1 00:00:00,520 --> 00:00:03,480 Speaker 1: Already, and this is this is the Daily Lot. This 2 00:00:03,560 --> 00:00:06,840 Speaker 1: is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense. 3 00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:17,239 Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday, 4 00:00:17,280 --> 00:00:19,800 Speaker 2: the thirty first of October. I'm Sam Kauzlowski. 5 00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:21,840 Speaker 1: Happy Halloween, Happy Halloween. 6 00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:23,040 Speaker 2: I'm Billy fit Simons. 7 00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:24,320 Speaker 1: I'm Billy Fit Simons. 8 00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,280 Speaker 2: Earlier this week, the Bureau of Meteorology launched a brand 9 00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:31,040 Speaker 2: new website. It costs more than four million dollars and 10 00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:35,000 Speaker 2: was the first major update since twenty thirteen. Within days, 11 00:00:35,080 --> 00:00:38,159 Speaker 2: the backlash was so intense that the federal government had 12 00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:40,839 Speaker 2: to step in. On today's podcast, we're going to unpack 13 00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,360 Speaker 2: what went wrong with the bomb redesign, why people reacted 14 00:00:44,440 --> 00:00:47,640 Speaker 2: so strongly, and what the science tells us about why 15 00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,159 Speaker 2: we hate it so much when familiar things get redesigned. 16 00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:58,160 Speaker 1: Okay, Sam, I think we should start with why the bomb. 17 00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:01,040 Speaker 1: I believe we are allowed to call it the bomb. 18 00:01:01,040 --> 00:01:01,960 Speaker 2: We we're good. 19 00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:04,319 Speaker 1: I think we'll get into but I think we should 20 00:01:04,319 --> 00:01:07,240 Speaker 1: start with why they thought that they needed a rebrand. 21 00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,240 Speaker 1: So my understanding is that this website was first launched 22 00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: on October twenty second. What was the reasoning behind the 23 00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:15,240 Speaker 1: new website? 24 00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:18,280 Speaker 2: So they haven't updated the website since twenty thirteen, so 25 00:01:18,360 --> 00:01:21,679 Speaker 2: it has been a long time, especially in digital terms, 26 00:01:21,720 --> 00:01:24,919 Speaker 2: twelve years is a very long time. They wanted something 27 00:01:24,959 --> 00:01:27,960 Speaker 2: modern that worked better on mobile devices. I mean, think 28 00:01:27,959 --> 00:01:30,960 Speaker 2: about how many screen sizes there were in twenty thirteen. 29 00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:34,759 Speaker 2: There's so many more now. And the website sees massive traffic. 30 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,000 Speaker 2: So on any normal day, the bomb is visited by 31 00:01:38,120 --> 00:01:40,320 Speaker 2: about one point eight million Australians. 32 00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:41,440 Speaker 1: Wow, that's a lot. 33 00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:44,000 Speaker 2: It's a serious I mean, quick maths, it's probably about 34 00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:46,720 Speaker 2: one in thirteen Australians are looking at the bomb. On 35 00:01:46,800 --> 00:01:50,160 Speaker 2: a standard day, when there's severe weather, that jumps to 36 00:01:50,360 --> 00:01:53,200 Speaker 2: about five point seven million people, which is then about 37 00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:56,760 Speaker 2: kind of one in four. So this is really critical infrastructure. 38 00:01:57,120 --> 00:01:59,800 Speaker 2: And so they spent four million dollars on this website. 39 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:03,680 Speaker 2: Itch was meant to be a full redesign that involved 40 00:02:03,720 --> 00:02:06,760 Speaker 2: a twelvemonth beta testing period, which is when you kind 41 00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:09,200 Speaker 2: of give the website to users see how they interact 42 00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:11,200 Speaker 2: with it. And they said that the feedback on the 43 00:02:11,200 --> 00:02:13,800 Speaker 2: website through that testing was overwhelmingly positive. 44 00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:16,760 Speaker 1: And so we're just talking about the website here. The 45 00:02:16,880 --> 00:02:18,760 Speaker 1: rebrand was just to do with the website. 