Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media

CNN's New Streaming Service, CNN Plus, Is Already Shutting Down (washingtonpost.com) 193

Posted by msmash from the end-of-road dept.
New parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery, decided to pull the plug on the streaming service after a slow first month. From a report: On March 29, CNN took a step into the future of media, launching a new streaming service called CNN Plus that aimed to modernize its traditional television business and place a bet on the future of digital news consumption. But after a slow start, new parent company Warner Bros. Discovery has already decided to already shut down the service at the end of April, new CNN chief executive Chris Licht announced in a memo to employees on Thursday afternoon that was obtained by The Washington Post.

However, the network found difficulty convincing enough customers to pay the $5.99 monthly cost for the service, which offers a mixture of live and on-demand programming, including a large library of old shows from hosts like the late Anthony Bourdain. The network has not released any data on the number of people who have subscribed, but early media reports suggested that the number was lower than to be expected for a service that has cost more than $100 million to create.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNN's New Streaming Service, CNN Plus, Is Already Shutting Down More

CNN's New Streaming Service, CNN Plus, Is Already Shutting Down

Comments Filter:

  • not even a month (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Blymie ( 231220 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @11:36AM (#62465602)

    Utterly insane. A few weeks, and they give up? The attention span, and commitment of children!

    • They are committed to their cable channel, which is also failing. Perhaps you should consider what you are saying. They need a magic bullet and their online shit proved to not be it.
    • Utterly insane. A few weeks, and they give up? The attention span, and commitment of children!

      WB took a page out of Fox's playbook a la Firefly. Don't bother giving something a chance, just look at the metrics because they never lie.
    • Poor Chris Wallace. ;/

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      Utterly insane. A few weeks, and they give up? The attention span, and commitment of children!

      It was the right call because it was a dumb idea from the start. CNN stand alone streaming service that doesn't have the main CNN live feed because they couldn't piss off the cable providers. So even the people who would want CNN, and who don't currently get it with a cable package, didn't want it. Better to kill it now than sink more money into it.

      • If the executives give themselves a bonus for killing it so soon, they may have earned it for once.
      • I was considering being a CNN+ subscriber. The problem is, of course, you can only watch one thing at a time. CNN has way too many advertisements so a paid plan where I could see more content would make sense. Prior to Russia invading Ukraine I had largely started ignoring the station. But suddenly its on our TV every night. But had I found out that I couldnt' get the live stream sans ads, uh yeah, I wouldn't have signed up. I have no idea what they were thinking. Who is going to pay to get *less* cont

    • Utterly insane. A few weeks, and they give up? The attention span, and commitment of children!

      My guess is that early media reports suggested that the number was lower than to be expected means the # of subscribers was mentioned in the thousands or even hundreds.

      Basically it was so far from succeeding that pulling the plug is actually a prudent move.

      I think the main problem is that traditional streaming services are built on hit shows, but news doesn't really work on that model outside of a handful of fringe pundits. People watch CNN because they want the news, but if CNN isn't available you can watc

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        People watch CNN because they want the news

        I would argue that statement is incorrect. People watch [insert any news network] because they want entertainment that matches a pre-conceived worldview.

        • that matches a pre-conceived worldview.

          CNN is competing with MSNBC and NPR for the same left-of-center ideological slice.

          On the right, FOX is more successful because they are the only semi-credible newsyish channel for that demographic, and talk-radio has shown that there is more demand for righty-news than lefty-news.

      • I am surprised to see based on the reply to that post that Fox and MSNBC are 4 years older on average viewership, I always assumed that Fox and MSNBC appealed to a younger demographic.

      • I believe Fox has a streaming service similar to what CNN+ pulled the plug on....

        Any idea how it is doing?

        I"m guessing better than CNN+ at this point?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by haus ( 129916 )

          Fox is benefiting from the larger number of those subscribers who feel the need to collect more evidence for their defamation suits.

        • If Fox's streaming services offered their actually shows (even if they were delayed), I'd sign up for it.

          As it is now, the shows I watch I have to see as quickly as possible on Youtube before the they are taken down.

