I'd just say that much of Pipeline's content was original - remember, it was not a duplicate of CNN's linear feed during most of the day. While one could argue that the value was somewhat lessened by the fact that it was only available during breaking news, when ther was news happening, you often saw multiple affiliate feeds from a single event, or at other times, extended coverage of a speech or other event that the network cut away from. And remember, it was also ad-free for both live and on-demand clips. Anyway, I think it's great that CNN decided to pull the pay wall and go ad-supported on this product now that the online video ad business is booming.

The Pipeline's "original" content came in the form of uninterrupted feeds from CNN cameras. That meant people got to see what Candy Crowley said when she thought she was off camera, or they got to see some techie setting up the mics before a press conference.

From what I can tell (as a non-subscriber) this product was geared toward a news junkie. It was for someone who actually wants raw footage, even though CNN has already aired the important parts . . . repeatedly. CNN covers breaking news. So Pipeline wasn't offering much that was original.

When CNN was launched, the whole channel was geared toward the news junkie. If there was exclusive content on the Pipeline, then it would have to be so unimportant that CNN never would air it on a 24-hour news station, which means it appeals to a small audience.

From reading the comments on the CNN blog, it seems people will mostly miss that the service was advertising free. It will still be ad-free at its relaunch, but eventually ads will return. So the Pipeline folks are mostly concerned that they'll be forced to sit through commercials.

The Pipeline's "original" content came in the form of uninterrupted feeds from CNN cameras. That meant people got to see what Candy Crowley said when she thought she was off camera, or they got to see some techie setting up the mics before a press conference.

False. From 8 am-8 pm ET, Pipeline's main "pipe" offered -- and CNN.com still offers -- its own newscast, with its own anchors in its own studio, its own producers and its own story selection, geared toward the Web audience, which skews younger than the cable audience.

Most of its taped story "packages" are the same ones it shares with the other CNN networks (CNN, Headline News, CNN International, the Airport Network, and I hear they're working on one for doctor's office waiting rooms).

Their coverage of live events is all their own, and they do their own separate interviews with CNN correspondents and many of the same guests who appear on the other networks -- for as long as 10 or even 20 minutes, instead of the 2-3 TV makes room for. They also cut together their own features from CNN footage and occasionally, not all that often, features they create from scratch.

Sure, live raw feeds are part of the appeal, but that's not all there is to it.

Replying to the original post:

Pipeline was $24 a year, not $24 a month. Pretty big difference.

I've paid for content on the Web. I suspscribed to Salon, because I really like their writing. But after a while, I came to realize that I wasn't reading enough of it to justify the cost, so I didn't renew.

Folks are willing to pay for content -- they do ti when they subscribe to cable. I wouldn't pay a dime for the Golf Channel, and wouldn't watch it if you paid me, But it comes with my cable, and with the channels I do watch.

If the Web can adopt that kind of model, folks might be willing to pay. Especially if you didn't have the hassle of subscribing separately to each site.

The relevant question is, will I get enough from this one site that it's worth going through the hassle, giving up personal information, and paying money -- even if it's not much -- to get it? Or can I go to free sites that are, if not as good, close enough for the once or twice a month I need that?

For some sites, it's worthwhile enough to make it viable to a large enough audience, The full and up-to-date content of the WSJ is indispensable to many on Wall Street. Britannica is worth subscribing for families with multiple kids in school, though I suspect they make most of their money off of site-licensing to schools and companies. As does Lexis/Nexis.

Subscriptions are tough. I don't subscribe to a newspaper, because I know I won't read it every day. I won't subscribe to a Web site that I won't read every day. Bundle them together at the right price point, and I might.

The folks at CNN Pipeline, now CNN.com, do good work -- and I love having it there when the fit hits the shan, and I want to know near-live (there's a few seconds' delay in any streaming video) what's going down, I want to get to it. But I won't give up my privacy every day for that access on the next 9/11. And really, it's the intrusion that matters to me more than the money.

Two points:

- Yes, the folks at CNN.com do great work. Notice I never said the reason the Pipeline failed was because of lack of quality. From every account, it had its bugs but was overall a good product. My complaint is the product wasn't original to the Web enough. Sure, some here and there. But mostly not original.

- Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why using the same packages and footage as CNN but fronting it with new anchors constitutes original content? I'm not understanding that claim. I could, if the anchors were offering an opinion or something not available on regular ol' CNN. But that wasn't the case, from what I've heard.

OK, three points:

- I never said Pipeline cost too much or quoted the price at all. So I'm unsure who that comment about $24 was directed toward.