46 00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:21,880 Speaker 2: Yeah, but you have to remember as we do as 47 00:02:21,919 --> 00:02:25,359 Speaker 2: young people especially, we are visiting websites on mobile more 48 00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:28,560 Speaker 2: than ever before, So it's really important to remember that 49 00:02:29,080 --> 00:02:31,320 Speaker 2: where people are engaging with this kind of thing is 50 00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:33,119 Speaker 2: mostly in the palm of their hand. 51 00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:37,040 Speaker 1: Got it okay, So they tested it, they invested millions, 52 00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,160 Speaker 1: and then they launched it. How did that launch go? 53 00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:43,040 Speaker 2: Well, the timing wasn't in their favor. It's not entirely 54 00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:45,400 Speaker 2: their fault that they picked a really bad week to 55 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:49,600 Speaker 2: launch it weatherwise, but as we get into it, perhaps 56 00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:52,960 Speaker 2: could have been prevented. So the website launched just as 57 00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:56,520 Speaker 2: severe storms we're hitting southeastern Australia. There were one hundred 58 00:02:56,560 --> 00:02:59,400 Speaker 2: kilometer and our wins in Brisbane that left one hundred 59 00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:03,440 Speaker 2: thousand homes without power, twenty five thousand regional power adages 60 00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:06,360 Speaker 2: in Melbourne and Greater Victoria, and people were trying to 61 00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:10,040 Speaker 2: check the Bomb's website for critical weather updates and they 62 00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:13,000 Speaker 2: were finding that they couldn't navigate this new design. And 63 00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:15,480 Speaker 2: think about that as a moment. It's a moment of stress, 64 00:03:15,680 --> 00:03:17,480 Speaker 2: and it's a moment where you're going to the Bomb 65 00:03:17,520 --> 00:03:21,080 Speaker 2: for critical infrastructure information, you're greeted with the new design. 66 00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:22,720 Speaker 2: It was never really going to end. 67 00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:25,600 Speaker 1: Well, and so what were there specific complaints? Was it 68 00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,200 Speaker 1: that they just didn't know exactly how to navigate this 69 00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:32,520 Speaker 1: in a case of emergency, or were there specific things 70 00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:33,920 Speaker 1: missing from the website. 71 00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:37,040 Speaker 2: I found trying to break down the specific complaints really 72 00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:39,840 Speaker 2: interesting because it was you're right, Billy, it's more than 73 00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:41,880 Speaker 2: just I don't like the look of this or they've 74 00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:45,240 Speaker 2: changed the color. It was about the functionality. And the 75 00:03:45,280 --> 00:03:48,560 Speaker 2: biggest issue was with radars. So on the old website, 76 00:03:48,600 --> 00:03:51,320 Speaker 2: you could track where storms were heading and estimate when 77 00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,440 Speaker 2: they would reach your area, and that's really critical, especially 78 00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:57,720 Speaker 2: for emergency services who might be planning a response. That 79 00:03:57,760 --> 00:04:02,040 Speaker 2: feature was gone. Users also know the radar updates were delayed, 80 00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:05,600 Speaker 2: so you were only seeing updates that were current as 81 00:04:05,600 --> 00:04:08,160 Speaker 2: of maybe an hour ago, and that meant that storms 82 00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:10,960 Speaker 2: could hit your area before the website showed that they would. 83 00:04:11,160 --> 00:04:13,960 Speaker 2: The color scheme had changed, but that's not as significant 84 00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:17,160 Speaker 2: as something like the color scheme of hale showing up 85 00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:17,680 Speaker 2: on the radar. 86 00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:20,039 Speaker 1: And so you heard this thing about the color of 87 00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:22,880 Speaker 1: hale that they changed the color of hail from black. 