generate a good deal of revenue per subscriber (this is why ad-free plans keep going up in price - the streaming companies make more money on the ad-supported plans). So even if subscribers are not watching any of the Star Trek shows, they are watching something else on the platform and viewing advertisements.
And if you believe Mike Stotska on the latest RLM video on Deep Space Nine, Strange New Worlds is pulling in less than a tenth of what Academy is. Might be why the show has been scheduled for conclusion and the final season's episode count truncated.
And if you believe Mike Stotska on the latest RLM video on Deep Space Nine, Strange New Worlds is pulling in less than a tenth of what Academy is. Might be why the show has been scheduled for conclusion and the final season's episode count truncated.
Content is, and will always be king. Without it, you have no entertainment business.
The OTT (streaming) business was going to be the way for the studios and content creators to bypass the middlemen (like the cable companies), go directly to consumers, and…profit.
Everyone was eager to jump into the business, and spent lavishly to build these services and create content to line the shelves, and make money.
Only, it didn't really turn out that way, which is why there has been a reckoning/reality check, leading to a contraction in production, quick cancellations (even on series that have been renewed), and prices increases to consumers, even on the ad-supported tiers. As well as the addition of more tiers (price discrimination), and ad placement in tiers that were formerly ad-free (looking at you, Amazon).
One important factor that the streaming business misses is any sort of commitment, like a cable, or cell phone contract. Viewers take full advantage of that and can come and go to each streamer as they wish, timed to coincide with the shows they actually want to watch, or when they actually want to get around to watching them. In a way, it is like a substitute for the à la carte system that many viewers have longed for.
It's a more volatile business, and one that relies on critical mass, and being able to play the long game, rather than individual successes and failures.
Hollywood accounting has always been sort of its own thing, and strays from the kind of logic the rest of the business world uses. A lot of manipulation occurs, at least to the extent that publicly traded companies can get away with. Legal disputes often arise over how the loot is split, and hidden by tricky accounting. Kirkman and his fight against AMC over profits from the TWD franchise come to mind.
The same occurs with ratings, and viewership numbers, which the companies are cagey about, and even more so with streaming where they were completely opaque for a long time, most famously with Netflix, which stonewalled everyone.
Viewership numbers have always included a lot of guesswork, and still do, even though the ability to collect data is light years ahead of the times when Nielsen had to bribe TV watchers to fill out paper diaries about what they watched, which was then compiled into numbers the networks could tout, and the advertisers would accept.
In short, there is a lot of "how the sausage is made" character to how the industry operates.
The OTT (streaming) business was going to be the way for the studios and content creators to bypass the middlemen (like the cable companies), go directly to consumers, and…profit.
Everyone was eager to jump into the business, and spent lavishly to build these services and create content to line the shelves, and make money.
Only, it didn't really turn out that way, which is why there has been a reckoning/reality check, leading to a contraction in production, quick cancellations (even on series that have been renewed), and prices increases to consumers, even on the ad-supported tiers. As well as the addition of more tiers (price discrimination), and ad placement in tiers that were formerly ad-free (looking at you, Amazon).
One important factor that the streaming business misses is any sort of commitment, like a cable, or cell phone contract. Viewers take full advantage of that and can come and go to each streamer as they wish, timed to coincide with the shows they actually want to watch, or when they actually want to get around to watching them. In a way, it is like a substitute for the à la carte system that many viewers have longed for.
It's a more volatile business, and one that relies on critical mass, and being able to play the long game, rather than individual successes and failures.
Hollywood accounting has always been sort of its own thing, and strays from the kind of logic the rest of the business world uses. A lot of manipulation occurs, at least to the extent that publicly traded companies can get away with. Legal disputes often arise over how the loot is split, and hidden by tricky accounting. Kirkman and his fight against AMC over profits from the TWD franchise come to mind.
The same occurs with ratings, and viewership numbers, which the companies are cagey about, and even more so with streaming where they were completely opaque for a long time, most famously with Netflix, which stonewalled everyone.
Viewership numbers have always included a lot of guesswork, and still do, even though the ability to collect data is light years ahead of the times when Nielsen had to bribe TV watchers to fill out paper diaries about what they watched, which was then compiled into numbers the networks could tout, and the advertisers would accept.
In short, there is a lot of "how the sausage is made" character to how the industry operates.