Twenty-five years ago in London the Independent was launched on a wave of indy’pendance! Doing its own thing, kicking the proverbial backside of what was seen as the fat and the lazy, the pompous and the pedestrian, the worthy and the high-minded: the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian. Free from party political bias, free from proprietorial influence it said. All very individual. The weekly referred to as the Indy. On Sundays it became the “Sindy.” Sweet.

It was a newspaper with a great story. It had a strong brand. It stood for something different. Its readers even felt somewhat superior as a rather exclusive band of independently minded individuals, not one of the crowd, not the types to be spoon-fed the news. It was bold without being brash. Bright without being loud. It was serious stuff, yet resolutely urban and urbane. It provided views, not news and traded on that ethos.

It provided what some brands do and what great publications have always done. It symbolised an ideal. The newspaper also created a committed bunch of employees and a readership who believed in its promise. It was on track to do what those other greats—the Times, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune—had done before, which is to become timeless, symbolic and of real consequence.

Then what happens? It shrinks in 2003, offering readers a choice: big or small, broadsheet or tabloid. It employs colour photography. By 2004 the broadsheet was permanently ditched for the compact format. It launches a sister paper called the “i”, a bite-size snippet news digest, content lifted from its big brother. And now, it has got a big red masthead. It’s not compact, but tabloid. It's not about views in black and white. It's news from another red top.

So on its 25^th anniversary, does it demonstrate the evolvement of “independence,” or is it reactive to what others have been doing and therefore the antithesis of its original intent? Is it reflective of the new ownership that took over in 2010? And specifically, is the Indy’s new position within a middle ground, middle brow readership an example of a “me-too” paper? Part Telegraph, part Daily Mail. Blended and homogenised. Is it a signal of things to come? We hope not, but we fear so. It’s interesting where newspapers go from here; print media and particularly newspapers have become so obsessed with the crafts of digital design that they feel they need to use a digital design criteria when working in a print format. It only re-enforces the perceived view that it’s over for paper in papers. It needn't. The Times has done it brilliantly. It’s a great “compact” paper that doesn’t feel tabloid. And a great experience when you go digital with the Times.

The saddest part for the Independent is that the brand has lost its story. When a brand loses its story, so goes its purpose and promise. There’s only one way to go from there.

And most tellingly, the words “free from party political bias, free from proprietorial influence” were dropped in September 2011. Removing those words says it all.

Philip Davies is president, EMEA for Siegel+Gale.