Rebranding disasters

I thought the article was too critical. Some of the arguments they levy against companies like Xe and Pepsi were not well argued and degraded to a game of finger pointing.

It inferred that any company name that does not have at least some indirect relationship with what the company does is an immediate failure, citing company names like 'accenture'. Granted it isn't the greatest name, but 'Apple' tells me no more about what the respective company does than 'accenture'.

In a design class most of these arguments would never fly in a formal critique without some substantial reasoning behind them, which this article just doesn't have.

Can't MSNBC afford any better quality JPEGs ?