# CNN announces CNN+, 'most important launch for network since Ted Turner'



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

CNN announces CNN+, 'most important launch for network since Ted Turner'


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

b4pjoe said:


> CNN announces CNN+, 'most important launch for network since Ted Turner'


What happens to their content that's currently on HBO Max? Is that spun off?


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Gee another network that I have no interest in - maybe if they paid me I might. When will dbstalk+ be coming out


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> What happens to their content that's currently on HBO Max? Is that spun off?


Yeah, I wondered about that too. I like having those CNN docs and docuseries as part of HBO Max. Maybe they'll be in both.

I don't really get the concept of CNN+. Who's subbing to this? CNN superfans who want more CNN content than what's available on the regular channel (and whose thirst for additional news isn't sated by MSNBC, Fox News, Cheddar News, CBSN and/or Sky News)?

The only play that makes sense, IMO, is for CNN to do what HBO did years ago and make the real thing available as a standalone direct-to-consumer streaming service. Just as they took the cable-authenticated HBO Go app and replicated it as the standalone HBO Now app, why not do the same thing with the CNN Go app? It has live streams of the CNN channels plus on-demand access to recent shows. Just take that app and rename it "CNN" and sell direct subscriptions to it for $3-4 per month.

If they wanted it to appeal not just to cord-cutters but also existing cable subs who really love CNN, then they could throw some exclusive additional content in the app.

I guess the reason they won't go that route is they're afraid it will only encourage more cord-cutting. News and sports are two of the main reasons why many people keep cable TV. If they can get CNN without cable TV, it'll only encourage more folks to dump the bundle. But if the standalone CNN app is priced right, it would offset the loss of carriage fees from cable TV distributors. And more and more consumers are walking away from cable TV anyhow. May as well skate to where the puck is going.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

I give this less than a year until quietly shut down. CNN cannot sell a stream of CNN, due to contracts with traditional providers, and there are lots of ways to get news for free on the internet anyway, so this is just some documentaries and archive footage. 

They won’t announce a price. Really this is something that should just be tossed in HBO Max or shown on something like Pluto.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> CNN is hiring hundreds of people and developing dozens of programs for a subscription streaming service that will launch early next year.
> 
> The new venture, called CNN+, was formally announced on Monday morning. It will exist side by side with CNN's existing television networks and will feature eight to twelve hours of live programming a day.
> 
> Jeff Zucker, the chairman of WarnerMedia News and Sports and president of CNN Worldwide, portrayed CNN+ as the evolution of video news and the start of a new era for the company.


It shouldn't have a huge difference on "Time Warner Discovery" ... and with others launching similar services I don't see it to be groundbreaking to be not the first major news network to create new content to sell separately.

I have noticed some of CNN's better documentaries and documentary series being produced in conjunction with HBO. I expect that will continue with CNN+ being news and pundits having their own channels or extended programs similar to what Fox News is apparently doing.

It isn't something that will get my money. I prefer free or free with MVPD subscription content. I haven't paid for a "plus" network yet and have no plans to do so.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> I give this less than a year until quietly shut down. CNN cannot sell a stream of CNN, due to contracts with traditional providers, and there are lots of ways to get news for free on the internet anyway, so this is just some documentaries and archive footage.
> 
> They won't announce a price. Really this is something that should just be tossed in HBO Max or shown on something like Pluto.


It's going to have 8 to 12 hours of live content a day, along with on-demand access to some stuff from the real CNN channel, like docs and such. So it will essentially be "CNN 2". Ironically, they launched a cable channel called CNN-2 back at the start of 1982. The name was subsequently changed to Headline News, with a focus on brief updates as opposed to longer-format shows. It's now known as HLN and is largely forgotten.






Anyhow, I agree that if CNN wanted to create a separate product for the internet, it would've made more sense to do what CBS News and NBC News have done and create a free channel available on Pluto, YouTube and other free sources. Use it to gain younger viewers who don't have cable TV.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Vis CNN 2, the whole thing goes back to a long forgotten channel called Satellite News Channel. Back then cable bandits would carry only one channel per genre. So Westinghouse/Group W launched this rival service, with the hook being it was a 30 minute loop of news while CNN in that era, to quote from TV Guide’s first review of it, was “sort of an all day Today Show”. Turner launched CNN 2, soon renamed CNN Headline News to respond. Westinghouse in that era was WAY bigger than Turner and should have won this particular war.

