I’m still not convinced. The problem with this is it becomes harder to advertise what those outlets are when they all have the same name.
“Coverage continues on ABC NewsRadio, News 24 and online” sounds so much more efficient than “Coverage continues on ABC News through Radio, our news channel and online”.
Which radio is being referred to? Local? RN? Triple J? News Radio? Classic FM?
The current branding scheme does things well, because the brands are associated with their mediums and are specific. ABC News 24 = TV. ABC NewsRadio = radio, duh. Whereas ABC News and ABC News is no different from ABC News (the 7pm bulletin) and ABC News (the department of the ABC more broadly). ABC News.
I still think this idea of streamlining all services under one title creates more confusion than it solves. If they were to adopt a system of differentiating services whilst still maintaining the ABC News as front and centre, I think that would be the way to go.
ABC News at Seven
ABC News 24
ABC News Radio
ABC News Online
ABC News App
^Each of those differentiates the medium whilst maintaining ABC News as the single unifying brand.
That’s why Nine added dots to before their logos and relaunched their catchup as 9Now. The umbrella brand - “Nine” - is still there, front and centre, but now you can tag on another brand (9Gem, 9Honey, 9News) and you know exactly what service they’re directing you toward. If Nine followed the ABC’s lead, every service would be “Nine on channel 99”, “Nine on channel 90”, “Nine online”.
It’s just plain nuts and I refuse to believe readers, viewers and listeners are too stupid to realise a service comes from the ABC unless they have ABC News blared in their faces. People aren’t that stupid.