4 ms·

Do you have access to their internal modelling? I don't. I have no idea what they were expecting. I agree, that seems like a slow start, but that's a single

Do you have access to their internal modelling? I don't. I have no idea what they were expecting. I agree, that seems like a slow start, but that's a single month in a very challenging quarter. Given Netflix, one of the biggest participants in the space, missed their subscriber projections by 2.7M in the first quarter, and are forecasting a further 2.5M contraction, I see a very crowded field where a niche offering should be expected to find a small audience and grow slow. Regardless, I stand by my claim that commenters are missing the forest for the trees, here, and using this as an opportunity to bash the CNN brand rather than stepping back and looking at the broader context.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Do you have access to their internal modelling? I don't. I have no idea what they were expecting. That's pretty rich considering you asserted it did not fail as a product, then demanded this of someone who disagreed with you (and is obviously right).
kansface 5y ago
They brought in less than 50k dollars on a 300 million investment with very high, ongoing operating costs.
bavell 5y ago
> Do you have access to their internal modelling? I don't. I have no idea what they were expecting. This info is already out there [0] and they were laughably off the mark. They were expecting 2M subs this year and up to 18M in four years, according to McKinsey. It's funny watching people defending a dying brand. The broader context is that CNN and the rest of cable news has been self-immolating for awhile now and are circling the drain, desperate to remain relevant. [0] https://www.axios.com/cnn-plus-cuts-warner-brothers-discovery-1be0ac3a-6952-4af0-b8e2-03dd6ae0839c.html https://www.axios.com/cnn-plus-cuts-warner-brothers-discover...