Westinghouse did a terrible job with SNC, with little film, just talking heads reading AP copy. And it had this 5 minute “local” segment, which was just stuff gleaned from the local news at a Westinghouse station, which might be 4 or 5 states away and thus not very local.

Lost lots of $$, eventually, Turner gave them a few $$ to shut down. 

Later, the “CNN” was dropped from Headline News, and as the need for such a service was made obsolete by the internet, it morphed into this Nancy Grace unsolved mysteries (which are really often not mysteries nor unsolved) channel of today. Really serves no purpose.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> Vis CNN 2, the whole thing goes back to a long forgotten channel called Satellite News Channel. Back then cable bandits would carry only one channel per genre. So Westinghouse/Group W launched this rival service, with the hook being it was a 30 minute loop of news while CNN in that era, to quote from TV Guide's first review of it, was "sort of an all day Today Show". Turner launched CNN 2, soon renamed CNN Headline News to respond. Westinghouse in that era was WAY bigger than Turner and should have won this particular war.
> 
> Westinghouse did a terrible job with SNC, with little film, just talking heads reading AP copy. And it had this 5 minute "local" segment, which was just stuff gleaned from the local news at a Westinghouse station, which might be 4 or 5 states away and thus not very local.
> 
> ...


In the early 1980s, a lot of news around the country was just what you described, two anchors sitting behind a desk reading the news, and that must have been what Westinghouse was going after, a 30 minute loop of exactly that. HLN in it's early days was exactly that. We still have that locally in some respects. Optimum in NJ runs Channel 12 which is just a loop of the same stories over and over until some new story comes along.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> In the early 1980s, a lot of news around the country was just what you described, two anchors sitting behind a desk reading the news, and that must have been what Westinghouse was going after, a 30 minute loop of exactly that. HLN in it's early days was exactly that. We still have that locally in some respects. Optimum in NJ runs Channel 12 which is just a loop of the same stories over and over until some new story comes along.


That's what every news channel is. Right now CNN = The Covid News Network. It took a 2 week break a few weeks ago to become the Condo News Network, but now its back to the Covid News Network.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> That's what every news channel is. Right now CNN = The Covid News Network. It took a 2 week break a few weeks ago to become the Condo News Network, but now its back to the Covid News Network.


Well no. The difference is that CNN has a lot of interviews, talking heads and and some topical stuff. Not to mention on weekends they have special series (Currently History of Comedy). So it's more of a news/talk format. What I'm talking about is more what a lot of local news is, 30 minutes where they do a few stories, sports, weather, rinse and repeat. What you are describing is more the fact that they spend a whole day on ONE story.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> Well no. The difference is that CNN has a lot of interviews, talking heads and and some topical stuff. Not to mention on weekends they have special series (Currently History of Comedy). So it's more of a news/talk format. What I'm talking about is more what a lot of local news is, 30 minutes where they do a few stories, sports, weather, rinse and repeat. What you are describing is more the fact that they spend a whole day on ONE story.


Local news is a waste of time. Who cares that Gertrude down the street's golden retriever had puppies? Or that Billy Bob blew himself up on the 4th cuz he was drunk and playing with fireworks?

I do sometimes "watch" CNN as background noise, and I prefer coverage of the "big stories", but CNN does beat it to death. Do we really need 24 hrs a day of covid coverage? Certainly not helping one of my stocks . But that particular company isn't exactly helping itself either lol. One screw up after another. I'm sure you can figure it out based on my clues haha.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Local news is a waste of time. Who cares that Gertrude down the street's golden retriever had puppies? Or that Billy Bob blew himself up on the 4th cuz he was drunk and playing with fireworks?


There are 839 "news producing" English language local stations. When added together and normalized, local news gets about a 2.4 for morning shows, and near a 4.0 for both evening and late night shows. Local stations sold $15.3 billion in ad time during local news shows, plus another $1.4 in digital ads on the related websites. And does not include the value of local news in driving retransmission prices.

So, to answer your question, a very large number of people.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SamC said:


> There are 839 "news producing" English language local stations. When added together and normalized, local news gets about a 2.4 for morning shows, and near a 4.0 for both evening and late night shows. Local stations sold $15.3 billion in ad time during local news shows, plus another $1.4 in digital ads on the related websites. And does not include the value of local news in driving retransmission prices.
> 
> So, to answer your question, a very large number of people.


