What’s in a name: Unpacking 13 media rebrands in 13 years
MullenLowe US founder Jim Mullen once said: “Of all the things that your company owns, brands are far and away the most important and the toughest. Founders die. Factories burn down. Machinery wears out. Inventories get depleted. Technology becomes obsolete. Brand loyalty is the only sound foundation on which business leaders can build enduring, profitable growth.”
Whether it’s to better reflect a growing business, reduce negative connotations of a spoilt brand or just because a CEO wants a different name, media companies adjust their names and brands on the regular.
Indeed, on Tuesday, The Media Leader revealed that Paramount is rebranding Channel 5 to simply 5 as it seeks to relaunch its linear, streaming and digital products under one brand name.
In the recent past, a number of major media companies have changed their names, with widely varying degrees of success. Here are 13 such rebrands, inclusive of successes and stinkers.
Channel 5 → Five → Channel 5 → 5
Why they’re doing it:
Free-to-air public broadcaster Channel 5 has rebranded multiple times since its launch in 1997. During 2002-2011, it was renamed Five (“Channel 5 was a name; Five is a brand,” proclaimed then director of marketing David Pullen), with the change being reverted following the channel’s acquisition by Richard Desmond.
This week, the broadcaster, now owned by Paramount (formerly Viacom) since it was purchased from Desmond a decade ago, sought to give it a new face to reflect its renewed focus on digital and streaming delivery.
Ben Frow, chief content officer at Paramount UK, said: “We know from the success that so many of our Channel 5 shows have had on Netflix that there’s a huge appetite for our content in the streaming world.
“As we relaunch as 5, our streaming service will be a much bigger and broader offer than My5, with a significantly expanded range of content, including new series and boxsets in reality, drama, factual and kids from across the Paramount family.”
Will it work?
It’s obviously too early to tell, but so many brand changes over 30 years makes it challenging for consumers to develop strong brand affinity. That said, there is something rather amusing about bouncing between Channel 5 and different variants of the number five. Perhaps some day it will become V.
Channel 5 to become just ‘5’: UK PSB’s first ‘unified’ rebrand
Facebook → Meta
Why they did it:
As Facebook grew to encompass a broad suite of social apps and a large investment in virtual-reality (VR) headsets, CEO Mark Zuckerberg was looking to give the tech giant a fresh face.
“We are at the beginning of the next chapter for the internet and it’s the next chapter for our company too,” Zuckerberg boldly claimed in 2021.
“We’ve gone from desktop to web to mobile; from text to photos to video. But this isn’t the end of the line. The next platform will be even more immersive — an embodied internet where you’re in the experience, not just looking at it. We call this the metaverse and it will touch every product we build.”
Did it work?
The Meta-morphosis arrived at the peak of hype around the loosely defined “metaverse”, which would go on to become disparaged as synonymous with exaggerated tech hype cycles by 2023.
Meta’s metaverse venture has indeed never been profitable. Since late 2020, Meta’s VR unit, dubbed Reality Labs, has lost $50bn.
But it also came as Facebook was in dire need of a new image. Soon before the rebrand, Facebook whistleblower Francis Haugen revealed how the company was aware it was harming vulnerable people, including minors, with its algorithmically sorted content.
By changing the parent company’s name to Meta, Zuckerberg appears to have been successful in mitigating the scandal.
Twitter → X
Why they did it:
After purchasing Twitter, Elon Musk had big dreams for the microblogging platform.
Indeed, the decision to rebrand it to X was intended to reflect Musk’s vision for creating an “everything app”.
“There’s absolutely no limit to this transformation,” CEO Linda Yaccarino posted following the rebrand. “X will be the platform that can deliver, well, everything.”
The name is also a personal obsession of Musk. In 1999, he founded online bank site X.com, which later merged with competitor Confinity to become PayPal. Reports have suggested Musk disagreed with the name change.
Did it work?
X’s rebrand was universally disparaged by critics, who suggested that replacing the iconic Twitter brand with the most generic possible name (X is commonly used as a placeholder) was a bad move. Many derisively mocked the name as akin to a moniker for a porn site or have taken to referring to the platform as Xitter (pronounced “shitter”). Others still refer to the platform as Twitter or “the site formerly known as Twitter”.
The abrupt change put billions of dollars worth of brand value at risk, especially as the X brand has become synonymous with Musk’s personal brand of increasingly far-right political views.
Meanwhile, other decisions by Musk and Yaccarino that have helped to made the platform a bastion for hateful speech have caused advertisers to flee the platform.
And although X has developed features like audio and video calling, it is far from being used as an “everything app”.
‘Weaponised’ litigation: Industry stands ground against X following GARM shutdown
HBO Max → Max
Why they did it:
After HBO owner WarnerMedia merged with Discovery, it was unclear what the two entertainment conglomerates would do with their respective streaming services. HBO’s offering, HBO Max, had developed a strong brand known for high-quality programmes including The Wire, The Sopranos, Band of Brothers, Game of Thrones, True Detective, Curb Your Enthusiasm and others.
