One of my regular reads is Brand New, a blog about corporate identity work (it's a part of the same network as Speak Up). While logo design as a skill isn't exactly one of my strong suits, I am always interested in seeing the latest logo updates and the debate surrounding the topic. And boy is there debate. Aside from arguments of taste concerning logo design, there is a larger discussion about the overall value of the logo. Some think that they are crucial to the corporate DNA, other's feel they are completely irrelevant to the success of the company.

This topic was touched on in the recent Fireside Chat between prominent icon and logo designers over at Signal vs. Noise, and they seemed to come to the consensus that the logo is complimentary, it's not the foundation. A logo doesn't make or break a company, and icons do not make or break a product, but they can add a bit of icing to the cake. I tend to agree. You can find companies who succeed despite a conventionally poor logo, see Google, and you can find companies that rely heavily on their logo and corporate identity to further a certain aesthetic, see Apple. So where does this leave the discussion?

The best perspective I've read so far on this topic, and I've linked to this before, is by Andy Rutledge who explains in one of his posts that The company should define the logo. The logo shouldn't define the company. And this is why you can cite so many examples of good companies with crappy logos and vice versa. A great logo will not fix a bad company and a good company can survive with a technically bad logo.

Now lets look at the discussion as it relates to the new MSNBC logo. As far as aesthetics go, it is certainly an improvement. The typeface is less clunky and the sleeker look has a more progressive tone. And moving beyond just the logo, you'll notice a new tagline: A Fuller Spectrum Of News. It doesn't really roll off the tongue, but the visual concept behind it is pretty tight. Check out this full-page ad that appeared in Newsweek along with this TV spot to get a better feel of what the new slogan means. The concept of the spectrum is pretty cool as it plays off of both the NBC peacock and the color spectrum on CRT TV's — what with MSNBC being a cable news network and everything.

But how MSNBC will define this logo is another story. The idea of a full spectrum of news leads down a dangerous path towards a lack of focus. Is a news station that covers even more, in even less depth, what we really need? Does this full spectrum mean even more sound bytes and here-today gone-tomorrow journalism? Does this full spectrum mean even more celebrity gossip and skateboarding bulldogs? I hope not. The new logo is great, but it will mean nothing if MSNBC fails to position itself among the herd, and that's not easy to do.

For better or worse, you know what the Fox News logo means. You also know what the NPR logo means, but do you know what the MSNBC logo means? I'm not so sure I do. But it seems like they want to try to help me figure it out, so I'm paying attention. Dan Abrams seems to be in control over there and they are currently riding the recent success of Keith Olbermann, so we'll see where they go from here. But aside from any programming changes, I think their first step should be to transfer this streamlined new look to their web site and to their on-air graphics. Both are in dire need of a refresh. From there, they can start to define what this new look and feel means on a broader level. Because as Andy Rutledge said:

A logo refers to a story (your brand). It says very little in and of itself. It is meant to refer to an already understood idea (your brand). A LOGO DOES NOT TELL A STORY (a logo is not a brand). If there is no story, at best the logo can only serve to create a recognizable reference that might have meaning and context later – months or years from now.

So it's pretty clear that MSNBC now needs to create their story. Or else this new logo will mean nothing more than a new typeface with tighter kerning.