88 00:04:23,160 --> 00:04:25,919 Speaker 2: It was black, and it was now showing up in 89 00:04:25,960 --> 00:04:28,839 Speaker 2: the same way as rain, and so there wasn't as 90 00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:32,320 Speaker 2: it wasn't as easy to distinguish hail from rain, which 91 00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:35,719 Speaker 2: might mean the difference between parking your car undercover or not. 92 00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:39,159 Speaker 2: And according to Steve Turton, who is a professor of 93 00:04:39,240 --> 00:04:43,599 Speaker 2: environmental geography at Central Queensland University, even within the first 94 00:04:43,640 --> 00:04:47,440 Speaker 2: couple of days, farmers in regional Queensland couldn't enter their 95 00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:51,200 Speaker 2: own GPS coordinates to check the weather for their specific properties, 96 00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:54,560 Speaker 2: which might be hundreds of kilometers in size, and commercial 97 00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:58,480 Speaker 2: fishermen were heavily reliant on the radar to decide whether 98 00:04:58,520 --> 00:05:00,520 Speaker 2: it's safe to go out fishing or not, and they 99 00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:02,279 Speaker 2: lost that ability as well. 100 00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:06,040 Speaker 1: Right, So the issue was beyond just not liking the rebrand. 101 00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:09,039 Speaker 2: Yeah, our point of reference at TDA is funk Gate 102 00:05:09,320 --> 00:05:11,960 Speaker 2: and when we changed our fond and people didn't like it. 103 00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:17,240 Speaker 2: And as I was investigating the Bomb's week, it struck 104 00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:20,200 Speaker 2: me how different these two examples were. Yeah, people didn't 105 00:05:20,240 --> 00:05:23,440 Speaker 2: like the way TDA looked, but TDA itself didn't change. 106 00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:25,360 Speaker 2: This was about changing functionality. 107 00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:27,240 Speaker 1: Okay, I want to talk more about funk Kate because 108 00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:29,640 Speaker 1: I actually think that there are some similarities there that 109 00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:31,680 Speaker 1: I want to get to. But first I want to 110 00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:34,280 Speaker 1: go to you mentioned earlier that the government got involved, 111 00:05:34,279 --> 00:05:37,159 Speaker 1: which I imagine isn't that rare here because the bomb 112 00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:41,039 Speaker 1: is government funded. At what point did the government though 113 00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:42,159 Speaker 1: step in with this? 114 00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:45,680 Speaker 2: So we mentioned before it was launched on the twenty second. 115 00:05:45,839 --> 00:05:48,799 Speaker 2: On the twenty seventh of October, just five days after 116 00:05:48,839 --> 00:05:51,520 Speaker 2: the launch, was when we first heard from the Environment 117 00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:55,640 Speaker 2: Minister Murray what He actually arranged a snap meeting with 118 00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:59,479 Speaker 2: the bomb's acting chief executive to convey the message that 119 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,560 Speaker 2: the site was quote not fulfilling the expectations of many users, 120 00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:07,279 Speaker 2: and he demanded urgent improvements. Then we heard from Energy 121 00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:11,120 Speaker 2: Minister Chris Bowen and National's leader David little Proud, who 122 00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:14,760 Speaker 2: said that it actually reflected broader problems at the Bomb. 123 00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:18,920 Speaker 2: This was an overwhelming government response and also bipartisan, which 124 00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:20,400 Speaker 2: is important to note. 125 00:06:20,600 --> 00:06:23,480 Speaker 1: And how did the bomb respond to all of this criticism, 126 00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:25,480 Speaker 1: both from the public and from the government. 127 00:06:25,920 --> 00:06:29,920 Speaker 2: So Acting CEO Peter Stone issued an apology. He said 128 00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:33,000 Speaker 2: that the bomb appreciated that it would take time for 129 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:36,640 Speaker 2: people to adjust. And that's an interesting wording there, because 130 00:06:36,680 --> 00:06:41,120 Speaker 2: Stone's response suggested the Bureau thought the complaints were mainly 131 00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:44,680 Speaker 2: about people needing time to adjust to something new, rather 132 00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:48,479 Speaker 2: than genuine problems with the designs and the functionality itself. 