WEBVTT - Did the BOM get it wrong... again?

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:03.480
<v Speaker 1>Already, and this is this is the Daily Lot. This

0:00:03.560 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense.

0:00:14.640 --> 0:00:17.239
<v Speaker 2>Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Friday,

0:00:17.280 --> 0:00:19.800
<v Speaker 2>the thirty first of October. I'm Sam Kauzlowski.

0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:21.840
<v Speaker 1>Happy Halloween, Happy Halloween.

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:23.040
<v Speaker 2>I'm Billy fit Simons.

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:24.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm Billy Fit Simons.

0:00:24.640 --> 0:00:28.280
<v Speaker 2>Earlier this week, the Bureau of Meteorology launched a brand

0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:31.040
<v Speaker 2>new website. It costs more than four million dollars and

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:35.000
<v Speaker 2>was the first major update since twenty thirteen. Within days,

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:38.159
<v Speaker 2>the backlash was so intense that the federal government had

0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:40.839
<v Speaker 2>to step in. On today's podcast, we're going to unpack

0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 2>what went wrong with the bomb redesign, why people reacted

0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 2>so strongly, and what the science tells us about why

0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:51.159
<v Speaker 2>we hate it so much when familiar things get redesigned.

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 1>Okay, Sam, I think we should start with why the bomb.

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>I believe we are allowed to call it the bomb.

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:01.960
<v Speaker 2>We we're good.

0:01:02.040 --> 0:01:04.319
<v Speaker 1>I think we'll get into but I think we should

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.240
<v Speaker 1>start with why they thought that they needed a rebrand.

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.240
<v Speaker 1>So my understanding is that this website was first launched

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 1>on October twenty second. What was the reasoning behind the

0:01:14.480 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 1>new website?

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 2>So they haven't updated the website since twenty thirteen, so

0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:21.679
<v Speaker 2>it has been a long time, especially in digital terms,

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.919
<v Speaker 2>twelve years is a very long time. They wanted something

0:01:24.959 --> 0:01:27.960
<v Speaker 2>modern that worked better on mobile devices. I mean, think

0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:30.960
<v Speaker 2>about how many screen sizes there were in twenty thirteen.

0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:34.759
<v Speaker 2>There's so many more now. And the website sees massive traffic.

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:38.000
<v Speaker 2>So on any normal day, the bomb is visited by

0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:40.320
<v Speaker 2>about one point eight million Australians.

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:41.440
<v Speaker 1>Wow, that's a lot.

0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 2>It's a serious I mean, quick maths, it's probably about

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 2>one in thirteen Australians are looking at the bomb. On

0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 2>a standard day, when there's severe weather, that jumps to

0:01:50.360 --> 0:01:53.200
<v Speaker 2>about five point seven million people, which is then about

0:01:53.240 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 2>kind of one in four. So this is really critical infrastructure.

0:01:57.120 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 2>And so they spent four million dollars on this website.

0:02:00.200 --> 0:02:03.680
<v Speaker 2>Itch was meant to be a full redesign that involved

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.760
<v Speaker 2>a twelvemonth beta testing period, which is when you kind

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 2>of give the website to users see how they interact

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:11.200
<v Speaker 2>with it. And they said that the feedback on the

0:02:11.200 --> 0:02:13.800
<v Speaker 2>website through that testing was overwhelmingly positive.

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:16.760
<v Speaker 1>And so we're just talking about the website here. The

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:18.760
<v Speaker 1>rebrand was just to do with the website.

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:21.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, but you have to remember as we do as

0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:25.359
<v Speaker 2>young people especially, we are visiting websites on mobile more

0:02:25.400 --> 0:02:28.560
<v Speaker 2>than ever before, So it's really important to remember that

0:02:29.080 --> 0:02:31.320
<v Speaker 2>where people are engaging with this kind of thing is

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:33.119
<v Speaker 2>mostly in the palm of their hand.

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 1>Got it okay, So they tested it, they invested millions,

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 1>and then they launched it. How did that launch go?

