• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN+ To Shut Down One Month After Launch

Looking back on this story I finally realized that this whole debacle by CNN is just a very sad, misguided attempt to copy Disney's work to collect all of their properties into a single streaming service, right down to the unimaginative [Company]+ moniker.

Some people with more power than brains failed to grasp that there isn't a single CNN property with the appeal of even the least of the Disney properties... but they invested in CNN+ as if CNN's properties would have the draw of Star Wars and Marvel...
 
I wonder what they will do with Chris Wallace now?
 
reinaert said:
DiscoveryHBO is going to shift the market even further. Paramount+ is a bad portal, but it has enormous content. Obviously Disney+/Hulu/Espn+ is a massive, and very well organized curator. And Amazon now has control of the MGM/UA library and studios, making Netflix the small player (especially if Apple+ follows trends and buys Sony and/or Lionsgate).

The $4.99ing to death is likely to change.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I envisioned Netflix going down for a while, with all the other services coming out. I know they saw this coming and started making their own content, but that is insanely expensive. Also, Netflix movies tend to be pretty meh, not horrible, but nothing great. There are some good shows, but they are too short of seasons and you usually have to wait a year or more, with no guarantee it will even come back. Some don't even want to bother watching a show until its over so you don't get left with your D in your hands if they leave you on cliffhanger and don't continue.

Plus, all these services are so horrible at advertising their shows. YOu never know what is coming out and when, and what is good or not. Absent some buzz from really big ones, stuff just pops up and you have no idea. And they stupidly got rid of the star ratings, so you don't even know if the show is good or not.

I've been using Netflix lately in my spanish learning watching programs in spanish
 
Last edited:
VySky said:
Is Chris Wallace job hunting? Their bias is sending them deeper in the tank.

——-

That didn't take long.

Following a string of reports about underwhelming subscriber numbers, Discovery has reportedly decided to shut down CNN+, CNN's ill-fated streaming service, one month after its launch.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate, but CNN's greatest asset is live news coverage. Having a ton of extraneous shows, even interesting ones with folks like NYU's business professor Scott Galloway or chef Allison Roman, is of little value when we have access to YouTube which gives us all that and more for free.
 
donhughesmusic said:
I wonder what they will do with Chris Wallace now?
Click to expand...
Wallace isn’t hurting for $, but I’ll be surprised if he didn’t get a lot of his contract upfront or guaranteed.

Kasie Hunt made the move before Wallace, I like her.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
No. The primary failing is assuming that millions of people would pay for content that they already giving away for free.
Click to expand...
Poor Chris. Left FOX for this joke? LMAO
donhughesmusic said:
I wonder what they will do with Chris Wallace now?
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to what's her name. The little blonde girl that was so in love with herself and helped Chris attack Trump in the debates. He'll end up in obscurity with her I guess. Chris who?
 
Felis Leo said:
It is unfortunate, but CNN's greatest asset is live news coverage. Having a ton of extraneous shows, even interesting ones with folks like NYU's business professor Scott Galloway or chef Allison Roman, is of little value when we have access to YouTube which gives us all that and more for free.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think CNN's biggest asset is their website. They get far more traffic there than they get eyes on their cable channel. They just thought they could bring the two together and charge a fee for it, forgetting that there is a negative correlation between charging money and viewership.

There best bet, if they were to ask me, would have been to start by putting up a $1 pay wall to CNN.com like WaPo and NYT do to see if there is some interest in paying for the CNN website... and if they get some interest they could grow the content that is behind the paywall while incrementally raising the subscription fees.

The all-at-once plan was doomed to fail.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Poor Chris. Left FOX for this joke? LMAO

Whatever happened to what's her name. The little blonde girl that was so in love with herself and helped Chris attack Trump in the debates. He'll end up in obscurity with her I guess. Chris who?
Click to expand...
At least he won't be forced to tell lies all day at CNN,
 
One of CNN's idiots, Brian Stelter, doesn't know whether this debacle was a success or failure:

www.newsbusters.org

Stelter: 'Too Early to Know' if CNN+ Was 'a Success or a Failure'

Unflinching from the disastrous result of the “experiment” that was CNN+, company man and host Brian Stelter was defiant on Friday’s edition of his dying streaming show, Reliable Sources Daily.
www.newsbusters.org www.newsbusters.org
 
jmotivator said:
CNN+ was charging, what.. $6 a month? The initial investment was $100 million and a goal of dumping $1 billion into the project.

The only thing I can think to sort out the thinking behind this debacle is that CNN assumed that they would convert their online readership into paid customers of their streaming service? But their online readership already didn't translate into viewers on their basic cable channel, sooo...
Click to expand...
CNN committed suicide in 2016.