133 00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:52,000 Speaker 2: And many users on social media called that gas lighting, 134 00:06:52,200 --> 00:06:55,159 Speaker 2: and so the Bomb's problems really did compound. Then with 135 00:06:55,279 --> 00:06:58,880 Speaker 2: that apology, users were saying, especially on Reddit, this really 136 00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:01,480 Speaker 2: kind of caught on there. They were saying, we don't 137 00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:05,760 Speaker 2: need time to adjust, You've removed the features that we need, right. 138 00:07:06,480 --> 00:07:08,600 Speaker 1: I have to say, when I first saw this story, 139 00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:11,480 Speaker 1: I was surprised that we were talking about a bomb 140 00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:15,680 Speaker 1: rebrand going wrong, because a very similar thing happened just 141 00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,960 Speaker 1: a couple of years ago when they asked the media 142 00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:21,120 Speaker 1: asked to not call them the Bomb, and then there 143 00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:23,640 Speaker 1: was so much controversy about that, and that was part 144 00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:24,920 Speaker 1: of a rebrand. 145 00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:26,480 Speaker 2: And that was in twenty twenty two. So a couple 146 00:07:26,520 --> 00:07:28,679 Speaker 2: of years ago they came out and said, you can't 147 00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:31,160 Speaker 2: call us the Bomb anymore. We want to be called 148 00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:34,120 Speaker 2: the Bureau of Meteorology. And they spent two hundred and 149 00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:38,480 Speaker 2: twenty thousand dollars on that exercise. They hadn't reserved the 150 00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:41,080 Speaker 2: Twitter handles they would have needed to change their name, 151 00:07:41,480 --> 00:07:44,160 Speaker 2: and sure enough, within about forty eight hours, they released 152 00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,080 Speaker 2: a statement saying that the public could actually refer to 153 00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:50,000 Speaker 2: them however they wanted to, including the BOMB, which I 154 00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:52,280 Speaker 2: think is how most of us kind of know the agency. 155 00:07:52,320 --> 00:07:55,280 Speaker 1: Now we'll get to more about Bomb's rebrand in just 156 00:07:55,360 --> 00:07:57,640 Speaker 1: a moment, but first here is a quick message from 157 00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:03,320 Speaker 1: today's sponsor. I guess we should say that, you know, 158 00:08:03,440 --> 00:08:07,920 Speaker 1: government agencies rebranding isn't something that is unique to the BOMB. 159 00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:10,080 Speaker 1: That is something that happens across the boards, both for 160 00:08:10,120 --> 00:08:14,000 Speaker 1: government agencies and for companies like TDA. Again funk Kate 161 00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:16,800 Speaker 1: comes up again. But it is a usual part and 162 00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:20,760 Speaker 1: it also is necessary for companies to update their websites 163 00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:22,440 Speaker 1: and to remain modern. 164 00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:26,440 Speaker 2: And it does happen sometimes in really good ways. I mean, 165 00:08:26,520 --> 00:08:29,880 Speaker 2: you see some legendary brands out there do rebrands that 166 00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:32,800 Speaker 2: we all forget about six months later, and they worked 167 00:08:32,840 --> 00:08:35,280 Speaker 2: really well. In government, it does seem to be tricky. 168 00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:37,120 Speaker 2: I mean, there was one example I was looking at 169 00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:40,680 Speaker 2: from twenty seventeen where then New South Wales Premier Gladys 170 00:08:40,679 --> 00:08:45,360 Speaker 2: spiagically and asked every major cultural institution in New South Wales, 171 00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:49,319 Speaker 2: so Sydney Opera House or Taronga Zoo, the Australian Museum 172 00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:53,000 Speaker 2: to all update their logos to the Warata Flower. That 173 00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:55,840 Speaker 2: cost the government one hundred and sixty thousand dollars to 174 00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:58,679 Speaker 2: come up with a proposal there never happened because all 175 00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:01,400 Speaker 2: the institutions as well as the public pushback pretty hard. 176 00:09:01,800 --> 00:09:04,960 Speaker 2: So it does seem to be particularly tricky for public institutions. 