0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:43.040
<v Speaker 2>Well, the timing wasn't in their favor. It's not entirely

0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:45.400
<v Speaker 2>their fault that they picked a really bad week to

0:02:45.520 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 2>launch it weatherwise, but as we get into it, perhaps

0:02:49.680 --> 0:02:52.960
<v Speaker 2>could have been prevented. So the website launched just as

0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 2>severe storms we're hitting southeastern Australia. There were one hundred

0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:59.400
<v Speaker 2>kilometer and our wins in Brisbane that left one hundred

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:03.440
<v Speaker 2>thousand homes without power, twenty five thousand regional power adages

0:03:03.480 --> 0:03:06.360
<v Speaker 2>in Melbourne and Greater Victoria, and people were trying to

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:10.040
<v Speaker 2>check the Bomb's website for critical weather updates and they

0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:13.000
<v Speaker 2>were finding that they couldn't navigate this new design. And

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 2>think about that as a moment. It's a moment of stress,

0:03:15.680 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 2>and it's a moment where you're going to the Bomb

0:03:17.520 --> 0:03:21.080
<v Speaker 2>for critical infrastructure information, you're greeted with the new design.

0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:22.720
<v Speaker 2>It was never really going to end.

0:03:22.639 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 1>Well, and so what were there specific complaints? Was it

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.200
<v Speaker 1>that they just didn't know exactly how to navigate this

0:03:28.440 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 1>in a case of emergency, or were there specific things

0:03:32.560 --> 0:03:33.920
<v Speaker 1>missing from the website.

0:03:33.960 --> 0:03:37.040
<v Speaker 2>I found trying to break down the specific complaints really

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:39.840
<v Speaker 2>interesting because it was you're right, Billy, it's more than

0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:41.880
<v Speaker 2>just I don't like the look of this or they've

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 2>changed the color. It was about the functionality. And the

0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 2>biggest issue was with radars. So on the old website,

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:51.320
<v Speaker 2>you could track where storms were heading and estimate when

0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:54.440
<v Speaker 2>they would reach your area, and that's really critical, especially

0:03:54.440 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 2>for emergency services who might be planning a response. That

0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 2>feature was gone. Users also know the radar updates were delayed,

0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:05.600
<v Speaker 2>so you were only seeing updates that were current as

0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:08.160
<v Speaker 2>of maybe an hour ago, and that meant that storms

0:04:08.200 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 2>could hit your area before the website showed that they would.

0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 2>The color scheme had changed, but that's not as significant

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:17.160
<v Speaker 2>as something like the color scheme of hale showing up

0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:17.680
<v Speaker 2>on the radar.

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:20.039
<v Speaker 1>And so you heard this thing about the color of

0:04:20.080 --> 0:04:22.880
<v Speaker 1>hale that they changed the color of hail from black.

0:04:23.160 --> 0:04:25.919
<v Speaker 2>It was black, and it was now showing up in

0:04:25.960 --> 0:04:28.839
<v Speaker 2>the same way as rain, and so there wasn't as

0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:32.320
<v Speaker 2>it wasn't as easy to distinguish hail from rain, which

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.719
<v Speaker 2>might mean the difference between parking your car undercover or not.

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 2>And according to Steve Turton, who is a professor of

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:43.599
<v Speaker 2>environmental geography at Central Queensland University, even within the first

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 2>couple of days, farmers in regional Queensland couldn't enter their

0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 2>own GPS coordinates to check the weather for their specific properties,

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:54.560
<v Speaker 2>which might be hundreds of kilometers in size, and commercial

0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:58.480
<v Speaker 2>fishermen were heavily reliant on the radar to decide whether

0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 2>it's safe to go out fishing or not, and they

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:02.279
<v Speaker 2>lost that ability as well.

0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:06.040
<v Speaker 1>Right, So the issue was beyond just not liking the rebrand.

0:05:06.440 --> 0:05:09.039
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, our point of reference at TDA is funk Gate

0:05:09.320 --> 0:05:11.960
<v Speaker 2>and when we changed our fond and people didn't like it.

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:17.240
<v Speaker 2>And as I was investigating the Bomb's week, it struck

0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:20.200
<v Speaker 2>me how different these two examples were. Yeah, people didn't

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 2>like the way TDA looked, but TDA itself didn't change.

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:25.360
<v Speaker 2>This was about changing functionality.

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 1>Okay, I want to talk more about funk Kate because

0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>I actually think that there are some similarities there that

0:05:29.680 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 1>I want to get to. But first I want to

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:34.280
<v Speaker 1>go to you mentioned earlier that the government got involved,

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 1>which I imagine isn't that rare here because the bomb

0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:41.039
<v Speaker 1>is government funded. At what point did the government though

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:42.159
<v Speaker 1>step in with this?

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:45.680
<v Speaker 2>So we mentioned before it was launched on the twenty second.

