Comments on: More on CNN.com changes http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/ Where TV Finds the Future Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:55:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: thom http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-326751 thom Thu, 24 May 2007 13:46:13 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-326751 This is a sad day for CNN.com. Not because they made this decision to end Pipeline, but because of all the resources wasted on Pipeline. Imagine how great the CNN.com site could be now if they had taken a real stand to innovate and integrated video into the Web site or improved the core features of their site (instead of developing a stand-alone downloadable application for watching a third-tier online-only network.) This seems like some executive's multi-million dollar vanity project. I'm sure many lost remote readers could have looked at this business model two-and-a-half or three years ago and determined this wasn't going to be a mass-market long-term success. I wonder why people inside CNN.com couldn't see it. CNN use to be the #1 news Web site, now it is well behind both Yahoo! News and MSNBC. My expectations for this redesign are sky high -- partly because of those comments from David Payne more than a year ago that it wasn't going to be a redesign, it was going to be bigger. It was going to be a "relaunch." I fear he is setting up to over-promise and under-deliver. The features they have launched in the last 18 months-- while conceptually matching Web trends (like ireport, blogs) -- have been so poor in execution and implementation I can't imagine the relaunched site will be much better unless they outsourced the entire thing and started trusting people who have more expertise in the Web than they seem to have. This is a sad day for CNN.com. Not because they made this decision to end Pipeline, but because of all the resources wasted on Pipeline. Imagine how great the CNN.com site could be now if they had taken a real stand to innovate and integrated video into the Web site or improved the core features of their site (instead of developing a stand-alone downloadable application for watching a third-tier online-only network.)

This seems like some executive’s multi-million dollar vanity project. I’m sure many lost remote readers could have looked at this business model two-and-a-half or three years ago and determined this wasn’t going to be a mass-market long-term success. I wonder why people inside CNN.com couldn’t see it.

CNN use to be the #1 news Web site, now it is well behind both Yahoo! News and MSNBC.

My expectations for this redesign are sky high — partly because of those comments from David Payne more than a year ago that it wasn’t going to be a redesign, it was going to be bigger. It was going to be a “relaunch.”

I fear he is setting up to over-promise and under-deliver.

The features they have launched in the last 18 months– while conceptually matching Web trends (like ireport, blogs) — have been so poor in execution and implementation I can’t imagine the relaunched site will be much better unless they outsourced the entire thing and started trusting people who have more expertise in the Web than they seem to have.

]]> By: thedetroitchannel http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-323045 thedetroitchannel Wed, 23 May 2007 14:36:41 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-323045 yes, but this "cnn/ib" (or as the fine folks in boston viewed it "ib/cnn) news managed to take the sting off the announcement. and if you happen to clickon steve boriss' blog and read the entry he mentions, please take a minute to scroll down and read why the "news veteran" swipe leveled at yours truly regarding my asking "why no one at broadcastandcable put their name to an editorial there" was more of a statement of the internet times than lack of knowledge. swing and a miss, justobeclear. yes, but this “cnn/ib” (or as the fine folks in boston viewed it “ib/cnn) news managed to take the sting off the announcement.

and if you happen to clickon steve boriss’ blog and read the entry he mentions, please take a minute to scroll down and read why the “news veteran” swipe leveled at yours truly regarding my asking “why no one at broadcastandcable put their name to an editorial there” was more of a statement of the internet times than lack of knowledge.

swing and a miss, justobeclear.

]]> By: fleetwood mack http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-323016 fleetwood mack Wed, 23 May 2007 14:28:54 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-323016 pipeline free? what happened to the game-changing business model CNN promised in all those press releases we all wrote so much about it? one more dead subscription model. doesn't anyone get the message yet? free and ad supported is the answer. pipeline free?

what happened to the game-changing business model CNN promised in all those press releases we all wrote so much about it?

one more dead subscription model.

doesn’t anyone get the message yet?

free and ad supported is the answer.

]]> By: Steve Boriss http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-322969 Steve Boriss Wed, 23 May 2007 14:19:32 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-322969 This is a desperate move by CNN and a victory for Fox in their so far unnoticed, behind-the-scenes efforts to replace local newspapers and local TV news on broadcast network affiliates. See my post "CNN outfoxed, makes desperate deal for local news. Fox alone will prey upon newspapers & local TV affiliates for local news domination" at www. thefutureofnews.com. This is a desperate move by CNN and a victory for Fox in their so far unnoticed, behind-the-scenes efforts to replace local newspapers and local TV news on broadcast network affiliates. See my post “CNN outfoxed, makes desperate deal for local news. Fox alone will prey upon newspapers & local TV affiliates for local news domination” at http://www. thefutureofnews.com.

]]> By: discreet_chaos http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-322332 discreet_chaos Wed, 23 May 2007 10:41:37 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/05/22/more-on-cnncom-changes/#comment-322332 As a Pipeline subscriber from Day 1, I'm glad they're going to pro-rate me out, but I'm kind of concerned about how they're going to incorporate advertising. It'll be easy to stick ads into the overnight simulcast of CNN-I, it already goes to filler during their commercial breaks and it'll be equally easy to stick them into Pipe1 or the headline service, but what concerns me is the live events. You can't really interrupt a press conference with advertising and though they could pile commercials in-between events, that'll only cause people to flip to another pipe. And, if they aren't going to go with video ads, but instead do banners, then I have to wonder if it'll affect the size of that little window which I pin to a corner of my screen. Sure, I can understand the logic of opening-up the service, but as someone who is tuned-in for much of the day, I have to say that I'm worried the quality of the product might suffer. As a Pipeline subscriber from Day 1, I’m glad they’re going to pro-rate me out, but I’m kind of concerned about how they’re going to incorporate advertising.

It’ll be easy to stick ads into the overnight simulcast of CNN-I, it already goes to filler during their commercial breaks and it’ll be equally easy to stick them into Pipe1 or the headline service, but what concerns me is the live events.

You can’t really interrupt a press conference with advertising and though they could pile commercials in-between events, that’ll only cause people to flip to another pipe. And, if they aren’t going to go with video ads, but instead do banners, then I have to wonder if it’ll affect the size of that little window which I pin to a corner of my screen.

Sure, I can understand the logic of opening-up the service, but as someone who is tuned-in for much of the day, I have to say that I’m worried the quality of the product might suffer.

]]>