    • Matt Dornic (Head of Strategic Comms, CNN) on March 30th: "For the record, we are VERY happy with the launch of CNN+ and are only bracing for a long run of success."
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • it appears that CNN chief executives gambled on launching the channel in before closing the WBD merger, hoping the new chief would just let it slide

  • Well duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @11:37AM (#62465606)

    The venn diagram of people who want to pay $6 a month for "more CNN" and people with an extra $6 that haven't wasted it yet is two orbiting bodies.

    Why WB didn't just roll the extra shit into existing HBOMax subs is pure fucking greed. Serves them right.

    • Most people probably bought a month to binge Anthony Bourdain and then cancel. Still not sure CNN picked him up in the first place. Does slashdot consider him “woke”?

      • I hope not, I feel like he had some appeal to just about everyone. Even if you didn't agree with him he very much came across as an honest guy and apparently it wasn't a front people who had met him said he was the genuine article.

        I believe it was Discovery picked up his show originally and they merged with ATT/Warner last year so just coincidence it ends up on CNN.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GlennC ( 96879 )

        Most people probably bought a month to binge Anthony Bourdain ... Does slashdot consider him âoewokeâ?

        Given that Anthony Bourdain is dead, does it matter if he's considered "woke" or not?

      • Bourdain was clearly pretty liberal, but I don't remember anyone accusing him of being a wokester.

    • That might be the best description of a Venn diagram ever.

      Fundamentally it sounds like CNN overvalued their product by a ton. While news and opinion shows are an important component of Americans' TV diet, CNN is one of very many sources for that content, especially on the left-leaning side, and the other sources are free (or available with basic cable). Trying to convince viewers to shell out $6/mo for stuff they can approximate for free elsewhere seems like a non-starter.

      I'd like to see what their market

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )

        While news and opinion shows are an important component of Americans' TV diet, CNN is one of very many sources for that content, especially on the left-leaning side, and the other sources are free (or available with basic cable). Trying to convince viewers to shell out $6/mo for stuff they can approximate for free elsewhere seems like a non-starter.

        Oh, except it doesn't even have that. CNN+ does not have the main channel live feed. It's basically a bunch of their pre-taped shows (you can see the list here: https://plus.cnn.com/plus/brow... [cnn.com]). I think they had some sort of news feed (never signed up so don't know for sure) but it wasn't the CNN channel.

    • Why roll a loser into a winner. Better to excise the cancer right away.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Why WB didn't just roll the extra shit into existing HBOMax subs is pure fucking greed. Serves them right.

      Well, they are learning, since HBOMax and Discovery+ are merging together. Granted WB bought Discovery Network, but to announce the services are merging is a big step. They could've just kept it separate.

      I have a feeling CNN+ would just get rolled into the new service in the end.

      Of course, we're going to get such consolidation that people will probably start wishing for the services to e separated again

  • Poorly marketted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hank21 ( 6290732 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @11:45AM (#62465636)
    Seemed shady - CNN's main site became less "news" and more promotion of CNN+ It felt odd to watch a blurb on the Ukraine war for example, and the see a link for "see more" and get slapped in the face with the "only for CNN+ subscribers". I got tired of being teased and decided to just forgo all of CNN. In my case, CNN+ caused damage to the main CNN.

    • CNN itself is damaging CNN. They run a bunch of clickbaity stories to begin with, with even more clickbaity headlines. It's a bunch of outrage politics. Fuck that, CNN, we already have multiple "news outlets" that specialize in getting people pissed off so they can generate more ad impressions.

      With that said, I hope they stay in business so they suck the air out of the room for the next news outlet that wants to go the same way.

    • For corporate media everyday. Like it or not with social media I can literally see people documenting what's happening in real time. The argument's going to be that it's bias but after decades of watching corporate media and it's pro corporate biases I'll take my chances with some Yahoo holding a cell phone versus a makeup corporation owned by a handful of billionaires any day of the week.

      This isn't to say I'm not willing to keep tabs on the perspective of corporate media and local journalists still do

  • Can't compete (Score:3)

    by kyoko21 ( 198413 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @11:47AM (#62465656)

    It's hard to compete with the likes of Al Jazeera that streams their news freely on YouTube.

