Ping: JIMGA (Re: Syfy)

[sterlingice]

As the resident television, advertising, and, by extension, image expert- maybe you can explain the new "SciFi" makeover to me.

I get when The Nashville Network becomes The National Network becomes Spike because they completely changed the types of shows they were buying and completely redid their image. Radio stations do this all the time, too- going from something like oldies to rap or Christian to hard rock. But you don't usually see top 40 go to easy listening or rock to alternative- something that's just a half step. You can do that without completely rebranding yourself.

So, this brings us back to SciFi/Syfy? Why do that? They still pretty much have mostly science fiction shows. I know they cut the budget quite a bit so bunch of the scripted stuff got cut (Stargate Atlantis) or is coming to an end (Battlestar Galactica) and replaced it with more reality programming. However, the was almost purely cost cutting and the themes remained the same. Not only that, but they still kept quite a few scifi shows (Eureka), other programming (SciFi original movies), and even their reality has a "sci-fi" bend (Ghost Hunters). Even their new, highly promoted (Warehouse 13) and returning (Sanctuary) shows are science fiction.

So, why change the name just slightly and try to rebrand when they didn't even move a half step?

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

I personally think it's idiotic, but here's the reasoning straight from the horse's mouth (in this case the horse is network President Dave Howe).

Sci Fi Channel Aims to Shed Geeky Image With New Name : In Depth : TVWeek - Television Industry news, TV ratings, analysis, celebrity event photos

“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.” ... During its fourth-quarter earnings call, parent General Electric said Sci Fi racked up a double-digit increase in operating earnings despite the beginnings of the recession.

Nevertheless, there was always a sneaking suspicion that the name was holding the network back.

“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.

Mr. Brooks said that when people who say they don’t like science fiction enjoy a film like “Star Wars,” they don’t think it’s science fiction; they think it’s a good movie.

“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” Mr. Brooks said. “It’s somewhat cooler and better than the name ‘Science Fiction.’ But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.”

Mr. Howe said going to Syfy will make a difference.

“It gives us a unique word and it gives us the opportunities to imbue it with the values and the perception that we want it to have,” he said. ...
The network worked with the branding consultancy Landor Associates and went through about 300 possibilities before selecting Syfy.

“When we tested this new name, the thing that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, is actually this is how you’d text it,” Mr. Howe said. “It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip, which was kind of bang-on what we wanted to achieve communication-wise.” ...
Sci Fi has been working to branch out from being simply a linear cable network to become a hub of businesses operating in the imagination under the Sci Fi Ventures banner.

“We need an umbrella brand we can attach to new businesses: Sci Fi games, Sci Fi kids. It does no use to attach ‘Sci Fi’ because there’s hundreds of sci-fi Web sites and sci-fi publications. So it’s changing your name without changing your name,” Mr. Howe said.

Sci Fi also will be unveiling some of its programming and development plans at its upfront.

But one key venture it won’t discuss is its work with Trion Worldwide to create content designed from the beginning to work on multiple platforms. Mr. Howe said the network is close to announcing a title and description of the project, which will launch as both a subscription-based, massively multiplayer online game and a television series.

A writer has been assigned to the project. The idea is to have the show completely synchronized so that when events happen in the show, they are reflected in the game, and vice versa.

“Because it’s a server-based game, as the storylines evolve in the TV series, so the game echoes that,” Mr. Howe said. “It’s a completely, uniquely interactive 24-7 immersive entertainment experience.”

He’s seen some “amazing demos” from Trion of the graphics and how the world will be built out.

“What that launches, it truly is the next evolution in dynamic storytelling,” Mr. Howe said.

Okay, so what that rigamarole boils down to best I can figure is something like "The focus groups told us this was a good idea & we worked very hard to find groups that would tell us what some people internally thought was brilliant, so this is a win for everybody. Trust us, we're network executives & we know what we're doing."

As silly as I think it is, this is probably a fairly low risk move. It's not like their existing audience is likely to abandon them in significant numbers over it, it's largely a silly bit of cosmetic work that won't matter a whole lot either way, but it has the benefit of at least giving them something to talk about to people (viewers, buyers, whomever) who have previously rejected them based on their mental image of the network & of science fiction in general. They can claim "this is different" whether it really is or not.

