USA Today Destroys its Brand

Meh. Click to embiggen. Image from LA Times.

Redesigns of familiar brands are often very dicey. We're not just judging new versus old, we have an emotional attachment to the established design, whether we are conscious of it or not. Sometimes it goes smoothly, as when Burger King updated its image subtly, or when rival Jack in the Box changed theirs significantly. Neither was decried as a step too far.

But often, if the change isn't seen as an improvement, it can be derided, maybe even damage the brand. When Pepsi changed its familiar red and blue yin/yang globe to one that looks more abstract, designers and fans almost universally panned it. The jury is still out on Microsoft's and eBay's new, minimalist logos, but many find them quite boring. And the most disastrous redo was by GAP, which met such hostility with its logo change, that it decided to throw it out, and keep the old one.

The "before" here wasn't a winner either. But the
red and blue globe was a mainstay. Image from LogoTalk.

USAToday should do the same. I realize that in a changing media world, a newspaper must change with the times. And USAToday has been derided for a long time as "McPaper." But tell me, how did their long-time, established design differ from how a typical web page is set up? It already was laid out with news nuggets and charts, and brightly colored eye-grabbers. USAToday was a web page before we knew what they were!

The logo that never was. Image from LogoTalk.

Now? It just doesn't hold together. As a designer, I'd have a hard time ever liking the new design. The logo is NOT an improvement, and its juxtaposition with a Futura Bold decimalized, six-digit date does not read well. It looks like an unfinished pie chart, a placeholder, or part of an ad. Besides just floating there, looking incomplete, the date does not work in this format. First, the decimals are a cutesy, trendy way to write phone numbers these days, I do not know why, but it's true. Also, in the USA, we put the month first, and in other parts of the world they put the day first, so the date will be unclear to many who read it.

Looks like a web page to me. 

On the whole, I declare it a disaster. They've taken away the brand identity, and produced an ugly product that looks like it was rushed out before it was finished. I can't imagine that this tests particularly well, or how they decided it was "better." Different sure, not better. There was room for improvement, and for streamlining, but they took it too far.

[Excerpt]

USA Today launches redesign

The newspaper that introduced the world to the infographic is getting a makeover. Thirty years after the launch of the new national newspaper, USA Today unveiled a new logo, a more colorful look and bulked-up coverage of technology and travel. It also unveiled a digital redesign that gives the news operation a consistent look on its relaunched website and on mobile devices. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times

Republicans Trust FOX "News". ONLY.

Image from Think Progress

I understand that people of different political persuasions tend to view things slightly differently from each other. For instance, I bristle when I hear that MSNBC is the flip-side to FOX "News." I think that is objectively not true (and stand by that), but I also understand that I'm feeling a bit of "I know you are, but what am I?" when I hear it. So, I believe it is probable that the reverse is true. Conservatives who watch FOX probably are a bit defensive about it, and they probably see MSNBC in the same harsh light that I see FOX. They're wrong, but that's not the point.

The point is, they see all media (other than the 99% of talk radio that is right-wing, which somehow doesn't count) as liberally biased, with only FOX "News" speaking the truth. What is that story? You know, the one where the mother sees her kid marching in a parade, and proudly claims that he's the only one in step? Yeah, this is kinda like that. And it gives credence to my theory that conservatives think any media that isn't right-leaning, is de facto left-leaning.


[Excerpt]


Survey: Republicans Trust Fox News And Nothing Else 

A new PPP poll confirms what many have long suspected — that many Americans get their news from sources that hew to their pre-existing beliefs. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Amusing Stupid Monkey Headlines Appearing on 12/30/11

Today's amusing headlines come from around the web. Some are the funny "ha-ha" type whilst others are of the funny peculiar type. Enjoy.

"What the fuck?"

HEADLINES: 12/30/2011

• Perry slams surging Santorum as a 'prolific earmarker' - MSNBC

• A Santorum surge in Iowa? - MSNBC

• Investigations of the Year: What's In Your Egg McMuffin? - ABC

• Friends: Texas Gunman Was Mad Wife Doing Well - Fox News

• 385 Pounds of Caviar Found in Russian Morgue - Fox News

• Gingrich wants it both ways? - CNN (see below)

• Poll: Gingrich down, Santorum up - CNN

• 10 ways not to kill your book club - CNN

• Justin Bieber tops Kim Kardashian as most-searched - LA Times

• Man killed by train can be sued over bystander's injuries - LA Times

And believe it or not....
• Van Halen announces 2012 tour with David Lee Roth - CBS News

Should The Fairness Doctrine be Re-Instated?

