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

[trillsie.livejournal.com]

yep, they easily could've put the money they spent on this stupid rebranding on some really good original programming. Notice I said "really good" not their usual fair like Mansquito or whatever insect/human hybrid "original" they come up with. Instead they insult us with a girly respelling logo/name. It might attract the Hannah Montana crowd for a couple days, but that's about it.

[jasonfranks.livejournal.com]

I'm Old School Science Fiction nerd, and I hate the term 'sci fi'. SF is the real deal, sci fi = lowbrow shite.

Based on my (admittedly limited) experience of Sci Fi channel, they've chosen a perfectly apt title. The only good programming I ever saw out of them was, as Trillsie says, rebranded from some other source.

I have a recurring fantasy that somebody will me control of the channels' resources and carte blanche to do whatever I want with it. Good or bad, it's going to have to be an improvement on MANSQUITO and SCORPION ON A PLANE and vehicles for some guy who had a bit part as a monster on a STAR TREK episode in 1977.

-- JF

[bosswriter.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the buzz going around about syfy being polish for a venereal disease? Maybe someone at NBC/Universal should have Googled the phrase...

I loved scifi when they first came out, because they actually aired some good scifi reruns and movies. Then they got Stargate SG-1 from Showtime (the Fox Network of pay TV) I thought these guys had it going on. Since then Eureka is the only interesting thing to come out of them, and we don't miss it a bit since we booted cable months ago.

I asked one of the dudes from SciFi at a convention a couple years ago why they don't show old scifi movies that would be of interest to scifi fans. His response - the ratings on the movies were much lower than the cheapo less than DVD release quality new films they buy from foreign filmakers. That is why you see Mansquito instead of Forbidden Planet. GO figure.

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

Brilliant! And you've been linked.

[wookiemonster.livejournal.com]

Nice.

Pointed here by popfiend

Had to add ya for this... :)

[beldar.livejournal.com]

(Here via popfiend)

One aspect of this which you came close to noting, and which was in the PR-speak gobletygook of the official Syfy.com webpage press release, is the fact that while "Sci-fi" is public domain, "Syfy" can be trademarked and marketed and cease-and-desisted if other people use it (though they've damaged their own brand well enough with the horrid "Sci-Fi Channel Original Pictures").

I think in their world they call it "solidifying the brand," such as with KFC, and Southern Comfort trademarking "SoCo" and pumping it into their ads -- and what White Castle caught on to too late when every other place started offering "sliders" (I think they did trademark the version with a "y").

So while I see the marketing logic, the choice to give the impression of dumbing it down was not wise. Hopefully the programming doesn't follow suit (tho adding rasslin' is a bad sign)

[meowvatar.livejournal.com]

Here via popfiend as well. Catch this:

“What we love about this is we hopefully get the best of both worlds,” Mr. Howe said. “We’ll get the heritage and the track record of success, and we’ll build off of that to build a broader, more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand.” (emphasis mine)

Said by one Dave Howe (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php), president of the new (sissy) SyFy Network himself. This article (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/109034-Howe_Takes_Sci_Fi_Into_the_Future.php) says he's a casual fan (watched some Star Trek as a kid) who killed the sci-fi in pursuit of the young demographic. And is clearly still pursuing them by getting away from nerdy things like science fiction. MTV, here we come. :(

Oh, beautiful job on the layout. Had a look at your CSS. Nice. :)

[dinopollard.livejournal.com]

I used to watch the Sci-Fi channel virtually every day during my freshman year in college and when I moved back into my parents' house. Of course, that was before Comcast decided that Sci-Fi was no longer a basic cable station and you needed to buy an additional package to get it (according to my father, they've done this with a few other cable channels since then). And obviously I don't have it out here in Japan.

But personally, I really couldn't care less about the name change, even if I could still watch it. The name of the station means fuck-all to me as long as I enjoy content.