The federal government says it is "ridiculous" for the Bureau of Meteorology to be talking about rebranding itself amid floods in the eastern states, as the cost of the agency's move is revealed to be in excess of $220,000.
On Tuesday, the Bureau of Meteorology asked media outlets to update their style guides to stop calling it the "weather bureau" and the "BOM", even though its own mobile app is still currently called "BOM weather".
Instead, it asked to be called the Bureau of Meteorology in the first instance and "the bureau" in subsequent references.
The request was mocked on social media and infuriated at least a few of the weather bureau's employees, who viewed it as a waste of resources and a self-inflicted PR disaster for an agency that does vitally important work, particularly during natural disasters.
The rebranding exercise had been underway for more than 18 months and Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek demanded to know how much money had been spent on it.
A breakdown provided by the weather bureau to the federal government puts the total cost at $220,296.
A $118,177 contract was awarded for "brand strategy and design", which included things like research, visual style and logo.
Another agency was allocated $69,300 for "communication and implementation planning support", while $32,819 was spent on so-called "implementation costs".
These costs include the development of pull-up banners, which are often used at community and media events, and "design support" to update "systems and tools".
After releasing the breakdown, Ms Plibersek said, "Australians will make up their own minds about what they call" the Bureau of Meteorology.
"What matters is accurate and timely weather information for communities, particularly during severe weather like we're experiencing right now," she added.
"That's where my focus is. People are hurting, lives are at risk.
"It's ridiculous for the BOM to be talking about rebranding."
ABC's style guide not updated
In its first note to media outlets on Tuesday, the Bureau of Meteorology suggested the rebrand aligned with "the Meteorology Act 1955" and was intended to help ensure the agency's information was shared, understood and acted upon.
In an additional statement on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesperson added:
"Until now, our name and visual identity were expressed differently across content and channels. Feedback from a wide range of stakeholders has been that this variability can sometimes impact negatively on the effectiveness of our messaging."
The ABC, an emergency broadcaster, has not updated its style guide.
Editorial advisor for language at the ABC, Tiger Webb, said the proposal would be formally discussed next month.
"We'd want to reflect widespread or readily understood usage, and so far the proposed change doesn't seem popular," he added.
"It has the additional hurdle that there doesn't seem to be any firm rationale for the change: BOM is widely used and understood, the 1955 act the press release mentioned is totally arcane to audiences and uses a different name anyway, and most of the public-facing components of the bureau (eg its website and mobile app) are still using BOM."