Yep and this is why local stations are always reluctant to give up local news time to accommodate sporting events and other things. Ever wonder why Fox never had content in the 10-11PM (Eastern/western) time slot? Local news is the answer. Many of their affiliates were local, independent stations who have had local news at 10PM for years and did NOT want to give that up. Local news is one of their main money makers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> That's what every news channel is. Right now CNN = The Covid News Network. It took a 2 week break a few weeks ago to become the Condo News Network, but now its back to the Covid News Network.


CNN is the current news network. During election season they covered that. During the insurrection they covered that. Generally they are the news network for people who do not normally watch the news. Their ratings tend to peak when there is a new story to cover. There are days (most of them) where 24 hours is a lot of time to fill ... that is where one runs in to the problem (on all news networks) of each hour being a repeat of the previous hour with different hosts and pundits saying basically the same thing. Most news networks shut down at night or play prime time reruns overnight.

Some people complained when CNN cut back their COVID-19 coverage for the insurrection and other major events. But there are people who would complain regardless of what CNN does. Haters gonna hate. The other news networks have garnered their own groups of haters. There is way too much hate in America (and the world).

I like the concept of the old CNN Headline News and even though the Internet exists I miss the packaging of having a 30 minute program updated throughout the day. I did notice that they were running on a media server before they shut it down. They would have 90 minute or longer blocks that would play on repeat before the server, but when they shifted to the media server they could refresh a story in the playlist without re-recording the entire hour. The longer blocks made it possible to watch for more than 30 minutes.

I once watched for "background noise" but the constant bickering became too noisy. A couple people telling a story could be half listened to ... panels of screaming people was too distracting. It wasn't news, it was opinion. It wasn't a respectful conversation it was a sound war. But that is the programming style that gets ratings. Everyone but me. 

I watch local news because it does matter. I like to know what is happening in my community. And local news doesn't have groups of people shouting at each other in the studio.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> CNN is the current news network. During election season they covered that. During the insurrection they covered that. Generally they are the news network for people who do not normally watch the news. Their ratings tend to peak when there is a new story to cover.


Yep. I wonder when there's big breaking live news if CNN+ will just feature the CNN live stream? I know CNN+ is supposed to have 8-12 hours of live programming per day. If they devote that to actual news updates, using a different set of anchors than CNN has, but with the same on-scene clips and live coverage, and powered by the same team of journalists breaking the stories, then I could see how CNN+ would be a decent substitute for CNN for folks without cable who don't really care about CNN's primetime talking heads like Anderson Cooper, etc. (In other words, make CNN+'s live feed similar to what CNN Headline News originally was, but stay with big breaking stories as they unfold live.)

But given that the streaming channel CBSN, from CBS News, does something similar, for free, good luck getting cord-cutters to actually pay for CNN+.

But as this Vox article suggests, perhaps the ultimate goal isn't to get folks to pay for CNN+ but rather to have it as perk that gets included for free with HBO Max or an HBO Max & Discovery+ bundle.

What is CNN+ and why would you pay for it?


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yep. I wonder when there's big breaking live news if CNN+ will just feature the CNN live stream? I know CNN+ is supposed to have 8-12 hours of live programming per day. If they devote that to actual news updates, using a different set of anchors than CNN has, but with the same on-scene clips and live coverage, and powered by the same team of journalists breaking the stories, then I could see how CNN+ would be a decent substitute for CNN for folks without cable who don't really care about CNN's primetime talking heads like Anderson Cooper, etc. (In other words, make CNN+'s live feed similar to what CNN Headline News originally was, but stay with big breaking stories as they unfold live.)
> 
> But given that the streaming channel CBSN, from CBS News, does something similar, for free, good luck getting cord-cutters to actually pay for CNN+.
> 
> ...


My assumption here is that this is to just capture cord cutters who would not otherwise have access to CNN. I'm not talking about those of us who still want streaming linear channels, but those of us who just watch On Demand, the folks who watch Disney+ and Amazon and so forth. Just like AMC+ or Discovery+ or HBO Max. Another way to get people to watch who don't watch traditional linear TV.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Steveknj said:


> My assumption here is that this is to just capture cord cutters who would not otherwise have access to CNN. I'm not talking about those of us who still want streaming linear channels, but those of us who just watch On Demand, the folks who watch Disney+ and Amazon and so forth. Just like AMC+ or Discovery+ or HBO Max. Another way to get people to watch who don't watch traditional linear TV.


You may be right. But I don't think you're going to get those cord-cutters to pay for such a service, unless it actually has the real CNN live channel, which CNN+ will not. I see only three likely scenarios for CNN+:


as a free ad-supported app available to anyone (i.e. CNN's competitor to CBSN, NBC News Now, Cheddar News, etc.)
as an ad-supported app that costs money by itself (hardly anyone will pay) but mainly distributed for as free perk with HBO Max and/or Discovery+, which may make those services a bit more attractive/sticky
as a completely standalone paid app

I can see options 1 and 2 succeeding for Warner Discovery. But if they go with option 3, I think it's bound to fail.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

James Long said:


> I once watched for "background noise" but the constant bickering became too noisy. A couple people telling a story could be half listened to ... panels of screaming people was too distracting. It wasn't news, it was opinion. It wasn't a respectful conversation it was a sound war. But that is the programming style that gets ratings. Everyone but me.


I can't watch it when the crazy people come on. Sure, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but I just can't deal with people trying to convince me the sky is green and the grass is blue. My old "abusers" were like that.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I can't watch it when the crazy people come on. Sure, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but I just can't deal with people trying to convince me the sky is green and the grass is blue. My old "abusers" were like that.


That's what they believe makes for compelling TV. I have the same issue. I don't need people screaming at each other. If you want to have a civil, respectful debate, I'll listen, but too often they talk past each other because all want to do is make their own political points. That's why they come on, not to debate, but to give their party's line. It's tiresome.

But to me, that's not news, that's talk. News is when they tell us about a current event and move on. But how long will that keep an average viewer engaged? Thus we get the types of shows where they argue with each other. People watch that crap.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> That's what they believe makes for compelling TV. I have the same issue. I don't need people screaming at each other. If you want to have a civil, respectful debate, I'll listen, but too often they talk past each other because all want to do is make their own political points. That's why they come on, not to debate, but to give their party's line. It's tiresome.
> 
> But to me, that's not news, that's talk. News is when they tell us about a current event and move on. But how long will that keep an average viewer engaged? Thus we get the types of shows where they argue with each other. People watch that crap.


Even the lively debates and shouting matches don't bother me much. Even party line spin doesn't bother me that much when its REMOTELY based in reality. It's just when they say completely dumb stuff that they think the base wants to hear cuz the old guy did it. I just gotta turn it off.

My old boss would do that... he'd try to convince me that A was true, and I'd call him out that no its not, B is true and here is the proof, you know, this email that YOU sent out. Then he'd make up another lie like I'm misreading the email. That's why he's my ex-boss and why 2 other people quit after me and 3 more that I know of are looking.

Isn't "The Great Resignation" a glorious thing? .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> It's just when they say completely dumb stuff that they think the base wants to hear cuz the old guy did it. I just gotta turn it off.


CNN discusses politics, DBSTalk does not. But both parties seem to have a old guy in the lead. And both bases seem to find comfort in news channels that broadcast shouting matches. I do like how C-SPAN handles their call in sessions ... open mike, say your piece, host moves on.

The news story notes what Nash has noted ... CNN is under contract for what they provide on their TV channels. Providing a live stream of CNN outside of a contract with an MVPD would be an issue.

CNN+ will be bonus coverage. Hopefully less shouty.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Wow, the more I read about CNN+, the more I think it's destined to fail. It's designed to supplement CNN and is geared to "CNN superfans" -- is that a thing? It won't be ad-supported at launch and will exist as an option within the larger CNN Go app (similar to how ESPN+ exists as an option within the ESPN app).

Sounds like they're clearly under the delusion that there's a significant number of cable TV subscribers who will pay a few bucks extra per month to get more CNN content, however not on their cable box but rather in a separate streaming app.

CNN plans to launch CNN Plus streaming service, but won't say how much it will cost


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> I don't really get the concept of CNN+.
> 
> &#8230;


It is yet another greedy attempt by a cable-television programmer to make money from the streaming trend. (A number of them will be of the mindset that people will sign up and pay for anything.)


