NYT: MSNBC.com May Change Name

by Glenn Davis | 10:43 pm, October 6th, 2010

» 27 comments

The New York Times‘ Media Decoder blog raised an interesting possibility today – MSNBC.com, the NBC/Microsoft co-owned news site, may be re-branding itself as…something else, in an attempt to distance itself from the cable news channel of the same name.

The Times‘ Brian Stelter writes:

The two parents have determined that the brand of MSNBC.com, a strictly objective news Web site, is widely confused with MSNBC, the cable channel that has taken a strongly liberal bent in recent years, according to internal memorandums obtained by The New York Times this week.

One memo by MSNBC.com president Charlie Tillinghast described giving both the site and the network the same name as “brand insanity,” and it’s easy to see what he’s talking about. MSNBC.com is a prominent news site – Stelter’s post said ComScore pegs MSNBC.com’s network of sites at 50 million users a month. Giving such a site the exact same name as a prominent, but separate, news network owned by the same parent companies is a perfect recipe for confusion.

But the very fact that MSNBC.com is as popular as it is makes the name tough to change; Stelter calls it “akin to a business closing a bustling storefront and posting a sign that asks customers to visit its new location.” But this is a special case: the dueling MSNBCs constitute a terribly confusing setup. According to Stelter, the memos said if the name change is enacted, MSNBC.com would be used only for the MSNBC TV channel, while what is currently MSNBC.com would switch to NBCNews.com (which already redirects to MSNBC.com anyway) or something similar.

While such an abrupt shift in site names would likely lead to some confusion, it couldn’t be any more confusing than the already-existing “MSNBC network vs. MSNBC.com” problem. Tillinghast might think it’s insanity to keep both names the same, but the real insanity was that anyone thought giving two separate operations the same name was a good idea in the first place.

Photo via

Brian Stelter, MSNBC.com, New York Times

Big Eddie

Is bullcrap.com taken ?
Arkansas Steve

I’ve often wondered what Microsoft’s current interest in MSNBC is? They started together BEFORE MSNBC went off the deep end. Does anyone know Microsoft’s current financial or political interest in this, to quote Eddie, BULLCRAP network? Enquiring minds want to know.
musiccityvic

Jackass.com
Sean68

LPO (Leftist Propaganda Organ)
http://www.facebook.com/people/Antony-Dupuy/1194612935 Antony Dupuy

Out: MSNBC

In: DNC
jk76

I use MSN.com as home page, since I can remember. MSNBC.com is alright, I don’t like the current look compared to the previous though.

Why wouldn’t they change the TV station name instead. Why even do anything? I don’t get it business-wise. I guess you can call MSNBC…viewpoint…opinion…op/ed. I see not point in losing either, but more importantly why would the winner have to change? Whatever, it’s really just more stupid shit from stupid people.
jk76

i meant adding the words ‘viewpoint or op/ed’ to the ‘MSNBC’ so they would keep it
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Jones/1384303476 Chris Jones

MSLSD would be a good change.
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

I thought Microsoft had offloaded their interest in the television enterprise?
WildMan

NobodyWatchesAnyway.com

AngriestTalkingHeadsOnTV.org

WeWouldn’tKnowTheTruthIfItBitUsInTheAss.net

WhyDoesFOXNewsBeatTheCrapOutOfUsAllTheTime.net

WeCan’tStopMakingFOXNewsFamous.com

TheKeithOlbermannMeltDownNetwork.net

ExplodingEdShow.org
WildMan

Oh yeah, I forgot…

LawrenceO’DonnellRacistHour.com
WildMan

UnFairAndUNballanced.org
felixw

Disgraced organizations always need a new name. Did you see that AIG Car Insurance has a new name? The KGB also went through a few names in its time. A rule of thumb: whenever an organization, after having invested years in building its brand, suddenly decides to drop it and start afresh, this is warning sign that something is deeply wrong on the inside.
marcus.lewis

jk76 said:
I use MSN.com as home page, since I can remember. MSNBC.com is alright, I don’t like the current look compared to the previous though.

Why wouldn’t they change the TV station name instead. Why even do anything? I don’t get it business-wise. I guess you can call MSNBC…viewpoint…opinion…op/ed. I see not point in losing either, but more importantly why would the winner have to change? Whatever, it’s really just more stupid shit from stupid people.

I agree with the why do anything. As for if they did do anything, why tv? Well the winner (msnbc.com in your view) isn’t really the monetary winner. While advertising rates online have increased, I doubt that msnbc.com takes in as much money (even with that much greater numbers) as TV. Whether one agrees with MSNBC TV’s viewpoint (left of center), they are profitable (much moreso than msnbc.com).
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

I quickly commented earlier that I thought MS had divorced the television network.

From Brian’s NYTimes piece;

They were founded together in 1996 by NBC and Microsoft, with the channel based in New Jersey and the Web site based at Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, Wash. In 2005, NBC bought out Microsoft’s stake in the cable channel, but two parents remained together for the Web site, which is a crucial provider of content to Microsoft’s MSN.com portal.

Which leads one to wonder that if Microsoft has no interest in the cable channel, then why isn’t it the one that could be undergoing a name change? Is Redmond so eager to distance themselves from the station that they’re willing to let them keep their initials and underwrite the site change, all at their own expense?
VRWC Destruction Machine

CommieCentral has a ring to it. They sure won’t have to do any programming changes.
shootfromthehip

Wow. You cons are SO clever!

“MSLSD?”

hahahahaha!

Really great!

Keep the hits coming, fucktards.

#comedyfail
Pablo

Fucktards? Now that’s clever.

So, what would you like for your 12th birthday, shoot?
Pablo

Magister said:
Which leads one to wonder that if Microsoft has no interest in the cable channel, then why isn’t it the one that could be undergoing a name change?

That was my first thought, though I was thinking more of the audience numbers. It seems the TV audience is much smaller and would be much more likely to follow right along, given their um…enthusiasm.
Latin2

shootfromthehip said:
Thumb up

Oh yeah that would be a better name for MSNBC.com

FUCKTARDS.COM
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

Pablo said:
That was my first thought, though I was thinking more of the audience numbers. It seems the TV audience is much smaller and would be much more likely to follow right along, given their um…enthusiasm.

I don’t own the domain, but it looks like politics.tv may be acquirable.
Mexican2

Latin2 said:
Oh yeah that would be a better name for MSNBC.com

FUCKTARDS.COM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – NOT FUNNY – MORON
errxn

Mexican2 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – NOT FUNNY – MORON

And yet, somehow you found a way to post something even less witty. Amazing.
Cancon2

If your read the entire article, it is clear that the website is seperate, wants to be indentifed as seperate and get away from MSNBC cable immediately. They even mention the Lean Forward ( ie: we are progressives, get it?) and how that has only made this more complicated. I cannot understand to this day why MS is attached to the Cable station. Do they not think that maybe Microsoft is being attached to Nutjob central?

Someone earlier mention that the cable station should be the one ot change. I agree.

Leftists.com
OWN.COM
WEHATEREAGAN.COM
Itworkedinkorea.com
schusterisn’there.com
http://none pyrope

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

DO IT!!! PLEASE!!!!
http://none pyrope

Chris Jones said:
MSLSD would be a good change.

It would certainly attract more of “their kind” of viewers.
markg777

This is a good idea!