3 ms·

Somehow the article fails to mention the weak subscriber numbers and lack of customer demand. Or full CNN's ratings, which would make a logical executive wonder

Somehow the article fails to mention the weak subscriber numbers and lack of customer demand. Or full CNN's ratings, which would make a logical executive wonder how many people would pay for CNN when it can barely attract viewers for free.

elicash 5y ago
This was already mentioned in previous Axios articles. This article is NEW info.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  That isn't true. The first block rehashes quotes from Feb 4th, Jeff Zucker's resignation, and Chris Licht taking over. Thats all very old news. And the previous article buried subscriber counts in paragraph 14, and never mentions CNN's ratings or viewership, or CNN+'s viewership per show. Instead, both this article and the previous one is an attempt to obfuscate the reality of awful viewership as just a victim of executive realignment: It's being shuttered due to a strategic misalignment between Discovery executives and CNN executives. and The service was shut down because CNN and its new parent disagreed over whether the investment made sense long-term. But not, "CNN shut down the service when it became obvious virtually nobody was willing to pay a non-promotional price for the product."
radiospiel 5y ago
~~~"...Inside CNN, executives saw the launch as a success. As of Tuesday, CNN+ had roughly 150,000 subscribers...."~~~ ups, sorry. As the sibling states this is in the other CNN+ related article
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Subscriber counts are the #1 most important metric for any streaming service. Did you see what happened to Netflix the other day? Axios buried CNN+ subscriber counts in paragraph 14 of the earlier article and doesn't mention them at all in this one. The entire series is an attempt to blame corporate mergers and lack of executive leadership rather than the fact that CNN has terrible viewership and brand equity. You need to learn to be a more critical news reader.
  - rvz 5y ago
    Precisely spot on and succinct. Couldn't have put it better myself. You can clearly see what's going on when you read the viewing figures of other media and streaming services out there and figure out why they're starting to shut down and restructure in the first place. Instead with this article, they continue to dodge those metrics and blame it on something else, or even on something totally un-related. It is another form of deflection and denial to try to salvage anything useful to learn from this failure. Expect that there is nothing to learn from this since, it is the sequel to another repeated mainstream media product failure since Quibi and they haven't learned anything since that collective failure even in a global lockdown. It is quite silly to see any defence in any prospect of this service quite frankly.
  - gsibble 5y ago
    Wanted to say spot on as well. Great comment.

elicash 5y ago

This was already mentioned in previous Axios articles. This article is NEW info.

listenallyall 5y ago
That isn't true. The first block rehashes quotes from Feb 4th, Jeff Zucker's resignation, and Chris Licht taking over. Thats all very old news. And the previous article buried subscriber counts in paragraph 14, and never mentions CNN's ratings or viewership, or CNN+'s viewership per show. Instead, both this article and the previous one is an attempt to obfuscate the reality of awful viewership as just a victim of executive realignment: It's being shuttered due to a strategic misalignment between Discovery executives and CNN executives. and The service was shut down because CNN and its new parent disagreed over whether the investment made sense long-term. But not, "CNN shut down the service when it became obvious virtually nobody was willing to pay a non-promotional price for the product."

radiospiel 5y ago

~~~"...Inside CNN, executives saw the launch as a success. As of Tuesday, CNN+ had roughly 150,000 subscribers...."~~~ ups, sorry. As the sibling states this is in the other CNN+ related article

listenallyall 5y ago
Subscriber counts are the #1 most important metric for any streaming service. Did you see what happened to Netflix the other day? Axios buried CNN+ subscriber counts in paragraph 14 of the earlier article and doesn't mention them at all in this one. The entire series is an attempt to blame corporate mergers and lack of executive leadership rather than the fact that CNN has terrible viewership and brand equity. You need to learn to be a more critical news reader.
- rvz 5y ago
  Precisely spot on and succinct. Couldn't have put it better myself. You can clearly see what's going on when you read the viewing figures of other media and streaming services out there and figure out why they're starting to shut down and restructure in the first place. Instead with this article, they continue to dodge those metrics and blame it on something else, or even on something totally un-related. It is another form of deflection and denial to try to salvage anything useful to learn from this failure. Expect that there is nothing to learn from this since, it is the sequel to another repeated mainstream media product failure since Quibi and they haven't learned anything since that collective failure even in a global lockdown. It is quite silly to see any defence in any prospect of this service quite frankly.
- gsibble 5y ago
  Wanted to say spot on as well. Great comment.