Let me state right upfront: I don't want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. I think it infringes upon free speech. While the abolition of the Doctrine paved the way for "all conserva-talk, all the time" radio formats on multiple frequencies, and for a $400 million payday for one Rush Limbaugh, I still think reinstating it would be a bad idea.

What I would be in favor of, is content advisories. We have them on music, movies, video games, TV shows. . .heck, we even have them on food, drink and smokes. Why not radio and cable news?

For Rush Limbaugh: The following is an entertainment program, from a partisan perspective. The views expressed in this program are not those of this radio station, and do not constitute "news." They are also not necessarily true. Listeners are encouraged to seek out multiple sources before concluding that the content in this program is true.

And that's a very gentle disclaimer for a program such as Rush's, which disseminates false information as a matter of course. But the disclaimer may not need to even be that lengthy. There should just be a clear distinction between news and opinion. Right now there isn't.

And if that means that Countdown with Keith Olbermann gets a disclaimer, so be it. Perhaps it would get a "N-PC" or "news with political commentary" label. Hannity and Colmes, while ostensibly balanced, would get a "PC-n" or "political commentary with a little news" or something.

[Excerpt]

Fairness Doctrine? No!

My "Barack and Rush" blog created a relative storm of comments and disagreements on the issue of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. In that blog I wrote that Sen. Obama does not support reinstating it and that Rush Limbaugh would help Obama by criticizing John McCain. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

FOX "News" Not the Powerhouse it Claims to Be

Image from source, News Corpse

Well, this is encouraging news. While the state of news in general is rather dismal--focusing on fluff and silly stuff, while ignoring important stories--at least America is beginning to tune out the most frivolous of the 24-hour news stations. FOX "News" is still the highest rated of the three major channels (3½ if you count CNN Headline News), but it is slipping, and slipping noticably.

My dream for a 24-hour news channel would be one that is publicly funded like PBS. No allegience to sponsors, no marching orders from "corporate" to increase profits. Just hard-hitting, actual news. Remember investigative journalism? The big corporations aren't ever going to revert to offering news as a public service, so we need some other sort of plan. Just my two cents.

[Excerpt]

Fox News In Critical Condition

In the first quarter of 2008, Fox News was the slowest growing cable news network (10%), behind MSNBC (66%) and CNN (87%). For the first time in six years they finished in 2nd place. Now, in the first month of the 2nd quarter, the diagnosis is even worse. . .

Read more at: News Corpse

News Ratings: Is FOX Really Tops?

I've always been suspicious of the FOX "News" claim of being #1 in cable news. First of all, they're not--strictly speaking--news, but I'll drop that for now. There are whole websites devoted to debunking the fairness and balance of FOX (Newshounds.us being my favorite). So I'm automatically suspicious of anything I see there.

I stumbled upon this report--outdated, sure--but explaining how the ratings work, and what they really mean. It is quite illuminating. Basically, FOX "News" viewers seem to tune in to the channel, and just leave it there. CNN viewers stop in to get the news, and then go elsewhere. Like normal people. Hee.

If I happen upon a newer version of this data, I'll bring it here. It is possible that the ratings race has changed since 2004. In any event, the article will explain things you may not have known.

[Excerpt]

The Ratings Mirage

Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers

By Steve Rendall

Reporting on the ratings rivalry between the Fox News Channel (FNC) and CNN is often misleading--and almost always over-hyped.

"Fox Tops CNN as Choice for Cable News," declared one typical headline (Chicago Tribune , 3/24/03). "Fox News Channel Continues to Crush CNN ," reported Knight Ridder (Dallas Morning News , 2/3/04) in a column comparing the rivalry to a party primary: "Fox News Channel is winning the Nielsen caucuses." Last summer (8/17/03), the New York Times Magazine declared, looking back at the period of the Iraq invasion, "Fox was--and still is--trouncing CNN in the ratings."

After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN.

But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .

Read on at: FAIR.org

Two News Choppers Crash During Car Chase

It's rather amazing that this sort of thing hasn't happened before now. "Be there now" has always been a news motto, but somebody has got to be looking up during these things, right? Anyway, sad but inevitible I guess.