MSNBC Needs To Change Much More Than Its Name | Bobby Burack

MSNBC is changing its name to MS NOW ("My Source News Opinion World). The rebrand is designed to distance the cable news network from the NBC brand as parent company NBC Universal spins off its cable networks into a new company, called Versant.

However, the move is more than just a name change. Unlike MSNBC, MS NOW won't share staffing, studio or operating costs with the NBC News division. Instead, Versant will shoulder the financial burden independently—a shift that reflects broader industry trends.

Media conglomerates like NBC Universal and Warner Bros. Discovery are offloading cable assets to improve their market caps and long-term outlooks in the minds of Wall Street.  As a result, spin-off cable companies are expected to run on lean budgets. That's fine for channels like USA Network and TNT that can rely more heavily on re-airs. But news networks like MS NOW and CNN can't do that. They need to churn out live programming around 18 hours a day.

"MS NOW"

CNN plans to maintain its current format, but presumably at lower costs over time. MS NOW’s strategy, however, remains unclear.

Network president Rebecca Kutler gave an overly generic and buzz-wordy statement to staffers on Monday regarding the future:

"This new branding underscores our mission: to serve as a destination for breaking news and best-in-class opinion journalism, all rooted in accurate and reported facts."

Based on current MSNBC programming, Kutler's definition of "accurate" is flexible at best.

DURHAM, NH - FEBRUARY 04:  Democratic presidential candidates former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders are asked questions by moderators Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd during their MSNBC Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of New Hampshire on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. This is the final debate for the Democratic candidates before the New Hampshire primaries.  (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

On the surface, MSNBC's business model is unsustainable. CNN's low ratings get most of the attention. And for good reason; the network averaged only 497,000 total viewers in July. However, CNN is a stronger-performing brand than MSNBC in the advertiser-covered the 25-54 age demographic, the category that executives care most about.

Here is how each cable news channel fared in A25-54 in July:

Primetime:

1. Fox News: 257,000
2. CNN: 92,000
3. MSNBC: 81,000

Total viewers:

1. Fox News: 184,000
2. CNN: 62,000
3. MSNBC: 52

By those metrics, MSNBC is the No. 3 brand in cable news.

The Rachel Maddow Problem

Moreover, MSNBC remains overly reliant on Rachel Maddow, who hosts only one night a week. Had Maddow not drawn 219,000 demo viewers last month, MSNBC's averages would be even more concerning.

Here were the top 15 programs in the category for July:

1. The Five – Fox News – (378,000)
2. Gutfeld! – Fox News –  (327,000)
3. Jesse Watters Primetime – Fox News – (323,000)
4. Hannity – Fox News – (302,000)
5. Special Report with Bret Baier – Fox News – (288,000)
6. The Ingraham Angle – Fox News – (266,000)
7. The Will Cain Show – Fox News – (249,000)
8. Outnumbered  – Fox News – (246,000)
9. America Reports – Fox News – (236,000)
10. The Rachel Maddow Show – MSNBC – (219,000)
11. The Faulkner Focus – Fox News – (218,000)
12. (Tie for 11) The Story with Martha MacCallum – Fox News (218,000)
13. America’s Newsroom – Fox News – (203,000)
14. Fox News @Night – Fox News – (202,000)
15. Fox and Friends – Fox News – (169,000)

You might wonder what MSNBC—err, MS NOW—would look like if Maddow decided to move on to other projects full-time. Luckily, you don't have to wonder. Whether it's Alex Wagner, Jen Psaki or a guest host, MSNBC's primetime ratings decline by around 49% when Maddow is off. 

No one in television is more valuable to their respective network than she is. Thus, Versant has no choice but to retain her at $25 million a year for as long as she wants.

Admittedly, we don't understand why Maddow is dramatically more popular than any other far-left, partisan hosts. Sure, she recently warned of Trump forming a "consolidating dictatorship" and spent three years pushing the Russia Hoax. Yet so did every other MSNBC host—just a lot fewer people paid attention.

Either way, market trends suggest an interest in far-left commentary (other than Maddow) is waning. 

TODAY -- Pictured: Rachel Maddow on Tuesday, October 2, 2019 -- (Photo by: Nathan Congleton/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal via Getty Images via Getty Images)

For giggles, let's cite Sydney Sweeney as a point of reference. MSNBC spent weeks warning that Sweeney's new American Eagle ad was rooted in the same fascist ideology as Nazi Germany. "Sydney Sweeney's ad shows an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness," one MSNBC article warned.

But while the catty, jealous mean girl on MSNBC espoused their outrage and shouted "eugenics," a recent poll found that most Americans found the ad "clever" or "didn't care." According to an Economist/YouGov poll, just 12% of U.S. adults considered the ad "offensive."

That finding is consistent with a study from 2022 that learned that just 8% of the electorate agreed with "woke ideology." What's more, the Democratic internal polling firm Blueprint found that Kamala Harris' stance on cultural issues like transgenderism and racism were the third leading reason they voted for Trump.

Put bluntly, both the Democratic Party and MSNBC have shifted leftward of the median liberal voter. And they are both paying for it.

The network won't turn its business around by catering to the same small, but loud and aging minority of Americans. MS NOW needs to learn how to better connect with normal, everyday Americans who don't want to be henpecked and race-shamed by a bunch of privileged millionaires.

If not, and the channel is a mere extension of MSNBC, we don't see MS NOW lasting very long.