177 00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:07,920 Speaker 2: And the big undercurrent here as well is this money 178 00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:10,080 Speaker 2: that they're spending. It's our money. I mean, this is 179 00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:14,520 Speaker 2: taxpayer funded rebrands, which is different again to a private 180 00:09:14,559 --> 00:09:16,920 Speaker 2: company or TDA doing this kind of thing. 181 00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:19,800 Speaker 1: As didn't quite cost that much. I didn't cost that 182 00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:22,679 Speaker 1: much and that's why it didn't go so well exactly, but. 183 00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:26,679 Speaker 2: Also didn't create this much angle with something that people 184 00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:29,760 Speaker 2: needed for critical infrastructure, which is I think why we're 185 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:32,839 Speaker 2: talking about it on a news podcast today. But as 186 00:09:32,840 --> 00:09:35,760 Speaker 2: it stands, the bomb is sticking with the change. 187 00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:38,959 Speaker 1: Right, so they are sticking with it. Have experts said 188 00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:41,240 Speaker 1: anything about what they could have done? Differently? 189 00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:44,920 Speaker 2: Experts love a bit of commentary around this sort of 190 00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:49,080 Speaker 2: moment and use it to create an example for what 191 00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:51,440 Speaker 2: you shouldn't do, and there's been a heap of commentary 192 00:09:51,480 --> 00:09:54,679 Speaker 2: this week. The key themes here really have been about 193 00:09:54,679 --> 00:09:58,839 Speaker 2: the timing, the user testing angle, and agility. So firstly 194 00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:02,760 Speaker 2: on timing, launching a major website redesign as a weather 195 00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,760 Speaker 2: agency at the beginning of a spring storm season and 196 00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:10,600 Speaker 2: amid heat waves is a bold move. In response, BOMB 197 00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:14,319 Speaker 2: meteorologists Angus Heinz defended the timing. He said, it's a 198 00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:17,840 Speaker 2: rare day where we don't have severe weather somewhere in Australia. 199 00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:20,200 Speaker 2: I think he's got a point there, But experts say 200 00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:23,120 Speaker 2: they could have done then a gradual rollout and given 201 00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:26,720 Speaker 2: users more notice of the change. Steve Turden from Central 202 00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:30,800 Speaker 2: Queensland University, the expert I referenced before, said when a 203 00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:35,360 Speaker 2: public service implements major modifications, it is crucial for regular 204 00:10:35,480 --> 00:10:39,400 Speaker 2: users to comprehend these changes and access the information they require. 205 00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:41,560 Speaker 2: In this instance, the bureau faulted. 206 00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:44,880 Speaker 1: Okay, so they picked the wrong time. But the other 207 00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:48,640 Speaker 1: two reasons that you mentioned were testing and agility, so 208 00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:49,480 Speaker 1: take us through those. 209 00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:53,240 Speaker 2: So this inadequate user testing point is interesting because the 210 00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:55,960 Speaker 2: BOMB says that they did test, that they did twelve 211 00:10:55,960 --> 00:10:59,320 Speaker 2: months of testing. But we can see from the last 212 00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:04,440 Speaker 2: week if professional meteorologists, farmers and emergency services are all 213 00:11:04,559 --> 00:11:07,920 Speaker 2: highlighting serious concerns, then it would probably be fair to 214 00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:11,280 Speaker 2: say there were problems in the testing methods themselves. And 215 00:11:11,320 --> 00:11:14,480 Speaker 2: then finally, this point around agility is the idea of 216 00:11:14,760 --> 00:11:18,600 Speaker 2: how should the BOMB now respond to criticism that we've 217 00:11:18,600 --> 00:11:22,440 Speaker 2: seen over the past few days. One analyst said, it 218 00:11:22,520 --> 00:11:25,400 Speaker 2: is not clear to us why the app redesign was 219 00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:28,760 Speaker 2: rolled out broadly, and we are even less clear on 220 00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:31,360 Speaker 2: why it hasn't been more aggressively. 