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.799
<v Speaker 2>On the twenty seventh of October, just five days after

0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 2>the launch, was when we first heard from the Environment

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:55.640
<v Speaker 2>Minister Murray what He actually arranged a snap meeting with

0:05:56.000 --> 0:05:59.479
<v Speaker 2>the bomb's acting chief executive to convey the message that

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:03.560
<v Speaker 2>the site was quote not fulfilling the expectations of many users,

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 2>and he demanded urgent improvements. Then we heard from Energy

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:11.120
<v Speaker 2>Minister Chris Bowen and National's leader David little Proud, who

0:06:11.120 --> 0:06:14.760
<v Speaker 2>said that it actually reflected broader problems at the Bomb.

0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:18.920
<v Speaker 2>This was an overwhelming government response and also bipartisan, which

0:06:19.160 --> 0:06:20.400
<v Speaker 2>is important to note.

0:06:20.600 --> 0:06:23.480
<v Speaker 1>And how did the bomb respond to all of this criticism,

0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:25.480
<v Speaker 1>both from the public and from the government.

0:06:25.920 --> 0:06:29.920
<v Speaker 2>So Acting CEO Peter Stone issued an apology. He said

0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:33.000
<v Speaker 2>that the bomb appreciated that it would take time for

0:06:33.120 --> 0:06:36.640
<v Speaker 2>people to adjust. And that's an interesting wording there, because

0:06:36.680 --> 0:06:41.120
<v Speaker 2>Stone's response suggested the Bureau thought the complaints were mainly

0:06:41.160 --> 0:06:44.680
<v Speaker 2>about people needing time to adjust to something new, rather

0:06:44.760 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 2>than genuine problems with the designs and the functionality itself.

0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:52.000
<v Speaker 2>And many users on social media called that gas lighting,

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:55.159
<v Speaker 2>and so the Bomb's problems really did compound. Then with

0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:58.880
<v Speaker 2>that apology, users were saying, especially on Reddit, this really

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:01.480
<v Speaker 2>kind of caught on there. They were saying, we don't

0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:05.760
<v Speaker 2>need time to adjust, You've removed the features that we need, right.

0:07:06.480 --> 0:07:08.600
<v Speaker 1>I have to say, when I first saw this story,

0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:11.480
<v Speaker 1>I was surprised that we were talking about a bomb

0:07:11.520 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 1>rebrand going wrong, because a very similar thing happened just

0:07:15.720 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>a couple of years ago when they asked the media

0:07:19.160 --> 0:07:21.120
<v Speaker 1>asked to not call them the Bomb, and then there

0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:23.640
<v Speaker 1>was so much controversy about that, and that was part

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:24.920
<v Speaker 1>of a rebrand.

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 2>And that was in twenty twenty two. So a couple

0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:28.679
<v Speaker 2>of years ago they came out and said, you can't

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:31.160
<v Speaker 2>call us the Bomb anymore. We want to be called

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:34.120
<v Speaker 2>the Bureau of Meteorology. And they spent two hundred and

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:38.480
<v Speaker 2>twenty thousand dollars on that exercise. They hadn't reserved the

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:41.080
<v Speaker 2>Twitter handles they would have needed to change their name,

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 2>and sure enough, within about forty eight hours, they released

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:47.080
<v Speaker 2>a statement saying that the public could actually refer to

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:50.000
<v Speaker 2>them however they wanted to, including the BOMB, which I

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.280
<v Speaker 2>think is how most of us kind of know the agency.

0:07:52.320 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 1>Now we'll get to more about Bomb's rebrand in just

0:07:55.360 --> 0:07:57.640
<v Speaker 1>a moment, but first here is a quick message from

0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:03.320
<v Speaker 1>today's sponsor. I guess we should say that, you know,

0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:07.920
<v Speaker 1>government agencies rebranding isn't something that is unique to the BOMB.

0:08:07.920 --> 0:08:10.080
<v Speaker 1>That is something that happens across the boards, both for

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 1>government agencies and for companies like TDA. Again funk Kate

0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:16.800
<v Speaker 1>comes up again. But it is a usual part and

0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 1>it also is necessary for companies to update their websites

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:22.440
<v Speaker 1>and to remain modern.

0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:26.440
<v Speaker 2>And it does happen sometimes in really good ways. I mean,

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:29.880
<v Speaker 2>you see some legendary brands out there do rebrands that

0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:32.800
<v Speaker 2>we all forget about six months later, and they worked

0:08:32.840 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 2>really well. In government, it does seem to be tricky.

