The media landscape is undergoing a massive rebranding revolution, and it's all about one thing: the power of a name. From established media giants to emerging streaming services, companies are rethinking how they present themselves to the world. But why is this happening, and what does it mean for us as consumers? Let's dive in.
Over the past few weeks, we've seen major publishers like Gannett and Dotdash Meredith ditch their corporate names in favor of their most recognizable brands, USA Today and People, respectively. ESPN and CNN have launched streaming services simply called... ESPN and CNN. Even Apple TV simplified things by dropping the '+' from its name. But here's where it gets controversial...
Perhaps the most talked-about rebrand involves NBCUniversal's plan to spin off its cable channels under the new name Versant. Within Versant, CNBC gets to keep its name, but MSNBC is being forced to become MS NOW. Confused? You're not alone.
Initially, there was internal head-scratching. Why CNBC and not MSNBC? While CNBC is technically the Consumer News and Business Channel, the decision was made to allow it to keep the NBC name. Both CNBC and MS NOW will lose access to the NBC peacock logo. Rebecca Kutler, MS NOW's president, fought to keep "MS" in the new name, recognizing the challenge. MS NOW stands for "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World."
Despite initial hesitation, Versant has rallied its employees. Jen Psaki, a primetime host, initially saw the rebrand as a headache. However, the strong viewer loyalty to the network's talent and Versant's $20 million marketing push eased her concerns. Michael Steele, an MSNBC host, views it as a natural evolution, a transition to something more immediate and people-focused.
Marketing experts agree: the Versant name itself doesn't carry much weight. But MS NOW, ESPN, and CNN do. Trevor Edwards, former president of Nike Brand, explains that a corporate brand matters when connecting with a specific audience. Holding companies like Versant are simply that, holding organizations. The individual brands are responsible for defining the product, service, or experience.
David Reibstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, highlights two branding strategies: the "house of brands" (like Unilever, where consumers may not know the parent company) and the "branded house" (like Disney, where the brand is instantly recognizable). Disney is a brand that means something to consumers in a way that Paramount, for example, doesn’t.
Edwards notes that a strong brand brings authority and a deeper connection. ESPN's decision to name its streaming service ESPN is a prime example. ESPN chief Jimmy Pitaro stated that the power and trust in the name, especially among younger generations, made it a clear choice. Reibstein adds that capitalizing on existing brand awareness gives the streaming service a running start.
In a world saturated with content, brands are more crucial than ever. They provide trust and a sense of direction. Brands help us navigate an environment with so much coming at us all the time, every single moment of the day.
But here's the kicker: Sometimes, as MS NOW demonstrates, the brand doesn't get a say. Executives must then drive the change and bring their teams along. Edwards points out that consumers are often resistant to change initially, but that doesn't mean they won't adapt over time. Conviction in the brand's future is key.
Versant's $20 million effort to rebrand MSNBC to MS NOW reflects this conviction. As Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough put it, the media landscape is constantly evolving, and that applies to brand names, too.
So, what do you think? Are you more likely to trust a well-established brand, or are you open to trying something new? Do you think the MS NOW rebrand will be successful? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