221 00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:33,559 Speaker 1: Rolled back already interesting. 222 00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:35,880 Speaker 2: Which is fascinating. And I think what we learned obviously 223 00:11:35,920 --> 00:11:38,440 Speaker 2: through our rebrand and perhaps what we're seeing playing out 224 00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:41,880 Speaker 2: with the Bomb now is any rebrand, government agency or 225 00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:45,480 Speaker 2: private company probably needs a contingency plan of what to 226 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:47,320 Speaker 2: do if it's not received in the right way. 227 00:11:47,679 --> 00:11:50,679 Speaker 1: For anyone listening who isn't aware of our rebrand, I 228 00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:52,680 Speaker 1: know that we have referenced it a few times. But 229 00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:55,880 Speaker 1: about a year ago, two years ago, two years ago, 230 00:11:56,040 --> 00:12:00,440 Speaker 1: TDA launched a rebrand and it just went absolutely all fully. 231 00:12:00,640 --> 00:12:03,240 Speaker 1: The audience did not like the new font that we 232 00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:05,480 Speaker 1: chose for that rebrand, and they. 233 00:12:05,400 --> 00:12:08,280 Speaker 2: Liked everything else. They liked colors, the new logo, the 234 00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:11,240 Speaker 2: new kind of vibe. The font was the sticking point. Yes. 235 00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:14,360 Speaker 1: I actually was listening to another podcast talk about this 236 00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:17,320 Speaker 1: Bomb rebrand and they were saying, imagine your rebrand going 237 00:12:17,440 --> 00:12:20,439 Speaker 1: so badly that the government pulls you aside and says 238 00:12:20,800 --> 00:12:22,960 Speaker 1: not great. Yeah, And they were like, can't relate, and 239 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:25,760 Speaker 1: I was like, oh, look, we can't quite relate. But 240 00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:29,719 Speaker 1: the Victorian premiere was commenting on our post saying this 241 00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:32,240 Speaker 1: is an awful font, please change it. And I think 242 00:12:32,280 --> 00:12:34,640 Speaker 1: at the point that you do have politicians getting involved, 243 00:12:34,840 --> 00:12:37,680 Speaker 1: you probably know something's not great. But what's interesting is 244 00:12:37,679 --> 00:12:39,319 Speaker 1: that we did go back to. 245 00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:42,680 Speaker 2: Our original scene in terms of the agility point. We 246 00:12:42,960 --> 00:12:44,840 Speaker 2: can pat ourselves on the back for that we were 247 00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:47,120 Speaker 2: agile and we actually switched it back. It will be 248 00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:49,960 Speaker 2: interesting to see if the Bomb does that as well. 249 00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:52,720 Speaker 2: I wanted to end though Billy with just this one 250 00:12:52,840 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 2: key idea around change, because I think that we instead 251 00:12:56,160 --> 00:12:57,960 Speaker 2: of getting just stuck in the detail of this, it's 252 00:12:57,960 --> 00:12:59,800 Speaker 2: cool to think about the way that our brains work. 253 00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:04,240 Speaker 2: And there's this basic idea called loss of version, and 254 00:13:04,320 --> 00:13:08,440 Speaker 2: loss of version is by this Nobel Prize winner Daniel Cannerman. 255 00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:12,760 Speaker 2: He says that we feel worse about losing something than 256 00:13:12,800 --> 00:13:15,240 Speaker 2: we do about gaining something, even if they're of the 257 00:13:15,240 --> 00:13:18,400 Speaker 2: same value. So if I take a dollar off you 258 00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:20,120 Speaker 2: but give you a dollar, you feel a bit worse 259 00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:21,840 Speaker 2: about the fact that I took that dollar off you. 260 00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:27,040 Speaker 2: And so people typically weigh losses with products, apps, websites, 261 00:13:27,200 --> 00:13:30,720 Speaker 2: services about twice as heavily as gains, and so BOMB 262 00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:34,880 Speaker 2: users have lost stuff. They've lost familiar navigation, they've lost 263 00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:37,920 Speaker 2: the ability to track a storm, even the way that 264 00:13:37,920 --> 00:13:40,439 Speaker 2: our thumbs move. We've lost that muscle memory of knowing 265 00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:44,000 Speaker 2: where to go. So even though we've gained a clearer, 266 00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:47,560 