The Black Magic Behind CNN's Longevity and Profitability The Black Magic Behind CNN’s Longevity and Profitabilityapproved by BudRock56 at Sat Apr 6 04:34:54 2019 UTC (self.freeworldnews) submitted 15 hours ago by BudRock56 It should be clear to everyone that CNN is a partisan network masquerading as a news source. But, if they truly suck as much as people think (and they do), then why are they still on the air? Their ratings seemingly can sink no lower. Yet, there they are, night after night, spreading lies and propaganda. You would think that low ratings would destroy them. However, CNN and other cable channels have a unique business model. A certain amount of revenue is generated from advertising. But, if nobody is watching, then ad revenue theoretically ought to be low. However, they have another source of money. CNN and other cable networks have deals with cable and satellite providers whereby they receive a certain amount of money per subscriber. For CNN, it is around $7.00 to $ 8.00 per subscriber per month. https://www.quora.com/How-do-news-stations-like-CNN-make-money This means that if “Screw-You! Cable, USA” provides a basic cable package that includes CNN, among other channels (ESPN, Fox News, The Food Channel, etc...), and it has 1 million subscribers, then CNN will get $7-8 per subscriber, or $7-8 million, each month. They get this revenue whether the subscribers watch CNN or not. Other cable channels have the same type of deal, for varying amounts per subscriber. CNN also has a large international market, and CNN International generates most of its revenue. About one-half if CNN International’s revenue is generated by these per-subscriber compensation agreements with cable/satellite distributors. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/326968/ Thus, CNN and other cable networks are essentially being paid by cable distributors simply for filling time. While I do not necessarily see anything inherently wrong with this business model, it does raise some issues in my mind. Clearly, if a business had its revenue cut in half, as would happen if they did not have this revenue stream from cable providers, it would most likely fail. Thus, shitty CNN, is dependent upon these deals. Secondly, most people with cable tv get their service from huge conglomerates, like Cox Communications. One has to wonder if there are political interests that may be subsidizing certain networks. There is almost no transparency in this area. To be sure, notwithstanding the fact that CNN is a giant fraud of a news organization, it does have some things going for it. It has been around for a long time now, and it virtually singlehandedly pioneered cable news (More accurately, its creator, Ted Turner, pioneered this medium). It is a strong brand. But, CNN has radically changed over the years by transforming into a partisan broadcasting network that chooses sides rather than reports the news. Its ratings suck. With a simple business model, if people do not like your product then you make a drastic change or go out of business. It is obvious that CNN cannot exist on its own without distributor subsides. But, I suspect the same is true for many, if not all, other cable channels. Again, what if one were to do a market study and find that instead of CNN being paid $7-$8 per subscriber, the market price ought to be adjusted to $2 per subscriber, based upon ratings? Surely there is some standard in determining compensation. Fox News, for example, earns $1.41 per month per subscriber. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4700663/cable-prices-most-popular-tv-channels-espn-abc-discovery-hbo Now, how in the hell does CNN get $7-8 per subscriber and Fox News only receives a fraction of that when Fox consistently blows CNN out of the water in ratings? I am not prone to conspiratorial thought. Perhaps I am naive at times. As a person it is just not in me to fuck someone over just because I can. In my naive mind I sometime have the unfortunate habit of projecting my sensibilities onto others. In other words, my default is to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume other people are like me and do not fuck over people just because they can. In reality, though, probably half the world will fuck you over given the opportunity. That said, I have a difficult time believing that CNN is not being unfairly subsidized through its distributor agreements. Some people in some dark conference room sitting in some big city have decided that CNN shall be subsidized in this way. It is virtually too certain to believe otherwise. Time Warner, Cox Communications, and all the rest most likely collide to set prices. Why would they do this? Politics? Financial interests? Some combination thereof? Some other reason? IMO, the fix is in, and the fix is to make sure that certain shit networks like CNN, MSNBC, and ESPN stay on the air, regardless of how many people actually watch them. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/freeworldnews/comments/ba0s25/the_black_magic_behind_cnns_longevity_and/