  • I thought it was cynical but on-brand for CNN+ to launch during a war, considering the cable channel made its bones during Desert Shield, with Wolf Blitzer broadcasting from Baghdad during an air strike.

    Really, though: they were two years too late. People were thirsty for news about COVID. Now, if you want to see how a war is going, there's TikTok, Twitter, etc., where you can see the videos CNN will loop two days later, without the blurred-out corpses.

    Then again, if they really wanted to make money, they

    • When we launched the planes from Bahrain we had no idea the war was about to begin. Back in the ready-room we saw CNN showing the war had started. Our CO came running in complaining that he wanted to tell us first. That was surreal.

  • Who thought this would work? (Score:3)

    by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @11:59AM (#62465700)

    Since news essentially can't be copyrighted like movies, there are endless sources of current news available for free in any format or political bias you want. Also unlike movies or TV, absolutely no one is going to pay money to watch a back catalog of old news. CNN (and all other exclusively news channels) have 3 options:
    1) Stick to the cable TV model until that finally dies (I give it 2 years, tops).
    2) Create an advertiser supported, free streaming channel.
    3) Bundle yourself into a streaming service that people will actually pay for.

    • Since news essentially can't be copyrighted like movies, there are endless sources of current news available for free in any format or political bias you want.

      The news can't be copyrighted. But a news broadcast can.

      • The news can't be copyrighted. But a news broadcast can.

        but if they are covering the same news, one broadcast is as good as another. At least close enough that few are willing to pay a premium price for a specific "brand" of news.

  • News is news and all of it can be wrapped up in no more than 30 minutes a day. Anything outside of the basic facts, is opinion.

    CNN isn't producing any other shows except more commentary. Who needs that? I couldn't imagine paying any money to hear talking heads espouse their opinions and call themselves experts. Now, if they all dressed up in alien costumes....

    10,000 subscribers sounds to me like 10,000 businesses that were likely added to the rolls who currently subscribed to CNN's business service. T

  • Really, CNN that this was a good idea? For the last 15 or so years nearly all local newspapers have disappeared because, you know, pay for news? If the news was completely unbiased and not full of newscasters wanting to be talk show hosts, then maybe. Current news offerings are low grade theater at best.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      This was even worse though - it was like CNN but without the live news, just extra shows with commentary. They might have had something if they included news with it

    • nearly all local newspapers have disappeared because, you know, pay for news?

      They disappeared because of Bill Clinton.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )
      The world would be a better place if we shit-canned ALL of the 24-hour news networks.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )
          I don't count him as part of the 24 hour news cycle. Of course he participates in it, but that's not the same. That being said, I wouldn't be too shaken up if he disappeared and never came back either.
  • Yes $100m on a service that nobody wants. Let's hope they burn through the rest of their cash so CNN can shutdown also.

  • Wallace had a new gig on CNN+. I hope they find a better role for him.

  • Yes. Geez. Stupid idea to start with. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:19PM (#62465778)

    CNN already turns 5 minutes of news into 5 hours of accessorized drivel. Why exactly would people want to "pay" for additional redundant blather?

    I miss old school news. "Here's what's happening." Although it was mildly biased, they didn't spend a lot of time telling me how I should feel about it, and asking panels of insignificant non-contributors what they think.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mitreya ( 579078 )

      they didn't spend a lot of time telling me how I should feel about it

      Indeed. Most of the news has gone this way. Even when I fully agree with them, there is still no particular need to explain how I should feel. For example, they don't have to say "unprovoked attack" each time they talk about Russia attack on Ukraine. Not unless they are actually talking about events that lead up to the war.