All this is, is the stench escaping the confines of a rotting corpse.
 
jmotivator said:
The primary failing is assuming that millions of people would pay for content that they already couldn't give away for free.
Click to expand...
The better criticism is that they chose to do this knowing they don't have strong viewership numbers in their linear offerings. Building CNN as a hub on their HBO Max platform would have been a much better way to do this in my opinion. That way you build the technical and distribution framework to expand into a standalone if the hub gains traction. News content is in a pretty weird place given the way people consume it; especially the younger demographic. This seemed like an endeavor destined to fail because paying yet another fee to access news when I can do so in a variety of different ways just doesn't make sense. A brand hub on HBO Max with a focus on exclusive content unavailable on linear would have been a good start and at lower cost.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Looking back on this story I finally realized that this whole debacle by CNN is just a very sad, misguided attempt to copy Disney's work to collect all of their properties into a single streaming service, right down to the unimaginative [Company]+ moniker.

Some people with more power than brains failed to grasp that there isn't a single CNN property with the appeal of even the least of the Disney properties... but they invested in CNN+ as if CNN's properties would have the draw of Star Wars and Marvel...
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the strategy for most media companies and has been for the past several years. All of these mergers are precisely to snatch up as many content libraries, established global markets, and distribution capabilities as possible. Netflix was the exception because they just pumped absurd amounts of money into generating new content across genres as they realized that their platform was too dependent on syndicated series, specials, and theatricals. Once they started creating competing content across genres, media companies took note and started pulling shows off of Netflix.

What will be interesting to see is what all of this eventually morphs into, because the original problem streaming sought to solve was a la carte viewing, but what customers are now realizing is what that means financially. The rush for exclusivity has created an ecosystem where consumers have to subscribe to multiple platforms to watch the content they enjoy. Right now there's a lot of account sharing that makes all of this tolerable, but I'm pretty sure that party will come to an end really soon; specifically because of recent blow to Netflix and their projected subscriptions.
 
My post above makes little sense. I've tried three times to change, alter, or reword it to no avail. The system will not permit me to change my post to say what I said. Obviously there is a Trumpian, white nationalist, anti-SEC, non-Buddhist, missionary position loving, wheat beer drinking, no fun after 9.00 PM, virginistic, lemonade drinking, fart avoiding, armpit huffing cabal within the board administration that is aligned against me and everything I love, including Dairy Queen Buster Bars.
 
ElChupacabra said:
That's pretty much the strategy for most media companies and has been for the past several years. All of these mergers are precisely to snatch up as many content libraries, established global markets, and distribution capabilities as possible. Netflix was the exception because they just pumped absurd amounts of money into generating new content across genres as they realized that their platform was too dependent on syndicated series, specials, and theatricals. Once they started creating competing content across genres, media companies took note and started pulling shows off of Netflix.

What will be interesting to see is what all of this eventually morphs into, because the original problem streaming sought to solve was a la carte viewing, but what customers are now realizing is what that means financially. The rush for exclusivity has created an ecosystem where consumers have to subscribe to multiple platforms to watch the content they enjoy. Right now there's a lot of account sharing that makes all of this tolerable, but I'm pretty sure that party will come to an end really soon; specifically because of recent blow to Netflix and their projected subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Right, but that strategy, and hundreds of millions of investment, make sense when the property is Star Wars and Marvel Studios... not so much when it's Brian Stelter and Don Lemon.
 
jmotivator said:
Right, but that strategy, and hundreds of millions of investment, make sense when the property is Star Wars and Marvel Studios... not so much when it's Brian Stelter and Don Lemon.
Click to expand...
My point being that they could have done this with spending significantly less than what they did because the scale would have been much smaller. They went for the gusto, so when you bet big you're either going to win big or lose big. The thing here is they should have known it was a risky bet.
 
ElChupacabra said:
My point being that they could have done this with spending significantly less than what they did because the scale would have been much smaller. They went for the gusto, so when you bet big you're either going to win big or lose big. The thing here is they should have known it was a risky bet.
Click to expand...

Which was my analysis. If they were smart they could have gone the WaPo route and put a small paywall in front of their website, and then used that revenue to grow content for behind the paywall. But no, Brian Stelter and Don Lemon were going to pull Mandalorian numbers and nobody could tell them otherwise.
 
The last I read the people at CNN are pissed because they learned how many millions they paid Chris Wallace. 🤣
The last two days on The Five on Fox, Greg Gutfield has been full of jabs at Chris Wallace and it has been funny as all get out.

CNN+ aired for 3 weeks and now is no more. Why ....because they couldn't muster up enough people to watch their crap. Who was the brain behind this when their ratings were in the tank in the first place? Before CNN+ HGTV, Food Network beat them in nightly ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom