CNN+ could have easily created more focused news channels as well – for those only interested in U.S. politics and perhaps one global story (lately, sadly, the war in Ukraine). In that way, CNN+ could have been analogous to the BBC - CNN+’s news could be much more deeply reported news focused on multiple global stories a la The New York Times – and not just on left-leaning U.S. Instead of shying away from hard-core news, it should have leaned into it. So CNN+’s primary benefit should have been marketed as being 24 hour news without the annoying 20+ minutes of hourly ads (that generally coincide with the ad slots of rivals MSNBC and other alternatives).
In that sense, CNN plus CNN+ should have been conceived no differently than any other “freemium” package – with the “free” CNN driving upsells to its subscription-based ad-free sibling CNN+. So it’s a failure of (2) driving a successful (1), and vice-versa.ĬNN+ always should have been conceived as being a higher-end and more focused ad-free premium channel primarily for news junkies. And conversely, consumers don’t even get to the product itself if the marketing for that product is confusing and doesn’t promote that immediate big “A-ha” benefit. Why did CNN+ fail? It's quite simple - a combination of (1) muddled marketing, and (2) poorly conceived product – with the first that naturally flows from the second, since you can’t effectively market something that doesn’t offer an immediate big “A-ha” benefit to consumers (particularly in this highly saturated and hyper-competitive streaming market).
0 kommentar(er)