0:08:35.320 --> 0:08:37.120
<v Speaker 2>I mean, there was one example I was looking at

0:08:37.160 --> 0:08:40.680
<v Speaker 2>from twenty seventeen where then New South Wales Premier Gladys

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:45.360
<v Speaker 2>spiagically and asked every major cultural institution in New South Wales,

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:49.319
<v Speaker 2>so Sydney Opera House or Taronga Zoo, the Australian Museum

0:08:49.320 --> 0:08:53.000
<v Speaker 2>to all update their logos to the Warata Flower. That

0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:55.840
<v Speaker 2>cost the government one hundred and sixty thousand dollars to

0:08:55.880 --> 0:08:58.679
<v Speaker 2>come up with a proposal there never happened because all

0:08:58.720 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 2>the institutions as well as the public pushback pretty hard.

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.960
<v Speaker 2>So it does seem to be particularly tricky for public institutions.

0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:07.920
<v Speaker 2>And the big undercurrent here as well is this money

0:09:07.920 --> 0:09:10.080
<v Speaker 2>that they're spending. It's our money. I mean, this is

0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 2>taxpayer funded rebrands, which is different again to a private

0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:16.920
<v Speaker 2>company or TDA doing this kind of thing.

0:09:17.000 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 1>As didn't quite cost that much. I didn't cost that

0:09:19.880 --> 0:09:22.679
<v Speaker 1>much and that's why it didn't go so well exactly, but.

0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:26.679
<v Speaker 2>Also didn't create this much angle with something that people

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 2>needed for critical infrastructure, which is I think why we're

0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:32.839
<v Speaker 2>talking about it on a news podcast today. But as

0:09:32.840 --> 0:09:35.760
<v Speaker 2>it stands, the bomb is sticking with the change.

0:09:35.520 --> 0:09:38.959
<v Speaker 1>Right, so they are sticking with it. Have experts said

0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:41.240
<v Speaker 1>anything about what they could have done? Differently?

0:09:41.600 --> 0:09:44.920
<v Speaker 2>Experts love a bit of commentary around this sort of

0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:49.080
<v Speaker 2>moment and use it to create an example for what

0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:51.440
<v Speaker 2>you shouldn't do, and there's been a heap of commentary

0:09:51.480 --> 0:09:54.679
<v Speaker 2>this week. The key themes here really have been about

0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:58.839
<v Speaker 2>the timing, the user testing angle, and agility. So firstly

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 2>on timing, launching a major website redesign as a weather

0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.760
<v Speaker 2>agency at the beginning of a spring storm season and

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:10.600
<v Speaker 2>amid heat waves is a bold move. In response, BOMB

0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:14.319
<v Speaker 2>meteorologists Angus Heinz defended the timing. He said, it's a

0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:17.840
<v Speaker 2>rare day where we don't have severe weather somewhere in Australia.

0:10:17.880 --> 0:10:20.200
<v Speaker 2>I think he's got a point there, But experts say

0:10:20.240 --> 0:10:23.120
<v Speaker 2>they could have done then a gradual rollout and given

0:10:23.240 --> 0:10:26.720
<v Speaker 2>users more notice of the change. Steve Turden from Central

0:10:26.800 --> 0:10:30.800
<v Speaker 2>Queensland University, the expert I referenced before, said when a

0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:35.360
<v Speaker 2>public service implements major modifications, it is crucial for regular

0:10:35.480 --> 0:10:39.400
<v Speaker 2>users to comprehend these changes and access the information they require.

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:41.560
<v Speaker 2>In this instance, the bureau faulted.

0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so they picked the wrong time. But the other

0:10:44.960 --> 0:10:48.640
<v Speaker 1>two reasons that you mentioned were testing and agility, so

0:10:48.720 --> 0:10:49.480
<v Speaker 1>take us through those.

0:10:49.720 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 2>So this inadequate user testing point is interesting because the

0:10:53.280 --> 0:10:55.960
<v Speaker 2>BOMB says that they did test, that they did twelve

0:10:55.960 --> 0:10:59.320
<v Speaker 2>months of testing. But we can see from the last

0:10:59.360 --> 0:11:04.440
<v Speaker 2>week if professional meteorologists, farmers and emergency services are all

0:11:04.559 --> 0:11:07.920
<v Speaker 2>highlighting serious concerns, then it would probably be fair to

0:11:07.960 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 2>say there were problems in the testing methods themselves. And

0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:14.480
<v Speaker 2>then finally, this point around agility is the idea of

0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:18.600
<v Speaker 2>how should the BOMB now respond to criticism that we've

0:11:18.600 --> 0:11:22.440
<v Speaker 2>seen over the past few days. One analyst said, it

0:11:22.520 --> 0:11:25.400
<v Speaker 2>is not clear to us why the app redesign was

0:11:25.520 --> 0:11:28.760
<v Speaker 2>rolled out broadly, and we are even less clear on

0:11:28.880 --> 0:11:31.360
<v Speaker 2>why it hasn't been more aggressively.

