4 ms·
This is kind of hilarious. who was cnn+ even supposed to be for? I personally like CNN, and would probably pay <$x/month or something to get it unbundled. But n
by jquery 5y ago
This is kind of hilarious. who was cnn+ even supposed to be for? I personally like CNN, and would probably pay <$x/month or something to get it unbundled. But no way would I ever pay for "cnn+" that doesn't even have cnn!
- bombcar 5y agoThere are some Disney shows you can't find on Disney+; but the majority of what you think of as "Disney" is there. But trying to have CNN+ not even include CNN is a huge branding error at best.
- vikingerik 5y agoIt's worth pointing out the reasoning: the bigger factor is the exclusivity that the cable providers get for carrying CNN. The cable providers don't want you dropping them because you can get CNN elsewhere, and CNN doesn't want cable providers to think about dropping the channel because customers can get it elsewhere.
- cupofpython 5y agowhich is why there should not have been a cnn+ to begin with. they couldnt offer the only service of theirs that people are paying for
- bombcar 5y agoExactly. It was doomed to fail and it sounds like everyone knew it (or they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed).
- cupofpython 5y ago>they were hoping to make it into a life raft for when the cable companies collapsed interesting point. maybe there was some benefit to building the cnn+ infrastructure prior to their merger, and they did it because they figure they'll need it eventually
- ehvatum 5y agoThese people are not clever. Their calculations are apparent if you allow for sufficient sleaziness. CNN+ made sense back when Jeff Zucker was to be the man behind the throne of the Cuomo presidency. CNN+ would then have had the access to stay relevant as YouTube and Netflix ate up cable and satellite. Probably would have panned out if De Blasio hadn’t continuously sucked the oxygen out of the entire state for short-lived ego points. BLM was meant to be Cuomo’s road to the White House, not a city crosswalk, stupid bastard.
- the_snooze 5y agoESPN+ is the the same way. It has "ESPN exclusives," but only niche-tier live sports broadcasting that couldn't make it to the cable-only ESPN channels.
- fotta 5y agoESPN+ is so annoying. It used to be that you could watch anything streaming but not broadcast on cable with a cable login, but they moved most of that content to ESPN+. For example in the early Australian Open rounds you could watch matches on smaller courts with a cable login, but now you have to pay for ESPN+ for this even if you have a cable login.
- nwsm 5y agoSure but the "niche-tier" live sports are very valuable their audience, which cannot be said of the CNN+ content. ESPN+ is very popular in my social circle to watch college baseball, womens' sports, some MLS and European soccer, and more obscure games in the big college leagues. Not only is there no alternative for this content, it was unavailable entirely before ESPN+ launched. Of course I'm not defending the lack of cable ESPN content on ESPN+; I would love to have that as well.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]