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

They might get some "CNN superfans" to pay $1.99...maybe. If they think they can get $5.99 and up I think they are going to get a hard lesson in streaming. It is kind of surprising they announced this before the transfer of Warner Media to Discovery. I would have to assume Discovery is on board though since they have announced it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> They might get some "CNN superfans" to pay $1.99...maybe. If they think they can get $5.99 and up I think they are going to get a hard lesson in streaming. It is kind of surprising they announced this before the transfer of Warner Media to Discovery. I would have to assume Discovery is on board though since they have announced it.


Or we can just wait until every channel splits off into its own proprietary streaming service and then people start to get annoyed with all the different providers and then one day somebody gets the crazy idea of merging all the different services under a single, unified interface, single bill, some kind of "guide" that makes finding stuff super simple, maybe even move the DVR to the persons location instead of having it in the cloud to reduce infrastructure costs... for good measure, you can throw a random oval thing on their roof as a way to get the data to them bypassing the ISPs!

Yeah, I know... crazy, huh? .


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Or we can just wait until every channel splits off into its own proprietary streaming service and then people start to get annoyed with all the different providers and then one day somebody gets the crazy idea of merging all the different services under a single, unified interface, single bill, some kind of "guide" that makes finding stuff super simple, maybe even move the DVR to the persons location instead of having it in the cloud to reduce infrastructure costs... for good measure, you can throw a random oval thing on their roof as a way to get the data to them bypassing the ISPs!
> 
> Yeah, I know... crazy, huh? .


Yeah crazy talk right there. No one will ever go for that!


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

Basically CNN looked at what Fox did with Fox Nation and went... "yeah let's just copy that." That's what CNN+ sounds like to me.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Maybe I'm just noticing it but CNN seems to be doing more multi-part stories (currently one about Jerusalem) and if I'm correct these are the things that would be moving to CNN+ with the regular station going back to just news


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

CTJon said:


> Gee another network that I have no interest in - maybe if they paid me I might. When will *dbstalk+* be coming out


Isn't that kind of what the "*DBSTalk Club*" is?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

CNN+ To Shut Down, Ending Network’s Expensive Gambit On Subscription Streaming


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Wow ... it is bad when my reaction to a service shutting down is "they launched?".

Oh CNN+ ... we never knew thee!


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

SamC said:


> I give this less than a year until quietly shut down.


Well, how about three weeks, $300M spent, plus $200M on advertising, 300 staffers given the pink slip, and not exactly “quietly” shut down, but rather second to Netflix as the business story of at least the week. 

This gets to replace New Coke as the meme for utterly tone deaf business decisions of this generation.


----------



## APB101 (Sep 1, 2010)

SamC said:


> Well, how about three weeks, $300M spent, plus $200M on advertising, 300 staffers given the pink slip, and not exactly “quietly” shut down, but rather second to Netflix as the business story of at least the week.
> 
> This gets to replace New Coke as the meme for utterly tone deaf business decisions of this generation.


Imagine dividing that $300,000,000 and giving that to every citizen in the United States.

_That_ would have been useful.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

APB101 said:


> Imagine dividing that $300,000,000 and giving that to every citizen in the United States.
> 
> _That_ would have been useful.


Do you really need 90 cents (less the cost to process the payments/mail checks/etc)?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Maybe he meant just the adults. Then it would be about $1.15. If you split that out to just households it would be about $2.33.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

b4pjoe said:


> It is kind of surprising they announced this before the transfer of Warner Media to Discovery. I would have to assume Discovery is on board though since they have announced it.


Yeah, I've read reports that Discovery (Zaslav) did NOT have any input into the launch of CNN+ because they had no say in Warner Media's operations (and didn't even have access to some of their internal info) until after the merger legally closed, which happened just days after the launch of CNN+.

Zaslav promised Wall Street that he'd find billions in cost savings to help justify the merger. I think he rightfully saw CNN+ -- at least as it existed -- as a money-loser. May as well kill it ASAP, save the money, quickly admit it was the last guy's mistake, and just move on.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

APB101 said:


> Imagine dividing that $300,000,000 and giving that to every citizen in the United States.
> 
> _That_ would have been useful.


It wouldn't cover the cost of mailing.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

Pretty bad when Quibi outlasted this.


----------