[Young Drachma]

One of my favorite logo blogs did like four posts on this rebrand from early on to when it finally was launched. Here's a link to the line of articles, including one company saying "hey, it wasn't us..."

Brand New: Search Results

[Peregrine]

I love how they try to say "Oh, but this is how all the kids are texting it!"

[Bonegavel]

I don't see this as that bad. But, if I was going through the trouble of rebranding I would have gone with something that didn't sound exactly like the thing we were getting away from. They could have come up with some name that made people think Science Fiction / Fantasy.

Maybe turn this post into "What name would you have selected for Sci Fi channel?"

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

One of my favorite logo blogs did like four posts on this rebrand from early on to when it finally was launched. Here's a link to the line of articles, including one company saying "hey, it wasn't us..."

Brand New: Search Results

Heh...I follow the Brand New feed too.

[RendeR]

It would be nice if they stuck to actual science fiction instead of all the pseudo reality bullshit like ghost hunters and the spinoffs from it. A lot of their movies are about as much sci-fi as my toenails too. "Sharks in Venice" anyone?

I can see some fantasy stuff, but if you're going to have a channel calling itself science fiction network (which obviously they're trying to get away from) then stop showing crap that isn't science fiction.

[Coffee Warlord]

God, I looked over the identity standards for Syfy (SCI FI) from that link, and realized one thing.

I don't miss working at advertising agencies at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I can see some fantasy stuff, but if you're going to have a channel calling itself science fiction network (which obviously they're trying to get away from) then stop showing crap that isn't science fiction.

By the same token of course, if they showed nothing but pure sci fi they'd likely already be off the air, or more accurately completely revamped.

GH is the highest rated show they've got, and even GH:International is a better draw than any of their originals other than Eureka which can hold its own. And as bad as ECW is as far as wrestling goes, it also pulls a bigger audience than the majority of their other stuff (and is their most watched when GH isn't running new episodes).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I personally think it's idiotic, but here's the reasoning straight from the horse's mouth (in this case the horse is network President Dave Howe).

Sci Fi Channel Aims to Shed Geeky Image With New Name : In Depth : TVWeek - Television Industry news, TV ratings, analysis, celebrity event photos



Okay, so what that rigamarole boils down to best I can figure is something like "The focus groups told us this was a good idea & we worked very hard to find groups that would tell us what some people internally thought was brilliant, so this is a win for everybody. Trust us, we're network executives & we know what we're doing."

As silly as I think it is, this is probably a fairly low risk move. It's not like their existing audience is likely to abandon them in significant numbers over it, it's largely a silly bit of cosmetic work that won't matter a whole lot either way, but it has the benefit of at least giving them something to talk about to people (viewers, buyers, whomever) who have previously rejected them based on their mental image of the network & of science fiction in general. They can claim "this is different" whether it really is or not.

Through all the idiotic executive jargon that shows he has no idea what he's talking about, I did get a couple of salient points. I think the "having our own brand name" kindof makes sense. They forgot that if it's a stupid one- it doesn't really matter, but I get the idea of "nothing else is named Syfy so if you see that name, you know it's ours if you're seeing an ad, searching online, etc".

As you said, it's a low risk move. It's not as if people were wedded to the SciFi channel name, it was the programming. And they didn't really change the brand, just the brand name. And not even by much- just a little.

This reminds me a lot of the KU rebranding a couple of years ago. They paid some ad firm some stupid amount around $175K for a new "visual identity" which barely tweaked the logo. For the KU story, however, there are some other funny sidelines. One, it was, in theory, endowment money earmarked for that purpose (god forbid it go towards something useful- why not flush it down the drain!) so that's how it was going to be spent. Two, it turns out the lettering picked looks identical to Kutztown University, except it's blue instead of red. Good to see that ad agency spent that money... going online and basically copying another logo. And, ultimately, I think the big goal the University accomplished is that they showed how much of a whore they are to the athletic department because at the end of the day, they made some rules stating that only the athletic department and alumni association can still use the Jayhawk logo while everyone else has to use the "KU". Good job, guys- way to kill off use of your most recognizeable symbol. That'll help the advertising.

