MSNBC is undergoing a significant transformation, changing its name to MS NOW as part of a corporate rebranding amid a spin-off from Comcast. This shift has drawn both bemusement and ridicule, with critics dubbing it a mere cosmetic change akin to rebranding the Titanic. Rebecca Kutler, president of the network, insists that despite the new name, “who we are and what we do will not” change. However, for many, this rings hollow as the network’s troubled reputation persists.
The reaction to this change has been swift. The New York Times, in a playful jab, reflected the sentiment with a headline that encapsulated the confusion many feel about this rebranding effort. The decision to drop the NBC moniker eliminates the long-standing embarrassment tied to the network’s associations, which have been under fire for its extreme liberal views, often unfavorably compared to its sibling network, CNBC.
While MSNBC aims to market itself as “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World,” the network’s history suggests that it will not escape the controversies that have plagued it for years. The notion that viewers would want their news from a network that has repeatedly drawn extreme comparisons, such as likening a former president to historical tyrants, is questionable at best. Remarks by hosts, including unfounded claims regarding the government transporting individuals to “concentration camps,” illustrate the sensationalism that has characterized the channel.
Viewership numbers are another indication of the network’s struggles. Recently reported Nielsen ratings reveal that MSNBC has been losing audience share, dragging down its prime-time programming. Amid this backdrop, their ambitious expansion plans and hiring spree seem misaligned with the reality of a network that has not resonated well with viewers. As the network embarks on this new path, the question remains: can a name change truly transform how an audience perceives it?
In a media landscape driven by loyalty and trust, the efficacy of a rebrand like MS NOW depends heavily on whether it can shed its past controversies and deliver credible news. The challenge lies in convincing a skeptical public that this new brand is any different from its predecessor, particularly when past statements and actions continuously resurface to haunt it.
"*" indicates required fields