Speaker 2: more modern app interface, the losses are mattering more on 267 00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:52,120 Speaker 2: a purely psychological level. And that's why the bureau's response 268 00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:55,280 Speaker 2: emphasizing that the same information was still available. Perhaps that's 269 00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:57,720 Speaker 2: why it felt a bit flash and it did create 270 00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:01,520 Speaker 2: more of a storm or the bomb that they're still 271 00:14:01,520 --> 00:14:02,040 Speaker 2: not out of. 272 00:14:02,280 --> 00:14:06,120 Speaker 1: Wow, it's so interesting learning the psychology behind it, and 273 00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:08,600 Speaker 1: I can relate. I mean something like Instagram, which has 274 00:14:08,679 --> 00:14:11,400 Speaker 1: changed so much over the past fifteen years since it 275 00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:14,200 Speaker 1: first launched, and I feel like every single time they 276 00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:19,040 Speaker 1: change it. There is controversy about not necessarily rebrand but 277 00:14:19,080 --> 00:14:23,200 Speaker 1: the changes and users are always first saying we hate that, 278 00:14:23,360 --> 00:14:25,440 Speaker 1: and then it just becomes normal again. And then when 279 00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:28,320 Speaker 1: they change it back or change other things once again, 280 00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:31,160 Speaker 1: there's controversy. It is a thing that you just don't 281 00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:33,480 Speaker 1: like change, but then you look back at how it 282 00:14:33,520 --> 00:14:35,560 Speaker 1: looked ten years ago and you go, oh, that sucked. 283 00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:36,840 Speaker 1: Of course it needed to change. 284 00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:40,880 Speaker 2: And just because there's a psychological concept behind why we 285 00:14:40,920 --> 00:14:43,760 Speaker 2: don't like something doesn't necessarily mean that's okay. I mean 286 00:14:43,800 --> 00:14:46,800 Speaker 2: we're also we can easily explain our fear of the 287 00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:49,320 Speaker 2: other and our fear of the unknown. That doesn't make 288 00:14:49,360 --> 00:14:51,800 Speaker 2: it something that we should be proud of. So I 289 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:55,800 Speaker 2: found that loss of version concept interesting because it's clearly 290 00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:59,880 Speaker 2: explainable why something like a bomb redesign doesn't go down well. 291 00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:02,840 Speaker 2: Whether we should all be pushing through and finding new 292 00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:05,800 Speaker 2: ways around the app, whether that's a reflection on how 293 00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:09,800 Speaker 2: inflexible we are as users, is probably another conversation better 294 00:15:09,840 --> 00:15:13,040 Speaker 2: for psychologists, But at the end of the day, I 295 00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:15,880 Speaker 2: think the key point here is around that critical infrastructure 296 00:15:16,280 --> 00:15:19,920 Speaker 2: and easily accessing weather information when you need it most 297 00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:22,600 Speaker 2: is different to browsing on the shopping app or a 298 00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:23,720 Speaker 2: social media platform. 299 00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:27,680 Speaker 1: A very interesting conversation, Thanks especially for our Friday, which 300 00:15:27,720 --> 00:15:30,880 Speaker 1: is also Halloween. As I mentioned, Happy Halloween, Happy Halloween. 301 00:15:31,280 --> 00:15:33,600 Speaker 1: Thank you so much for explaining it. Thanks Billy, and 302 00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:35,800 Speaker 1: thank you so much for listening to this episode of 303 00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:38,480 Speaker 1: The Daily Os. We will be back this afternoon with 304 00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:43,920 Speaker 1: your evening headlines, but until then, have a great day. 305 00:15:45,040 --> 00:15:47,320 Speaker 1: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda 306 00:15:47,560 --> 00:15:52,360 Speaker 1: Bunjelung Calcuttin woman from Gadigl Country. The Daily Os acknowledges 307 00:15:52,440 --> 00:15:54,600 Speaker 1: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the 308 00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:58,160 Speaker 1: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres 309 00:15:58,200 --> 00:16:01,080 Speaker 1: Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to the 310 00:16:01,120 --> 00:16:03,880 Speaker 1: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.