So, like the KU instance- not much was changed and some ad agency convinced some stupid executive to pay a crapload of money to accomplish very little?

SI

[Desnudo]

Their shows still generally suck which is the main problem

[Drake]

I love the way that article takes the network's demographic (or what they're calling their heritage) and essentially murders them as dorks and losers...then claims they're going to build off that solid audience into a new demographic.

Bad things happen when your motto is "We know we can count on the dork vote no matter what."

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Drake

I love the way that article takes the network's demographic (or what they're calling their heritage) and essentially murders them as dorks and losers...then claims they're going to build off that solid audience into a new demographic.

Bad things happen when your motto is "We know we can count on the dork vote no matter what."

lol good point.

then again, dorks & losers are fanatically loyal even after they get trashed (says this dork)

[Kodos]

I personally hate the new name. Every time I see it I get irritated.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Their shows still generally suck which is the main problem

Sci-Fi original shows are so hit or miss. Mostly miss. Occaisonally they'll hit on a good one (Eureka), but they love their shit (Warehouse 13).

Much like their mini-series track record. 90% putrid, with the once-in-a-blue-moon awesome one.

[RainMaker]

Is it really bad to have a corner on the geek market? Is it bad to be known as a geeky network? Feels like channels are too worried about having a more broader reach than dominating their demographic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Much like their mini-series track record. with the once-in-a-blue-moon awesome one.

"Dune" springs to mind immediately here.

[JediKooter]

So they thought that SciFi was confusing and then that's not how it's texted?????

All I know is SciFi, used to be pronounced, 'skiffy'. That pretty much went the way of the dinosaur back in the early 80s/late 70s and has been pronounced 'sigh fy' by pretty much everyone that I have ever spoken with, unless they are some mid 60s Star Trek nerd that still lives with their mom.

SciFi is Syfy is SciFi and if you are too freaking lazy to add 1 (one) more alpha character in your text message, you are nothing short of moron that does not deserve to even own a tv.

End of line...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is it really bad to have a corner on the geek market? Is it bad to be known as a geeky network?

Pretty much yeah on both counts.

That's because the subset that truly counts as "the geek market" is too small to generate enough revenue to be profitable at the cost of running a network and even moreso because there are other niches you could take a run at dominating that are larger & therefore more lucrative with the same network resources.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty much yeah on both counts.

That's because the subset that truly counts as "the geek market" is too small to generate enough revenue to be profitable at the cost of running a network and even moreso because there are other niches you could take a run at dominating that are larger & therefore more lucrative with the same network resources.

I kind of think that geek market is growing though. It's no longer uncool to be into comic book superhero movies and sci-fi TV shows. Companies have made billions on catering to geeky tech nerds (Apple).

I would rather have that market cornered than to be a jack of all trades network that doesn't have a loyal following.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Much like their mini-series track record. 90% putrid, with the once-in-a-blue-moon awesome one.

And yet as recently as I guess it would be 2 years +/- ago their most watched original program ever was the almost universally panned Tin Man. Point being of course that quality does not necessarily equal success, nor does a lack of quality indicate failure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And yet as recently as I guess it would be 2 years +/- ago their most watched original program ever was the almost universally panned Tin Man. Point being of course that quality does not necessarily equal success, nor does a lack of quality indicate failure.

panned by critics or panned as far as it brought in very little in terms of eyeballs + advertising dollars?

how are we defining success? critically-acclaimed shows? or "butts in the seats" advertising $$?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

"Dune" springs to mind immediately here.

As well as The Lost Room.

Children of Dune, however, blew goats.

[The Jackal]

I just read that piece a few days ago when trying to ascertain why they made this switch. I understand trying to appeal to a female audience, I guess - but the statement made by that TV historian is unbelievably offensive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

panned by critics or panned as far as it brought in very little in terms of eyeballs + advertising dollars?

how are we defining success? critically-acclaimed shows? or "butts in the seats" advertising $$?

