When MSNBC was launched in 1996 as a joint venture between NBC and Microsoft, the branding felt futuristic. “MS” evoked the rise of Silicon Valley, “NBC” carried the gravitas of broadcast news, and together they promised a network designed for the digital age.
Now, nearly three decades later, the name that once symbolized modernity is being buried. By the end of 2025, MSNBC will vanish from cable lineups, replaced by MS NOW, shorthand for My Source: News, Opinion, World.
The change is not cosmetic—it’s structural. NBCUniversal has spun off its cable properties into a new company called Versant, and with it, MSNBC must shed both the NBC initials and the iconic peacock that long adorned its logo. Executives call it a fresh start. Critics call it a blunder. And viewers? Many are wondering what, exactly, MS NOW is supposed to be.
A Divorce in the Peacock Family
Mark Lazarus, CEO of Versant, defended the move in a memo to staff:
“During this time of transition, NBCUniversal decided that our brands require a new, separate identity. This decision now allows us to set our own course and assert our independence as we continue to build our own modern newsgathering operation.”
Independence is the official line. But insiders say it’s also about logistics: the peacock logo and NBC branding belong to NBCUniversal, not Versant. MSNBC, in effect, lost its last name in the corporate split.
Rebecca Kutler, who now oversees MS NOW, tried to reassure jittery employees. The mission remains, she said, even if the letters do not. Yet promises ring hollow for some staffers, who recall being told earlier this year that “MSNBC will keep its name.”
“It doesn’t set a great precedent for management to change the name after promising staffers it wouldn’t,” one employee told the New York Post.
The Internet Reacts: ‘Most Surely No One Watching’
If the goal was a clean slate, social media delivered anything but.
Conservative influencer Saagar Enjeti mocked the new branding as “MS NOW w/ a Microsoft Paint logo.” Commentator Greg Price said it sounded like “a discontinued Microsoft product from 1996.”
Former host Keith Olbermann was even more cutting:
“They can change it to LES MS for all it matters—they still screwed up what I built for them.”
And on X, Buck Sexton quipped that Donald Trump “killed off MSNBC. This alone should get him added to Mount Rushmore.”
The mockery wasn’t confined to partisans. Branding experts pointed out that the acronym is clunky, the logo uninspired, and the risk enormous. The Guardian compared the move to other rebrands that stumbled—Facebook to Meta, HBO Max to Max—arguing that companies often underestimate the emotional attachment audiences have to legacy names.
What’s in a Name?
For almost 30 years, MSNBC was more than a string of letters. It was shorthand for a particular kind of cable news—progressive, personality-driven, unabashedly anti-Trump in the later years. The network’s stars, from Rachel Maddow to Joe Scarborough, were household names.
Stripping away “NBC” severs that lineage. Without the peacock, MS NOW feels adrift—like a sibling suddenly disowned from the family tree. The risk isn’t just confusion; it’s trust. Viewers who associated the NBC brand with credibility may now hesitate.
“Brand equity is fragile,” says media analyst Carla Monterro. “You can’t simply swap letters and expect decades of recognition to transfer automatically.”
Maddow, Scarborough, and the Optimists
Still, not everyone is gloomy. Rachel Maddow, the network’s marquee host, sees opportunity in independence. On a recent podcast, she argued the split allows anchors to pursue stories without NBC News executives weighing in:
“We can apply our own instincts, our own queries, our own priorities. It’s gonna be better.”
Joe Scarborough, co-host of Morning Joe, celebrated the rebrand live on air, casting it as liberation rather than loss.
This optimism points to a deeper question: will MS NOW double down on its progressive identity, or recalibrate toward the center to attract broader audiences?
A Network in Transition
In recent months, NBC News has reduced cross-pollination with its cable cousin. Some reporters—Jacob Soboroff, Brandy Zadrozny—have crossed over, but others have stayed firmly in the NBC orbit. Meanwhile, MS NOW is staffing up aggressively, hiring over 100 journalists and building its own Washington bureau.
That expansion signals ambition. Freed from NBC’s hierarchy, MS NOW can attempt bold experiments in programming. Kutler hinted at more digital-first strategies, interactive formats, and community-building among viewers.
But boldness cuts both ways. A misstep could leave the network stranded between two worlds: too progressive for centrists, too corporate for activists, too stripped-down to compete with Fox’s dominance.
The Shadow of Fox News
Fox remains the ratings juggernaut, routinely drawing more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. As of Trump’s second term, Fox programs like The Five, Hannity, and Gutfeld! dominate cable.
MS NOW faces an uphill battle not only to retain MSNBC’s audience but to carve out new growth in a shrinking cable ecosystem. Cord-cutting continues to accelerate; younger viewers consume news via TikTok, YouTube, and podcasts. For MS NOW, the challenge is existential: reinvent or risk irrelevance.
A Risky Rebrand in Historical Context
Rebrands rarely go smoothly. Think of Netflix’s ill-fated “Qwikster” spinoff in 2011, or Google’s reorganization into Alphabet. Some eventually succeed; others remain punchlines.
MS NOW enters that uncertain territory. For longtime viewers, MSNBC’s name evoked continuity—a throughline from the Clinton years to the Trump presidency to today. Now, that continuity is broken.
“It’s not just a rebrand,” notes branding strategist Julian Park. “It’s an identity crisis playing out in public.”
What Comes Next
By year’s end, MSNBC will officially cease to exist. The peacock will vanish from the corner of the screen. MS NOW will debut with a new logo, a new corporate parent, and a promise of independence.
Whether audiences embrace it remains to be seen. Some may follow Maddow and Scarborough loyally; others may drift to rival platforms. The risk is not only ratings loss but cultural invisibility.
Still, the gamble may pay off. If MS NOW can truly innovate—crafting news for digital-first generations, elevating diverse voices, and maintaining journalistic rigor—it could outgrow its old skin.
But if the rebrand fails, it will stand as a cautionary tale: that in chasing independence, MS NOW killed the very identity that made it matter.
Bottom Line
MSNBC is dead. MS NOW is the experiment rising in its place. In a media world fractured by politics, technology, and distrust, the name change is more than cosmetic—it’s a declaration of independence, and a test of survival.
Cable news, like democracy itself, is built on credibility. The question for MS NOW is whether a new name can carry the weight of old expectations—or whether the rebrand marks the beginning of the end.