Don't F@#k With The Trek

When I read that CBS will be launching a new STAR TREK series in 2017, I did a happy dance. I’ve been a Trekkie ever since I was a kid, and I’ve seen every episode of every series multiple times. But then I read on, and stopped dancing.CBS will not be presenting the new STAR TREK series on broadcast television – the series will be available on the CBS pay-per-view online service. The same service that makes you pay extra if you want to catch an episode of THE GOOD WIFE you missed within a week of the original broadcast date. The same service I won’t use on principle – I’m not paying for advertiser supported TV.First, let me tell you why this is a very bad move. The only reason there is a Star Trek franchise is because of the committed fans of the original series. One of the reasons the show had such a committed fan base was because Gene Roddenberry, the originator of the show, never enforced his copyright. He allowed fans to create fan fiction and merchandise. Those fans started to gather every year at conventions to exchange those products and to attend presentations where they could learn about the technical aspects of warp drive and the like. Those conventions grew in size until it was obvious that there was sufficient interest in the franchise for motion pictures based on the original series. Those conventions were also the predecessor of Comic-Con, which is now a global phenomenon in its own right.So, the franchise exists because the fans had open access to the copyright in the show. By limiting the show to pay-per-view, CBS is announcing that the new series will not honor the heritage of the series, the loyalty of the fans or the legacy of Gene Roddenberry.There will finally be a Star Trek series I will not watch.Why does this matter to anyone who didn’t have a pair of Spock ears in their closet when they were growing up? Because CBS is making the classic mistake of a major player in a dying industry. Broadcast television is quickly becoming irrelevant, as over-the-top services such as Amazon, Netflix and Hulu start creating their own content and abandoning the advertiser-sponsored broadcast model. CBS is limiting access in the face of disruptive technology.Remember when the Recording Industry Association of America started suing teenagers and grandmothers for illegally down-loaded music? It was a public relations nightmare for the record labels funding the RIAA. And where are those labels now? They have been totally eclipsed by digital distribution.Remember America Online? AOL was the first breakout online service, but it is now a dinosaur. Why? Because it tried to limit access. AOL did not want its users to have access to online resources AOL did not own, and AOL did not want non-subscribers to have access to AOL content. Online users simply will not accept limits on access to information.When content owners limit access in the face of disruptive technologies they merely hasten their own demise.So, yes, broadcast networks are going to have to adapt. But mimicking over-the-top services is not the right path, because the broadcast networks will never have enough content to make the service competitive, and because people are used to getting broadcast content for free. The only path forward is through innovation and added value.What would a truly disruptive business model for a broadcast network look like? Perhaps a business to business approach. Continue to have advertisers and sponsors, but use the programming to compile data. Generate data on viewing patterns and purchasing patterns and turn those into assets. Capitalize on newsgathering abilities to create content Netflix and Amazon cannot. Digitize their libraries. Produce content for digital services.Or find new ways to engage their audience. How about CBS-Con?In the final analysis, though, if a content owner chooses to pursue a business model that limits access to product that used to be given away for free, it would be well advised not to a franchise with a rabid fan base used to access as your tent pole. It’s one thing to be a dinosaur; it’s another thing entirely to be a stupid dinosaur.