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:33.559
<v Speaker 1>Rolled back already interesting.

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:35.880
<v Speaker 2>Which is fascinating. And I think what we learned obviously

0:11:35.920 --> 0:11:38.440
<v Speaker 2>through our rebrand and perhaps what we're seeing playing out

0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:41.880
<v Speaker 2>with the Bomb now is any rebrand, government agency or

0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:45.480
<v Speaker 2>private company probably needs a contingency plan of what to

0:11:45.520 --> 0:11:47.320
<v Speaker 2>do if it's not received in the right way.

0:11:47.679 --> 0:11:50.679
<v Speaker 1>For anyone listening who isn't aware of our rebrand, I

0:11:50.720 --> 0:11:52.680
<v Speaker 1>know that we have referenced it a few times. But

0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:55.880
<v Speaker 1>about a year ago, two years ago, two years ago,

0:11:56.040 --> 0:12:00.440
<v Speaker 1>TDA launched a rebrand and it just went absolutely all fully.

0:12:00.640 --> 0:12:03.240
<v Speaker 1>The audience did not like the new font that we

0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:05.480
<v Speaker 1>chose for that rebrand, and they.

0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:08.280
<v Speaker 2>Liked everything else. They liked colors, the new logo, the

0:12:08.360 --> 0:12:11.240
<v Speaker 2>new kind of vibe. The font was the sticking point. Yes.

0:12:11.440 --> 0:12:14.360
<v Speaker 1>I actually was listening to another podcast talk about this

0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Bomb rebrand and they were saying, imagine your rebrand going

0:12:17.440 --> 0:12:20.439
<v Speaker 1>so badly that the government pulls you aside and says

0:12:20.800 --> 0:12:22.960
<v Speaker 1>not great. Yeah, And they were like, can't relate, and

0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:25.760
<v Speaker 1>I was like, oh, look, we can't quite relate. But

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:29.719
<v Speaker 1>the Victorian premiere was commenting on our post saying this

0:12:29.800 --> 0:12:32.240
<v Speaker 1>is an awful font, please change it. And I think

0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:34.640
<v Speaker 1>at the point that you do have politicians getting involved,

0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:37.680
<v Speaker 1>you probably know something's not great. But what's interesting is

0:12:37.679 --> 0:12:39.319
<v Speaker 1>that we did go back to.

0:12:39.280 --> 0:12:42.680
<v Speaker 2>Our original scene in terms of the agility point. We

0:12:42.960 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 2>can pat ourselves on the back for that we were

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:47.120
<v Speaker 2>agile and we actually switched it back. It will be

0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:49.960
<v Speaker 2>interesting to see if the Bomb does that as well.

0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:52.720
<v Speaker 2>I wanted to end though Billy with just this one

0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:56.160
<v Speaker 2>key idea around change, because I think that we instead

0:12:56.160 --> 0:12:57.960
<v Speaker 2>of getting just stuck in the detail of this, it's

0:12:57.960 --> 0:12:59.800
<v Speaker 2>cool to think about the way that our brains work.

0:13:00.320 --> 0:13:04.240
<v Speaker 2>And there's this basic idea called loss of version, and

0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 2>loss of version is by this Nobel Prize winner Daniel Cannerman.

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:12.760
<v Speaker 2>He says that we feel worse about losing something than

0:13:12.800 --> 0:13:15.240
<v Speaker 2>we do about gaining something, even if they're of the

0:13:15.240 --> 0:13:18.400
<v Speaker 2>same value. So if I take a dollar off you

0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:20.120
<v Speaker 2>but give you a dollar, you feel a bit worse

0:13:20.120 --> 0:13:21.840
<v Speaker 2>about the fact that I took that dollar off you.