On the other hand, Discovery’s own streaming service, Discovery+, had less premium content with mass appeal, like Naked and Afraid and MythBusters.
Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) ultimately elected to merge Discovery+ content into HBO Max, while continuing to maintain Discovery+ as a standalone service, given its profitability. The combined HBO Max and Discovery+ service was dubbed Max to reflect the new content pool.
Did it work?
HBO is one of the strongest brands in entertainment, with a strong association with critically acclaimed productions.
By dropping the HBO name from the streaming service’s brand and diluting the strength of the content offer with low-brow TV shows, WBD arguably shot itself in the foot.
WBD, which has struggled to transition from a linear TV company to a streamer, most recently reported a decline in revenue from streaming services (-5% to $2.6bn).
However, total direct-to-consumer subscribers grew by 3.6m to 103.3m in Q2 2024 and the entertainment conglomerate is now generating additional revenue from Max through its ad tier.
5 things we learned from Warner Bros Discovery’s Q2 earnings
4oD → All4 → Channel 4
Why they did it:
Much like Channel 5, Channel 4 has also adjusted the branding for its VOD service numerous times since it was established as 4oD (as in “4 on Demand”) in 2006.
In 2015, the service’s name was changed to All4 and in 2022 it was changed again to simply Channel 4 to “help audiences better navigate the abundance of choice in the digital world and find their favourite Channel 4 shows wherever and whenever they choose to watch content”, according to a Channel 4 spokesperson.
Like others on this list, the idea was to adopt a singular brand identity across linear and digital channels given that consumers largely do not distinguish between the two.
Did it work?
The brand revamp came as Conservative leaders were weighing whether to privatise the broadcaster — a move that was broadly panned by leaders in the media industry at the time. With a fresher, unified brand for its VOD service, there was some hope that it could stave off a sale by presenting as more forward-thinking.
In the end, Channel 4 was not privatised and its streaming service has proved a success. In July, the broadcaster reported it had recorded 30% year-on-year growth in its streaming audience, with the proportion of total Channel 4 viewing via streaming increasing 29% year on year during the first six months of 2024.
ITV Player→ ITV Hub → ITVX
Why they did it:
ITV has adjusted the name of its streaming offering multiple times. Originally mimicking BBC’s iPlayer (itself derivative of the then popular iPod-esque naming) with the 2008 launch of ITV Player, the broadcaster adjusted the name of its VOD service to ITV Hub in 2015.
In 2022, ITV launched an improved replacement for Hub, dubbed ITVX. In an interview with The Media Leader at the 2022 Future of Media event in London, CEO Dame Carolyn McCall acknowledged that ITV Hub had been guilty of having too high of an ad load and committed to improving the user experience with ITVX.
Did it work?
ITVX has been a success for ITV. In H1 2024, ITVX had 14.6m monthly active users (up 17% year on year) and 846m total streaming hours (up 15%).
The broadcaster aims to achieve 20m monthly active users and 2bn total streaming hours by 2026.
UKTV Play → U
Why they did it:
UKTV has had a challenging time settling on a singular branding. It has previously changed the name of subsidiary Dave (originally UK Gold Classics) to U&Dave and also rolled out refreshes to streaming service UKTV Play.
Most recently, UKTV attempted to simplify things with the creation of a masterbrand, U, for its free-to-air channels and the UKTV Play free streaming service.
“For 30 years, UKTV has had shows that people are passionate about — crime, drama, witty comedy and more — but until now it’s felt disconnected,” Penny Brough, UKTV’s chief marketing officer, explained. “We want to make sure our audiences can enjoy the full value of our free and wonderfully diverse offer, so we’re making it easier for them to navigate.
“U is the glue that enables us to do this: it means we go to market with a bold, simple and distinctive identity for our streaming service. U makes it easy for people to connect the dots between the streaming service and our family of TV channels — all while keeping hold of each channel’s unique personality and fame. This is now a family that’s fit for a digital future. It’s simple, but still full of personality, because it’s all about U.”
Did it work?
Creating a new masterbrand is a risk and, like Musk’s venture, naming it a singular letter is a bold choice.
Ultimately, it’s a challenge to have brand affinity for companies that change their name and identity as often as UKTV brands have. Perhaps if U can stick around for a while, it could become better remembered.
Google → Alphabet
Why they did it:
OK, this is cheating a bit. Technically, Alphabet was created as a new company, rather than a simple renaming of Google. But Alphabet was created by Google’s leadership in 2015 with the intention of making the tech giant “cleaner and more accountable”, according to then CEO Larry Page.
“What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies. The largest of which, of course, is Google,” Page explained. “This newer Google is a bit slimmed down, with the companies that are pretty far afield of our main internet products contained in Alphabet instead.”
Those “fair afield” companies included a mix of smaller moonshot-type ventures, such as businesses in health science.
Did it work?
