GREAT MOMENTS IN MARKETING: THIS IS TEH SYENCE FYCTION, BYTCHES!

[defrog]

I realize I’m probably the last person on the LJs to post something on the whole “Syfy is the new Sci Fi” scandal. There’s a couple of reasons for that: (1) I’ve been a little busy these last couple of days, and (2) we don’t get the Sci Fi Channel all the way out here in Hong Kong, so it’s not like I feel I have any personal stake in it.

Anyway ...

Much of the ire has been focused on Tim Brooks’ remark about the term “sci-fi” being too closely linked with “geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games”. I can’t add too much to what’s already been said, and while I appreciate the “I’m geek and proud of it” sentiment, I also think it’s beside the point – at least for me.

As I’ve typed elsewhere on this blog, I do find genre terms limiting. Books are the best example – you never find Burroughs, Vonnegut or even Crichton in the SF section. Meanwhile, the Romance section is full of vampires, and Ian Rankin has argued that the Harry Potter books are really whodunnits dressed up in wizard robes. Films and TV have similar crossover appeal these days, so I can see why the Sci Fi Channel wants to break free of the term.

And admittedly, that puts them in a difficult position. When you name yr channel after the niche genre you specialize in, it limits yr ability to branch beyond that. And once you’ve built a brand around it, you don’t really want to give that up and start over – especially at a time when established media brands are trying to expand that brand across multiple platforms, like games and Web video and so on. And I take Brooks’ point that The Sci Fi Channel is in a bind because its name might stand out on a cable TV package, but on Google it’s hopelessly generic.

However, the solution – changing the spelling to something that sounds like “sci fi” but will generate optimum positioning in a Google search string and is easier to text – is frankly idiotic. That’s like saying the History Channel could expand its programming to appeal to non-history fans by changing its name to Teh Hiztree Channel. Which would work if non-history fans were that f***ing stupid. (Well, there’s Sarah Palin, yes, but I digress.)

Warren Ellis has argued that “Syfy” is at least unique, which matters more in TV land than a name that makes sense. But that was before we found out it’s also a Polish word for “veneral disease”, of course. Either way, he might have a point, but it’s the “sounds like” strategy that cripples the whole thing for my money.

Meanwhile, the subsequent nerd fallout suggests that Brooks (or NBC Universal) has a fundamental misunderstanding of both the genre and its demographics. Even within its artificial boundaries, sci-fi is a more diverse genre than ever, and the crossover appeal of SF-based movies and TV shows indicates a far more diverse audience than Brooks’ stereotypical geeks and fanboys. (And even if those do account for the majority of the Sci Fi Channel’s audience base, insulting them is just stupid.)

Personally, I think they should either have bit the bullet and thrown out the name in favor of something more encompassing (like the Vivid Imagination channel or something) or at least gone with some generic but flexible acronym like SFC.

Or they could have just kept the damn name and come up with better marketing of the new shows they want their broader demographic to watch. Smallville? It’s Dawson’s Creek with superpowers. Buffy The Vampire Slayer? Same thing, but with vampires. Like epic war films with an espionage “find the spy” angle? BSG is just for you. You say Ridley Scott’s Gladiator is a great film? We have Extreme Championship Wrestling at 9pm.

And so on.

Why not? When you’ve already added pro wrestling to yr “sci-fi” lineup, you’ve already opened the door to put whatever programming you want regardless of the name. Look at MTV. It still calls itself Music Television, and it hasn’t shown a goddamn music video since 1996.

But no matter. 

The upshot for me is that the Sci Fi Channel just missed the chance of a lifetime. Until this week, it was in as good a position as anyone to rewrite the definition of “sci fi” as both a genre and a demo. Instead, they opted to respell it.

As the geeks and fanboys say, EPIC FAIL.

Brand republic,

This is dF

Comments

[def-fr0g-42.livejournal.com]

Good point on trademarks. Their lawyers must be chomping at the bit.