Panned by critics was what I had in mind, although I'll concede that I almost certainly overstated the criticism originally. Still, it was soundly ripped by critics in any number of quarters ("semi-surreal adaptation of The Wizard of Oz stitched together from bits of The Matrix, Blade Runner, and Snow White to create a brooding fantasy that — understandably given the variety of influences — proves a bit of a mess" and "a "hopeless opus" whose "pacing is largely funereal")

It delivered the viewers though as I mentioned, the most watched miniseries of 2007.

[DaddyTorgo]

i'd argue that "critical reception" is overrated.

now keep in mind i didn't see that miniseries, or the tin man one, but i've gotten to the point in my life where i discount entirely the reviews by critics of anything, and i hardly think that i am alone in that case.

[The Jackal]

I own the Dune miniseries, it's quite good.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I own the Dune miniseries, it's quite good.

me 2.

both Children of Dune & Dune. As well as the David Lynch film version AND the extended-version of the David Lynch version (unreleased). Although that's on VHS and god knows where one can find a VHS player these days

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

me 2.

both Children of Dune & Dune. As well as the David Lynch film version AND the extended-version of the David Lynch version (unreleased). Although that's on VHS and god knows where one can find a VHS player these days

Yeah I have children too. Not as good as Dune but still worth watching every once and a while. I don't own the film, not sure if I've seen the extended version, will have to look into that.

I still have VHS capabilities when I'm in Maryland - gotta love popping in Jurassic Park.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So they thought that SciFi was confusing and then that's not how it's texted?????

All I know is SciFi, used to be pronounced, 'skiffy'. That pretty much went the way of the dinosaur back in the early 80s/late 70s and has been pronounced 'sigh fy' by pretty much everyone that I have ever spoken with, unless they are some mid 60s Star Trek nerd that still lives with their mom.

SciFi is Syfy is SciFi and if you are too freaking lazy to add 1 (one) more alpha character in your text message, you are nothing short of moron that does not deserve to even own a tv.

End of line...

Dude, where exactly was it ever pronounced 'skiffy'? I've been reading Sci Fi since the early '70s and have never ever ever ever heard anyone call it skiffy even as a joke. I'm not doubting you here but again, I never ran into that at all.


My mom was a huge '60s Star Trek trekkie and I never heard her say skiffy either.


Fascinating. I just googled skiffy and they say it's the opposite of what you said. They said it got started in the late '70s and early '80s and was well respected by the late '90s. This would explain why I never heard it of course but I wouldn't call the term widely accepted and doubt it ever was more than a fringe thing.

Skiffy is a deliberate humorous misspelling or mispronunciation of the controversial term "sci-fi", a neologism referring to science fiction. Like the term "sci-fi" itself, "skiffy" may be used in a pejorative sense,[citation needed] but is more usually used to indicate that the writer or speaker is aware of the controversy about terminology, but chooses not to take it seriously.

[edit] Background

The term "sci-fi" was publicly adopted as an alternate form of "science fiction" by Forrest ("Forry") J Ackerman by 1954, in analogy to the then-cutting edge "hi-fi". Ackerman was a long-time fan who created Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine, which celebrated the monster/SF movies that were frowned upon by many hardcore science fiction fans as being too poor in quality to be taken seriously, and definitely not to be confused with "real" science fiction.

In the late 1960s, a new movement of science fiction writers, the "New Wave", arose. It tended to reject science fiction's pulpy background and to scorn the term "sci-fi" as being associated with bad monster movies. Even the term "science fiction" was seen by some in the New Wave as too limiting, and "speculative fiction" was introduced as an alternative. Some advocated the use of the initials "SF", as they could be taken to refer to either "science fiction" or "speculative fiction".[1] Not everyone agreed with this new nomenclature, however, and while the term "sci-fi" continued to be widely used, and pronounced "sigh-fie", the pronunciation "skiffy" began to appear among science fiction insiders in the late 1970s.[2]

One of the first well-documented uses of the term "skiffy" was in the name of a science fiction and fantasy fan club at the University of Chicago, which was formed during the 1980s, and lasted until it was disbanded in 2003. Skiffy is still the name of the science fiction and skiffy club at the College of William and Mary,[3] as well as (not always affectionate) shorthand for the American cable channel, Sci Fi.[citation needed]

By the late 1990s, the term "skiffy" was well-enough accepted that Mike Resnick and Patrick Nielsen Hayden released a book called Alternate Skiffy,[4] an anthology featuring stories about what might have happened if the lives of various well-known science fiction writers had turned out differently.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skiffy

[DaddyTorgo]

the extended version of the lynch film really isn't all that worth it. adds a couple more scenes is all, or a few lines here & there.

