The MSNBC name is about to be phased out. Early Monday, as the news brand preps for a future separated from NBC News, the cable TV stalwart unveiled a new name, logo and acronym-driven identity: MS NOW, meaning My Source for News, Opinion and the World.

The shift retires a name that was christened in 1996 with the launch of the co-branded partnership between Microsoft and NBC News that carried the MSNBC name. And, while Microsoft exited a couple years later, the cable brand home to Rachel Maddow, Jen Psaki, Chris Hayes, Lawrence ODonnell and more had stuck with the original branding for decades. The impetus for the change? NBCUniversal owner Comcast is spinning off most all of its TV channels into a separate publicly-traded company, Versant, in a deal that may close this fall. Because of that, the formerly named MSNBC is rebuilding its news organization for a world in which it doesnt collaborate directly with NBC News and carry the peacock imagery thats staying with the home base. As the rebrand hit inboxes today, Hollywood Reporter editors chatted about the move, and read in-between the lines on what it could signify.

The logo for MS NOW. Courtesy of Versant Erik Hayden: For months, with Comcast planning to spin off its declining cable TV assets MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Oxygen, E!, Syfy and the Golf Channel into a new company, the nondescript Versant, the question was, What does MSNBC look like without NBCUniversal and NBC News? So while it was surprising to see this rebrand for the Rebecca Kutler-run news brand, the writing was on the wall that there needed to be some pivot. And while its also not that surprising that Comcast wanted to keep the peacock imagery and NBC lettering for its own flagship news services, its still a bit jarring to see the new identity. What was your first read?

Tony Maglio: My first read went something like this: Um, whats-that-now? The MS thing is so weird: Microsoft has had exactly zero ties to MSNBC since 2012 (and from the TV channel, since 2005). Back then, you wouldnt want to change a web address or an established channel/brand name. But now, why not? Instead, Versant (already a confusing name itself) elected to back in to an acronym? Who is making these choices? If you want your own brand, as Versant CEO Mark Lazarus and Kutler have said, just start over. MS NOW to me reads like its a random Microsoft application Id uninstall from my PC when storage space got tight.

EH: Also, this wasnt a decision made from a position of strength. I doubt that, were it not to be cleaved off from Comcast, that MSNBC executives would like to undertake a rebrand that nearly erases its entire name. I cant think of a single major news organization that has undergone that sort of name change. Usually, its the corporate parent that changes its name when times get bleak (thinking of Los Angeles Times owner Tribune trying to go BuzzFeed with ill-fated Tronc) but the names of the news brands themselves stay. I cant imagine many will be using the acronyms meaning, My Source for News, Opinion, and the World, on second reference either.

TM: Yeah, that part is just crazy. But it is Versants expectation, and also just how we would often do it to remind readers that this is, indeed, an acronym, and not some stylization choice. (Example: STARZ is not an acronym, so we write it as Starz, no matter how StArZ wants it written in the media.) But My Source for News, Opinion, and the World is an absurd way to write or to speak. No one will ever say this except with a mocking tone. The acronym is so reverse-engineered and forced. MSNBC was a mashup of Microsoft and NBC News it actuallycalledfor an acronym.

EH: Also, what does it say about the relative strengths of the brand and internal politics at Versant that CNBC was able to keep its name under the explanation that it was originally known as Consumer News and Business Channel (i.e. not National Broadcasting Channel, trademark Comcast)? That reads to me like its seen as a safer, more durable brand. Finance news has generally seen more stability than political news and there appears to be a template that CNBC chiefs are following (build like Bloomberg or The Wall Street Journal with Pro tiers while leaning on strengths and access of live TV).

TM: CNBC is so interesting because it launched as a bogus acronym itself. Yes, Consumer News and Business Channel is ostensibly what it stood for, but in reality, the acronym stood for Cablevision NBC as in National Broadcasting Channel because those were the joint venture partners. We can all play pretend on this one a bit more because the double entendre happened way back in 1989. To be fair, MSNBC losing the MS and now the NBC does put Versant in a tough spot. It is really hard to rebrand from scratch, but this attempt at a half-rebrand (and hope no one asks about the acronym) feels desperate and beneath what MSNBC has achieved.