Most of those smaller ventures have not had a significant impact on Alphabet’s business. Fundamentally, Alphabet’s revenue has continued to be primarily driven by advertising revenue raised by Google and its various products.
But the name change may have also helped the tech giant resist efforts to clamp down on critics’ claims of monopolistic practice — at least, until recently.
CMA urged to move against Google following US antitrust decision
Netflix → Qwikster
Why they did it:
In 2011, Netflix very briefly looked to spin off its original (albeit less lucrative) business, sending DVDs by mail, under a rebrand dubbed “Qwikster”.
The idea was to separate a fast-growing aspect of the company’s business — streaming — from the original company, which was beginning to experience slowing demand.
It also came as Netflix was looking to hike prices for customers who enjoyed both the streaming and mailed DVD products offered by Netflix.
Did it work?
The attempted rebrand was a complete dud and Netflix back-pedalled within four months. Consumers expressed outrage at the attempted rebrand and argued that the value proposition offered by Netflix would be harmed by having to pay for two separate services.
In other words, customers weren’t quite ready to let go of their affinity for physical media in 2011, especially given the slower internet back then.
Netflix eventually let its mail-DVD business peter out, officially shutting it down in September 2023.
Netflix dominates UK SVOD usage as survey reveals Disney+ ad tier take-up
Evening Standard → The Standard
Why they did it:
The Evening Standard was seeking to signal a departure from its commuter-focused print brand amid what eventually resulted in a broader adjustment that saw the newspaper reduce its print run from a daily to a weekly earlier this year.
Before that move, the Evening Standard, under new editor Dylan Jones, was looking to improve its digital footprint. Under simply The Standard, its new website and apps aimed to reflect a “cleaner, brighter and more modern design and vastly improved user experience”, according to a spokesperson.
The publisher also wanted to consolidate sub-brands, such as its daily news podcast The Leader, under a single identity.
A spokesperson added at the time that the rebranded site would allow for “far greater flexibility in layout and allows The Standard to elevate its premium quality content with a renewed focus on brand-safe areas such as fashion, travel, culture and tech.”
Did it work?
Shortly after rebranding its digital output as The Standard, the print edition of the Evening Standard announced it would be moving to a weekly edition, reflecting overarching business challenges for press and an increased need to focus on digital output.
Whether The Standard will see a substantial boost in growth online remains to be seen, but it will need to adapt its business model to make up for less lucrative advertising opportunities in digital as opposed to print.
Evening Standard succumbs to commuting changes and goes weekly
Trinity Mirror → Reach
Why they did it:
In 2018, Trinity Mirror changed its name after it acquired the Express and Star titles from Desmond.
Then CEO Simon Fox suggested the new name, Reach, reflected the broader “reach” of the publisher’s enlarged portfolio of news brands.
“We wanted a simple name, a Ronseal name — ‘it does what it says on the tin’ — that simply describes what we do,” Fox said at the time.
“Trinity Mirror came about from the merger of two companies in 1999. Since then, we have bought Local World and Northern & Shell. The old name no longer reflects the composition of the group. We felt it was necessary, out of respect for our new colleagues.”
Did it work?
The rebrand was certainly fitting, given the increased size of the publisher’s portfolio. Reach is indeed the UK’s largest news publisher.
However, the publishing giant has continued to be dogged by slow growth as it continues to adapt its business model away from print and towards digital.
Reach posts revenue decline but now has ‘clear path forward’
News International → News UK
Why they did it:
Following the phone-hacking scandal, which led to the closure of News International’s News of the World and a revamp of editorial staff at The Times and The Sun, News International was in need of a new name.
BBC media correspondent David Sillito called the change from News International to News UK an attempt at “brand decontamination“.
Did it work?
Despite the name change, the Rupert Murdoch-owned enterprise and its past employees have remained sullied by the phone-hacking scandal.
Washington Post CEO Sir William Lewis, who formerly edited The Sunday Times, has come under recent scrutiny for his actions at News International, while former prime minister Gordon Brown this year renewed calls for an investigation into an alleged cover-up of evidence related to the scandal.
Mediatel News → The Media Leader
Why they did it:
This very publication was rebranded from Mediatel News in early 2022 for a number of reasons. For one, the publication’s parent company, Mediatel, had been purchased and was being rebranded as Adwanted.
But editor-in-chief Omar Oakes also saw a rebrand as an opportunity to better reflect the growth goals of the outlet to become an international publishing brand.
“We have ambitions to grow our reach beyond the UK, starting soon in the US and in more countries, too, as we build an international B2B media platform,” Oakes stated at the time of the name change. “Rather than do the easy thing and launch Mediatel News US, we felt it was important to create a new standalone brand that better represents what we are and how we want a new generation of readers to see us.”
Did it work?
You be the judge!
Since rebranding, The Media Leader has launched coverage of not just the UK market, but also the US and, through a prior merger as part of Adwanted Group, in France.
Read more
À lire plus tard
Vous devez être inscrit pour ajouter cet article à votre liste de lecture
S'inscrire Déjà inscrit ? Connectez-vous