[The Jackal]

DT I'm pretty sure you should make your WW rule have to do with dune somehow

[DaddyTorgo]

oooooh yeah? like what? i need ideas for my rule/role

[DaddyTorgo]

we haven't had ww:dune yet have we? that's something i should hop on!

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

we haven't had ww:dune yet have we? that's something i should hop on!

Someone was going to start it a long time ago, sal I think? I was asking hoops about it because it was one of the old game themes I was interested in, but it never got run.

I'd be all about having a Dune game in the near future.

As far as a Dune-related rule, you'll have to let me think for a few.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

we haven't had ww:dune yet have we? that's something i should hop on!

I'm drifting way off the subject here I guess (but certainly within the spirit of the skiffy realm), but I wonder how a Logan's Run theme would play out for WW?

I'll be wondering from a distance 'cause I doubt I'll ever have my head together long enough at a time to play WW myself but I figured I'd at least throw the idea into play for those who do.

[DaddyTorgo]

oooh - that could be fun!! Particularly with some adaptations - have some sort of a "maze" type thing for the villagers to get through in order to escape...oooh

yet another SciFi classic. Man I remember the first time I saw that movie...*nostalgia*

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Dude, where exactly was it ever pronounced 'skiffy'? I've been reading Sci Fi since the early '70s and have never ever ever ever heard anyone call it skiffy even as a joke. I'm not doubting you here but again, I never ran into that at all.


My mom was a huge '60s Star Trek trekkie and I never heard her say skiffy either.


Fascinating. I just googled skiffy and they say it's the opposite of what you said. They said it got started in the late '70s and early '80s and was well respected by the late '90s. This would explain why I never heard it of course but I wouldn't call the term widely accepted and doubt it ever was more than a fringe thing.




hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skiffy

That's actually what I meant, just did not explain it very well. I remember watching a documentary on Discovery or the History channel where they interviewed various authors and film makers and that they were always trying to distinguish between 'legitimate' science fiction and 'sci fi'/skiffy.

Over time, science fiction and sci-fi melded, but, without the 'derogitory' being attached to it and skiffy went away. That's how I remember it at least.

I'll take wiki over my memory any day though.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

oooh - that could be fun!! Particularly with some adaptations - have some sort of a "maze" type thing for the villagers to get through in order to escape...oooh

yet another SciFi classic. Man I remember the first time I saw that movie...*nostalgia*

I like making mazes.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I like making mazes.

thinking a maze + shai halud...maybe a party of folks trapped in the desert, or else something with "work" you had to get done as far as "harvesting melange"

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That's actually what I meant, just did not explain it very well. I remember watching a documentary on Discovery or the History channel where they interviewed various authors and film makers and that they were always trying to distinguish between 'legitimate' science fiction and 'sci fi'/skiffy.

Over time, science fiction and sci-fi melded, but, without the 'derogitory' being attached to it and skiffy went away. That's how I remember it at least.

I'll take wiki over my memory any day though.

I knew that there was a divide over exactly what science fiction was. I remember Asimov ( among others notably Heinlein ) stating that science fiction was fiction based on and around sound science. THese authors had science backgrounds so this type of elitism makes sense especially in a maligned genre.

These authors and their readers would get upset when someone set something in space and it was automatically got labelled sci fi. Star Wars was NOT science fiction just a piece of conventional fiction in space by this definition.

I'd always assumed sci-fi/fantasy was more of a nod to this than it was a specific recognition that elves belonged in the same category as sci fi but again, I Have no cites that say this, it's just been my understanding from what I read years ago.