EH: If I was to try and think of a silver lining on this rebrand, at this time, I might say, Well, this is a new political moment with massive disruption for traditional media. Brand names, in general, arent as powerful as they once were and if MS NOW really hopes to thrive itll need to lean in to the big Rachel Maddow-like names (and hire more) to try and distinguish itself in a fractured environment. But the problem is that the MSNBC name does mean something, especially to the audience that watches it regularly on linear TV. And yes, that may be an older audience that is getting smaller as more viewers cut the cord.

TM: Right. Clearly, Versant wanted the closest-possible thing to MSNBC without the NBC. But the MS was never the point (for television) the NBC was. So to make the exception for CNBC but not MSNBC feels not tethered to a whole lot. Unfortunately, MS NOW is just like a NowThis News to me. It feels like a media publication that launched 30 minutes ago, not 30 years. MS NOW will have strong resources, but a name that initially, at least implies no differentiation from any other ALL CAPS play.

EH: It does remind me of NowThis News, or a bunch of similar start-up names that maybe fell by the wayside in the BuzzFeed-Mashable 2010s Facebook traffic era. To use a different example, Cable News Network was the origin of CNNs name. I cant see, even when the last lights are turned off on Cable TV, CNN pivoting from that name its like National Public Radio and NPR, the acronym means something at this point, not the medium it originated in.

TM: Exactly. Those are branded phrases thatbecame acronyms. Acronyms exist as an accepted societal shorthand for things we all know. Versant is doing this fully backwards.

You can picture how this went down, right? A conference room and a whiteboard with:

M ______

S_______

N ______

________

________

And tuna subs.

No one leaves this room until we have a new five-letter brand name that starts with MSN and stands for something.

Its the worstWheel of Fortunepuzzle ever.

EH: Speaking of which, MSN still exists as a giant web portal that millions of readers visit, so the argument that the MS-Microsoft connection is not relevant because it was an old reference to a partnership ended long ago when Microsoft was in the news business doesnt quite track.

TM: Great point. Those of us in the media are well aware of the reach of MSN. Its a lot more than non-MSN users might think. Its just a staple landing page for endless news content. I dont personally use it, but I can see a universe in which I never left finance for journalism and it is My Source for News and something World and Ive already lost what MS NOW stands for.

And on the subject of CNN vs.MSNBCMS NOW: MSNBC had momentum in the fight for second place behind Fox News Channel (FNC to some, because thats actually how initials work!). This feels like a moment for CNN to actually rally they must be thrilled.

EH: The rebrand also does feel like it undercuts efforts to take the MSNBC brand to more platforms than just live TV. There is a burgeoning live events business (the next one is MSNBCLIVE 25, at theHammerstein Ballroom in October) that now will need to be retrofitted. Obviously the news business relies on talent that can cut through the clutter, or creators with a ton of audience. But, barring that (and in an era of belt-tightening for TV news, which is something relatively new to that side of the media business, unlike print or digital media), brand names are all you have to differentiate yourself. Its tough thinking that My Source stands out in an era of just YouTube tiles asking for clicks.

TM: Maybe its a Thai Food Near Me situation. What I want to know, is did much of the marketing team that came up with Peacock, which was widely mocked at the time, go over with Versant?

I do want to give Versant and MS NOW an opportunity for optimism here. The reality is, most brand names dont make all the sense until they do. (Tronc had no chance.) So if MS NOW does an absolutely killer job and becomes essential in the news-gathering and news-reporting industry, we will all become numb to it. In a good way.

EH: I remember, back in 2011, when MSNBCs marketing tagline Lean Forward was seen as a bet on embracing an identity. Even if forward was vague in the eye of the beholder. Arguably, this new rebrand does the opposite.

TM: Are we able to put a gif in a story? Because