    • It was always heavily biased. What they covered and what aspects they covered was always subject to severe bias. Take for example how everyone is covering inflation but literally no major news outlet is talking about how 60% of it is due to corporations raising prices more than needed to cover costs, and making record profits during a pandemic. Doing that during a state of emergency is price gouging, and it's supposed to be illegal. But since we have government by, of, and for corporations — who liter

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 )

        CNN was always clearly biased AND did a relatively poor job of getting the facts and reporting them in a concise, efficient way. If you look at its beginnings, it was thrown together from the start. (They literally had problems with the set itself falling over behind the newscasters trying to speak. And they only caught a lucky break when they had nothing better to do than stick around to video the entire situation of the kid who fell into a well on some farmer's property, while all the other respectable ne

  • Oh well (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:41PM (#62465858) Journal
    Guess it's back to captive audiences in doctor's offices and the airport!

  • CNN, FOX News, MSNBC... All these 24 hours news stations really need to go.
    This is a case of more doesn't equal better. As there is a lot of stuff that happens in the world, however for the most part it doesn't effect most people, however the 24 hour news cycle need to fill up the time, and they fill it with crap, that is trying to get our attention, vs actual inform us.
    MSNBC oh look at that that stupid law pass in Texas or Florida.
    Fox News look at that stupid law pass in California or New York.
    They will h

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • No.
        However profiteering off of news is just as bad as pushing government propaganda.

        Having the timeline for the news restricted, kinda forces news broadcasters to choose what to show and what not too. They can choose to give fluff nonsense, political propaganda, or what they would consider the most valuable news.

        However the guy who keeps Cable News on TV all day, who just gets angrier and angrier at those people who are not his political affliction, is more harmful then helpful.

        Cable News is like the "Mirr

  • So the new streaming service has lasted two Mooches. On the other hand it only cost 1/17 of a Quibi.

  • Accepting the wisdom of your adversaries is psychologically difficult, yet it works best to consider your critics seriously instead of reflexively arguing back. CNN was publically warned to not trust advice from McKinsey management consultants about streaming service revenue projections.

    After CNN announced paid streaming, Glenn Greenwald asked [twitter.com], "How much money did CNN pay McKinsey to convince them that people will pay to watch their hosts that nobody wants to watch for free?"

    The National Review asserted [nationalreview.com] th

  • It's not like CNN has a corner on the news, I can go almost anywhere and get the news for free.

  • CNN is preparing reparations to their relationships with all 3 terminated CNN+ users.

    "We really thought it was going to take off."

  • Here's an idea... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @03:51PM (#62466652)

    How about one of the major news organizations - anyone - start reporting the news as it happens? Just report the events of the day without any of the click bait headlines or slanted editorial reviews. As near as I can tell nobody is doing this now. Not CNN not Fox not ABC or NBC or MSNBC or PBS.

    I realize this is going way back but there was a time when news was reported as news. At the end of the broadcast the announcer would say "and now for tonight's editorial" and everyone would know that what followed was the opinion of the newscaster. Somewhere along the way those lines got blurred. Now it seems that all media is just propaganda to a greater or lesser extent. If you sift through 3 or 4 different accounts of the same story maybe you can determine what the actual truth is. But most people don't have the time or inclination to do that so they pick their favorite network and get fed a steady diet of misinformation.

    Maybe this is John Malone's master plan - to return to the good old days when news programs actually had a measure of integrity. I sure hope so because as it stands now I won't watch any of those news outlets.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Dwedit ( 232252 )

      The problem is that if you try to report too fast, you get the facts wrong. Fact checking and verification takes time.

  • Here's what really happened (Score:5, Informative)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Thursday April 21, 2022 @06:28PM (#62467140)

    Dozens of people posting their opinions about this, and not one seems to have read the story to find out what actually happened.

    WarnerMedia was just acquired by Discovery. CNN+ was a project of the old management team. It launched just days before the acquisition was finalized. The Discovery management team never had the slightest interest in it. Their plan is to add CNN properties to their existing streaming service. Yet another streaming service made no sense for them and didn't fit with their plans.

    Here's a relevant quote from the story.

    One outside observer who had been cautiously optimistic about CNN Plus's chances last month said Thursday that its demise "was always preordained" by the corporate takeover on its heels.

    "It had nothing to do with the success or failure of the CNN Plus launch," said Chris Balfe, a veteran digital media executive. "It was killed way before we would ever know whether it was a successful product."

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close