0:13:22.640 --> 0:13:27.040
<v Speaker 2>And so people typically weigh losses with products, apps, websites,

0:13:27.200 --> 0:13:30.720
<v Speaker 2>services about twice as heavily as gains, and so BOMB

0:13:30.800 --> 0:13:34.880
<v Speaker 2>users have lost stuff. They've lost familiar navigation, they've lost

0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 2>the ability to track a storm, even the way that

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:40.439
<v Speaker 2>our thumbs move. We've lost that muscle memory of knowing

0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:44.000
<v Speaker 2>where to go. So even though we've gained a clearer,

0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:47.560
<v Speaker 2>more modern app interface, the losses are mattering more on

0:13:47.600 --> 0:13:52.120
<v Speaker 2>a purely psychological level. And that's why the bureau's response

0:13:52.200 --> 0:13:55.280
<v Speaker 2>emphasizing that the same information was still available. Perhaps that's

0:13:55.280 --> 0:13:57.720
<v Speaker 2>why it felt a bit flash and it did create

0:13:57.800 --> 0:14:01.520
<v Speaker 2>more of a storm or the bomb that they're still

0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:02.040
<v Speaker 2>not out of.

0:14:02.280 --> 0:14:06.120
<v Speaker 1>Wow, it's so interesting learning the psychology behind it, and

0:14:06.200 --> 0:14:08.600
<v Speaker 1>I can relate. I mean something like Instagram, which has

0:14:08.679 --> 0:14:11.400
<v Speaker 1>changed so much over the past fifteen years since it

0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:14.200
<v Speaker 1>first launched, and I feel like every single time they

0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:19.040
<v Speaker 1>change it. There is controversy about not necessarily rebrand but

0:14:19.080 --> 0:14:23.200
<v Speaker 1>the changes and users are always first saying we hate that,

0:14:23.360 --> 0:14:25.440
<v Speaker 1>and then it just becomes normal again. And then when

0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:28.320
<v Speaker 1>they change it back or change other things once again,

0:14:28.320 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 1>there's controversy. It is a thing that you just don't

0:14:31.240 --> 0:14:33.480
<v Speaker 1>like change, but then you look back at how it

0:14:33.520 --> 0:14:35.560
<v Speaker 1>looked ten years ago and you go, oh, that sucked.

0:14:35.680 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 1>Of course it needed to change.

0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:40.880
<v Speaker 2>And just because there's a psychological concept behind why we

0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:43.760
<v Speaker 2>don't like something doesn't necessarily mean that's okay. I mean

0:14:43.800 --> 0:14:46.800
<v Speaker 2>we're also we can easily explain our fear of the

0:14:46.840 --> 0:14:49.320
<v Speaker 2>other and our fear of the unknown. That doesn't make

0:14:49.360 --> 0:14:51.800
<v Speaker 2>it something that we should be proud of. So I

0:14:51.880 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 2>found that loss of version concept interesting because it's clearly

0:14:55.880 --> 0:14:59.880
<v Speaker 2>explainable why something like a bomb redesign doesn't go down well.

0:15:00.200 --> 0:15:02.840
<v Speaker 2>Whether we should all be pushing through and finding new

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:05.800
<v Speaker 2>ways around the app, whether that's a reflection on how

0:15:06.080 --> 0:15:09.800
<v Speaker 2>inflexible we are as users, is probably another conversation better

0:15:09.840 --> 0:15:13.040
<v Speaker 2>for psychologists, But at the end of the day, I

0:15:13.040 --> 0:15:15.880
<v Speaker 2>think the key point here is around that critical infrastructure

0:15:16.280 --> 0:15:19.920
<v Speaker 2>and easily accessing weather information when you need it most

0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:22.600
<v Speaker 2>is different to browsing on the shopping app or a

0:15:22.600 --> 0:15:23.720
<v Speaker 2>social media platform.

0:15:23.920 --> 0:15:27.680
<v Speaker 1>A very interesting conversation, Thanks especially for our Friday, which

0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:30.880
<v Speaker 1>is also Halloween. As I mentioned, Happy Halloween, Happy Halloween.

0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for explaining it. Thanks Billy, and

0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:35.800
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much for listening to this episode of

0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:38.480
<v Speaker 1>The Daily Os. We will be back this afternoon with

0:15:38.520 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 1>your evening headlines, but until then, have a great day.

0:15:45.040 --> 0:15:47.320
<v Speaker 1>My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda

0:15:47.560 --> 0:15:52.360
<v Speaker 1>Bunjelung Calcuttin woman from Gadigl Country. The Daily Os acknowledges

0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:54.600
<v Speaker 1>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:15:54.600 --> 0:15:58.160
<v Speaker 1>Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres

0:15:58.200 --> 0:16:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Straight Island and nations. We pay our respects to the

0:16:01.120 --> 0:16:03.880
<v Speaker 1>first peoples of these countries, both past and present.