• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

CNN+ is no more

Why pay for content that's available for free from CBS and the other networks?
 
Why pay for content that's available for free from CBS and the other networks?

It's actually not the same content. It's more in-depth. It's similar to Fox Nation. But Fox viewers are more passionate than CNN viewers. Fox viewers will pay for more content from Tucker Carlson. Not as much passion for Chris Wallace.

This shutdown comes on the heels of bad audience numbers for Netflix. Obviously consumers are becoming more selective in their streaming video choices:

 

How much of this is tied to Discovery/Warner trying to boost attention to two of their other apps Discovery+ and HBO Max. I know recently in other places NBC News have been trying to add their content to Peacock and ABC News has been trying to get their feed to Disney's other TV app Hulu.
 
How much of this is tied to Discovery/Warner trying to boost attention to two of their other apps Discovery+ and HBO Max.

The announcement of CNN+ was done before the merger. The new CEO wants to improve his streaming bundle with a different CNN product.
 
It's actually not the same content. It's more in-depth. It's similar to Fox Nation. But Fox viewers are more passionate than CNN viewers. Fox viewers will pay for more content from Tucker Carlson. Not as much passion for Chris Wallace.
And the "free" Fox News viewers outnumber the "free" CNN viewers by over four to one based on weekly cume. So there is a bigger core to begin with.

I'd speculate that the same kind of project from MSNBC might do quite well.

What is amazing is that it's reported that they spent $300 million on the project. Did they do any research at all on it? I heard that Fox Nation did "pilot" shows and researched them, using the same techniques that movie companies do to find the best final edit of a movie or, even, to find a need to change a scene or add a new one.
 
And the "free" Fox News viewers outnumber the "free" CNN viewers by over four to one based on weekly cume. So there is a bigger core to begin with.

I'd speculate that the same kind of project from MSNBC might do quite well.

What is amazing is that it's reported that they spent $300 million on the project. Did they do any research at all on it?
Note I looked at MSNBC some of their content is on Peacock. One of MSNBC Hosts Mehdi Hasan has his show on Peacock and in some cases he would be a fill in host for the main MSNBC Feed.

 
i said in the other thread about the flop that was CNN+ that "What was the point" of launching this stand alone service when you could had just put it on HBO Max instead in a special portal for the streaming service. man, Many people who order this service got ripped off when they should had just bought HBO Max instead or if they already had HBO Max, not pay for the extra streaming service.

Thank god they nipped this in the bud quick or else the losses would have out weight the gains several months in.
 
I've decided to offer my thoughts about this in an emergency episode of a brand new newsletter/podcast service I'm working on called Broadcasting Week.

If you want to listen to it and also subscribe to my newsletter for free, I'll leave the link here.

 
In general, I suspect you'll see more paid streaming services bow out. The reason many people originally "cut the cord" and got rid of cable and dish subscriptions was to save money. They bought an antenna to pick up no-cost OTA content, and a lot of past episodes of TV shows and series, movies and live sports programming could be found online for free, or certainly much cheaper than a monthly cable subscription in many cases, depending on what one watched.

Now that many networks like Discovery, ESPN, NBC and others have moved once free content to their paid streaming services, and in some cases sporting events, series and original programming can't be seen on cable and is only available via paid streaming, many folks are being selective as to which services they'll pay for and subscribe to. Those streaming services obviously cost $$ to operate, content generation and equipment/staffing cost $$, etc. so if they don't have enough paid subscriptions to make a solid go of it, I see more of them bowing out or changing their model or approach.

Regarding CNN+ in particular, I personally wouldn't be interested in paid streaming from any news outlet. There are plenty of news sources available otherwise (I think I have probably a dozen news apps on my phone, for instance and none require a subscription) and If I'm interested in more info about a specific news item or story, I generally use an aggregator to get detailed stories from a number of online sources. Also, I personally prefer to read the news rather than listen to a podcast or watch a video, with certain exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Actually no. It had a month live, which is nowhere near enough time to establish a track record. The new owners have a different strategy, or at least one without that in it. That's a different thing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom