# Syfy Channel: Discussion (take 2)



## Stuart Sweet

Folks, at member request I've started a new thread on this subject. There's a lot more discussion out there on the web and I know you're all interested in it. 

This is your only warning: any violations of forum rules will be followed by an infraction and post deletion. In other words, please be nice.


----------



## phrelin

Thanks Stuart. I just couldn't pass up sharing these two amusing gems:

From the Hollywood Reporter comes Branding company: 'Don't credit us for SyFy' even with cartoons.

And then there's this amusing one:


> Interestingly, NBC-U may have anticipated some backlash as it appears they registered "SyfySucks.com" on January 30, via Corporation Services Company- which also holds new registration for Syfy.com


----------



## Rob-NovA

phrelin said:


> And then there's this amusing one:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, NBC-U may have anticipated some backlash as it appears they registered "SyfySucks.com" on January 30, via Corporation Services Company- which also holds new registration for Syfy.com
Click to expand...

Nah, that's just defensive domain name registrations and brand protection. It's the standard MO for companies like CSC. I don't think that NBCU is that smart... :lol:


----------



## jhollan2

That first cartoon is the funniest I've seen! The name change is just dumb. Kind of like "new coke".


----------



## phrelin

This ad is appearing which when clicked takes you to their promo:


----------



## pfp

Lets see...

Stargate - No
ECW - Yes

Ok, call it whatever you want.


----------



## mreposter

Quality series like Battlestar don't come along very often and this network doesn't seem to be making much effort at creating anything as original and compelling for the future. Oh well...


----------



## bicker1

Except for Caprica, and Stargate Universe.


----------



## Drew2k

I just want to congratulate the members of this forum for getting the name right, when the "daily jolt of TV industry buzz" can't even read a press-release to understand it's a lowercase "F". :lol:


----------



## mike1977

I have a feeling we're going to see more programming of wrestling and Law and Order...because it would be airing on "Syfy", and not "Sci Fi"


----------



## Wire Paladin

I have only 2 words for Syfy... New Coke


----------



## bicker1

Actually, I think a better analogy is that Sci Fi is Coca-Cola Citra, and Syfy is Coke Zero. While Coca-Cola Citra might have existed for a longer period of time, it always will have a very very very limited appeal in the United States, because it appeals to the palate of a few foreign countries, instead of providing what Americans, in general, want. OTOH, Coke Zero is hot; it's trendy; it's popular today. It holds out the promise of making you fit and beautiful. Everyone (everyone who is worth hanging out with, at least) wants to be drinking Coke Zero these day.

I'm actually thinking that the biggest effect of the switch in name is that more people will actually watch Syfy, because it sounds like they're not just trying to appeal to science fiction fans. Other than that, nothing else will change.


----------



## mike1977

bicker1 said:


> Actually, I think a better analogy is that Sci Fi is Coca-Cola Citra, and Syfy is Coke Zero. While Coca-Cola Citra might have existed for a longer period of time, it always will have a very very very limited appeal in the United States, because it appeals to the palate of a few foreign countries, instead of providing what Americans, in general, want. OTOH, Coke Zero is hot; it's trendy; it's popular today. It holds out the promise of making you fit and beautiful. Everyone (everyone who is worth hanging out with, at least) wants to be drinking Coke Zero these day.
> 
> I'm actually thinking that the biggest effect of the switch in name is that more people will actually watch Syfy, because it sounds like they're not just trying to appeal to science fiction fans. Other than that, nothing else will change.


I won't hold my breath. *thinking Techtv to G4 and how the channel is today.


----------



## bicker1

How is that channel today? I don't even remember ever hearing of Techtv, but I've heard of G4. My initial instinct is that viewership increased from "practically no one watches" to "more than practically no one watches".

I just did a little research. Everything I've read so far seems to back up my impression of that positive trend, at least in terms of share. (They are greatly affected by the challenges facing any channel aiming at that same demographic, that those folks don't watch television as much.) What numbers do you have that shows that G4 is doing substantially worse financially than Techtv did? (Or are you mistakenly projecting your own personal disappointment about the on-air differences you see, related to the switchover, into some crude measurement of lack of success for the switchover?)


----------



## SayWhat?

> What numbers do you have that shows that G4 is doing substantially worse financially than Techtv did?


I don't think he said anything about doing 'financially worse', just that it changed significantly. TechTV was a much better channel. They actually did stories that mattered. Shows were helpful and educational as well as fun and entertaining. G4 doesn't even really focus on Gaming as it's name implies. If it did, they wouldn't be running several hours of "COPS" every week.

That said, I have no idea what this thread is about.

OK, wait....



mike1977 said:


> I have a feeling we're going to see more programming of wrestling and Law and Order...because it would be airing on "Syfy", and not "Sci Fi"





bicker1 said:


> I'm actually thinking that the biggest effect of the switch in name is that more people will actually watch Syfy, because it sounds like they're not just trying to appeal to science fiction fans.


... are we talking about a name change? Or a new, competing channel? In either case, I don't see a benefit.


----------



## mystic7

At least they kept Morgan Webb.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I don't think he said anything about doing 'financially worse', just that it changed significantly.


Okay, so by that logic, he may not *like* Syfy as much as he liked Sci Fi, but it could still be a *smart move *for NBC/U to have made.



SayWhat? said:


> ... are we talking about a name change? Or a new, competing channel? In either case, I don't see a benefit.


It's a name change, and the benefits for NBC/U are several, including, most importantly, the ability to brand assets associated with the channel. What we're speculating about is that the name change can also have the same positive impact that the name change from Techtv to G4 had, in that genericizing the name, making it sound less like it is only for science fiction fans, could open the door to additional viewership currently turned off by the closer association with the term "Sci Fi" itself. That latter benefit is just speculation, though.


----------



## BubblePuppy

When is the name change going to happen?


----------



## SayWhat?

bicker1 said:


> It's a name change, and the benefits for NBC/U are several, including, most importantly, the ability to brand assets associated with the channel. What we're speculating about is that the name change can also have the same positive impact that the name change from Techtv to G4 had, in that genericizing the name, making it sound less like it is only for science fiction fans, could open the door to additional viewership currently turned off by the closer association with the term "Sci Fi" itself. That latter benefit is just speculation, though.


First, I don't see the change from TechTV to G4 as being a positive change any more than the change from "Headline News" to "HLN News and Views". I see both as negative changes in regards to their core audiences. Changing from "SciFi" to "SyFy" will certainly confuse and alienate a dedicated core audience devoted to science fiction, one of the largest audience subsets today.

The NBC acquistion of The Weather Channel isn't turning out to be very positive either, so I don't see a rosy future for "SyFy".

I don't even get the "SyFy" bit. It sounds more like some texting abbreviation.


----------



## rebkell

BubblePuppy said:


> When is the name change going to happen?


*I think* July 7th. *I think* they are going to change the name with the launch of the new series Warehouse 13. I've read that somewhere. It's supposed to launch that week, two series are starting that week, Warehouse 13 and Eureka(new episodes). I'm pretty sure that's the plan.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> First, I don't see the change from TechTV to G4 as being a positive change


Based on what criteria? I think you need to go back and read the message you replied to. Either you misread it, or overlooked important points within it.



SayWhat? said:


> I see both as negative changes in regards to their core audiences.


Who gets to impose their definition of "core" audience? Clearly, that's something you must defer to the broadcaster on. They get to determine who they want to aim their service offering at.



SayWhat? said:


> Changing from "SciFi" to "SyFy" will certainly confuse and alienate a dedicated core audience devoted to science fiction, one of the largest audience subsets today.


Where is your citation to that assertion of fact?

I think you're going to need to differentiate between people who like fantastical storylines and science fiction fans. The stats count these people together in one group, but as a self-proclaimed representative of the first group, I'll tell you that the changes that the name change to "Syfy" reflects represents a substantial *improvement*. Those changes will get me to watch Syfy *more*. And yet you'll find that all the surveys about who likes what will count *me* together with science fiction fans, who will abhor the further move away from hardcore science fiction.

And neither of us know how many of that "one of the largest audience subsets" you referred to are like *me* versus being more like the hardcore science fiction fan. However, it is NBC/U's business to know, and from their actions it seems like their research indicates that there are far more of *me* than *them*.



SayWhat? said:


> The NBC acquistion of The Weather Channel isn't turning out to be very positive either, so I don't see a rosy future for "SyFy".


Again, you're making an outlandish generalized qualitative statement, without regard to the fact that your personal preferences don't apply generally. Where is your citation to the objective facts that TWC is earning a lot less money now than they could have been making if NBC/U didn't acquire them? If you don't have that, then your comments along these lines are easily ignored as baseless.


----------



## bicker1

rebkell said:


> *I think* July 7th.


Yes, July 7.


----------



## BubblePuppy

rebkell said:


> *I think* July 7th. *I think* they are going to change the name with the launch of the new series Warehouse 13. I've read that somewhere. It's supposed to launch that week, two series are starting that week, Warehouse 13 and Eureka(new episodes). I'm pretty sure that's the plan.


Thanks.
At least one thing good will come of the change....Eureka starts.


----------



## rebkell

BubblePuppy said:


> Thanks.
> At least one thing good will come of the change....Eureka starts.


I heard that, I've kept an eye on the listings and they keep repeating the first 8 episodes of Season #3 over and over, today they are showing an 8 hour block starting at 9:30am EDT. Guess what they're showing? You know it, the first 8 episodes of Season #3 again for the upteenth time in a row. They are going to show some Eureka eps on 7/6, 7/9 and 7/10 and guess what they're showing, the first 8 episodes of Season #3 again. :nono2:

I would really love to see the first and second season repeated every now and then, I never had a chance to see them in HD and that would be a treat, but the head honchos evidently assume we'd rather see the last 8 Ad nauseam.

The bad part about Eureka is they are only planning on 10 new episodes and orignally when it was returning in the winter we were supposed to get 13 new episodes. They are really not taking care of Eureka, don't really understand their thinking on this one, I think it's their most watched original scripted series currently(currently being a relative term, considering the long stretches between new episodes) and they treat it like some filler show.


----------



## BubblePuppy

rebkell said:


> I heard that, I've kept an eye on the listings and they keep repeating the first 8 episodes of Season #3 over and over, today they are showing an 8 hour block starting at 9:30am EDT. Guess what they're showing? You know it, the first 8 episodes of Season #3 again for the upteenth time in a row. They are going to show some Eureka eps on 7/6, 7/9 and 7/10 and guess what they're showing, the first 8 episodes of Season #3 again. :nono2:
> 
> I would really love to see the first and second season repeated every now and then, I never had a chance to see them in HD and that would be a treat, but the head honchos evidently assume we'd rather see the last 8 Ad nauseam.
> 
> The bad part about Eureka is they are only planning on 10 new episodes and orignally when it was returning in the winter we were supposed to get 13 new episodes. They are really not taking care of Eureka, don't really understand their thinking on this one, I think it's their most watched original scripted series currently(currently being a relative term, considering the long stretches between new episodes) and they treat it like some filler show.


I agree....these mid-season hiatus drives me nuts, I tend to lose interest in the show when it's broken up after a 2.5 month season.
And yes, I would think SciFi would do more for Eureka, I can't wait to see what they do with SG-U.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Where is your citation to the objective facts that TWC is earning a lot less money now than they could have been making if NBC/U didn't acquire them?


Again, who said anything about money? Their quality of programming and value to me as a viewer is dropping which is the same thing that happened with TechTV. I don't watch SciFi that much except for the occasional episode of the Twilight Zone or Amazing Stories when they run the originals, so I probably won't really care if they ruin the channel.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> Again, who said anything about money?


The poster who questioned my assertion that the change might result in *more people watching*.

I wholly and completely respect your right as a viewer to like or not like what this change represents... and expect you to respect my right to *prefer *what this change seems to represent.


----------



## bicker1

Referring back to the OP: I think it is really important to keep in mind that there are many aspects of this name change... and *all *of these aspects are worthy of discussion. :righton:


----------



## Drew2k

Keep your eye on this site to see how different it will be from the existing site:

http://www.syfy.com/


----------



## mike1977

bicker1 said:


> How is that channel today? I don't even remember ever hearing of Techtv, but I've heard of G4. My initial instinct is that viewership increased from "practically no one watches" to "more than practically no one watches".
> 
> I just did a little research. Everything I've read so far seems to back up my impression of that positive trend, at least in terms of share. (They are greatly affected by the challenges facing any channel aiming at that same demographic, that those folks don't watch television as much.) What numbers do you have that shows that G4 is doing substantially worse financially than Techtv did? (Or are you mistakenly projecting your own personal disappointment about the on-air differences you see, related to the switchover, into some crude measurement of lack of success for the switchover?)


I see a lot of Ninja Warrior listings.


----------



## bicker1

My nephew loves Ninjas.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Speaking of not taking care of Eureka... is it just me or in the promos for the new episodes does it look like they've re-cast the part of the Sheriff's daughter?

A problem that Dead Zone had was the extreme time between seasons meant actors either had to do nothing and pass up on other work OR take jobs at the risk of losing their role on the main show. This is how some of the main characters from the first season of that show went away or became guests in future episodes.

With Eureka only doing maybe 10 episodes that all air in the summer... that's a long hiatus for an actor to not work on anything else... especially when there are no apparent guarantees that the show will go on beyond the next season on the schedule.

I worry we may soon see some of the better calibre actors not wanting to sign on for these kind of series because it really screws with their ability to find work in the off-season.


----------



## Drew2k

I haven't seen an ad for Eureka yet, but a quick check of IMDB lists the same actress who has played Zoe all along. Perhaps she just grew up, changed her hair style and color? (That's always confused me about women in real life ... if it's someone you're only mildly acquainted with and you don't see them for a long time, they're upset the next time you see them don't recognize them! When you go from brunette to blonde, what do you want from me?? )


----------



## rebkell

I've seen Zoe in several commercials for the upcoming season, the one person I'm not seeing much if any is Ever Carradine, Lexi, Carter's sister. I hope she's around this year, I liked her character. There is a new woman on the show, can't remember her name, but she kind of resembles Lexi in previews, but she's got another role.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Maybe I'm just mis-viewing the commercials. I've not heard anyone called by name... but I have seen a different-looking girl. So maybe I just need to pay more attention.


----------



## bicker1

I just saw a Eureka commercial... that's definitely the same actress playing Zoe.


----------



## mike1977

bicker1 said:


> Okay, so by that logic, he may not *like* Syfy as much as he liked Sci Fi, but it could still be a *smart move *for NBC/U to have made.
> 
> It's a name change, and the benefits for NBC/U are several, including, most importantly, the ability to brand assets associated with the channel. What we're speculating about is that the name change can also have the same positive impact that the name change from Techtv to G4 had, in that genericizing the name, making it sound less like it is only for science fiction fans, could open the door to additional viewership currently turned off by the closer association with the term "Sci Fi" itself. That latter benefit is just speculation, though.


Yeah, the branding excuse is a poor one. They could have just gone back to The Scifi Channel.


----------



## bicker1

I think the problem is looking at it as an "excuse". They have their reasons; viewers may not value those reasons, but viewers dismissing a broadcaster's reasons is a bit like a Jew dismissing a Christian's reasons. 

Also, I suspect that they would not be able to trade-mark "Scifi", nor would they be able to secure all the necessary domain names if they went with "Scifi".


----------



## dmspen

It's reallt too bad that NBC didn't try to get SciFi to live up to its name. You'd think they would try to score network reruns of SciFI shows (What a concept!). Geez, I go to Spike to see Star Trek. Or HDNET for Enterprise in HD. There's been a run of SciFI type TV shows in the last few years. NBC in general has been lagging in creativity for a while now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I too am disappointed in the trend to show less "SciFi" content on the "SciFi" channel. Maybe the market isn't there for it, I don't know... but it's too bad a "SciFi" channel can't show SciFi, and not the other clearly off-genre stuff that the channel airs.

I've been similarly disappointed as the "Cartoon Network" shows more and more non-cartoon content.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^^ How much in the way of Arts and Entertainment are on A&E? As for cartoons, Boomerang still shows the old ones, but I've even seen other stuff there.

Isn't the science fiction audience one of the largest and most active? Aren't the SciFi conventions among the largest of the entertainment related events after adult and comics and gamers?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's true... lots of the genre-named channels seem to be straying. Some have completely reinvented themselves (I often remind people that what we know as SpikeTV today began as The Nashville Network!)


----------



## bicker1

Likely as a reflection of how serving narrow interests is less profitable than serving broader interests.


----------



## mreposter

dmspen said:


> It's reallt too bad that NBC didn't try to get SciFi to live up to its name. You'd think they would try to score network reruns of SciFI shows (What a concept!). Geez, I go to Spike to see Star Trek. Or HDNET for Enterprise in HD. There's been a run of SciFI type TV shows in the last few years. NBC in general has been lagging in creativity for a while now.


If I remember correctly, Spike paid through the nose for ST:TNG. If they're going to spend that kind of money, I'd much rather see them do something original (Eureka, BSG, Invisible Man, etc) than put on a tired 20 year old series.


----------



## dcowboy7

dmspen said:


> It's reallt too bad that NBC didn't try to get SciFi to live up to its name. You'd think they would try to score network reruns of SciFI shows (What a concept!). Geez, I go to Spike to see Star Trek. Or HDNET for Enterprise in HD. There's been a run of SciFI type TV shows in the last few years. NBC in general has been lagging in creativity for a while now.


ST:TNG is on scifi right now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Likely as a reflection of how serving narrow interests is less profitable than serving broader interests.


I'm sure that's true... especially depending upon the specific interest.

But some genres you have to wonder. SciFi seems to usually do well at the box office, and there are more than a few SciFi regular series running it seems these days... so you'd think they could find enough for that channel.

I feel the same about the Cartoon Network. Seems like there ought to be more than enough cartoons to pack the lineup... and a lot of people like cartoons.

Frankly, if the Cartoon Network and SciFi channels are essentially failures because those genres can't support a single channel on that theme... then I don't have hope for any other genre channel.

So at some point we end up with 20 USA/TNT type channels... and I don't think we need that many duplicating the same content.


----------



## phrelin

Apparently there's never enough professional wrestling on TV.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> So at some point we end up with 20 USA/TNT type channels... and I don't think we need that many duplicating the same content.


Look at 'Scrubs' and 'That 70's Show'. They're both good shows, but do they really need to be on 4 or 5 different channels?


----------



## Wisegoat

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure that's true... especially depending upon the specific interest.
> 
> But some genres you have to wonder. SciFi seems to usually do well at the box office, and there are more than a few SciFi regular series running it seems these days... so you'd think they could find enough for that channel.
> 
> I feel the same about the Cartoon Network. Seems like there ought to be more than enough cartoons to pack the lineup... and a lot of people like cartoons.
> 
> Frankly, if the Cartoon Network and SciFi channels are essentially failures because those genres can't support a single channel on that theme... then I don't have hope for any other genre channel.
> 
> So at some point we end up with 20 USA/TNT type channels... and I don't think we need that many duplicating the same content.


Couldn't agree more. With the "Generalization" of channels like Cartoon Network (live action, reality and movies now), DisneyXD (more of the same), G4 (RIP TechTV), Spike TV (Nashville Net for country lovers), the list goes on and on. I want specialty, niche channels. We no longer need these channels that show everything under the sun. That is what network TV is for.

When I want cartoons, I used to go to a channel that said it all: "Cartoon Network". Imagine my surprise when I go there now and see "Nacho Libre", a live action movie with no animation and very little humor, let alone for kids. If I were in to country music and western themed movies and programming, where would I go? The answer is nowhere, because the 1 channel that used to do that is now Spike TV, which shows nothing but reruns like USA network did 25 years ago.

Soon we will be down to 30 channels, all showing the exact same thing. Isn't this why we stopped watching network programming and went to cable, where there were channels for every person and like?

"500 Channels (and nothing much on) was a very ahead of its time song. Looks like we are there now.


----------



## SayWhat?

I still don't get the "SyFy" bit. To me it doesn't rhyme with SciFi, it reads more like "siffey".


When was the last time MTV or VH1 ran anything close to music? You get some on VH1Classic, but not on the main channel.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm sure that's true... especially depending upon the specific interest. But some genres you have to wonder. SciFi seems to usually do well at the box office


 Or is it speculative fiction that does well at the box office. Remember, a lot of people think that the biggest SciFi film of the summer is going to be Harry Potter, while I suspect that most of the folks who are criticizing the name change to Syfy are the type of folks who don't consider Harry Potter SciFi for this purpose.

Again, that's what this issue comes down to: Ghost Hunters, Scare Tactics and Unexplained all fit within the broader definition, just like Harry Potter does, but none of them are truly science fiction, and folks who are interested in such programming many not initially think that they'll find programming they'll enjoy at "The Science Fiction Channel".

Beyond those, Caprica may or may not have some space fiction elements, but if the pilot is any indication, its going to be a character drama, mostly, and they're going to want folks watching Caprica who would never pick up Larry Niven or Poul Anderson.

I'll speculate, myself, here, a bit. I think the hardcore science fiction fans have done the genre a disservice by, during the first 30-40 years of the genre's ascendancy, driving the genre towards what I would consider esoterica. In a way, they insisted on the genre being too real. I feel that the greatest benefits the genre can offer are those that capitalize on the genre's ability to provide escape for people. I think that the hardcore movement basically despoiled the term science fiction. I think that a blatant attempt to make it clear that "this isn't that tedious type of science fiction" can only benefit Syfy. It will help make room for the type of genre fiction that started breaking through in the mid-1980s, with far less, if any, focus on the "science" and far more focus on the "fiction".

Folks may like some parts of the genre and not like others, but they won't admit that that the basis of their criticism is their own personal preferences, since that's so easily pigeon-holed and thereby discounted. I think a lot of the criticisms, therefore, are simply attempts to recast these personal animosities as criticisms that sound more important than they really are.



Stewart Vernon said:


> and there are more than a few SciFi regular series running it seems these days...


You mean like Heroes? Again, I wish I could hook the main critics of the Syfy name change up to a polygraph machine and ask them if they think Heroes is what they like best about science fiction. However, even that doesn't matter: The question is more a matter of what Average Joe America will do, since there are more Average Joes than there are science fiction fans.

And even if the name change doesn't actually help drive that many more people to the channel, it will absolutely be at least a wash (some extremists will bolt; while some folks with some animosity towards science fiction will feel more welcome and will replace the extremists). And then, the only justification needed for the name change is that they can capitalize on the word as a trade-mark. Denying the value of this shows a lack of understanding of the business side of things. Folks are welcome to assert that they don't care about the business side of things, but that are not right in stating that the business shouldn't care about the business side of things.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So at some point we end up with 20 USA/TNT type channels... and I don't think we need that many duplicating the same content.


Actually, we very well may. As people engage in more and more commercial avoidance (and piracy, for that matter), the value of viewership, itself, plummets. How do you make up for that lost revenue stream? Perhaps the answer is pay television. Why are cable channels, like USA and TNT, going so well in recent years? It is a combination of how much better original programming is being presented by these channels. This fall, the CW is giving the five hours of its Sunday schedule back to their affiliates, and NBC is giving five hours of prime time to Jay Leno. Do you really think that that's going to be the end of that trend? Gosh, if you do, I admire your optimism! Instead, I see a path towards more and more non-scripted programming on television that is solely supported by commercial advertising. Meanwhile, television that is supported by both commercial advertising and by subscription fees, like TNT and USA, hold the promise of eventually providing a stronger financial footing for scripted programming. It could happen. And if it does, we'll need at least four, but preferable five or six channels, just like TNT and USA.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Remember, a lot of people think that the biggest SciFi film of the summer is going to be Harry Potter, while I suspect that most of the folks who are criticizing the name change to Syfy are the type of folks who don't consider Harry Potter SciFi for this purpose.
> 
> Again, that's what this issue comes down to: Ghost Hunters, Scare Tactics and Unexplained all fit within the broader definition, just like Harry Potter does, but none of them are truly science fiction,


Nope. Science Fantasy maybe or Paranormal, but not Science Fiction in the traditional sense. Calling 'Harry Potter' SciFi would be like calling 'The Neverending Story' SciFi.


----------



## bicker1

Wisegoat said:


> I want specialty, niche channels.


However, it is increasingly seeming that Americans don't. One of the loudest calls, we're hearing, in the cable television space, is the call for _a la carte_ pricing, because people "don't want to pay for channels that they don't watch". Who wins? Channels that lots of people watch, like USA and TNT, and ESPN, and Disney. Who loses? Niche interest channels. Most will go out of business, since they'd have to charge each subscriber upwards of $7-$9 per month to survive. Some might eek by for a while, charging on the high-end of the scale, perhaps $4 per month (which is the most I think the typical consumer will pay, per month, for a channel with commercial breaks in its programming). However, the path to long-term success in an _a la carte_ world is to serve the broadest needs.

So given that (as far as I'm concerned) a purist's "science fiction" channel isn't sustainable in any circumstances, how much effort are you willing to put in to safeguard *any* focus on science fiction? Because there are forces that are working to confront _a la carte_, but those that will be successful are those supporting niche interests that can be tied back to specific, minority racial, religious, and/or cultural groups. Their niche interest channels will likely get subsidized, in some way, to support their continued operation -- likely a fee charged to all subscribers regardless of whether or not they select such channels. However, science fiction won't get any such deference. If you don't want science fiction to get discounted *any further* from where Syfy is going with it, over the next year or two, you'd better have a plan for opposing _a la carte_. So what's your plan? Eh?



Wisegoat said:


> We no longer need these channels that show everything under the sun. That is what network TV is for.


Perhaps not anymore. See above.



Wisegoat said:


> Soon we will be down to 30 channels, all showing the exact same thing. Isn't this why we stopped watching network programming and went to cable, where there were channels for every person and like?


Uh, no, not initially. We went to cable, initially, because the antennas didn't transmit far enough to serve the new, burgeoning communities 60, 70, 80 miles from the city. Then, we went to cable because it offered movies, just a few months after they appeared in the theater, complete and uncut. The ascendancy of niche interest channels is relatively recent. Heck, the Sci Fi Channel and Cartoon Network both started only in 1992. And if the _a la carte_ fans have their way, the end of such service offerings is near.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> Nope. Science Fantasy maybe or Paranormal, but not Science Fiction in the traditional sense. Calling 'Harry Potter' SciFi would be like calling 'The Neverending Story' SciFi.


Hehe... thanks for proving my point. :goodjob:


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> When was the last time MTV or VH1 ran anything close to music? You get some on VH1Classic, but not on the main channel.


I never understood the logic of a channel that showed music videos. Music is generally something that you listen to. Watching a band perform their music has very limited appeal, IMHO. So the only music videos that have any real significant value to me are those that are miniature movies.

There have been some notable music videos, such as a-ha's Take On Me, but the economics of the *three-minute movie musical* are very poor. Online music stores charge about $1.19 for a 3 minute *music *video. Meanwhile, for a 42 minute video of a USA *television *program, they charge $1.60. That incongruity reflects the underlying economics of the video medium, and how it simply doesn't support a reasonable volume supply-chain for high-quality music videos.


----------



## SayWhat?

> One of the loudest calls, we're hearing, in the cable television space, is the call for a la carte pricing, because people "don't want to pay for channels that they don't watch". Who wins? Channels that lots of people watch, like USA and TNT, and ESPN, and Disney. Who loses? Niche interest channels. Most will go out of business, since they'd have to charge each subscriber upwards of $7-$9 per month to survive. Some might eek by for a while, charging on the high-end of the scale, perhaps $4 per month (which is the most I think the typical consumer will pay, per month, for a channel with commercial breaks in its programming).


I'm a strong advocate of some sort of AlaCarte. I'm highly opposed to having 50 shopping channels for example or 20 ESPN channels, etc. If I could choose, I'd be down to about 30-40 channels total, but at your $4/ea, my bill would more than triple. Not an option.

One method might be packages by owner. If I want A&E, I get all channels owned by whatever company owns A&E. If I want TCM, I get all channels owned by Turner. Same for Disney or Nick. Don't know how the pricing would be there though.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I never understood the logic of a channel that showed music videos. Music is generally something that you listen to. Watching a band perform their music has very limited appeal, IMHO.


I'm looking more at the music shows than just music videos. I never really inderstood music videos themselves, but they are what made MTV in the beginning. It was like FM radio in the beginning, all music, no commercials.

I'm looking more at shows like "Behind the Music", "In Concert" or "Classic Albums" that you see on VH1 Classic, programs with some substance, progams that actually tell you something. MTV is all game shows and garbage like "Jackass"; I don't even have it saved in my channel scan and VH1 is not much better.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I'm a strong advocate of some sort of AlaCarte.


So how do you reconcile your perspective on _a la carte_ with your desire for servicing of your niche interest?



SayWhat? said:


> I'm highly opposed to having 50 shopping channels for example


This is a misunderstanding on your part. You are *not paying* for *any* shopping channels. They pay for the privilege of being carried by the service provider. They are practically the only channels that you aren't paying for, now, since even your local broadcast channels are now demanding payment from service provider to carry their signals.



SayWhat? said:


> or 20 ESPN channels, etc.


Don't get me started on the sports channels. And if you've been watching the news, you've seen how the NFL and the Big Ten Conference have worked the system to essentially get everyone to subsidize those who care about this niche interest in football. Like it or not, *we lost*. That battle has been fought and we lost. So all we can do is suck it up, and accept that sports fans have essentially forced us to pay for their fun. And like it or not, even if _a la carte_ ever happens, we can count on the fact that sports fans have far more than enough power to force us to continue subsidizing their channels.



SayWhat? said:


> If I could choose, I'd be down to about 30-40 channels total, but at your $4/ea, my bill would more than triple. Not an option.


Do keep in mind that it is very likely that any _a la carte_ system will allow MSOs to continue offering the current packages.

Also note that $4 is the upper-bound. The average channel will probably cost $2 (a likely price for USA and TNT, IMHO), and some will cost $1 (The Weather Channel, some worship-oriented channels with very low cost structures, and channels that show, exclusively, old reruns).



SayWhat? said:


> One method might be packages by owner. If I want A&E, I get all channels owned by whatever company owns A&E. If I want TCM, I get all channels owned by Turner. Same for Disney or Nick. Don't know how the pricing would be there though.


That's a scenario that would be likely supported by the big distributors, but it leaves independents out in the cold, so effectively safeguards the big companies at the expense of the small companies. That, alone, is enough to get regulators to prohibit it.

Indeed, it is the *opposite *of what many _a la carte_ advocates want: Many _a la carte_ advocates recognize that the problem is *not* what choices your service provider makes available *to you* (because there are at least three subscription television service providers serving every municipality in the country, now), but rather the problem is that the large content providers engage in non-competitive practices regarding how they offer their content to service providers. This alternative _a la carte_ movement is known as the *wholesale a la carte* movement (as opposed to "retail" _a la carte_), and would impose changes that you, as a subscriber, wouldn't necessary see, at least not directly, but instead would prohibit big content providers from requiring service providers from carrying all the content provider's various channels, and prohibit big content providers from requiring service providers to carry one of the content provider's (less popular) channel on a certain tier in order to be able to carry one of the content provider's (more popular) channel on a certain tier. Essentially, it would undercut large content providers' ability to force service providers to carry all the content provider's channels at some low tier of service where practically everyone would have to pay for all of them.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I'm looking more at shows like "Behind the Music", "In Concert" or "Classic Albums" that you see on VH1 Classic, programs with some substance, progams that actually tell you something. MTV is all game shows and garbage like "Jackass"; I don't even have it saved in my channel scan and VH1 is not much better.


If you look at the audience numbers, your interest is much less widely held than the interest in the shows that MTV shows. Sucks, eh?


----------



## dcowboy7

bicker1 said:


> Remember, a lot of people think that the biggest SciFi film of the summer is going to be Harry Potter


Nope....boxofficeguru.com (among other sites) which is a great site for $$ predictions says "Transformers 2" will beat this "Harry Potter".


----------



## dcowboy7

SayWhat? said:


> When was the last time MTV or VH1 ran anything close to music? You get some on VH1Classic, but not on the main channel.


VH1 & MTV show music videos basically every morning.


----------



## tsmacro

I don't think the name change is really going to change anything, it's just reflecting the reality that already is. I knew that Sci-Fi was really no longer Science Fiction when they started showing wrestling and it was probably happening before that, but that was the most obvious sign. I am a big science fiction fan of written variety, the tv variety and the movie variety. One thing i've never gotten though is some of the "snobbery" that a lot of fans of the genre get into though. It's as if the genre doesn't fit w/in certain parameters then it's "not real sci-fi" and doesn't belong....blah, blah, blah. I find that odd there's people trying to make sure that sci-fi stays "inside the box" so to speak when the whole genre is supposed to be about pushing limits and going beyond the accepted boundaries to begin with. Oh well luckily for me I don't suffer from that affliction, I enjoy what's known as hard sci-fi, as well as fantasy and all sorts of speculative fiction in between, if it makes me think and/or entertains me i'm happy, over-analyzing it all just to pick it apart would just seem like taking all the joy out of it for me. Yeah i'd prefer the Sci-Fi channel to be more science fiction than general entertainment but in the end I don't really care what they call themselves (even as odd and silly as the new spelling and logo look) i'll still watch what I like when they show it and give a pass to the rest, pretty much like any other channel.


----------



## bicker1

I think the inspiration for some fans to exhibit "snobbery" as you described it is that they perceive that the more of that "outside the box" content presented, the less resources are available to present "inside the box" content. The reality is that content is presented in proportion to how much can be made from offering that content.


----------



## mreposter

Two unrelated comments...

*Not much of a name change*
If Sci Fi wanted to change their image and broaden their audience, why change the name from SciFi to SyFy? It reads and sounds the same. The people that generally don't like science fiction but might be interested in fantasy or related genres are still going to be turned off by the name. Isn't this why Courtv changed their name to truTV?

*Niche vs. a la carte*
True niche channels might actually have an advantage in an a la carte system. If you find a hard-core audience and give them what they want, they will likely pay a premium for this service. BET Jazz would be one example - small audience, but dedicated and as a bonus, generally upscale/wealthy.

On the other hand, if a la carte were to magically appear many of us would be looking at cutting back on channels to lower our monthly bills. Many of us might drop BET Jazz, but we might also cut back on the number of cookie-cutter general interest channels. Would USA, FX, A&E, TNT, etc, etc all survive? I'd say the lower the original programming content the lower the chance of continued success.


----------



## Drew2k

It has probably not been said recently, but the name of the new channel is *Syfy* not SyFy.

It's a lowercase F. 

I know that will make all the difference in this discussion.


----------



## mystic7

bicker1 said:


> Likely as a reflection of how serving narrow interests is less profitable than serving broader interests.


Wasn't that the point of narrowcasting, though? 500 channels, each tuned into a specific segment of the audience. The Hair Channel, The Shoes Channel, The Bald Guy Jumping On A Trampoline Channel. I mean, how many more places do we need to see Law & Order reruns? And I'm not even a Sci-Fi fan. I only watched the channel to see Ghost Hunters, and that show got old 2 seasons ago.


----------



## mystic7

Wow, just checked out the "website". I clicked on the Press Release, it looks like it was done by some kid taking Web Design 101.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Some things are easier classified than others.

To me, "Harry Potter" is more accurately described as Fantasy. Now, I would be ok if SciFi wanted to be SciFiFantasy... as both genres have some overlap in terms of fans... but SciFi doesn't equal Fantasy in all ways to my mind.

But I think we ALL would agree that WWE (wrestling) is not SciFi no matter how you slice things. Just like live-action comedy or reruns of Saved by the Bell are in no way cartoons.

I'm less bothered by the grey areas than I am the clear decisions to no longer even pretend to stay within the named genre.

For that matter... as much as I like reruns of Star Trek (any incarnation) I'm not sure I need to find Star Trek on 12 different channels.

I think it's nice to have some "trying to be all things to all people" channels, but I'd also like to see some niche channels actually stick with their niche.


----------



## phrelin

mystic7 said:


> Wow, just checked out the "website". I clicked on the Press Release, it looks like it was done by some kid taking Web Design 101.


Yeah, but they have the cool new icon thingy


----------



## SayWhat?

mystic7 said:


> And I'm not even a Sci-Fi fan. I only watched the channel to see Ghost Hunters, and that show got old 2 seasons ago.


That's part of the point of this thread. Ghost Hunters is not SciFi in the traditional sense of the term.

Yet, someone like you who will follow a show to any channel may be part of the reason the channel is adding non-genre shows.


----------



## bicker1

mreposter said:


> If Sci Fi wanted to change their image and broaden their audience, why change the name from SciFi to SyFy? It reads and sounds the same.


But it *looks **different*, and they can make a big deal about the difference ("reflective of our *broader range of imagination based entertainment"*) in their marketing. Meanwhile, it is close-enough to the current name that they're likely only going to alienate a very small group of über-fanatics.

And they are right up-front about why they are changing the name: "It create an *ownable *and extendable *brand*".

Why isn't Coca-Cola just called "Soda"? 



mreposter said:


> Isn't this why Courtv changed their name to truTV?


As opposed to just changing the name to Turner Channel 4.



mreposter said:


> True niche channels might


... have ...


mreposter said:


> actually have


... had ...


mreposter said:


> an advantage in an a la carte system.


However, the typical American viewer simply never bent that way. It's a shame. It would have been nice.



mreposter said:


> If you find a hard-core audience and give them what they want, they will likely pay a premium for this service.


So far, the only thing that American viewers will pay a premium for is just-past-first run movies, and mainstream-interest original series with some soft-porn in them.



mreposter said:


> On the other hand, if a la carte were to magically appear many of us would be looking at cutting back on channels to lower our monthly bills. Many of us might drop BET Jazz, but we might also cut back on the number of cookie-cutter general interest channels. Would USA, FX, A&E, TNT, etc, etc all survive?


With respect, I think you're looking at things through the very clouded lens of your own personal preferences. The reality that you hoped for never materialized. You might cut back and the most popular cable networks that you listed, and you might be willing to pay the $10-$12 per month for BET Jazz that it would take to keep that channel operating, but there are many times as many people who are watching those most popular cable networks as compared to those who watch BET Jazz, and there is no reason to think that _a la carte_ will suddenly turn all those people watching Rescue Me into jazz fans.



mreposter said:


> I'd say the lower the original programming content the lower the chance of continued success.


I'd say the lower the original programming content of *scripted *programming, the lower the chance of continued success.


----------



## bicker1

mystic7 said:


> Wasn't that the point of narrowcasting, though? 500 channels, each tuned into a specific segment of the audience.


Which is probably the main reason why _a la carte_ is opposed. Narrow-casting relies on a cross-subsidy model, where channels share the burden of producing deliberately low-interest programming, by being cradled by a safety net woven of the cloth of the viewers' shared responsibility for fostering each other's programming.

The math is easy: Take ten special interests, all needing roughly the same resources to flourish. By definition, half will be below average in viewership, perhaps even below the viability point. Some, though, will not only be sufficiently profitable, but with the capacity to foster a substantial amount of profit. The current system ties the channels together. The bottom five get enough to survive while the top few get less than they could have gotten otherwise.

Narrow-casting, therefore, essentially relies on socialism for cable networks.

Add in _a la carte_, and all the glories of the free market are brought into what is offered. The top few channels make more than before. Some others below those top few still do survive. And the rest die.

And what are those top few channels? Do your own Google search... you'll find the same answer: USA, ESPN, Disney, TNT, etc. The non-niche channels.

Sucks, eh?


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Some things are easier classified than others.


The issue isn't how hard or easy it is; it is how different people classify things differently.



Stewart Vernon said:


> To me, "Harry Potter" is more accurately described as Fantasy. Now, I would be ok if SciFi wanted to be SciFiFantasy... as both genres have some overlap in terms of fans... but SciFi doesn't equal Fantasy in all ways to my mind.


However, Syfy can, because NBC/U owns the word, and can define Syfy as they believe the better portion of their intended audience would prefer it defined.

And SciFiFantasy would be a *horrible* name for a television network. I hope you were not serious in your suggestion.



Stewart Vernon said:


> But I think we ALL would agree that WWE (wrestling) is not SciFi no matter how you slice things.


Why even bring it up? WWE isn't presented on the Sci Fi Channel. It hasn't been for quite a while. It seems like you're not only beating a dead horse, but you're beating the ground where the dead horse used to be, long after the horse has been dragged away.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Just like live-action comedy or reruns of Saved by the Bell are in no way cartoons.


If you don't think Skreetch is a cartoon character, then you and I don't speak the same language. I believe that there is such thing as a "live-action cartoon" -- a non-Syfy )) genre comedy, within which some (or all) characters are deliberately created to be outrageous beyond the point where any reasonable person could be expected to think that they're intended to be real people. These are live-action productions where the suspension of disbelief must be absolutely without reservation.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm less bothered by the grey areas than I am the clear decisions to no longer even pretend to stay within the named genre.


However, you're presuming to use your own personal definition of gray areas to judge what Syfy should or shouldn't do, as opposed to *just* using your own personal definition of gray areas to determine whether or not your pleased. That's a big problem. Our own personal perspectives don't apply beyond our own personal locus.



Stewart Vernon said:


> For that matter... as much as I like reruns of Star Trek (any incarnation) I'm not sure I need to find Star Trek on 12 different channels.


However, those channels have a right to present the programming that best fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to their owners, before all other considerations except for the law.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I think it's nice to have some "trying to be all things to all people" channels, but I'd also like to see some niche channels actually stick with their niche.


Then you do not want _a la carte_. You'll have practically no chance of getting what you want, then. Even now, you need to understand that you're asking for a lot. It is unreasonable to expect people who's main objective is (literally) fostering their comfortable retirement to be even the slightest bit concerned about whether Syfy shows Ghost Hunters. So it is wholly and completely incumbent *on the viewers* to, (again, literally) through the *money* that they can control, provide sufficient motivation for networks to appeal to niche interests in the manner desired. If viewers cannot direct enough money in that direction -- enough so serving that niche interest that way is the very best way an investor can invest their money -- then it is unreasonable to expect niche interests to get served in that manner.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> That's part of the point of this thread. Ghost Hunters is not SciFi in the traditional sense of the term.


But it is strange. And until you can come up with a better name for the channel than SciFiFantasyStrangeStuffWhateverElse, (and remember, "better" is defined by the investors in NBC/U, and they only care about money), Syfy remains as the *best *suggestion yet put forward.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Meanwhile, it is close-enough to the current name that they're likely only going to alienate a very small group of über-fanatics.


Except for those trying to figure out what the 'siffey' channel is.


----------



## bicker1

And they might just tune in to find out.


----------



## trainman

Even when it launched in 1992, the Sci-Fi Channel's mission was "science fiction, fantasy, and horror." Its program schedule has never been purely sci-fi, despite the channel name.


----------



## phrelin

trainman said:


> Even when it launched in 1992, the Sci-Fi Channel's mission was "science fiction, fantasy, and horror." Its program schedule has never been purely sci-fi, despite the channel name.


You've finally cleared it up for me. It's pronounced "Sigh-fee" for "science fantasy" which could encompass a wide range of programming, though wrestling is a bit of a stretch.:grin:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> And SciFiFantasy would be a *horrible* name for a television network. I hope you were not serious in your suggestion.


I never suggested a name. In fact, I never said anything positive or negative on the name "Syfy"... though truth be told, I don't care much for it.

I'm mainly commenting on the change in direction the channel seems to be taking.



bicker1 said:


> Why even bring it up? WWE isn't presented on the Sci Fi Channel. It hasn't been for quite a while. It seems like you're not only beating a dead horse, but you're beating the ground where the dead horse used to be, long after the horse has been dragged away.


It was the straw that broke the camel's back (if we are using cliches).

The fact that they ever thought WWE was a good fit for a channel purported to be SciFi/Fantasy just shows they weren't committed to the genre they set out.

I don't beat them up over it... but if we don't comment on the positives and negatives, there wouldn't be a point to this thread 



bicker1 said:


> If you don't think Skreetch is a cartoon character, then you and I don't speak the same language. I believe that there is such thing as a "live-action cartoon" -- a non-Syfy )) genre comedy, within which some (or all) characters are deliberately created to be outrageous beyond the point where any reasonable person could be expected to think that they're intended to be real people. These are live-action productions where the suspension of disbelief must be absolutely without reservation.


And there are already lots of channels that air live-action content of those kinds.

What if you bought a 12-pack of Almond Joy bars, and found that 1 of the bars was actually a Granola Bar. They are both snacks, and contain almonds perhaps and so are crunchy and provide a quick energy boost... but you wanted Almond Joy, not Granola.

Now, if the package had said 12 Variety snack bars, you'd expect other types of snack... and that would have been ok.

So now imagine that you can't buy 12-packs of a single bar anymore... you have to buy the variety packs. That might be ok because you have a wide taste preference anyway ... but do you need 10 different companies making those variety packs if they are all going to contain the same selection?

You need 5 packages if they each contain only Almond Joy, Snickers, Granola, Hershey's, and KitKat... but if every pack slowly becomes a variety pack then you only need one variety pack.



bicker1 said:


> However, you're presuming to use your own personal definition of gray areas to judge what Syfy should or shouldn't do, as opposed to *just* using your own personal definition of gray areas to determine whether or not your pleased. That's a big problem. Our own personal perspectives don't apply beyond our own personal locus.


No, I'm not. By definition a grey area is one that you and I can't agree 100%... that is what makes it grey. That's why I said Harry Potter is in the grey area, even though I don't consider it SciFi others might.

But nobody considers WWE SciFi... but you didn't like that example.



bicker1 said:


> However, those channels have a right to present the programming that best fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to their owners, before all other considerations except for the law.


Sure they do... but when every single channel becomes the same variety... and there are 100 channels showing the same content every day, just in a different order... then we don't need all those channels... and some will fail.

So... if 100 channels become EXACTLY the same... 50 or more of them are almost guaranteed to fail because they simply aren't needed.

Whereas if some of them decide to stick it out and be a genre/themed channel... they are competing on a different level and might survive if they are good at what they do.

Now, if there aren't enough fans to support a SciFi/Fantasy channel... then that's a truth that becomes self-evident and the channel will have to change or fail.

I get that.

I'm just surprised that a SciFi/Fantasy themed channel, that really doesn't have any other direct competition from a similarly themed channel, can't do better when it seems to be a popular genre.


----------



## dreadlk

Stupidest thing I have heard a station do, Ever! To address one or two of the possible reasons behind this that where mentioned before. 

1) The name change being a method of attracting people who might be turned off by
the name "Sci-Fi" will now be amicable to watching a channel named SyFy.  Sweet Jesus is that just crazy or what:bonk1:! Anybody with a brain is going to think of them as one in the same except that latter sounding more like a Joke from a station that's reluctant to seriously brand their shows Science Fiction.

2) Sci-Fi channel did start up with a serious attempt to show real Science fiction shows.
I remember Doctor Who, Lost in Space, Space 1999 and may other old shows at the start. They did not have a real budget but for the 3 or 4 hours per day that they where on the air they only deviation I remember them making was showing episodes of "Dark Shadows" everyday.

3) Sci-Fi channels down fall has been taking a page from the paramount book and thinking that if you slap a Sci-Fi label on a show the geeks will come, much like how Paramount figured if you put a Star Trek Label on it they will come! Well it didn’t work for Paramount, so now they rebooted and I guess Sci-Fi channel is trying the same, except I suspect they will be getting the pointy end of the boot with this dumb idea.!pusht!

My Suggestion, scrap the name change, stop spending your small budget in making a multitude of stupid killer Insect/monster movies and use that whole budget to make one or two good series like picking up shows like Terminator Sarah Conner chronicles, or continue the greats like Babylon 5, Space Above and Beyond or create some quality series. For the other 90% of the day go back to showing the old repeats of every quality sci-fi series they can get their hands on, Lost on Space, Time Tunnel, Star Trek, 1970-80’s Doctor Who, SG1 etc.


----------



## JJJBBB

What *dreadlk* said... absolutely right. This is insane and almost insulting really to the fans that have watched this channel for so long.


----------



## SayWhat?

> But nobody considers WWE SciFi...


I don't know about the science part, but it's full of fiction and fantasy. I suppose the science part could be the physics they use to calculate some of the stunts. And some of the idiots involved DO look like they're from another planet.


----------



## dcowboy7

But the reason they are doing this is because their ratings arent great....so then by doing this either:

a) the ratings stay the same.....& its a wash.
b) the ratings get better....& its a gain.

whats the drawback ?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dcowboy7 said:


> But the reason they are doing this is because their ratings arent great....so then by doing this either:
> 
> a) the ratings stay the same.....& its a wash.
> b) the ratings get better....& its a gain.
> 
> whats the drawback ?


The drawback would be choice:

c) the ratings get worse...

As a SciFi, or SciFi & Fantasy, or even SciFi + Fantasy + Horror channel they serve a niche and don't compete as directly with other channels for the same audience.

As a general channel they are competing with USA, TNT, FX, and who knows how many other channels that show a variety of programming.

I happen to like a variety of programming... but I only get variety when different channels are showing different content. If we get to a point where every channel is showing a variety, then I really only need a few channels.

I won't belabor something like Voom... but Monsters HD could have been a big deal. Chiller HD doesn't exist yet, but Chiller does... only they show commercials and censor/cut the movies. Still, even with that they could fill a niche for that kind of content.

SciFi could fill the Science Fiction & Fantasy niche (regardless of the name they decide for the channel).

I agree if that niche doesn't support the channel then they will have to change and adapt or go under... but if that means becoming like all the other channels out there, then why bother?

Looks to me like Doctor Who will be lost now to BBC America (at least for this year's specials it seems)... and Battlestar Galactica is gone. They don't seem to want to promote Eureka as much as it deserves to be... so I'm not seeing a whole of commitment to be anything other than a meandering channel.

I used to try new things (anime included) on Cartoon Network... but as they increase their live-action content I've started to lose interest and only tune in when I know a cartoon I want to watch will be on. So they've lost me as a casual viewer because they decided to become a different kind of channel.

It's a race to see if they gain more "general" viewers by these kinds of changes than they lose the dedicated SciFi fans who go away as they abandon that mission.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> It was the straw that broke the camel's back (if we are using cliches).


I had back surgery ten years ago; it *fixed *my back.



Stewart Vernon said:


> The fact that they ever thought WWE was a good fit for a channel purported to be SciFi/Fantasy just shows they weren't committed to the genre they set out.


Every broadcaster's *commitment *is to their owners. Always has been; always will be; always should have been; always should be.



Stewart Vernon said:


> And there are already lots of channels that air live-action content of those kinds.


What are you really trying to say with this statement? It doesn't directly contradict what I wrote, and so it is left up to the read to intuit what you're implying by applying that statement as a response to what I wrote. And I found your analogies too vague and non-committal to provide the clarity I need to understand what you're trying to say, with sufficient confidence to be able to give it credence.



Stewart Vernon said:


> But nobody considers WWE SciFi...


Good thing they're changing the name of the channel to Syfy, then, isn't it?



Stewart Vernon said:


> Sure they do... but when every single channel becomes the same variety... and there are 100 channels showing the same content every day, just in a different order... then we don't need all those channels... and some will fail.


The kind of channel you want will fail sooner and with more assurance.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Whereas if some of them decide to stick it out and be a genre/themed channel... they are competing on a different level and might survive if they are good at what they do.


Not true.


----------



## bicker1

dcowboy7 said:


> But the reason they are doing this is because their ratings arent great....so then by doing this either:
> a) the ratings stay the same.....& its a wash.
> b) the ratings get better....& its a gain.
> whats the drawback ?


Let's not confuse the issue with logic! :lol:

Seriously, I suspect that the drawback that some people perhaps might be reticent to admit that they fear that it will be successful.


----------



## dcowboy7

Stewart Vernon said:


> The drawback would be choice:
> 
> c) the ratings get worse...


Really how much worse can it get....last week they came in 20th among cable channels....they even got beat by trutv:

1. USA 3,353
2. DSNY 2,625
3. TNT 2,241
4. FOXN 2,132
5. AMC 1,728
6. NAN 1,611
7. TBSC 1,494
8. TOON 1,377
9. DISC 1,354
10. HGTV 1,325
11. FAM 1,296
12. A&E 1,275
13. FX 1,245
14. TLC 1,231
15. HIST 1,207
16. FOOD 1,169
17. LIFE 1,161
18. ESPN 1,129
19. TRU 1,018
*20. SCIF 1,008*


----------



## bicker1

Since when is #20 bad? Go over to one of the FiOS or DirecTV fanboi forums, and you'll hear about them salivating about having over 100 channels or more.... If you think #20 is bad, how do you refer to the other 80+?


----------



## dcowboy7

bicker1 said:


> Since when is #20 bad? Go over to one of the FiOS or DirecTV fanboi forums, and you'll hear about them salivating about having over 100 channels or more.... If you think #20 is bad, how do you refer to the other 80+?


come on losing to trutv....i think more people watch me & my friends play madden then watch trutv.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm taking a step back and I have to ask...

What is the topic here?

Are we discussing whether or not "Syfy" is a good name for a channel?

If that's the discussion... then it's purely a matter of opinion, so once we post on that then the topic is done.

Are we instead discussing what the content on "Syfy" should be? Or at least what we'd like it to be?

If that's the discussion, then that's largely a matter of opinion post name-change since "Syfy" is a made up name and could contain content of any kind.

Are we discussing lament over what we thought SciFi was vs what it seems "Syfy" will be?

Again, more opinion really... although slightly more "fact" could be taken from the original mission statement and name-implied-theme that the SciFi originally launched with. We can be disappointed or excited at the changes likely to be coming.

For my money... I don't care for "Syfy" but I don't have a better suggestion for a more marketable name. I am disappointed to see a move away from SciFi but that's my one opinion and if they make more money by making changes, then obviously that's what they should do.

I will be disappointed, though, if Syfy becomes one of another variety channels that I already have a couple dozen of... and while they might not notice, I'll probably be watching less if/when that happens.


----------



## bicker1

dcowboy7 said:


> come on losing to trutv....i think more people watch me & my friends play madden then watch trutv.


Again: What about the other 80+ HD channels that FiOS and DirecTV carries?

Where's the sense of perspective and context?


----------



## Christopher Gould

it beat the travel channel, and we all know from these boards that it is the holy grail of channels


----------



## rebkell

Christopher Gould said:


> it beat the travel channel, and we all know from these boards that it is the holy grail of channels


But surely, it's only because it's in HD.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm taking a step back and I have to ask...
> 
> What is the topic here?





Stuart Sweet said:


> Folks, at member request I've started a new thread on this subject. There's a lot more discussion out there on the web and I know you're all interested in it.
> 
> This is your only warning: any violations of forum rules will be followed by an infraction and post deletion. In other words, please be nice.


Back in March I asked Stuart to allow this new thread as he had to close the old one because of a "problematic trend" in the discussion. Mostly it was to be about the reaction, mostly humorous, to this press release which said:


> By changing the name to Syfy, which remains phonetically identical, the new brand broadens perceptions and embraces a wider and more diverse range of imagination-based entertainment including fantasy, paranormal, reality, mystery, action and adventure, as well as science fiction. It also positions the brand for future growth by creating an ownable trademark that can travel easily with consumers across new media and non-linear digital platforms, new international channels and extend into new business ventures.
> 
> ...Imagine Greater will become the new brand message and tagline, inviting both consumers and advertisers into a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment. Syfy more clearly captures the mainstream appeal of the world's biggest entertainment category, and reflects the network's ongoing strategy to create programming that's more accessible and relatable to new audiences. Syfy will continue to celebrate the traditional roots of the genre, while opening the brand aperture to accommodate a broader range of imagination-based entertainment.
> 
> "While continuing to embrace our legacy and our core audience, we needed to cultivate a distinct point of view with a name that we could own that invites more people in and reflects our broader range of programming," said Mr. Howe in making the announcement. "Syfy allows us to build on our 16 year heritage of success with a new brand built on the power that fuels our genre: the Imagination. Syfy ushers in a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment that paves the way for us to truly become a global lifestyle brand."


We now have more explanation from this press release on the new web site which tells us:


> A new brand of entertainment is on the rise. On July 7th, Sci Fi Channel becomes Syfy and, when it does, your adventure begins. The first step will be easy: Imagine Greater. It means that at Syfy anything is possible. Everything you love will come along for the ride. And everything else will be exciting and new - including the look of the place!
> 
> Starting this summer, new shows like Warehouse 13, SGU: Stargate Universe and Caprica will join our rich slate of returning favorites like Eureka, Ghost Hunters and many more, to bring you bolder science fiction, stronger drama, faster action, bigger adventure, deeper mystery, louder laughs and...well, you get the idea.
> 
> It's going to be imagination at its finest, and it'll live everywhere, on every screen. Here at the newly designed Syfy.com, you'll catch all your favorite shows and web series. Technology, gaming and entertainment news will continue to be just clicks away at our popular blogs Dvice, Figit and Sci Fi Wire. And our mobile site and iPhone apps will engage your imagination wherever you go, whenever you want.
> 
> Syfy begins July 7th during the premiere of Warehouse 13. Until then, make yourself at home, and prepare to Imagine Greater. We'll see you soon.


Certainly, if the new branding direction for primetime SyFy is represented by "Warehouse 13", "SGU: Stargate Universe" and "Caprica" joining "Eureka, Ghost Hunters and many more, to bring you bolder science fiction, stronger drama, faster action, bigger adventure, deeper mystery, louder laughs and...well, you get the idea", then it may be fine IMHO, assuming that "many more" doesn't mean wrestling.


----------



## mreposter

Yes, but professional wrestling is such a broad form of programming, it cuts across multiple genres. Just _imagine_... professional wrestling on Chiller! What could be more thrilling and spine tingling than a professional wrestling match? Or _imagine_ how great professional wrestling could be on Slueth - everyone will want to watch and see who wins the big matches! And of course, you can't get more creative or artistic than some of the amazing moves on professional wrestling, so just _imagine_ it on Bravo - coming this fall!


----------



## solmakou

SayWhat? said:


> First, I don't see the change from TechTV to G4 as being a positive change any more than the change from "Headline News" to "HLN News and Views". I see both as negative changes in regards to their core audiences. Changing from "SciFi" to "SyFy" will certainly confuse and alienate a dedicated core audience devoted to science fiction, one of the largest audience subsets today.
> 
> The NBC acquistion of The Weather Channel isn't turning out to be very positive either, so I don't see a rosy future for "SyFy".
> 
> I don't even get the "SyFy" bit. It sounds more like some texting abbreviation.


Maybe they can put the wrestling on The Weather Channel?


----------



## dreadlk

The problem of today is that to many descisions are based on this instant collection of opinions and knowledge that the Internet has allowed. 10 years In the future I am sure a new series will come out and if the ratings are not a hit within 1 hour it will be cancelled. 
It's like the whole of America is developing A.D.D and that's a frightening thought.

SyFy is a knee jerk reaction that can only end badly. It will either move them further into the middle of the pack or it may just be the straw that sends them out of business.
Lets face it, they have been making some pretty dumb moves from about 3 years ago when they cancelled Stargate, they then invested more in Atlantis which was crap from day one, added wrestling and then they started to take 8 month breaks between seasons of BSG. All signs that they where being poorly run and totaly out of cash.


----------



## Church AV Guy

While I have to agree with much of what you said, I think your knee-jerk statement is incorrect, and you give the proof of that in the rest of your post. The move to Syfy is NOT a knee jerk reaction, but a carefully planned transition that started three or more years ago, to move the channel away from the Sci-Fi niche market into a broader one. You give ample evidence that this has been going on, even planned, for three years at least.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> SyFy is a knee jerk reaction that can only end badly.


Syfy is a very carefully made decision that will not "end badly". It will serve its purpose, and accomplish its aims.



dreadlk said:


> It will either move them further into the middle of the pack or it may just be the straw that sends them out of business.


Neither, actually.


----------



## JJJBBB

bicker1 said:


> Syfy is a very carefully made decision that will not "end badly". It will serve its purpose, and accomplish its aims.
> 
> Neither, actually.


hummm, personally doubt this big time but we will see I suppose. They are on a fast train to bankruptcy, and accomplishing this seems more likely... lets see what happens.


----------



## jadebox

bicker1 said:


> Syfy is a very carefully made decision that will not "end badly".


That statement actually made me laugh. 

"Siffy" is such as silly name, it could not have been very well thought out.

I really doubt, however, that the name of a channel will have much effect on how many people watch the channel. It will depend on the programming.

I think most people, especially the ones with digital programming guides and DVRs (i.e. the ones watching cable channels), choose what to watch because of the specific program. They don't just leave their set tuned to one channel.

So, although it makes me grumble, it doesn't really matter if "Murder She Wrote" is on the Biography channel or that TV Land runs crappy reality shows.

-- Roger


----------



## dreadlk

Jadebox I have to totally disagree, the name of a channel is just like the name on any other product, it means a lot!

If you call a channel the "Romance Channel" that would make 98% of men skip over it like a pile of dooo on the ground. Call it the "SEX Channel" and men cant click there fast enough. 



jadebox said:


> That statement actually made me laugh.
> 
> "Siffy" is such as silly name, it could not have been very well thought out.
> 
> I really doubt, however, that the name of a channel will have much effect on how many people watch the channel. It will depend on the programming.
> 
> I think most people, especially the ones with digital programming guides and DVRs (i.e. the ones watching cable channels), choose what to watch because of the specific program. They don't just leave their set tuned to one channel.
> 
> So, although it makes me grumble, it doesn't really matter if "Murder She Wrote" is on the Biography channel or that TV Land runs crappy reality shows.
> 
> -- Roger


----------



## dreadlk

If they want to move to a broader market why not change the name to something that does not pin them to Science fiction at all!

Trust me on this one, there are a group of people who keep watching the numbers and they are desperetly trying every little thing to see how they can get the numbers up. SYFY is just another attempt, it's stupid and shows that the management has dissintegrated into a set of idiots.

Thats the problem with this most of this Generation, they don't really Plan and think out things, then stick to it and make it work even if that takes lots of time and effort. Instead they expect instant success and they try to watch numbers in real time and keep adjusting every parameter in a hit and miss fashion until they either get success or most times wreck the thing completely.



Church AV Guy said:


> While I have to agree with much of what you said, I think your knee-jerk statement is incorrect, and you give the proof of that in the rest of your post. The move to Syfy is NOT a knee jerk reaction, but a carefully planned transition that started three or more years ago, to move the channel away from the Sci-Fi niche market into a broader one. You give ample evidence that this has been going on, even planned, for three years at least.


----------



## bicker1

JJJBBB said:


> They are on a fast train to bankruptcy...


Where did you get that crazy idea? :lol:



jadebox said:


> That statement actually made me laugh.


No where near as much as I was laughing at the baseless opinion it was in reply to.



jadebox said:


> "Siffy" is such as silly name, it could not have been very well thought out.


Syfy is a good name, and it was very well thought out. What are you talking about?



jadebox said:


> I really doubt, however, that the name of a channel will have much effect on how many people watch the channel.


Okay, so you agree with my earlier statement.



jadebox said:


> It will depend on the programming.


Absolutely 100% correct. If they appeal to a broad audience, then they'll probably do well. If they appeal to a small audience, then they probably won't.



jadebox said:


> I think most people, especially the ones with digital programming guides and DVRs (i.e. the ones watching cable channels), choose what to watch because of the specific program. They don't just leave their set tuned to one channel.


Absolutely! That's really the main reason why a channel like Spike went after Star Trek in the first place. They knew that television viewers are as disloyal as mass-market consumers are, and will simply follow the programs they want to see, without any regard whatsoever to what channel they're on. The real advantage of Syfy is that they now will be able to better capitalize on their viewers by getting them involved in the programs they like in new and different ways.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> If they want to move to a broader market why not change the name to something that does not pin them to Science fiction at all!


Because after considering all the options (which, of course, included keeping the existing name, switching to Syfy, and switching to something else, including names that were even more generic), they determined that the *best* option was "Syfy". It evidently holds the best promise of serving *their objectives* better than the alternatives.



dreadlk said:


> SYFY is just another attempt, it's stupid and shows that the management has dissintegrated into a set of idiots.


Or rather, it is a very smart idea, and you don't like it, and so you're going to say it is an idiotic idea, even though there really is no reason to believe what you're saying.


----------



## dreadlk

I am not sure if you have something to do with Sci-Fi themselves, and that would honestly be a good thing if someone with inside contacts was here to relay to them what people on this forum think. I would say to you, look at the overwhelming direction that most of these replies have gone, does it sound like people like the idea of the name SyFy? Do we like the direction the station is heading in? These are all things that they should sit back and consider, because I would bet my house that if you go onto any other forum discussing the name SyFy you will probably see the same type of responses.



bicker1 said:


> Because after considering all the options (which, of course, included keeping the existing name, switching to Syfy, and switching to something else, including names that were even more generic), they determined that the *best* option was "Syfy". It evidently holds the best promise of serving *their objectives* better than the alternatives.
> 
> Or rather, it is a very smart idea, and you don't like it, and so you're going to say it is an idiotic idea, even though there really is no reason to believe what you're saying.


----------



## JJJBBB

They are on a fast train to bankruptcy, and accomplishing this seems more likely... lets see what happens.

(quote=bicker1) Where did you get that crazy idea? :lol:

I've bookmarked this for the day! See ya then! :hurah:


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> I am not sure if you have something to do with Sci-Fi themselves


As a general rule, professionals never participate in online discussions that have anything to do with what they do for a living, without identifying themselves as such, very clearly. I have followed the code-of-conduct during my almost 25 years online, even withholding posting entirely (though still reading discussions) during a 5 year period while I worked as a certifying authority, which had stringent rules against publishing perspectives, even anonymously. You can therefore assume that any institution I post about is an institution that I either never had a legal relationship to, or no longer have a legal relationship to.

Thanks for asking though! :goodjob:



dreadlk said:


> and that would honestly be a good thing if someone with inside contacts was here to relay to them what people on this forum think.


What I do know is how little value non-normalized data has. It would more more likely for lightning to strike the same person three times than it would be for any set of a couple of dozen discussion forum members to be representative of any significant customer-base.



dreadlk said:


> I would say to you, look at the overwhelming direction that most of these replies have gone


Discussion forums are a fantastic foundation for over-the-top curmudgeony. People find other people who have the same niche perspectives as they do, and then by mirroring off each other, foster a descending spiral of perspective, which often has little to do with reality.

What's really fun is to watch what happens with two groups opposing groups, like fans of HD-DVD and fans of Blu-ray: As communities grew up around each set of fans, you could watch their perspectives get progressively more extreme, with regard to extolling their preferred format over that of the other format.

Talk is cheap, though. All that matters is what people do.



dreadlk said:


> does it sound like people like the idea of the name SyFy?


Many people here don't. It is okay to not like change. It is okay to not like the prospect that that change might make things more amenable for other people but less amenable for you.



dreadlk said:


> Do we like the direction the station is heading in?


And if you owned the station, you could do something about it. As it is, what you can do is decide whether to watch or not. If enough people feel as you do, then it would make a difference. However, we really don't have any way of knowing whether that is going to be the case, because all we have is your gut-feel and mine. Of course, NBC/U actually did a lot of research, so they actually have a lot stronger foundation for their perspective on this than we do. Good thing, for them, eh?



dreadlk said:


> These are all things that they should sit back and consider


Why would you even entertain the thought that they didn't? Do *you* work there? 



dreadlk said:


> because I would bet my house that if you go onto any other forum discussing the name SyFy you will probably see the same type of responses.


Of course. That's the nature of the Internet. I can count on one hand the number of threads I've read this week which were about what a company is doing where the context of the thread was overwhelmingly positive, while the number of critical threads probably exceed 100. It is perfectly normal and to be expected.


----------



## bicker1

JJJBBB said:


> They are on a fast train to bankruptcy, and accomplishing this seems more likely... lets see what happens.
> 
> (quote=bicker1) Where did you get that crazy idea? :lol:
> 
> I've bookmarked this for the day! See ya then! :hurah:


Gosh I appreciate your confidence that I could actually live *that *long! 

Just checking: Are you aware that they company made $15 billion (that's with a 'b') in 2007 (the last year for which data is available)? I doubt little old Syfy is going to put enough of a dent into the company's revenues to cause bankruptcy.


----------



## phrelin

Actually, 2008 they made $3 billion in profit on $16 billion in revenue (NBCU). From the GE annual report:


> NBC UNIVERSAL earned about $3 billion last year. It's likely to be down in 2009, as we expect the network environment to be particularly tough. But cable, more than 60% of our earnings, is going to continue to be a source of strength, building on its ratings success in 2008. Our movie business has already invested in new films for next year, which will also support DVD sales. Our strengths are good content, a strong cable focus, and international distribution. Jeff Zucker and his team have done a great job in repositioning NBC Universal to win in the rapidly changing media landscape.


There is no breakdown on the different cable channels.


----------



## bicker1

Thanks for the update. :up:

So in a down year, they actually made an additional billion dollars in revenue. Interesting. Sounds like they have some pretty smart people there.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Are you aware that they company made $15 billion (that's with a 'b') in 2007


And what did GM make in years leading up to bankruptcy? What about the other huge companies and banks that failed? How many Billion did Bernie Madoff rake in before it all fell in on him?


----------



## bicker1

Do you have a point? Are you saying that all companies that make profit are going to go bankrupt soon? Presumably, that means that all companies currently in bankruptcy will be the ones left profitable? How does any of that make sense?


----------



## SayWhat?

JJJBBB said:


> They are on a fast train to bankruptcy,





bicker1 said:


> Are you aware that they company made $15 billion


You said that as if it guaranteed they would not suffer losses. I merely countered with examples that show huge revenues do not guarantee against bankruptcy.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> You said that as if it guaranteed they would not suffer losses.


Uh, no I didn't. 

I do admit that something like that would have been easier for you to argue against though. Regardless, please stick to replying to what I actually post; Thanks!


----------



## SayWhat?

Bottom line is that I don't care if they survive or not. I don't watch the channel that much. I watch programs I like without regard to the channel they're on. I have no loyalty to any channel, but I think the name change is silly and it will cost them name recognition, identity and at least some viewer loyalty.


----------



## bicker1

I don't care if they survive either. In the end, the push for retail _a la carte_ is *actually *going to matter, in terms of what programming is available to us, while the only significant impact of this name change will be NBC/U's ability to capitalize (monetize) their asset.


----------



## tsmacro

dcowboy7 said:


> 1. USA 3,353
> 2. DSNY 2,625
> 3. TNT 2,241
> 4. FOXN 2,132
> 5. AMC 1,728
> 6. NAN 1,611
> 7. TBSC 1,494
> 8. TOON 1,377
> 9. DISC 1,354
> 10. HGTV 1,325
> 11. FAM 1,296
> 12. A&E 1,275
> 13. FX 1,245
> 14. TLC 1,231
> 15. HIST 1,207
> 16. FOOD 1,169
> 17. LIFE 1,161
> 18. ESPN 1,129
> 19. TRU 1,018
> *20. SCIF 1,008*


Yeah Sci-Fi is consistently rated as one of the top 20 satellite/cable networks, sometimes even as high as top 10 from time to time. Not bad when there's how many of these channels these days? I know Dish network's Everything Pack has something like 300 I believe. So that puts Sci-Fi consistently in the top 5 to 10 % of channels out there. Will them becoming Syfy make them top 10 more consistently? Only time will tell on that one.


----------



## rebkell

tsmacro said:


> Yeah Sci-Fi is consistently rated as one of the top 20 satellite/cable networks, sometimes even as high as top 10 from time to time. Not bad when there's how many of these channels these days? I know Dish network's Everything Pack has something like 300 I believe. So that puts Sci-Fi consistently in the top 5 to 10 % of channels out there. Will them becoming Syfy make them top 10 more consistently? Only time will tell on that one.


Better programming will put them in the top 10 consistently, personally I doubt a name change will do anything for them. Better or more popular programming will, a name change might get you a few viewers(or lose a few), but people have got to like what they see or they won't stick around.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I know Dish network's Everything Pack has something like 300 I believe.


Many of those are shopping and other nonsense channels. There's less than 100 worthwhile channels.


----------



## solmakou

SayWhat? said:


> Many of those are shopping and other nonsense channels. There's less than 100 worthwhile channels.


I've had customers cuss me over religious programming, shopping channels, public interest channels, and more. I promise every channel has a demographic, some may be so far removed from your line of thinking that you don't consider it worthwhile, but somewhere someone is watching that channel and paying good money to do so.

What I would like to see to fix that particular issue is al a cart programming, I despise the contractual obligations to carry channels in groups. Just because I enjoy watching one viacom channel doesn't mean I want to watch the others.


----------



## dcowboy7

tsmacro said:


> Yeah Sci-Fi is consistently rated as one of the top 20 satellite/cable networks, sometimes even as high as top 10 from time to time. Not bad when there's how many of these channels these days? I know Dish network's Everything Pack has something like 300 I believe. So that puts Sci-Fi consistently in the top 5 to 10 % of channels out there. Will them becoming Syfy make them top 10 more consistently? Only time will tell on that one.


Yea but scifi's programming costs more than alot of channels (like vh-1 classic etc) so it should rank higher.


----------



## bicker1

rebkell said:


> Better programming will put them in the top 10 consistently


Maybe, maybe not. It is nice to hope that would be true, but there is no guarantee. Indeed, I would instead bet that some of the directions that some folks in this thread would direct Syfy, specifically towards programming that is more closely aligned with their vision of a purer science fiction-oriented channel, would actually *drop* the channel below #20... spending more, and getting less revenue.

However, even if pursuing one of those directions some folks in this thread want them to pursue would improve their ratings from #20 to #10, does the difference between #20 and #10 represent enough additional revenue to justify the cost associated with accomplishing that climb? If not, then it would be stupid to pursue one of those directions.



rebkell said:


> personally I doubt a name change will do anything for them.


People keep saying this, but it is physically impossible. The name change unequivocally *will* provide them a trade-mark. Even if it is only worth 1c more, it is still 1c more.

And beyond that, the Hawthorne effect alone could justify the name change and account for a substantial boost in revenues that they wouldn't have been able to capitalize otherwise, almost surely even in excess of any down-side anyone in this thread has posited.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Being able to trademark their channel name doesn't gain them anything in and of itself. Are they going to sell t-shirts and hate now that they weren't selling before?

All changing to a name they can tradmark does is keep another channel from launching with the same name... but then, has there been a rush to launch other "SciFi" named channels since their inception?

Perhaps "Syfy" will provide less customer-confusion compared to the "Science Channel"... but was that proving to be a point of consumer confusion?

In the end, good or bad, having a unique name that you can trademark really doesn't mean anything in terms of financials in and of itself.

IF people like the new name, then it might help... if people hate it, then it might hurt... but only time will tell on those points. Also, changing the channel name at all (good or bad) can lead to consumer confusion.

I worked for a company that re-branded products a couple of times during my tenure... and often, even if the new names were liked it still led more to customer confusion who wanted to buy the product they liked and trusted but were no longer sure which product to buy under the new names.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> Being able to trademark their channel name doesn't gain them anything in and of itself.


True, but building a brand and branding assets does hold promise of there being value, contrary to the implications that doing so does not represent any potential value.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Are they going to sell t-shirts and hate now that they weren't selling before?


Did you read the press release?



Stewart Vernon said:


> All changing to a name they can tradmark does is keep another channel from launching with the same name...


Again, you really *need *to read the press release.



Stewart Vernon said:


> In the end, good or bad, having a unique name that you can trademark really doesn't mean anything in terms of financials in and of itself.


This seems redundant with what you said earlier; again, the point is that it probably does mean something in terms of financials, though not "in and of itself".



Stewart Vernon said:


> IF people like the new name, then it might help... if people hate it, then it might hurt...


The former is likely; the latter is very unlikely. The worst impact, overall, is probably closer to no impact, with the average impact therefore almost surely positive.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I worked for a company that re-branded products a couple of times during my tenure... and often, even if the new names were liked it still led more to customer confusion who wanted to buy the product they liked and trusted but were no longer sure which product to buy under the new names.


Our company rebranded my product about a year after release, and it helped our sales finally pick-up. A more sexy product name can make a big, big difference.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> I worked for a company that re-branded products a couple of times during my tenure... and often, even if the new names were liked it still led more to customer confusion who wanted to buy the product they liked and trusted but were no longer sure which product to buy under the new names.


You can see that in Dish's renaming of their channel packages.


----------



## jeffshoaf

dreadlk said:


> Jadebox I have to totally disagree, the name of a channel is just like the name on any other product, it means a lot!
> 
> If you call a channel the "Romance Channel" that would make 98% of men skip over it like a pile of dooo on the ground. Call it the "SEX Channel" and men cant click there fast enough.


OK, so what does "Syfy" make you think of? Both "Romance Channel" and "Sex Channel" tell you what to expect when you go there. So does "SciFi." "Syfy" doesn't tell me anything - it's a nonsense word.

And, to beat a dead horse just a bit more, I wouldn't expect to find wrestling on the "Romance Channel" or the "SciFi Channel," and would only expect a certain type of "_wrestling_" on the "Sex Channel!"


----------



## trainman

I expect to find vulpine competition on Fox Sports Net.
I expect to find plenty of patriotic programming on USA Network.
I expect to find nothing but special effects on FX.
I expect to find gambling shows on BET.
I expect to find volleyball, or railroad-building, on Spike.
I expect to find shows about commercial artwork on Logo.


----------



## bicker1

Is no one concerned that the American Broadcasting Company is showing "I Survived a Japanese Game Show"?


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> Is no one concerned that the American Broadcasting System is showing "I Survived a Japanese Game Show"?


Hmmm... I just checked my program guide. No "ABS" is listed - does DirecTV carry it?


----------



## Drew2k

jeffshoaf said:


> OK, so what does "Syfy" make you think of? Both "Romance Channel" and "Sex Channel" tell you what to expect when you go there. So does "SciFi." "Syfy" doesn't tell me anything - it's a nonsense word.
> 
> And, to beat a dead horse just a bit more, I wouldn't expect to find wrestling on the "Romance Channel" or the "SciFi Channel," and would only expect a certain type of "_wrestling_" on the "Sex Channel!"


Not one of the following names gives me a clue about what the channels is about ... why should Syfy be any different?

FX
Spike
Logo
TNT
USA

(There are more - I got tired of browsing the guide.)


----------



## Supramom2000

There is a whole page in the 29 Jun issue of TV Guide explaining the SyFy. According to the article, as someone above suggested, fan reaction has ranged from suspicion to outrage. They have not heard any good opinions. It appears that most loyal fans think it is a signal of an official move away from science fiction.

According to channel president Dave Howe: "this wasn't an option, it was a mandate. We made a commitment to grow into a global lifestyle brand. Sci Fi is a genre. The new name positions us as having our own attitude and personality." I cut and pasted bits, this is the gist of it.

As far as how they chose the name, whoever said they put a lot of thought into it appears to be wrong: "We literally explored every single name out there. It's a very difficult exercise because these days, to name something and get the URL and trademark it, nine times out of 10 you have to invent a word or misspell something," he says, citing Hulu as an example. "That's how we got Syfy."


----------



## SayWhat?

Supramom2000 said:


> There is a whole page in the 29 Jun issue of TV Guide


TVG still has a print version?

I dropped it almost 10 years ago because it was mostly ads and I couldn't make sense out of the grids anymore. In the 70's and 80's it was worth every penny. By the late 90's it wasn't worth much more than a penny.


----------



## Supramom2000

SayWhat? said:


> TVG still has a print version?
> 
> I dropped it almost 10 years ago because it was mostly ads and I couldn't make sense out of the grids anymore. In the 70's and 80's it was worth every penny. By the late 90's it wasn't worth much more than a penny.


Well there are not many ads these days, but lots of interviews and gossip and spoilers. I really enjoy reading the interviews especially. And they always highlight when a new series is to premier or when a returning one is going to air. It helps me keep my To Do list organized!! Plus I like looking at the pretty pictures!! Like Jeffrey Donovan on the cover.


----------



## bicker1

Supramom2000 said:


> According to channel president Dave Howe: "this wasn't an option, it was a mandate. We made a commitment to grow into a global *lifestyle* brand. Sci Fi is [just] a genre. The new name positions us as having our own attitude and personality." I cut and pasted bits, this is the gist of it.


This is really a good crystallization of the issue. They are essentially trying to replicate what MTV did. There are loads of people who whine about MTV not showing music videos, or really playing much music at all. That's because MTV is much more successful as the touch-point for, as Howe put it, a "lifestyle", rather than as a television version of a radio station. 

I'm very interested in seeing how Syfy is going to build a lifestyle brand.



Supramom2000 said:


> As far as how they chose the name, whoever said they put a lot of thought into it appears to be wrong: "We literally explored every single name out there...."


You've contradicted yourself. They did put a lot of thought into it. You perhaps don't like what they came up with, but the decision wasn't based on *your* personal preferences, but rather was based on *their* criteria, which included being able to trade-mark the word. That's a reflection of the *law*.


----------



## Supramom2000

bicker1 said:


> You've contradicted yourself. They did put a lot of thought into it. You perhaps don't like what they came up with, but the decision wasn't based on *your* personal preferences, but rather was based on *their* criteria, which included being able to trade-mark the word. That's a reflection of the *law*.


Not really. 1st, I don't watch Sci Fi except for Eureka. So I have no personal feelings one way or another. I don't watch BSG, never have. I tried to watch several shows on that channel and they just weren't for me. 2nd my point about not much thought was borne out when they said it came down to choosing a misspelling of the name. That really does not imply much thought at all, at least in my opinion.


----------



## bicker1

The contradiction I was referring to was questioning whether they thought this through or not.


----------



## Supramom2000

bicker1 said:


> The contradiction I was referring to was questioning whether they thought this through or not.


True, it appears that they actually contradicted themselves. They thought and searched and in the end decided on a misspelling. Seems a bit silly and definitely a gamble. But again, I don't really care, just making a personal judgement on something that I know absolutely NOTHING about!!


----------



## bicker1

I disagree. They were very consistent. They thought and searched and in the end decided on something that the law allowed them to trade-mark. Not silly at all. And as I've already pointed out, not much of a gamble.

But (and I'm sorry that this was so unclear) the *contradiction *that I was referring to was your assertion that they didn't think things through, while you also relayed how *they had* thought things through.


----------



## Supramom2000

bicker1 said:


> I disagree. They were very consistent. They thought and searched and in the end decided on something that the law allowed them to trade-mark. Not silly at all. And as I've already pointed out, not much of a gamble.
> 
> And the contradiction I was referring to what your assertion that they didn't think things through, but also relaying *that they had*.


Okay, you win.


----------



## bicker1

Okay, thanks, I guess.


----------



## dreadlk

SyFy says to me SciFi What else could it possibly say! It's the exact same word when said out loud!!
It just sounds like someone is trying to use the word Scifi but trying to make it fall under there own copyright.

At the end of the day it's a mistake, right now SciFi channel knows this, I am sure they are seeing the public reaction and our wishing they had thought this out better. Rebranding a well known product seldom works, most just fade into oblivion and the others either have huge cash reserves to advertise the hell out of it and get the public just as confident in the new as they where with the old OR they get wise and switch back before the Loses overwhelm them eg "New Coke" Since SyFy has no cash, we can assume they will just fade away, it's probably exactly what the parent company want's, I am not to sure that they ever did make money on SciFI channel.



jeffshoaf said:


> OK, so what does "Syfy" make you think of? Both "Romance Channel" and "Sex Channel" tell you what to expect when you go there. So does "SciFi." "Syfy" doesn't tell me anything - it's a nonsense word.
> 
> And, to beat a dead horse just a bit more, I wouldn't expect to find wrestling on the "Romance Channel" or the "SciFi Channel," and would only expect a certain type of "_wrestling_" on the "Sex Channel!"


----------



## SayWhat?

dreadlk said:


> SyFy says to me SciFi What else could it possibly say! It's the exact same word when said out loud!!


No, but I've already commented on that.


----------



## phrelin

dreadlk said:


> SyFy says to me SciFi What else could it possibly say! It's the exact same word when said out loud!!


Actually its Syfy which I immediately pronounced like "spiffy".

The problem I had with the "brand" is that they didn't capitalize the "f" (see how they spell it in their news release). It just looks like it should end rhyme with "spiffy" .

Frankly the only words beginning with "sy" I could think of were "sylph" and "synchronicity" which aren't pronounced with the long "i" sound like "silent". The only rhymes using a "y" as a long "i" preceded by an "s-sound" I could come up with are variations of "psych" and "cycle". They don't look like Syfy.

In popular American English had they used a capital "f" - the SyFy many see because they relate to SciFi - we might be visually prompted break it out to sound like Sci-Fi. That might have created less of a mental break.

But then there is their explanations that they are going to basically focus on *sci*ence (notice the consistent pronunciation for "sci"), both fiction and reality shows, and on fanta*sy* (notice the inconsistent pronunciation for "sy"), meaning "fanciful" which includes a broad set of works depending on shared imagination and suspension of belief, allowing for the horror and fairy tale genres (and which would apply to wrestling, of course!).

Obviously, I wasn't in their focus group testing this switch. And I had a lot time to waste doing an analysis.


----------



## SayWhat?

Considering some of the shows they're talking about, they may have been better off going with PsyFy.


----------



## JJJBBB

I got an idea... just leave the name alone for pete's sake, this is retarded!


----------



## Drew2k

If you watched SciFi for Eureka, Stargate, and BSG, are you now not going to watch the return of Eureka, and the premieres of Stargate:Universe and Caprica simply because the new name is Syfy? That's ridiculous - of course you won't. I see nothing but a lot of posturing in this thread, and for all the good it will do to get it off your chest, you're still going to watch.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'll still watch Eureka, and I will watch Caprica... but it looks like they are losing Doctor Who... and the direction indicates to me that they might not be looking to make more quality SciFi in the future as much as they want to broaden the base.

As it is, I tend to just watch Eureka or whatever show and then immediately turn to another channel... whereas some channels like USA or TNT I'll leave on and see something else I like.

SciFi is something of a drive-by channel for me. I watch what I watch because I heard about it elsewhere and tune in... then when my show is over, I go elsewhere for the rest of my TV viewing.

TNT and USA, as an example, have successfully gotten me to watch other shows and come back for more than just what drew me there.

With TNT I started watching NBA & eventually got sucked into the Closer, Leverage, and other similar shows. USA I started for the Dead Zone (now defunct) but enjoy Monk, Psych, and In Plain Sight now.


----------



## rebkell

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'll still watch Eureka, and I will watch Caprica... but it looks like they are losing Doctor Who... and the direction indicates to me that they might not be looking to make more quality SciFi in the future as much as they want to broaden the base.
> 
> As it is, I tend to just watch Eureka or whatever show and then immediately turn to another channel... whereas some channels like USA or TNT I'll leave on and see something else I like.
> 
> SciFi is something of a drive-by channel for me. I watch what I watch because I heard about it elsewhere and tune in... then when my show is over, I go elsewhere for the rest of my TV viewing.
> 
> TNT and USA, as an example, have successfully gotten me to watch other shows and come back for more than just what drew me there.
> 
> With TNT I started watching NBA & eventually got sucked into the Closer, Leverage, and other similar shows. USA I started for the Dead Zone (now defunct) but enjoy Monk, Psych, and In Plain Sight now.


I watch a lot of their SciFi original series, Stargates, BSG, Eureka, Painkiller Jane, couldn't handle Flash Gordon. Their original movies are usually just horrible though. I won't be bailing because of the name change and I'm looking forward to Caprica, Stargate Universe, Warehouse 13 and more Eureka, but other than that, they don't get much time.

There are a lot of good SciFi movies out there, I don't know if they're too expensive, but they seem to just swamp the airwaves with some really bad ones, and they seem to be the ones that they promote the most.

One of the things I hate the most is the censoring and bleeping of language on their movies. It seems funny that they advertise a movie as a SciFi original and then censor it and bleep it to death.


----------



## phrelin

Drew2k said:


> If you watched SciFi for Eureka, Stargate, and BSG, are you now not going to watch the return of Eureka, and the premieres of Stargate:Universe and Caprica simply because the new name is Syfy? That's ridiculous - of course you won't. I see nothing but a lot of posturing in this thread, and for all the good it will do to get it off your chest, you're still going to watch.


Of course we're going to watch. And they're going to keep announcing it as Sci-Fi, it just that stupid Syfy (sifee) going to be there on the screen in the lower right....:sure:


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'll still watch Eureka, and I will watch Caprica...


That's really all that is important.



Stewart Vernon said:


> but it looks like they are losing Doctor Who...


Which has nothing to do with this, and really nothing to do with Syfy at all: BBC wants to present one of its biggest shows on its own channel. It is surprising that it took them this long to pull their property back.



Stewart Vernon said:


> and the direction indicates to me that they might not be looking to make more quality SciFi in the future as much as they want to broaden the base.


Yes, it sure looks like they will aim more for quality than for Sci Fi, exclusively.



Stewart Vernon said:


> As it is, I tend to just watch Eureka or whatever show and then immediately turn to another channel... whereas some channels like USA or TNT I'll leave on and see something else I like.


Yes, and that's the same with any channel. I think you can rest assured that you're very typical in that regard.



Stewart Vernon said:


> TNT and USA, as an example, have successfully gotten me to watch other shows and come back for more than just what drew me there.


And you said that you're going to watch Caprica, so clearly Syfy is the same. I bet we'll be chatting together about Stargate Universe, next year.


----------



## mike1977

And hopefully chatting about it being on *The Scifi Channel*, brought back by popular demand. That is what I am imagining greater.


----------



## bicker1

Heheh.... I think it more likely that if we see another name change it will be even more generic, like "NBCU".


----------



## tsmacro

dreadlk said:


> Rebranding a well known product seldom works, most just fade into oblivion and the others either have huge cash reserves to advertise the hell out of it and get the public just as confident in the new as they where with the old OR they get wise and switch back before the Loses overwhelm them eg "New Coke" Since SyFy has no cash, we can assume they will just fade away, it's probably exactly what the parent company want's, I am not to sure that they ever did make money on SciFI channel.


Oh I doubt the logo change (which is what it is really) will really end up amounting to much. Oh sure it looks silly but the channel already is what it is no matter how you spell it. It's consistently rated as one of the top 20 channels out there so i'm sure they're doing fine adding $$$ to the bottom line of NBCU, actually from what i've heard the cable/satellite channels that NBCU owns do a much better job of making $$$ than the old network NBC (remember them, now the Jay Leno channel?) does. In the end no matter how many geeks chatter about it online in all reality i'm betting Sci-Fi's new logo Syfy ends up not really making much a difference at all one way or the other.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> And you said that you're going to watch Caprica, so clearly Syfy is the same. I bet we'll be chatting together about Stargate Universe, next year.


Actually, no. the only reason to watch Caprica is because I watched BSG. I never got into the various Stargate series.


----------



## phrelin

A passing thought. Wouldn't "FX" make a good name for a channel that focused on science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc.:grin:


----------



## bicker1

You'd think eh?


----------



## jadebox

bicker1 said:


> Syfy is a good name, and it was very well thought out. What are you talking about?


That's your opinion. But most people seem to agree with me that it's a very silly name. If any thought had gone into the process of choosing a new name for the channel, the new name would not have been "Syfy."

Sometimes a company adopts a silly name for good reasons - Yahoo, Hulu, etc.. But, I can't see any good reason for "Syfy." It's just plain silly.

Perhaps the controversy over the silly name will encourage a few people to tune to the channel for a minute to see what it's about. But, most people will just go "Siffy? Huh?" and wonder what genius thought that up.

-- Roger


----------



## Drew2k

jadebox said:


> That's your opinion. But most people seem to agree with me that it's a very silly name.


Yeah, it's pretty silly, but no sillier than Yahoo, or Google, or Hulu, or any of a dozen other made up words.



> If any thought had gone into the process of choosing a new name for the channel, the new name would not have been "Syfy."


There was a link upstream to an article explaining that there was an extensive search for a new name before this name was crafted and chosen to represent the network, so I'm not sure how you can not enough thought as given. But that's your opinion - I have the opposite one.



> Sometimes a company adopts a silly name for good reasons - Yahoo, Hulu, etc.. But, I can't see any good reason for "Syfy." It's just plain silly.


There was a good reason for "Google"? 



> Perhaps the controversy over the silly name will encourage a few people to tune to the channel for a minute to see what it's about. But, most people will just go "Siffy? Huh?" and wonder what genius thought that up.


Perhaps many of those same folks will then just take an additional moment after exploring the channel to find out what "siffy" is about will then realize it's Science Fiction, and will go, "Huh! Syfy is SciFi!"  It doesn't take a huge leap after all.


----------



## bicker1

jadebox said:


> That's your opinion.


Indeed; I was responding in the same manner as the message I was replying to.



jadebox said:


> But most people seem to agree with me that it's a very silly name.


You mean most people *here*. Most people, in general, *don't give a flying fig*. And agreeing is irrelevant anyway. All that matters is conduct. Talk is cheap, and meaningless. If you don't like the name so much that you feel you must do something, don't watch the channel. If enough people agree with you (  ) then maybe it will make a difference. Otherwise, it won't, and you'll just have to live with that.



jadebox said:


> If any thought had gone into the process of choosing a new name for the channel, the new name would not have been "Syfy."


No matter how many times you try to state such an outrageously self-motivated pronouncement as fact, that still will not make it true. You don't *like* the name. I get that. That's all there is to it, though. Nothing more.


----------



## trainman

Drew2k said:


> Yeah, it's pretty silly, but no sillier than Yahoo, or Google, or Hulu, or any of a dozen other made up words.


Yahoo was originally a made-up word, but that was way back in 1726 (with the publication of "Gulliver's Travels"); almost 300 years later, it does count as a legitimate English word, unlike "Hulu" and "Syfy." ("Google" is debatable, given its frequent use as a verb, although their lawyers are fighting desperately to keep that from happening.)

The company adopted the name as a result of looking through the dictionary for something starting with "ya," as in "Yet Another..." It was backronymed to "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle."


----------



## bicker1

Keep in mind that the law requires that a trademark be distinctive. There is a lot of case law that demonstrates how lack of distinctiveness results in the invalidating of a trademark claim.


----------



## Drew2k

trainman said:


> Yahoo was originally a made-up word, but that was way back in 1726 (with the publication of "Gulliver's Travels"); almost 300 years later, it does count as a legitimate English word, unlike "Hulu" and "Syfy." ("Google" is debatable, given its frequent use as a verb, although their lawyers are fighting desperately to keep that from happening.)
> 
> The company adopted the name as a result of looking through the dictionary for something starting with "ya," as in "Yet Another..." It was backronymed to "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle."


I definitely wasn't clear in my post, but I was using Yahoo as an example of a silly name, not a made-up name, whereas Google and Hulu were made up names that also sounded silly when they were introduced. Given repeated usage they sound perfectly normal today, or course.


----------



## jeffshoaf

Drew2k said:


> I definitely wasn't clear in my post, but I was using Yahoo as an example of a silly name, not a made-up name, whereas Google and Hulu were made up names that also sounded silly when they were introduced. Given repeated usage they sound perfectly normal today, or course.


"Google" is a deliberate misspelling of "googol," which is a very big number (10 to the 100th power).

I always assumed "Hulu" was a deriviative of "hulu-hoop."


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> "Google" is a deliberate misspelling of "googol," which is a very big number (10 to the 100th power).


Misspelling a real word is one way to ensure that a trademark is distinctive, as required by law.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Misspelling a real word is one way to ensure that a trademark is distinctive, as required by law.


Like Syfy?


----------



## bicker1

Imagine that.

QED.


----------



## trainman

bicker1 said:


> QED.


Wait, now we're talking about the PBS station in Pittsburgh?


----------



## phrelin

So I made the following comment only partly in jest:


phrelin said:


> A passing thought. Wouldn't "FX" make a good name for a channel that focused on science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc.:grin:


Then I read from Media & Cable:


> There is only one thing FX Networks President-General Manager John Landgraf doesn't have that could afford his network a shot at challenging his basic cable rivals for the top of the ratings chart: sports.
> 
> ...FX has a strong history in highly rated original series and a pipeline of new development ready to be tapped, but originals don't really move the needle, Landgraf says. FX can maintain its perch as the fifth-highest-rated basic cable network in core demos with its current strategy, but if the network is going to move up, it needs wrestling, playoff baseball, a Thursday package of NFL games, a NASCAR package-something. FX parent News Corp. looked at the Bowl Championship Series college football playoffs, with one scenario putting it on FX, but that didn't pan out. "It's going to be virtually impossible for FX to ever challenge TNT, TBS or USA without sports," Landgraf says.


Now I realize that ESPN makes a lot of money. But I must admit, I'm confused. What exactly is FSN owned by News Corp. and why does News Corp. need to offer more than what they have on Fox and FSN? And if there's an answer to that question that makes "big picture" sense, then Syfy logically should add Women's College Softball.:nono2:


----------



## bicker1

The answer rests in the likelihood that FX's leaders are driven by incentives associated with FX's own P&L.


----------



## bicker1

Another good example of a special interest channel broadening its appeal:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/307250-Discovery_Orders_Post_Apocalyptic_Reality_Series.php


----------



## paulman182

bicker1 said:


> Another good example of a special interest channel broadening its appeal:
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/307250-Discovery_Orders_Post_Apocalyptic_Reality_Series.php


The description doesn't make it sound like so much of a stretch. They'll be using practical scientific knowledge in a plausible future scenario, as I take it.

If they decide that the best way to survive in the post-apocalyptic world is by erecting a wrestling ring and throwing each other around, that'll be an example of "broadening."


----------



## jadebox

bicker1 said:


> No matter how many times you try to state such an outrageously self-motivated pronouncement as fact, that still will not make it true. You don't *like* the name. I get that. That's all there is to it, though. Nothing more.


Wow ... what an amazing over-reaction.

-- Roger


----------



## bicker1

jadebox said:


> Wow ... what an amazing over-reaction.


Yes, his comment surely was.


----------



## phrelin

paulman182 said:


> If they decide that the best way to survive in the post-apocalyptic world is by erecting a wrestling ring and throwing each other around, that'll be an example of "broadening."


:lol:Why do I think that decision is possible if it would make more money?


----------



## rebkell

phrelin said:


> :lol:Why do I think that decision is possible if it would make more money?


Or if even if they think that it would make more money. Everything is a gamble, short or long term. What works today, doesn't insure that it will tomorrow.


----------



## nickfrye

pfp said:


> Lets see...
> 
> Stargate - No
> ECW - Yes
> 
> Ok, call it whatever you want.


Hehe... :hurah: my thoughts exactly.


----------



## mike1977

Yuck!!! http://video.scifi.com/player/?id=1131680

*goes to Youtube to see the old bumpers*


----------



## dreadlk

At this point call it Sci-Fi or SyFy it does not matter, the channel itself is becoming irrelevant! 
This whole week has been 24/7 of just old twilight zone episodes which they have shown about 1000 times in the past.

LOL the funniest thing was watching the Discovery channels episode on Hitlers lost Stealth fighter. They must have shown about 10 Minutes off adds for the show while the show was actually on. Kind of stupid to advertise a show that people are watching. 

It does show how desperate things have become in the Advertising world, they now are throwing in anything to fill up those 15 Minutes.


----------



## Drew2k

With "Warehouse 13" and "Eureka" coming up, Syfy will still be a destination for me. I'm looking forward to them both ...


----------



## phrelin

Drew2k said:


> With "Warehouse 13" and "Eureka" coming up, Syfy will still be a destination for me. I'm looking forward to them both ...


Yeah, I just tried to schedule them both.... "Warehouse 13" has a 2:04 pilot and "Eureka" is a 1:03 premier. The new Syfy? Grumble, grumble.


----------



## bicker1

I'm also looking forward to Stargate Universe. 

Alice also looks very interesting.


----------



## SayWhat?

I was watching a Twilight Zone episode a little while ago and noticed the Siffey logo bug in the lower right corner.


----------



## rebkell

I'm looking forward to the Alice mini-series, Riverworld and the Phantom. I enjoyed Tin Man(of course I'm a Zooey fan), but thought it was pretty good.



> The new "Alice" promises to be different than previous incarnations (more than a few of which were produced by RHI). The project is written and directed by Nick Willing, who also did Sci Fi's highly rated "Wizard of Oz" revamp "Tin Man."
> http://geektyrant.com/2009/03/riverworld/


I'll definitely give them all a shot, would love to see more of these type things, and maybe have a series spin off if they are successful.


----------



## rebkell

dreadlk said:


> At this point call it Sci-Fi or SyFy it does not matter, the channel itself is becoming irrelevant!
> *This whole week has been 24/7 of just old twilight zone episodes which they have shown about 1000 times in the past.
> *
> LOL the funniest thing was watching the Discovery channels episode on Hitlers lost Stealth fighter. They must have shown about 10 Minutes off adds for the show while the show was actually on. Kind of stupid to advertise a show that people are watching.
> 
> It does show how desperate things have become in the Advertising world, they now are throwing in anything to fill up those 15 Minutes.


I agree completely about Twilight Zone, this seems completely over the top, even for SciFi, Twilight Zone episodes are running solid with the exception of a couple of two hour infomercial blocks until Sunday Morning.

They have plenty of good programming they could run, not that Twilight Zone is bad, but wall to wall 24x7(minus the few hours of infomercials) straight through until Sunday morning.  :down:


----------



## mike1977

What I am seeing on Scifi though is the newer Twilight Zone series in color (not the series that ran on UPN).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's been one of my gripes about SciFi.

For the shows they do make like Eureka (and when they used to have BSG) they hardly ever repeat them in the off-season... so it's almost impossible for a new viewer to catch up or start watching.

For as much as I love Twilight Zone... I'd like to see SciFi re-run more of its original series like Eureka in the off-seasons to help promote the show.

I know they do from time-t0-time have a marathon day or half-day... but that's too easy to miss... much better if they ran some one-night-a-week repeats for a few months. Last season of Eureka, for example, ran only 8 episodes... so after 2 months it was done and back into limbo again until this summer when it is coming back. That's far too little exposure for a good show.


----------



## rebkell

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's been one of my gripes about SciFi.
> 
> For the shows they do make like Eureka (and when they used to have BSG) they hardly ever repeat them in the off-season... so it's almost impossible for a new viewer to catch up or start watching.
> 
> For as much as I love Twilight Zone... I'd like to see SciFi re-run more of its original series like Eureka in the off-seasons to help promote the show.
> 
> I know they do from time-t0-time have a marathon day or half-day... but that's too easy to miss... much better if they ran some one-night-a-week repeats for a few months. Last season of Eureka, for example, ran only 8 episodes... so after 2 months it was done and back into limbo again until this summer when it is coming back. That's far too little exposure for a good show.


I've kept an eye on the Eureka listings like a hawk and they have repeated the first 8 episodes of Season 3.0(I guess that's what they are calling it) 3 or 4 times lately, but only one time did they ever show anything else, and that was the final two episodes of season #2, I gobbled them up on my Hauppauge HDPVR quickly. I have always wanted to see the first two season in HD and as far as I know they have yet to show any of them, other than those two eps I just mentioned.

BSG, Eureka, even Sanctuary has been completely abandoned after it's initial run, don't think I've seen any repeats since the final episode of Season #1. Dresden Files, Painkiller Jane(I'm alone on that one, but I really enjoyed that show). They sure do wear out SG1 though, and they used to show Atlantis a lot, but it's not as often as it was.

They could run original programming a lot, but instead they opt for old series over and over even in their all day marathons. Tru Calling, Twilight Zone, The Sentinel, Dark Angel and a few others ad nauseum. I always thought they would have better luck with LOST around 7:00 pm nightly, instead they run it at 4:00 pm and 1:00 am. Of course, all this is my personal preferences, but still I have to believe they could schedule a bit more quality and run some series from start to finish on a daily basis and pick up some viewers that would like to watch or rewatch a show in order.


----------



## mike1977

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's been one of my gripes about SciFi.
> 
> For the shows they do make like Eureka (and when they used to have BSG) they hardly ever repeat them in the off-season... so it's almost impossible for a new viewer to catch up or start watching.
> 
> For as much as I love Twilight Zone... I'd like to see SciFi re-run more of its original series like Eureka in the off-seasons to help promote the show.
> 
> I know they do from time-t0-time have a marathon day or half-day... but that's too easy to miss... much better if they ran some one-night-a-week repeats for a few months. Last season of Eureka, for example, ran only 8 episodes... so after 2 months it was done and back into limbo again until this summer when it is coming back. That's far too little exposure for a good show.


I agree, they need to drop the weekday marathons and run them only once in a while and put older shows back on with a M-F schedule, showing only once per day.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's been one of my gripes about SciFi. For the shows they do make like Eureka (and when they used to have BSG) they hardly ever repeat them in the off-season... so it's almost impossible for a new viewer to catch up or start watching. For as much as I love Twilight Zone... I'd like to see SciFi re-run more of its original series like Eureka in the off-seasons to help promote the show.


Overexposure degrades value. The more they run Eureka now, on television, the less NBC/U makes on the DVDs, and the less NBC/U can make in later syndication. It is a bit like taking a canteen of water on a hike. You could drink practically all of it in the first few tenths of a mile, but then you'll be thirsty half-way through the hike, and won't have much water left.


----------



## Wire Paladin

bicker1 said:


> Overexposure degrades value. The more they run Eureka now, on television, the less NBC/U makes on the DVDs, and the less NBC/U can make in later syndication. It is a bit like taking a canteen of water on a hike. You could drink practically all of it in the first few tenths of a mile, but then you'll be thirsty half-way through the hike, and won't have much water left.


In most cases that's true. However there are exceptions. Take NCIS on USA. They started showing it 3 hours a day on weekdays and the fanbase built. This help build the audience when new episodes are being shown on CBS and the show became a bigger hit after 6 seasons. For a long time NCIS got no respect from CBS. They do now.


----------



## bicker1

Being an example of what you outlined (we picked up NCIS on CBS only because we liked it when we started watching it on USA), I cannot disagree with the premise that sometimes there are significant advantages along the lines you've outlined. However, the scenario you outlined used a cable channel to promote a broadcast channel series. Here we're talking about using a cable channel to promote itself. I'm not sure that really is the same thing.

Beyond that, hasn't Sci-Fi already run Eureka marathons? Wouldn't there be complaints about them repeating Eureka so much, on the part of Twilight Zone fans, if they spent this weekend running a Eureka marathon, instead? Especially since there are only 26 episodes of Eureka to run, so they'd basically have to run every episode twice to fill the marathon out. I don't see a single duplicate in the Twilight Zone marathon.


----------



## SayWhat?

I don't understand the point of marathons at all unless every episode is different. I've seen some where they run the same five or six episodes several times back to back.

Speaking of which; [sideline] what is the point of running the same movie back to back two or three times a night? And what about HMC running the same four hour movie (Supernova) three nights in a row? [/sideline]


----------



## bicker1

Re-running the same movie two or three times makes sense, if you figure that some people will be available to watch it a 8PM and others available to watch it at 11PM. It all has to to do with viewer's individual personal schedules. 

Of course, with a DVR, the DVR is always ready to "watch" something. By the same token, even DVRs have busy schedules sometimes, and so a conflict might "force" a DVR to only be able to "watch" something either at the earlier or at the later time. However, clearly, serving the needs of devices that can be readily used to skip commercials is reasonably a secondary priority for networks (if even that).


----------



## tsmacro

Syfy declares independence from its old name

Cable networks have to work extra-hard to establish their brands, unlike broadcast networks such as ABC, NBC and CBS, whose longevity and prominence makes them difficult to miss.

Through creative advertising campaigns -- not to mention noteworthy shows -- cable networks such as TNT, FX, USA and lately AMC have established their identities with the public. We tend to know what we'll be getting when we tune in to those channels: crafty escapism on USA, sophisticated storytelling on FX, mainstream procedurals on TNT and urbane, cinematic drama on AMC.

So why would an established cable network mess with a good thing?

For Sci Fi-which changes its name to Syfy Tuesday-it's a matter of survival.

See the rest here: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/07/sci-fi-syfy-name-warehouse-13.html


----------



## SayWhat?

> For Sci Fi-which changes its name to Syfy Tuesday-it's a matter of survival.


Changing from an established, well known moniker that actually means something to a disassociated collection of letters is no guarantee of survival.



> cinematic drama on AMC.


AMC is still on? I stopped watching that channel and deleted it from my channel scan when they betrayed their audience by running commercials.


----------



## Drew2k

SayWhat? said:


> Changing from an established, well known moniker that actually means something to a disassociated collection of letters is no guarantee of survival.


I read the article and didn't see any statements from Syfy that they thought this would guarantee their survival, they are just looking to improve their odds by using a name they can trademark.



> We expected fans not to like it. The reaction from fans always same default reaction-it's that we're going to abandon the genre," Howe said. "This isn't want that's about."


It's quite a good article, with lots of background and quite a bit about the direction Syfy will be heading.


----------



## BubblePuppy

A rose by any other name...still has thorns.


----------



## bicker1

The article is actually quite good at explaining the name change, and as if justification was necessary, justifying it -- if folks reading the article are actually inclined to accept anything that shakes their strongly-held animosity towards the change, of course. Some folks, for their own, completely respectable, reasons, simply don't like this change, and no amount of rational logic can, or should, shake them from that perspective.


----------



## dcowboy7

SayWhat? said:


> AMC is still on? I stopped watching that channel and deleted it from my channel scan when they betrayed their audience by running commercials.


I dont get the anti-commercial stuff....just DVR and FF thru them....whats that take like 15-20 seconds....big woop !!


----------



## bicker1

Well, I can understand not liking commercials, even though there is the ability to quickly skip commercials with DVRs, but what I don't get is the use of the word "betrayal". That seems like such an emotion-loaded description for something that really is just a business decision.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I agree overexposure can kill value and hurt their DVD sales too... but underexposure has the same effect.

If you miss the once-in-a-blue-moon marathon day of Eureka you can't watch them at all.. so you might see the DVDs in the store, but are clueless about the show.

I bought Firefly, for example, after SciFi started running them on Fridays a couple of years back. Had they ran a marathon I might have missed it entirely... but running weekly for a couple of months got exposure and I then bought the DVD. (Yeah, I know it was not Universal that made money on that DVD purchase).

I have tried to tell people about Eureka, but they can't find it to watch and aren't willing to pony up for DVDs of past seasons of a show they've never watched just in case they like it.

In the olden days we used to have far too many repeats of shows... now we often have far too little.

The marathons of Twilight Zone on holiday weekends are kind of cool.. I'm perfectly ok with that kind of thing. I just wish they would throw in more single-night repeats of their programming.


----------



## mike1977

Check this out! http://www.otherworldsandlands.com I hope it doesn't end up like the Horror Channel that was supposed to come out a long time ago...not to be seen on Dish or Directv.


----------



## phrelin

mike1977 said:


> Check this out! http://www.otherworldsandlands.com I hope it doesn't end up like the Horror Channel that was supposed to come out a long time ago...not to be seen on Dish or Directv.


It sounds great in principle. I wrote a blog post in April Proposal: A Scripted TV Premium Cable Network that suggested something similar though a broader in subject matter and a different approach to daytime tv. It takes startup capital. I'm interested in the idea, obviously.


----------



## paulman182

dcowboy7 said:


> I dont get the anti-commercial stuff....just DVR and FF thru them....whats that take like 15-20 seconds....big woop !!


Yeah, what's hard is seeing the parts they edit out!


----------



## phrelin

From The Live Feed:


> Sci Fi digital exec Craig Engler has taken to Twitter to try and pour some soothing network logic onto the inflamed geek fandom regarding the company's name change to Syfy (which is tomorrow, btw). Here's some of Engler's Tweets (@syfy) from the past week where he gamely restates and answers hand-picked fan questions (basically, variations on "Whhhhhhy!?"). The Tweets have been edited here into a Q&A format (oh, and here's SyFy's new two-minute brand change expensive-looking promotional video).


You'll have to go to the link to see what he says in 140 characters or less.


----------



## Drew2k

That was an awesome promotional video! I especially loved the MC Escher staircase scene. :up:

I recognized actors from Warehouse 13, Sanctuary, Eureka, and Scare Factor but I'm sure I missed several other series. It does look like they spent quite a bit on the video!


----------



## dreadlk

SciFi says that they are getting the usual geekdom response, "We are goint to stop watching if you do this" Nothing new, they are moving head because if they listened to the Internet geeks they would have never made BSG.

NEWS FLASH:
People are really moving away, thats why you guys are having so many problems trying to get good ratings. I know that I personaly used to watch about 4-5 hours of Scifi per week, and since BSG ended I have watched about 3 or 4 old SG1 episodes in the last 2 months.

I wish Mark Cuban could buy out the Scifi channel, that guy seems to understand what Tech people want to watch. Just a pitty he has no money to make real shows.


----------



## mike1977

Yeah, it's a nice promotional video...just disgusted that it's replacing The Scifi Channel.

Well, it's the last night and time to sing...

Na na na na na na na na HEY HEY HEY GOODBYE!


----------



## Drew2k

Sour grapes make lousy whine.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> SciFi says that they are getting the usual geekdom response, "We are goint to stop watching if you do this"


And ignoring as they should. Talk is cheap, and the channel remains a Top 20 cable network.



dreadlk said:


> I wish Mark Cuban could buy out the Scifi channel, that guy seems to understand what Tech people want to watch. Just a pitty he has no money to make real shows.


Because he actually doesn't know what people want to watch. His channel is being dropped by service providers because it appeals too much to too narrow of a group of viewers.


----------



## SayWhat?

> (CNN) -- Dave Howe, the president of the Sci Fi Channel, knows that many people will be upset.
> 
> "Warehouse 13" "epitomizes the new Syfy," says the channel's president.
> 
> On Tuesday, the Sci Fi Channel changes its name to Syfy -- pronounced "sigh-fie," the same as the current name -- a moniker that's attracted its share of mockery since its announcement three months ago. The idea is to expand Sci Fi's audience, but some members of that audience have expressed their displeasure.
> 
> "Perhaps the most ill-advised branding move since New Coke," wrote CNet's "Digital City" blogger Dan Ackerman.
> 
> Even some of Sci Fi's own SciFi.com commenters were dismissive.
> 
> "This is a terrible idea," Grateful Josh wrote.
> 
> "You mean the announcement wasn't an April Fool's joke?" Sue Lee asked, adding that the channel should have changed its name to "FRAK," a common expletive on Sci Fi's popular "Battlestar Galactica." Some critics have taken to pronouncing the new name "Siffy."





> Marketing expert Rachel C. Weingarten, who was part of the team that helped turn TNN into Spike, says the network's old name wasn't attracting the key male demographic or the advertiser dollars that came with it.
> 
> "With the way it was, nobody was excited," she recalled. Changing the name to Spike gave the network visibility and -- thanks to more programming of action movies and combat-oriented shows -- more appeal to men.
> 
> "Viewers weren't embarrassed to have a beer and ... talk about [the shows]," she said.
> 
> She praised TLC, USA, HGTV and the Turner networks of TNT and TBS for cleverly and pointedly redefining themselves. (The latter two are units of Time Warner, as is CNN.) Having initials that can mean everything -- or nothing -- helps, she adds. "When you have really clever initials, you can do what you want."
> 
> However, she cautioned, she's not convinced that changing Sci Fi into Syfy is a good idea.
> 
> "I think they're trying too hard," she said. "Also, the timing's unfortunate." With the struggling economy, advertisers are taking more of a wait-and-see approach to buying spots, she said, and so the changeover may not get the marketing support it should.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/06/scifi.syfy.change/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


----------



## bicker1

Nice editing, Say What.... how about balancing your quotes? 


> Seton Hall advertising professor Walt Guarino thinks the network is making a good move.
> 
> "*I do not think that the SciFi Channel will lose an ounce of equity by changing to Syfy*," he said via e-mail.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Thar be Syfy here.


----------



## phrelin

The on-screen logo says Syfy but someone forgot to copy the memo to the person in charge of the guide, at least on Dish.


----------



## Drew2k

DIRECTV updated their guide data and the channel correctly displays "Syfy" or "SyfyHD" for the HD version. It looks odd, but really doesn't make a wit of difference to me ... I'll still press 244 to get to it in the guide to browse what's on and record what interests me and ignore what doesn't, just like I do with the dozen other channels I regularly watch.


----------



## phrelin

Good for DirecTV! I know it's no big deal, but along with Dish the folks at the online Zap2It (Tribune folks), TV Guide, and TitanTV guides don't have it updated. That's got to be frustrating for the "rebranding team" at Syfy who have the old SciFi.com automatically shuttling you off to Syfy.com.:sure:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I remember reading that "SciFi" was too generic and they had trouble protecting their copyrights.

With "SyFy" they can "protect" the brand name. 

Mike


----------



## JoeTheDragon

phrelin said:


> Good for DirecTV! I know it's no big deal, but along with Dish the folks at the online Zap2It (Tribune folks), TV Guide, and TitanTV guides don't have it updated. That's got to be frustrating for the "rebranding team" at Syfy who have the old SciFi.com automatically shuttling you off to Syfy.com.:sure:


I have old name and the new name in the Prioritizer

old one on Sanctuary, Eureka and new one on Warehouse 13.


----------



## Drew2k

MicroBeta said:


> I remember reading that "SciFi" was too generic and they had trouble protecting their copyrights.
> 
> With "SyFy" they can "protect" the brand name.
> 
> Mike


For sure they'll protect the "SyFy" name, but the name they trademarked is "Syfy". Just seeing them side by side, I do wish they had picked "SyFy" over "Syfy", as the former lends itself to the proper pronunciation, while the latter leads to mispronunciation.


----------



## jdspencer

Drew2k said:


> For sure they'll protect the "SyFy" name, but the name they trademarked is "Syfy". Just seeing them side by side, I do wish they had picked "SyFy" over "Syfy", as the former lends itself to the proper pronunciation, while the latter leads to mispronunciation.


I agree that it should be SyFy as I read Syfy as Siffy, rhymes with Sissy.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Drew2k said:


> For sure they'll protect the "SyFy" name, but the name they trademarked is "Syfy". Just seeing them side by side, I do wish they had picked "SyFy" over "Syfy", as the former lends itself to the proper pronunciation, while the latter leads to mispronunciation.


I don't get the lower case _f_ either. BTW, I fixed my post. :grin:

Mike


----------



## jdunlap

Ugg... first mtndew and now syfy? I'm going to ban all "txt" branded products from my brain from now on.


----------



## digitalfreak

I gotta wonder how much better the channel would be if they'd take all the money they invest in the s**t Saturday night movies and make more good series like BSG. I have yet to see a single non-theatrical Saturday movie on Siffee that was any good. Boa vs Python 5 FTL!


----------



## JoeTheDragon

mike1977 said:


> I won't hold my breath. *thinking Techtv to G4 and how the channel is today.


that comcast for you. At lest they only own about 20% - 25% of csn Chicago and the teams own the rest.


----------



## mreposter

Some of the new promos have been nice with interesting graphics, but the new name still sounds/reads odd and just as importantly the new logo looks silly.

In the end, I think it comes down to the fact that they wanted a name that they could trademark. All the other stuff about broadening the base and making the programming more accessible is pure BS.


----------



## phrelin

I used to like the SciFi promos with the odd twists and morphs. The new ones have me waiting for a Prius to appear.


----------



## SayWhat?

mreposter said:


> but the new name still sounds/reads odd and just as importantly the new logo looks silly.
> 
> All the other stuff about broadening the base and making the programming more accessible is pure BS.


The term 'balderdash' comes to mind when I think of their stated motives.

Bottom line is I doubt it will have much affect either way. They can call it Siffey or Sniffley or Ooga-Booga; people will watch a show they like without concern for the channel or network name. If they don't like the shows, they won't watch the channel.


----------



## djlong

It's a far cry from the channel that had the month-long countdown to it's premiere and started it's first minute of scheduled programming with "Star Wars".


----------



## Tubaman-Z

Bring back FTL News (



)


----------



## xmguy

jdunlap said:


> Ugg... first mtndew and now syfy? I'm going to ban all "txt" branded products from my brain from now on.


lol. rofl! u r kidding. (sorry couldn't resist)


----------



## xmguy

phrelin said:


> I used to like the SciFi promos with the odd twists and morphs. The new ones have me waiting for a Prius to appear.


OH GOD! Please stop!:hurah::hurah:


----------



## xmguy

Because of a problem with alignment on my SD Tube 20" TV the Syfy logo has been moved (during mid watching of Warehouse 13) below the pillar bars. So it looks like Sufu. Picture attached. :hurah:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yet another reason why logos should be carefully considered! :eek2:


----------



## bicker1

Shhh.... if you point this out, they'll just move the logo further up.


----------



## xmguy

bicker1 said:


> Shhh.... if you point this out, they'll just move the logo further up.


It's like they were saying Suc* Fu**! :hurah:


----------



## dreadlk

If you want to take the Pulse of a Network to see how healthy the patient is, you need to count the amount of valid commercials during a commercial break. Of late all the channels are way down but SlyFly has been really hard hit, after you seperate out their own internal adverts from the rest, most of the shows are running at about half what they use to.


----------



## mike1977

xmguy said:


> It's like they were saying Suc* Fu**! :hurah:


After seeing #4 at www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=syfy that's what I've been thinking the channel stands for now. Just great...


----------



## Tubaman-Z

mike1977 said:


> After seeing #4 at www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=syfy that's what I've been thinking the channel stands for now. Just great...


Argh! Looking at any of those definitions (except for #5) just reminded me to always check the urban dictionary before making up acronyms.


----------



## Drew2k

mike1977 said:


> After seeing #4 at www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=syfy that's what I've been thinking the channel stands for now. Just great...


Wow ... just seeing that page I wonder if NBCU/SciFi execs research the negative associations the "made-up word" apparently has.


----------



## phrelin

mike1977 said:


> After seeing #4 at www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=syfy that's what I've been thinking the channel stands for now. Just great...


Yes, and the Polish thing made the more conventional media back in March. From Broadcasting and Cable:


> The revelation that it does mean at least some of those things doesn't sound like good news for Sci-Fi, whose re-brand has already been met with a barrage of consternation among hardcore fans.
> 
> In the spirit of investigative journalism, we also spoke to Pawl Maciag, press attaché for the Polish Embassy, who seemed utterly confused but did pass along that, to his knowledge, "syfy" in Polish can also be used to mean the same thing it does in English-an abbreviation for science fiction. Maciag was unaware of any slang derivatives (which seems to reinforce Bibens claim that the slang terms are rarely used).


But, of course, Polish is a foreign language, as in "not English." Syfy is part of NBCU's international operation which is part of GE's international operation where SciFi is still SciFi such as SciFi United Kingdom and SciFi Poland. Apparently this brilliant idea hasn't been rolled out elsewhere.


----------



## bicker1

Because only in the US do we have to name things like Verizon and Keyspan and Syfy, to safeguard names against uncontrolled misuse.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bicker1 said:


> Because only in the US do we have to name things like Verizon and Keyspan and Syfy, to safeguard names against uncontrolled misuse.


I don't have a problem with a company trying to protect their brand.

However, Syfy is just plain...well goofy. :grin:

Oh well, as long as I keep getting the shows I like then in the end I'm ok with it. 

BTW, Eureka is back tonight. Now that's what I'm talkin' about. 

Mike


----------



## SayWhat?

Guide for Dish Ch 122 picked up the change to Siffey sometime yesterday.

Looks like they're running Eureka all day. I've never seen it, so I might try a few.


----------



## tsmacro

From Zap2it:

The much-derided name change of the Sci Fi Channel to SyFy didn't stop people from tuning into the premiere of "Warehouse 13." The show, about a pair of Secret Service agents assigned to a facility that holds the government's repository of supernatural relics, drew 3.5 million viewers, making it the most-watched show on cable Tuesday night.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsideth...se-13-10-things-get-good-opening-numbers.html

Or people might've just wanted to check out a new show and didn't care one way or the other how they spelled the channel name. Naw what am I saying it's gotta be the power of Syfy! :lol:


----------



## Drew2k

Looks like Zap2it didn't get the memo about the "F"!  :lol:


----------



## SayWhat?

Still waiting for the adult programming to appear on the 's--- you f--- you' channel.


----------



## SayWhat?

Mixed impression of Eureka so far. Interesting, dry wit & humor, but the episodes are reworks of other stories.

Martha the flying drone that becomes self aware is right out of a Star Trek TNG episode, as is the bio-dome genetic regression episode. Then there's the Groundhog Day episode and the Mummy one.


----------



## rebkell

SayWhat? said:


> Mixed impression of Eureka so far. Interesting, dry wit & humor, but the episodes are reworks of other stories.
> 
> Martha the flying drone that becomes self aware is right out of a Star Trek TNG episode, as is the bio-dome genetic regression episode. Then there's the Groundhog Day episode and the Mummy one.


I thoroughly enjoy Eureka, but it's more about the characters and getting to know the whole town, for some reason Syfy hardly ever repeats older eps of Eureka, they repeat SG1 and Atlantis too death, but for some shows they seem to be hung up on only showing the most recent episodes or absolutely no airings for long stretches. Eureka could probably grow a bigger audience if it had a bit more exposure, but for some unknown reason they keep it in the vault.

It's been forever since they've shown any of Season #1 and they've only shown a couple of season #2 eps in possibly a year or more.


----------



## phrelin

rebkell said:


> I thoroughly enjoy Eureka, but it's more about the characters and getting to know the whole town, for some reason Syfy hardly ever repeats older eps of Eureka, they repeat SG1 and Atlantis too death, but for some shows they seem to be hung up on only showing the most recent episodes or absolutely no airings for long stretches. Eureka could probably grow a bigger audience if it had a bit more exposure, but for some unknown reason they keep it in the vault.
> 
> It's been forever since they've shown any of Season #1 and they've only shown a couple of season #2 eps in possibly a year or more.


Amazon not only has the DVD's for all three seasons, but you can stream episodes for $1.99. Of course, you can stream 5 episodes from the Syfy Rewind web site for free. And Hulu has all episodes of Season 1 but they will disappear today, July 10th, and Season 3.

NBC Universal Television owns "Eureka" and my guess is they are contemplating future syndication possibilities as it is perfect for local broadcast channels. But whatever, they will attempt to make money on it.


----------



## BillyT2008

Dictionary.com defines Sci-Fi as:



Code:


sci-fi  /ˈsaɪˈfaɪ/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-fahy]  Show IPA Informal.
Use sci-fi in a Sentence
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to science fiction: a writer of sci-fi books.  

–noun 2. science fiction.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
1950–55; by shortening
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. 
Cite This Source |Link To sci-fi 
sci-fi  (sī'fī')    
n.   pl. sci-fis Informal
Science fiction.
adj.  Of, relating to, being, or similar to science fiction: a sci-fi movie; a sci-fi weapons system. 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 
Cite This Source 
sci-fi
science fiction 

The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.; by shortening

Okay, so this term is in the dictionary already. Children watch this channel? Why spell an already achnowledged term incorrectly on purpose? This is a pet peeve of mine and usually I will call a business on it when I see it whether they care or not. They should have just left the name the Sci-Fi channel and rebooted it with the same name and their new campaign to "Imagine Greater".

Unfortunately, the SyFy name will remaine and in a few decades SyFy too will probably be found in the dictionary as a synonym for Sci-Fi. Their already adding stupid new words like staycation; apparently a vacation where you stay at home. Where does all of this end? Another case of the inmates running the asylum, if you ask me.


----------



## rebkell

phrelin said:


> Amazon not only has the DVD's for all three seasons, but you can stream episodes for $1.99. Of course, you can stream 5 episodes from the Syfy Rewind web site for free. And Hulu has all episodes of Season 1 but they will disappear today, July 10th, and Season 3.
> 
> NBC Universal Television owns "Eureka" and my guess is they are contemplating future syndication possibilities as it is perfect for local broadcast channels. But whatever, they will attempt to make money on it.


I guess it's NBCU, they don't seem to be making good decisions on much of anything in my book. Why aren't they all available in Blu-ray? It's a decent show, but it really has so few episodes that it's hard to see syndicating it with that limited of a run. At least if you are showing it some it will get exposure, it's more like a niche show now and at the rate they are putting out episodes and the lack of exposure, it looks to me like they are pretty well dooming it to mediocrity.


----------



## bicker1

MicroBeta said:


> I don't have a problem with a company trying to protect their brand. However, Syfy is just plain...well goofy. :grin:


Evidently enough people, at the network, disagree. Reasonable people can disagree about things, eh? This is not directed at you, specifically, but what I'm really getting puzzled about is why people are so incredibly and maniacally fascinated by this that they simply cannot get past the name change -- that they cannot accept that people who disagree with them about this are still reasonable and therefore the decisions that these people made -- decisions that perhaps they disagree with -- are still reasonable decisions. The name changed. Maybe you like it maybe you don't. Doesn't matter. Let it go. Move on. I really am wondering why people are working so hard to fixate *so much *on something which really doesn't significantly affect them? It seems so out of proportion with any reasonable perspective of the reality of the impact that I think at least some of the objections are bogus, and are just a smoke screen for something else, something that folks are more embarrassed about being upset about.


----------



## dreadlk

A lot of the people at the Network may think it's a good idea, but most likely they are completely wrong!

Many many companies are now running around like a headless chicken trying to reverse the huge loses they are seeing on the books. Most of them have started to throw everything at the problem, including listening to the Whack Job ideas that a year ago would have been thrown out like used toilet paper.
That's why when these new ideas fall through, that's it, the end of the company because they have used all there resources to change direction.

As for the reason why people are so pissed off, it is simply because we all know this is a first step towards them having to be less committed to Science Fiction programming, it makes it less hypercritical for them to show other crap that has nothing to do with SciFi.

I remember about 25 years ago when one of my favorite magazines called "Popular Electronics" changed its name to something like "Computers and Electronics". All the subscribers where promised that this would not change the Electronic content of the Magazine but would only add a small amount of computer info as it related to electronics. People complained, letters came in, but they ignored them.

Well about 6 months later you could just about have changed the name to Popular Computers because almost nothing about Electronics was left! Then one year after changing the name, the Magazine was out of business, a mag that had been in print for something like 50 years was out because they listened to some bonehead exec and changed a working formula to try and gain market share. BTW they never lost market share before they changed the name, they did it to try and gain market share, instead they got caught up in the PC revolution and lost there orginal subscribers while gaining no new one's. A Fate that I bet SyFy will suffer.



bicker1 said:


> Evidently enough people, at the network, disagree. Reasonable people can disagree about things, eh? This is not directed at you, specifically, but what I'm really getting puzzled about is why people are so incredibly and maniacally fascinated by this that they simply cannot get past the name change -- that they cannot accept that people who disagree with them about this are still reasonable and therefore the decisions that these people made -- decisions that perhaps they disagree with -- are still reasonable decisions. The name changed. Maybe you like it maybe you don't. Doesn't matter. Let it go. Move on. I really am wondering why people are working so hard to fixate *so much *on something which really doesn't significantly affect them? It seems so out of proportion with any reasonable perspective of the reality of the impact that I think at least some of the objections are bogus, and are just a smoke screen for something else, something that folks are more embarrassed about being upset about.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> A lot of the people at the Network may think it's a good idea, but most likely they are completely wrong!


Uh, because of course you can't be wrong. :grin:

:sure:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm now confused.

IF those of us who dislike the name change are not supposed to care because it doesn't matter...

Then why did the suits at the network supposedly put so much time into changing the name?

If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter


----------



## bicker1

No one has suggested that you not care: My comment was about the maniacal fixation. (Look at the message number of this message.  )

In other news: I saw the video promo for the network. It's great. Very interesting and creative.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> No one has suggested that you not care: My comment was about the maniacal fixation. (Look at the message number of this message.  )


Yep, it's maniacal. On the other hand, it is the fear that NBCU will turn SciFi, the channel where at least some good science fiction is found in prime time, into Syfy, in prime time a channel mostly for unicorn fans.:eek2:


> In other news: I saw the video promo for the network. It's great. Very interesting and creative.


Yeah, yeah, it was creative like many new commercials. In fact, I was waiting for the new Prius to pass through.:grin:


----------



## mreposter

At least they're giving us some new programming along with the new name and marketing campaign. W13, new Eureka, saturday night movies, fresh Sanctuary, SG-U, Caprica and several others are coming down the pike.

So keep your fingers crossed and... Imagine Greater _Programming_


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> Yep, it's maniacal. On the other hand, it is the fear that NBCU will turn SciFi, the channel where at least some good science fiction is found in prime time, into Syfy, in prime time a channel mostly for unicorn fans.:eek2:


If there are more unicorn fans than transphasic torpedo fans, then so be it.


----------



## canekid

I tuned to SyFyHD and I couldn't help but think HOT Deep Frying Oil.

Or my mind want's to pronounce it SeyFey...

i HATE this new name. I might just tune past it more often... I am thinking I like BBC America more now, that the BBC is producing more Sci-Fi shows.


----------



## dreadlk

Exactly :lol::lol:



Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm now confused.
> 
> IF those of us who dislike the name change are not supposed to care because it doesn't matter...
> 
> Then why did the suits at the network supposedly put so much time into changing the name?
> 
> If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter


----------



## dreadlk

That "Imagine Greater" Promo is really pissing me off
I don't want to Imagine greater, I want to Imagine Less!!

I had to Imagine Greater as a Kid watching Thunder Birds and invisioning pupets on strings as real people, when I watch Lord of The Rings I don't have to Imagine anything, it's all there right in front of me in ever loving detail.

Yes I know "Imagine Greater" has two meanings, but I am assuming based on SlyFy's dismal record that it's going to mean cheaper special effects that I have to imagine greater to believe they are real.



mreposter said:


> So keep your fingers crossed and... Imagine Greater _Programming_


----------



## dreadlk

Well just read around the Net and see how warm and fuzzy people are feeling about the name change! And these are the people who actually watch the channel.

You know that's one of the things I always hear people like you say is, "Oh you only represent the thinking a of small percentage of people". No matter how many people voice there concerns on forums, it seems that no one cares!

I have news for you and the Slyfy channel, it's people like me, people who use the Internet and post on forums that make up the bulk of people who watch this channel. Most normal people would not be caught dead watching SlyFy. BTW it's the only channel I watch, that I have to switch from when visitors come over, because of the look I get if they see me watching it.



bicker1 said:


> Uh, because of course you can't be wrong. :grin:
> 
> :sure:


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> Well just read around the Net ...


Well that's your problem. You think the 'net actually represents the real world. Wrong!



dreadlk said:


> No matter how many people voice there concerns on forums, it seems that no one cares!


Because forums represent a self-selected group of fanatics.



dreadlk said:


> I have news for you and the Slyfy channel, it's people like me, people who use the Internet and post on forums that make up the bulk of people who watch this channel.


You have news for them? How do you know this? You *want* that to be true. You *want* your perspective to be more important and more prevalent than it perhaps is. The point is that you simply hope but they actually *know*.


----------



## mike1977

dreadlk said:


> Well just read around the Net and see how warm and fuzzy people are feeling about the name change! And these are the people who actually watch the channel.
> 
> You know that's one of the things I always hear people like you say is, "Oh you only represent the thinking a small percentage of people". No matter how many people voice there concerns on forums, it seems that no one cares!
> 
> I have news for you and the Slyfy channel, it's people like me, people who use the Internet and post on forums that make up the bulk of people who watch this channel. Most normal people would not be caught dead watching SlyFy. BTW it's the only channel I watch, that I have to switch from when visitors come over, because of the look I get if they see me watching it.


Ha ha...I don't leave the "Screw ***, **** ***" channel on when I have company either (but I used too before the change). Um never mind that , I don't intentionally leave the channel on at all anymore (but I used to before the change).


----------



## bicker1

You left your television on, when you had company? Gosh, that doesn't seem very social.


----------



## CCarncross

Intelligent people that actually watch tv, (many don't), really don't care what a channel is named, they could call it the S*** channel if they wanted to, if it had shows like BG, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc...people are going to watch it for the programming, NOT for the name...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

CCarncross said:


> Intelligent people that actually watch tv, (many don't), really don't care what a channel is named, they could call it the S*** channel if they wanted to, if it had shows like BG, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc...people are going to watch it for the programming, NOT for the name...


Good point! 

It's about the programming and not the channel name. If they want to have more copyright control over the brand more power to 'em.

As long as I get what I want (Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc), I really don't care either way. 

Mike


----------



## bicker1

CCarncross said:


> Intelligent people that actually watch tv, (many don't), really don't care what a channel is named, they could call it the S*** channel if they wanted to, if it had shows like BG, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc...people are going to watch it for the programming, NOT for the name...


Abso-friggen-lutely :up:


----------



## Drew2k

Yup. It's not the name, it's the content. The name change will not impact my viewing, but the schedule will ... as long as they keep shows like WH13, Caprica, Stargate Universe, Eureka, etc. on the schedule, I'll keep tuning in throughout the year.


----------



## dcowboy7

Name change hasnt hurt ratings:

Prime-time Average Viewers (Live+SD) Week of July 20-26, 2009

*Network (000s) *
USA 3,470 
DSNY 3,014 
FOXN 2,329 
TNT 2,317 
NAN 1,642 
FAM 1,535 
TBSC 1,448 
*SYFY 1,308 *
LIFE 1,303 
FX 1,283 
HGTV 1,270 
FOOD 1,241 
TRU 1,208 
A&E 1,200 
HIST 1,154 
AMC 1,126 
ESPN 1,120 
DISC 1,118 
CNN 1,027 
TLC 1,021


----------



## CopyChief

CCarncross said:


> Intelligent people that actually watch tv, (many don't), really don't care what a channel is named, they could call it the S*** channel if they wanted to, if it had shows like BG, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc...people are going to watch it for the programming, NOT for the name...


Bravo! Agree completely. Especially in the age of DVRs, when you schedule from the on-screen guide rather than flipping through the channels or going through the paper TV Guide to program your VCR, channels are somewhat irrelevant.

The actual name (or even number) of the station is mostly irrelevant anymore. That's probably a painful realization for the folks at Syfy to make.

But what's most disturbing to me... they supposedly did this because they couldn't "own" or "trademark" SciFi. I think it's more about broadening the content. Seems like movies like "National Treasure" fit under a broader definition of what could be true SciFi and likely reflect a new turn in content.

I don't buy the owning your trademark bit, either -- I mean, "USA" works pretty well for the USA network, and I'm pretty sure someone else owned that first.


----------



## mreposter

dreadlk said:


> I had to Imagine Greater as a Kid watching Thunder Birds and invisioning pupets on strings as real people, when I watch Lord of The Rings I don't have to Imagine anything, it's all there right in front of me in ever loving detail.


The problem is that in about 10 years, maybe less, those beautiful special effects you so love in LOTR will probably look a lot like Thunder Birds. For a show to have any legs, it needs a strong story with interesting characters and good acting. Movies and shows that are all special effects and a junky plot will have a shelf life of about 5 minutes.

Peter Jackson got it right with the LOTR trilogy; George Lucas got it wrong with Star Wars 1-2-3. Eureka is another good example of a show that knows good stories and character development are more important than special effects.


----------



## phrelin

mreposter said:


> Eureka is another good example of a show that knows good stories and character development are more important than special effects.


That's a good observation. Eureka is a show that has a certain "fun" element that allows it to be enjoyed even if you're not a real scifi fan. That should give it a strong syndication value as well.


----------



## bicker1

I think Sheriff Carter's "never mind" attitude towards the techie stuff really resonates with viewers who also have a similar attitude towards that kind of thing, and that's a real strength of the show, in terms of its vital appeal outside of the standard science fiction fan audience-base.


----------



## Nick

If the SciFi channel is now spelled "Syfy", Shouldn't 'Science Fiction' itself now be spelled 'Syence Fyction'? :eek2:


----------



## SayWhat?

I think Thunderbirds was pretty high tech compared to some of the crap out there now. And then there was Moonbase Alpha on Space 1999.


----------



## dreadlk

Not all shows suffer from aging special effects. Take a look at "The Thing" it's showing in HD on HBO. The special effects in that look soooooo real and good. The thing is a 24 years old movie.



mreposter said:


> The problem is that in about 10 years, maybe less, those beautiful special effects you so love in LOTR will probably look a lot like Thunder Birds. For a show to have any legs, it needs a strong story with interesting characters and good acting. Movies and shows that are all special effects and a junky plot will have a shelf life of about 5 minutes.
> 
> Peter Jackson got it right with the LOTR trilogy; George Lucas got it wrong with Star Wars 1-2-3. Eureka is another good example of a show that knows good stories and character development are more important than special effects.


----------



## dreadlk

It's not the name change alone that is the catalyst for all this *****ing:lol: it's the fact that SciFi channel is losing touch with the viewers, they have gone to wrestling and all sorts of other crap. So when we see this name change come along it feels like they are just saying "oh well we no longer have to find excuses for showing non science fiction based programming." get ready for more craptastic low budget garbage.



CCarncross said:


> Intelligent people that actually watch tv, (many don't), really don't care what a channel is named, they could call it the S*** channel if they wanted to, if it had shows like BG, Sanctuary, Warehouse 13, Eureka, etc...people are going to watch it for the programming, NOT for the name...


----------



## dreadlk

Seemed to have translated well into the real world for Barrack Obama



bicker1 said:


> Well that's your problem. You think the 'net actually represents the real world. Wrong!
> .


----------



## djlong

So, if SciFi had as many viewers as SyFy does now - does that mean they spent all that money and research on something with no net effect?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

djlong said:


> So, if SciFi had as many viewers as SyFy does now - does that mean they spent all that money and research on something with no net effect?


And if so... was it worth it? I'd suspect that unless there was a major gain in viewership, it'd be hard to argue success in spending all the time/money to re-invent the channel and make new logos/promos.... that resulted in no significant gain in viewers.

In this case, no gain=loss.


----------



## CCarncross

dreadlk said:


> It's not the name change alone that is the catalyst for all this *****ing:lol: it's the fact that SciFi channel is losing touch with the viewers, *they have gone to wrestling and all sorts of other crap. So when we see this name change come along it feels like they are just saying "oh well we no longer have to find excuses for showing non science fiction based programming." get ready for more craptastic low budget garbage.*


Ding, Ding, Ding.....just because wrestling is popular, I don't want anyone to start showing it on SPEED....it does not belong on a channel that WAS dedicated to Science Fiction....


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> It's not the name change alone that is the catalyst for all this *****ing:lol: it's the fact that SciFi channel is losing touch with the viewers, they have gone to wrestling and all sorts of other crap.


Or, they've gotten *in touch* with the viewers. Their ratings have been excellent the last couple of weeks.

However, folks need to remember the reason for the name change: Being able to trademark the name.



djlong said:


> So, if SciFi had as many viewers as SyFy does now - does that mean they spent all that money and research on something with no net effect?


First, they're actually doing a bit better the last couple of weeks than generally expected. However, beyond that, folks need to remember the reason for the name change: Being able to trademark the name.

That's the "net effect" that was their objective.

In in that regard: Mission accomplished.


----------



## mike1977

dreadlk said:


> It's not the name change alone that is the catalyst for all this *****ing:lol: it's the fact that SciFi channel is losing touch with the viewers, they have gone to wrestling and all sorts of other crap. So when we see this name change come along it feels like they are just saying "oh well we no longer have to find excuses for showing non science fiction based programming." get ready for more craptastic low budget garbage.


So true, and I will never take the trademarking as an acceptable reason. Never.


----------



## bicker1

Denying reality is surely your prerogative.


----------



## mike1977

Not denying reality here. Wrestling isn't scifi.

And like USA Network, it could have been Scifi Network or back to The Scifi Channel.

I don't see The History Channel being renamed to Hystory.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

mike1977 said:


> So true, and I will never take the trademarking as an acceptable reason. Never.


According to SyFy execs that one of the main reasons for the rebranding

One big advantage of the name change, the executives say, is that Sci Fi is vague - so generic, in fact, that it could not be trademarked. Syfy, with its unusual spelling, can be, which is also why diapers are called Luvs, an online video Web site is called Joost and a toothpaste is called Gleem.

*"We couldn't own Sci Fi; it's a genre," said Bonnie Hammer, the former president of Sci Fi who became the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment and Universal Cable Productions. "But we can own Syfy."*​
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/media/16adcol.html



Mike


----------



## mike1977

What's wrong with the original name, The Scifi Channel? "Sci Fi" alone...no. But add Channel or Network...then yes. How are they owning USA? By the word "network"...thus why it is officially called USA Network.

How is the word "history" being owned? By it being called "The History Channel" And that is what it says in the browser title bar when going to history.com ... The History Channel 

And the same with The Discovery Channel


----------



## Mike Bertelson

mike1977 said:


> What's wrong with the original name, The Scifi Channel? "Sci Fi" alone...no. But add Channel or Network...then yes. How are they owning USA? By the word Network...thus why it is officialy called USA Network.


The point the execs were trying to make is that while "The Sci-Fi Channel" as a complete title is a brand, Sci-Fi itself is not.

Further, the SyFy brand is also to be extended to other things. I remember reading something like SyFy Films & SyFy Games which would be difficult to brand under the old name.

I'm in no way saying it's the right thing to do. However, there is no denying that brand protection was a major factor in the decision. Especially when that's what the execs are saying. :grin:

Mike


----------



## mike1977

Well I guess it was difficult for them back then to put their logo on an old door mat I still have. It says "Welcome all species".


----------



## Mike Bertelson

mike1977 said:


> Well I guess it was difficult for them back then to put their logo on an old door mat I still have. It says "Welcome all species".


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. 

However, I think the problem has always been others putting Sci-Fi on something and NBC/Universal not being able to do anything about it. Now if someone puts SyFy on something they have a case for infringement.

Mike


----------



## bicker1

MicroBeta said:


> I'm in no way saying it's the right thing to do.


Such a statement would be nothing short of religious in nature, and therefore naturally reasonable people can disagree about it.



MicroBeta said:


> However, there is no denying that brand protection was a major factor in the decision.


Absolutely, and the main rebuttal to one of the assertions made earlier.



mike1977 said:


> How are they owning USA?


They're not, but that only raises the possibility that, at some point in the future, *if they determine that there is value in branding that asset*, that they'll have to consider a renaming.



mike1977 said:


> How is the word "history" being owned? By it being called "The History Channel" And that is what it says in the browser title bar when going to history.com ... The History Channel. And the same with The Discovery Channel


I believe that, in both of those cases, changing the name of the channel, at some point, to secure a trademark, which can be capitalized on as a brand, is far more likely, than for USA Network. Both seem to lend themselves to the same type of capitalization that NBCU is likely to accomplish with Syfy.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bicker1 said:


> *Such a statement would be nothing short of religious in nature, and therefore naturally reasonable people can disagree about it.* <snip>.


Umm...What?

By not expressing agreement with NBC/Universal execs I'm making a religious statement? :scratchin

Mike


----------



## bicker1

By saying something is not the "*right thing to do*" -- that's religious. Without more foundation, there is no other way to describe such an assertion. However, don't get defensive: There is nothing wrong with having an opinion based on nothing but your own personal beliefs and values about how things should be. It's just a matter of being clear about that being the foundation of the assertion.

And that's why I made the point in that sentence, which perhaps you didn't note: "therefore naturally *reasonable people can disagree *about it".


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bicker1 said:


> By saying something is not the "*right thing to do*" -- that's religious. Without more foundation, there is no other way to describe such an assertion. However, don't get defensive: There is nothing wrong with having an opinion based on nothing but your own personal beliefs and values about how things should be. It's just a matter of being clear about that being the foundation of the assertion.
> 
> And that's why I made the point in that sentence, which perhaps you didn't note: "therefore naturally *reasonable people can disagree *about it".
> 
> Saying that it will adversely impact the achievement of the stated objectives, for thus-and-such reason, based on thus-and-such data -- that's factual.


I saw the reasonable people thing but doesn't seem to have and impact on the context of the statement as a whole. A statement of right or wrong in no way implies a foundation of conviction beyond that of personal ethics. BTW, I never expressed my opinion either way...I'm just sayin' 

So, _taken in context_, I was merely pointing out the reasons stated by the execs without agreement or disagreement with their actions. Branding was simply a major consideration in their decision. 

Honestly, as long as I get what I want (good programming), I don't care why it changed or what it's called. 

Mike


----------



## dcowboy7

*SYFY CELEBRATES FIRST MONTH OF NEW BRAND IDENTITY WITH BEST JULY EVER AMONG TOTAL VIEWERS AND WOMEN 25-54*

SYFY WAS THE #3 CABLE NETWORK AMONG ADULTS 25-54 FOR FIRST WEEK AS SYFY

Syfy marked the first month of its new brand identity by scoring its best July ever in its 17-year history among total viewers (1,358,000) and Women 25-54 (319,000), propelled by its hit series Eureka and Warehouse 13.

During the week that SCI FI became Syfy, it was the #3 cable entertainment network among Adults 25-54 (939,000).


----------



## bicker1

MicroBeta said:


> I saw the reasonable people thing but doesn't seem to have and impact on the context of the statement as a whole.


If you only read half of the emphasis, then that's not surprising. Read the whole thing.



MicroBeta said:


> A statement of right or wrong in no way implies a foundation of conviction beyond that of personal ethics.


A statement of right or wrong absolutely implies a foundation of conviction vis a vis "personal ethics". Reasonable people disagree about matters of "personal ethics".



MicroBeta said:


> Honestly, as long as I get what I want (good programming), I don't care why it changed or what it's called.


And indeed that makes sense.


----------



## Drew2k

SyFy ≠ Syfy

*X* SyFy

√ Syfy

I feel better now. 

And if you REALLY want to be super-accurate ...

√√ Syfy™


----------



## mike1977

MicroBeta said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
> 
> However, I think the problem has always been others putting Sci-Fi on something and NBC/Universal not being able to do anything about it. Now if someone puts SyFy on something they have a case for infringement.
> 
> Mike


LOL...I have a doormat with the scifi channel logo seen here (http://www.wsfa.org/journal/j94/b/sfchanonline.jpg) branded onto it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

mike1977 said:


> LOL...I have a doormat with the scifi channel logo seen here (http://www.wsfa.org/journal/j94/b/sfchanonline.jpg) branded onto it.


I understood that part of it. 

What I didn't understand is you thought it was "difficult for them ...to put their logo on an old door mat". :scratchin

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Drew2k said:


> SyFy ≠ Syfy
> 
> *X* SyFy
> 
> √ Syfy
> 
> I feel better now.
> 
> And if you REALLY want to be super-accurate ...
> 
> √√ Syfy™


Drew buddy, you know now that you've gone so far out of your way (a la 27 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows...) that I'm just gonna have to continue with SyFy.... !Devil_lol

Mike


----------



## phrelin

dcowboy7 said:


> *SYFY CELEBRATES FIRST MONTH OF NEW BRAND IDENTITY WITH BEST JULY EVER AMONG TOTAL VIEWERS AND WOMEN 25-54*
> 
> SYFY WAS THE #3 CABLE NETWORK AMONG ADULTS 25-54 FOR FIRST WEEK AS SYFY
> 
> Syfy marked the first month of its new brand identity by scoring its best July ever in its 17-year history among total viewers (1,358,000) and Women 25-54 (319,000), propelled by its hit series Eureka and Warehouse 13.
> 
> During the week that SCI FI became Syfy, it was the #3 cable entertainment network among Adults 25-54 (939,000).


Hmmm. I'd like to see the research on why the name "Syfy" attracted all those women. Oh. A "SciFi" old series "Eureka" plus a scifi series "Warehouse 13" both well written with good women characters. Darned, thought I could learn something new.


----------



## Supramom2000

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. I'd like to see the research on why the name "Syfy" attracted all those women. Oh. A "SciFi" old series "Eureka" plus a scifi series "Warehouse 13" both well written with good women characters. Darned, thought I could learn something new.


I was wondering the same thing. Can the new name take the credit or the great programming for the month of July.


----------



## rebkell

Supramom2000 said:


> I was wondering the same thing. Can the new name take the credit or the great programming for the month of July.


I got to believe the programming is the key to the numbers and loved the new character on Warehouse 13 last night, Claudia from my understanding is on board now, she was great with Artie last night. Oooh I'm all puckered, she had some great dialog with Artie.


----------



## Drew2k

MicroBeta said:


> I'm just gonna have to continue with SyFy.... !Devil_lol
> 
> Mike


:lol: evil indeed!


----------



## dreadlk

Well said and exactly right. Problem for Syfy channel is that people who like science fiction tend to be some of the smartest people on the planet, so dont try and feed them garbage.



mike1977 said:


> What's wrong with the original name, The Scifi Channel? "Sci Fi" alone...no. But add Channel or Network...then yes. How are they owning USA? By the word "network"...thus why it is officially called USA Network.
> 
> How is the word "history" being owned? By it being called "The History Channel" And that is what it says in the browser title bar when going to history.com ... The History Channel
> 
> And the same with The Discovery Channel


----------



## dreadlk

Bicker1 just want to assure you this is not personal, I love a spirited debate

First of all I would expect their Ratings to be better, they did the smart thing and lined up their best available shows to coincide with the name change and they did the change while almost every other station was showing reruns, so they pretty much had a good portion of the stage to themselves. I am pretty sure if they could have delayed Battle Star Galactica longer they would have launched the final season right after the name change.

I would take a serious bet that even though they might have gotten a slight rating boost at this point they are scrambling around because it's probably not nearly as good as they expected and they know that as soon as the sleeping giants awaken with shows like Survivor, Lost and the rest, they are going to be in real problems.

BTW I tried to watch Episode 3 of warehouse 13 and it was so bad that 20 minutes into it I had to stop. I am not so sure I will be watching anymore episodes of this show because it has so little depth that it's just boring and repetitive, like a rehashed script of so many shows I have seen before.



bicker1 said:


> Or, they've gotten *in touch* with the viewers. Their ratings have been excellent the last couple of weeks.
> 
> However, folks need to remember the reason for the name change: Being able to trademark the name.
> 
> First, they're actually doing a bit better the last couple of weeks than generally expected. However, beyond that, folks need to remember the reason for the name change: Being able to trademark the name.
> 
> That's the "net effect" that was their objective.
> 
> In in that regard: Mission accomplished.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> Well said and exactly right. Problem for Syfy channel is that people who like science fiction tend to be some of the smartest people on the planet, so dont try and feed them garbage.


And perhaps even the kind of people who don't react productively to advertising, making them viewers of exceedingly little value to the network. That could be one reason why they need to focus so much on broadening the appeal of the channel well beyond this "overly" (from a business stand-point) "intelligent" set of viewers.



dreadlk said:


> Bicker1 just want to assure you this is not personal, I love a spirited debate


Thanks for the warning. 



dreadlk said:


> First of all I would expect their Ratings to be better, they did the smart thing and lined up their best available shows to coincide with the name change and they did the change while almost every other station was showing reruns, so they pretty much had a good portion of the stage to themselves.


I'm sorry but their ratings are great. I see no foundation on which to base an expectation that their ratings would be significantly better than what they've been. Warehouse 13 is a certifiable hit, in the Syfy context, and still growing its audience (while most Syfy series in recent history have lost audience after their introductions). And Eureka is doing really well. I see no objective basis on which to assert that their ratings should have been better.



dreadlk said:


> I am pretty sure if they could have delayed Battle Star Galactica longer they would have launched the final season right after the name change.


Go back in the archives and read all the vicious condemnations of how long of a delay there was between seasons and half-seasons of BSG already. Again, I think there is no objective basis on which to assert that the risk presented by introducing an even-greater delay before the final season of BSG would have been worth having the final season broadcast in synch with this name change. None.



dreadlk said:


> I would take a serious bet that even though they might have gotten a slight rating boost at this point they are scrambling around because it's probably not nearly as good as they expected


Are you saying this based on anything *other *than your personal desire to assert that you think that they've made bad decisions? Is there any objective evidence that they agree with your characterization of their expectations, at all? I doubt that such expectations on their part even be rational, even if they did actually hold such expectations. With respect, again, I see no objective basis for what you're saying here, and to me it just looks like you're putting together a laundry list of criticisms, without any regard for whether any of them have any real relationship to the reality of the situation.



dreadlk said:


> and they know that as soon as the sleeping giants awaken with shows like Survivor, Lost and the rest, they are going to be in real problems.


As they have always been in the fall and winter. On what objective basis would have you assumed otherwise?



dreadlk said:


> BTW I tried to watch Episode 3 of warehouse 13 and it was so bad that 20 minutes into it I had to stop.


Again, with respect, I have to begin to assume that some folks, based on their own personal animosity towards either the name change or the fact that the network wishes to appeal to a broader audience than just science fiction fans, have poisoned their own ability to appreciate and enjoy anything the network would present, having made the decision to be disappointed and unimpressed before they have even given the programming a chance. Needless to say, I and a few million other people think Warehouse 13 is great, and getting better week-after-week. The third episode wasn't as great as the first two, but from what I've read, the fourth episode is better than the first three.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let me try a different approach...

Back when there were only 3 local channels and no satellite (or cable)... a TV station needed to diversify to get the most viewers.

If you only showed one type of program, you alienated big chunks of the population... so diversification and many genres ensured you had a shot at getting anyone's attention for at least a portion of every day.

Now, today's market is VERY different. Today we have 500 or more channels (depending upon how you count those).

So, it can be argued that in today's market diversification can be harmful. Consider...

IF all channels show a variety of genres and programming, and there are 500 choices... what singles one out from another? Nothing. So, arguably there is no need for 500 "variety" channels because people will ultimately settle on a few that show the selection of shows they like, and all the rest will be unneeded duplication of content.

So... how do you stand out? By picking a genre (or perhaps a couple of compatible genres) and focus on those and try to deliver the best content/selection in that area as you can.

You can gamble on being all-things-to-everyone and not being picked... or focus on a genre or two and be the top choice by everyone interested in that.

Of course some genres are going to be small enough that you can't bank on that... and you'll fail as there just aren't enough people to support it.

So, is that what happened? Is there truly not a market for good Sci-Fi? I can't believe that, because there seems to be a lot of it generated and it seems to make a money for the movie studios.

So, could it be Sci-Fi mismanaged and didn't invest truly in their genre? And in failing that, decided instead to declare a need to "diversify" and did the name-change and are branching out to widen their audience?

If so... then I suspect, they will still have some good sci-fi... but no more, and probably less, than before... so I'll have to go elsewhere for that content beyond the shows I do watch on Syfy still. Meanwhile, they won't capture me as a viewer for their "branching out" stuff... and if they don't produce any higher alternate-content filler than they did sci-fi filler in the past... then I suspect this will prove a failure as well.

It's like... I'm a chef in a restaurant, and have an Italian theme... and I have an awesome alfredo sauce, but the rest of my menu is rather watered down Italian cuisine... So I get the die-hards + the alfredo fans... but business is less than I'd like.

So, instead of improving the other Italisn items on my menu... I drop all the stuff I can't cook well in Italian, BUT I keep the alfredo and add add sushi and mexican items to the menu. I also change my restaurant from "Rudolfo's" to "Rudolph's".

Ok, so the alfredo still sells well... but I already had those customers. The die-hard gotta-have-italian customers quickly learn that for anything but alfredo they now need to go elsewhere so I lose some of them. I gain some new customers for the sushi and mexican menu items, but truth be told I'm not any better at preparing those than I was the italian dishes outside of alfredo...

So what have I done? Only time will tell, but after a small initial transition period, it wouldn't surprise me to find out I've accomplished none of my goals to improve business.

That's "Syfy" to me in a nutshell.


----------



## dreadlk

When I said I liked a spirited debate I did not mean in length  lets try to keep it shorter I am on so many forums, and it takes to much time to respond to long posts.

In Summary let me say.
1) If they feel that broadening there market is going to help them then I believe they are doomed. As the other poster just said, there are 500 channels; if you can't distinguish yourself from the pack you're finished. If SciFi could not do the Job using a Genre that makes the most money for the movie industry then that indicates that they have a bunch of chimps at the Helm.

2) The BSG delay was so long that I almost forgot what had happened last season. My point is that they could not have possibly delayed it any longer.
but if they could have then the SyFy intro would have been the target.

3) My basis for saying it's not as good as they expected is that they only got a slight bump in ratings during a period when all the other stations are sleeping. Considering the millions they must have spent on this name change they certainly have not made gains that justify it.

4) I will take your advice and watch the 4th episode of WH13, I am skipping the third, it was complete rubbish.



bicker1 said:


> And perhaps even the kind of people who don't react productively to advertising, making them viewers of exceedingly little value to the network. That could be one reason why they need to focus so much on broadening the appeal of the channel well beyond this "overly" (from a business stand-point) "intelligent" set of viewers.
> 
> Thanks for the warning.
> 
> I'm sorry but their ratings are great. I see no foundation on which to base an expectation that their ratings would be significantly better than what they've been. Warehouse 13 is a certifiable hit, in the Syfy context, and still growing its audience (while most Syfy series in recent history have lost audience after their introductions). And Eureka is doing really well. I see no objective basis on which to assert that their ratings should have been better.
> 
> Go back in the archives and read all the vicious condemnations of how long of a delay there was between seasons and half-seasons of BSG already. Again, I think there is no objective basis on which to assert that the risk presented by introducing an even-greater delay before the final season of BSG would have been worth having the final season broadcast in synch with this name change. None.
> 
> Are you saying this based on anything *other *than your personal desire to assert that you think that they've made bad decisions? Is there any objective evidence that they agree with your characterization of their expectations, at all? I doubt that such expectations on their part even be rational, even if they did actually hold such expectations. With respect, again, I see no objective basis for what you're saying here, and to me it just looks like you're putting together a laundry list of criticisms, without any regard for whether any of them have any real relationship to the reality of the situation.
> 
> As they have always been in the fall and winter. On what objective basis would have you assumed otherwise?
> 
> Again, with respect, I have to begin to assume that some folks, based on their own personal animosity towards either the name change or the fact that the network wishes to appeal to a broader audience than just science fiction fans, have poisoned their own ability to appreciate and enjoy anything the network would present, having made the decision to be disappointed and unimpressed before they have even given the programming a chance. Needless to say, I and a few million other people think Warehouse 13 is great, and getting better week-after-week. The third episode wasn't as great as the first two, but from what I've read, the fourth episode is better than the first three.


----------



## dreadlk

*Well Said.....*



Stewart Vernon said:


> Let me try a different approach...
> 
> Back when there were only 3 local channels and no satellite (or cable)... a TV station needed to diversify to get the most viewers.
> 
> If you only showed one type of program, you alienated big chunks of the population... so diversification and many genres ensured you had a shot at getting anyone's attention for at least a portion of every day.
> 
> Now, today's market is VERY different. Today we have 500 or more channels (depending upon how you count those).
> 
> So, it can be argued that in today's market diversification can be harmful. Consider...
> 
> IF all channels show a variety of genres and programming, and there are 500 choices... what singles one out from another? Nothing. So, arguably there is no need for 500 "variety" channels because people will ultimately settle on a few that show the selection of shows they like, and all the rest will be unneeded duplication of content.
> 
> So... how do you stand out? By picking a genre (or perhaps a couple of compatible genres) and focus on those and try to deliver the best content/selection in that area as you can.
> 
> You can gamble on being all-things-to-everyone and not being picked... or focus on a genre or two and be the top choice by everyone interested in that.
> 
> Of course some genres are going to be small enough that you can't bank on that... and you'll fail as there just aren't enough people to support it.
> 
> So, is that what happened? Is there truly not a market for good Sci-Fi? I can't believe that, because there seems to be a lot of it generated and it seems to make a money for the movie studios.
> 
> So, could it be Sci-Fi mismanaged and didn't invest truly in their genre? And in failing that, decided instead to declare a need to "diversify" and did the name-change and are branching out to widen their audience?
> 
> If so... then I suspect, they will still have some good sci-fi... but no more, and probably less, than before... so I'll have to go elsewhere for that content beyond the shows I do watch on Syfy still. Meanwhile, they won't capture me as a viewer for their "branching out" stuff... and if they don't produce any higher alternate-content filler than they did sci-fi filler in the past... then I suspect this will prove a failure as well.
> 
> It's like... I'm a chef in a restaurant, and have an Italian theme... and I have an awesome alfredo sauce, but the rest of my menu is rather watered down Italian cuisine... So I get the die-hards + the alfredo fans... but business is less than I'd like.
> 
> So, instead of improving the other Italisn items on my menu... I drop all the stuff I can't cook well in Italian, BUT I keep the alfredo and add add sushi and mexican items to the menu. I also change my restaurant from "Rudolfo's" to "Rudolph's".
> 
> Ok, so the alfredo still sells well... but I already had those customers. The die-hard gotta-have-italian customers quickly learn that for anything but alfredo they now need to go elsewhere so I lose some of them. I gain some new customers for the sushi and mexican menu items, but truth be told I'm not any better at preparing those than I was the italian dishes outside of alfredo...
> 
> So what have I done? Only time will tell, but after a small initial transition period, it wouldn't surprise me to find out I've accomplished none of my goals to improve business.
> 
> That's "Syfy" to me in a nutshell.


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> So, it can be argued that in today's market diversification can be harmful.


That's ridiculous. It doesn't follow from what you presented before it, and is a massive leap unsupported by the facts. There is a possibility that servicing niche interests can be profitable, when the niche is an especially rich and relatively unserved source of revenue. However, any competition within a niche could scuttle much of the profit potential in the niche (because, by definition, the niche is small). Of course, it will depend on the size of the niche and just how rich the niche is as a source of revenue.

However, broadening appeal doesn't typically mean less revenue. It typically means more revenue.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So... how do you stand out? By picking a genre (or perhaps a couple of compatible genres) and focus on those and try to deliver the best content/selection in that area as you can.


Let me explain the situation this way: Remember the old adage, "The customer is always right"? Most folks acknowledge that that's simply not true. However, it isn't that the adage has lost its efficacy or anything like that: It is that many people never understood the adage in the first place. It was short-hand. More explicitly, the point of the adage was *Make the customer feel like s/he's always right*. So essentially, the point is to do business, as you always would, by focusing on what establishes value that can be capitalized on (literally: turned into capital, i.e., money), but part of that involves trying to (for lack of a better word) manipulate the customer's emotions so as to enhance their perception of the value you're offering.

So the point isn't to be the pure source of hard-core science fiction, but rather to craft a place where people feel that they're part of something unique and/or special -- but again, specifically focused on doing so so as to enhance the perception of value that can be capitalized on in the generation of revenue. If any bit of that falls into a realm where you don't feel you fit in, then you're not the intended target.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So, is that what happened? Is there truly not a market for good Sci-Fi?


"Good" Sci-Fi is a matter of opinion. The reality is that I like a lot of Sci-Fi that many (what I call) hard-core science fiction fans simply don't like -- things that they disparage grievously. And the stuff they value, I think is garbage. If I'm seeing Syfy heading in the right direction, and you're seeing them heading in the wrong direction, what's the rational conclusion? If you say that they're making mistake, or doing wrong, or being bad, then you're mistaken. Rather, they're deciding to target me instead of you. Perhaps they feel I'm more of a lucrative target as a niche than you are.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I can't believe that, because there seems to be a lot of it generated and it seems to make a money for the movie studios.


And this hits on another reason why even focusing solely on this niche is troublesome: This niche is partially being served by the mainstream networks: Lost, Fringe, Defying Gravity, Supernatural, Smallville, Dollhouse, Chuck, Heroes, and so on -- these programs all serve some measure of the niche, thereby reducing the extent to which the members of the niche "needs" Syfy to be so maniacally narrow in its programming.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So, could it be Sci-Fi mismanaged and didn't invest truly in their genre?


A suggestion that is nothing more than a cheap shot, essentially having no significance other than expressing one's personal disappointment in a manner that makes it sound like it could be the result of something bad someone else did. Syfy is often a Top 20 cable network. That's a prodigious accomplishment.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> 1) If they feel that broadening there market is going to help them then I believe they are doomed.


Not at all. They're not talking about getting rid of all the trappings of the genre, but rather just serving a broader definition of the genre.



dreadlk said:


> As the other poster just said, there are 500 channels


And Syfy is regularly among the top 20 or so.



dreadlk said:


> if you can't distinguish yourself from the pack you're finished.


Syfy does effectively distinguish itself, even if you don't *like* the distinction "imagination-based entertainment".



dreadlk said:


> 3) My basis for saying it's not as good as they expected is that they only got a slight bump in ratings during a period when all the other stations are sleeping. Considering the millions they must have spent on this name change they certainly have not made gains that justify it.


Your saying so a second time doesn't make it true. They have gotten great ratings since the name change. AFAIC, you're just simply wrong.


----------



## Drew2k

dreadlk said:


> When I said I liked a spirited debate I did not mean in length  lets try to keep it shorter I am on so many forums, and it takes to much time to respond to long posts.


Color me amused that the poster you are most at odds with on the topic of the name change is deemed to have posts that are too long, but a longer post from someone who appears to be in your camp is "well said'. 

I'll try to boil it down: There's just a lot of whining about a name change because the fear is that it means less actual science fiction. However, SciFi (the channel) was never 100% science fiction and for as long as I've been watching it, I only watched a few series each season, so there was never more than 4 hours a week. From the announced schedules for the new seasons of Syfy, this still appears to be what I will be watching, so for me the name change is meaningless. Time will tell whether that turns out to be true for everyone else, so I suggest everyone take a chill pill and just let it play out in realtime by watching the ratings. Let's come back in 6 months and then declare someone a winner, shall we?


----------



## Supramom2000

Drew2k said:


> Color me amused that the poster you are most at odds with on the topic of the name change is deemed to have posts that are too long, but a longer post from someone who appears to be in your camp is "well said'.
> 
> I'll try to boil it down: There's just a lot of whining about a name change because the fear is that it means less actual science fiction. However, SciFi (the channel) was never 100% science fiction and for as long as I've been watching it, I only watched a few series each season, so there was never more than 4 hours a week. From the announced schedules for the new seasons of Syfy, this still appears to be what I will be watching, so for me the name change is meaningless. Time will tell whether that turns out to be true for everyone else, so I suggest everyone take a chill pill and just let it play out in realtime by watching the ratings. Let's come back in 6 months and then declare someone a winner, shall we?


I'm with you Drew, "Chill dudes"!! We will find out down the road and none of us has any control other than to watch or not.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I admit to being a little confused.

I swear that pre-name change it was cited as a bad thing that Sci-Fi channel was only in the top 20... but now that Syfy is in the top 20 (essentially in the same general place as before) that is being said to be a success?

What changed besides the name?

Sci-Fi was already adding non sci-fi stuff and broadening their base instead of trying to attract more good sci-fi programming.

Had they made their name change during a time when nothing but repeats were on the channel, I might argue an uptick in viewers was positive... but as it corresponds to premiere week for several new programs... I suspect the increase in viewers lately is more directly attributable to that.

All that said... Nothing has changed for me. I watch Eureka, am trying to watch Warehouse 13 and give it a chance... and that's about it.

My disappointment is in fear (which by definition is irrational incidentally) that the name change is further evidence that they will be going after a different audience than me. Furthermore, if they succeed in that direction then I lose out... if they fail, then i still lose out.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> I admit to being a little confused.
> 
> My disappointment is in fear (which by definition is irrational incidentally) that the name change is further evidence that they will be going after a different audience than me. Furthermore, if they succeed in that direction then I lose out... if they fail, then i still lose out.


I'm neither confused nor disappointed. I know they're not going after me. I'm too old. I spend money, but apparently it's not the kind they want.


----------



## SayWhat?

phrelin said:


> I'm neither confused nor disappointed. I know they're not going after me. I'm too old. I spend money, but apparently it's not the kind they want.


I stay confused and disappointed, someone is always after me, I'm somewhere between old and dead and I don't spend money unless I have to.

Think they care about my opinion? :nono2:


----------



## bicker1

Stewart Vernon said:


> I swear that pre-name change it was cited as a bad thing that Sci-Fi channel was only in the top 20...


Your memory is faulty, Stewart. Again, the overriding purpose ever given for the name change was the ability to exploit the name as a brand.



Stewart Vernon said:


> My disappointment is in fear (which by definition is irrational incidentally) that the name change is further evidence that they will be going after a different audience than me. Furthermore, if they succeed in that direction then I lose out... if they fail, then i still lose out.


I think you've really hit the nail on the head here, in categorizing and characterizing not only your own reaction but most of the reaction I've seen with respect to the name change: fear of not being the focus of the network's intentions.


----------



## bicker1

phrelin said:


> I'm neither confused nor disappointed. I know they're not going after me. I'm too old. I spend money, but apparently it's not the kind they want.


Rather, I suspect it is more a matter that you're not the kind of person that tends to make purchases based on the commercials you attentively watch while enjoying television programming.


----------



## bicker1

SayWhat? said:


> I stay confused and disappointed, someone is always after me, I'm somewhere between old and dead and I don't spend money unless I have to. Think they care about my opinion? :nono2:


With that last bit, not spending money unless you have to, you're essentially an agent that takes from the system but contributes nothing to it. It is reasonable to expect that the system won't work especially hard to attract you to its offerings.

And that raises an interesting point. My wife I find ourselves often in the position of being pleased with changes that other people go on and on and on and on about with regard to their disappointment. Why is it that so much of our national infrastructure crafts its offerings to please us, while disappointing so many others? What is the dynamic going on here that accounts for that difference? My wife and I are in that "old" category, that typically gets marginalized by the aforementioned infrastructure. We have DVRs and as a rule don't watch commercials. I don't really respond much to the few commercials we do watch (though we do buy things, but mostly based on what we read in sources like engaget, and in forums like this, actually). I don't really know what they generally advertise on television these days, but I have to assume that a lot of it is stuff that my wife and I have no interest in. So why are we so favored, and others so discounted?


----------



## dcowboy7

Stewart Vernon said:


> I swear that pre-name change it was cited as a bad thing that Sci-Fi channel was only in the top 20... but now that Syfy is in the top 20 (essentially in the same general place as before) that is being said to be a success?


Its isnt in the same place:

The few weeks before the name change it was around 20th for the week.
After the name change its been 8th & 9th for those 2 weeks.

I know the show debuts helped....im just saying its not in the same place.


----------



## tsmacro

It's all kind of funny actually because when they first announced the name change (well it's really the same name just spelled differently, so it's essentially just a logo change) my first reaction was that I didn't really like it, thought it looked silly and thought it meant a continuing downward trend for programming that started (at least in my eyes) when they added wrestling. But in the end as it turns out, for me anyway, it really hasn't changed anything and it's ended up being one big non-issue in all actuality. So even though I still think it looks silly in the end it just didn't matter, imagine that! Yeah turns out if they play shows I like i'll watch and if they don't I won't no matter how they spell it. Huh, whodathunkit?


----------



## mreposter

Sounds pretty logical, tsmacro. We're all just hoping that they don't go too far in "broadening" the programming mix.


----------



## tsmacro

mreposter said:


> We're all just hoping that they don't go too far in "broadening" the programming mix.


Yes that's one sentiment I definitely am in agreement with!


----------



## dreadlk

Thats because I dont have to reply to his post line by line  
As I said if your debating me and expecting a reply, lets keep it short.



Drew2k said:


> Color me amused that the poster you are most at odds with on the topic of the name change is deemed to have posts that are too long, but a longer post from someone who appears to be in your camp is "well said'.


----------



## dreadlk

Bicker I guess we will never agree, but I will say that I see your point, you believe that going after a broader market will be better for them, and my opinion is that it's bad for them. It may end up being better for them, but I suspect that the Name SyFy is still going to drive away 95% of women :lol:
My wife does not even see the channel in the guide, it's like her brain has tuned it out, not surprising since I do the Same thing with the Oprah channel, and yet she loves that channel.



bicker1 said:


> Not at all. They're not talking about getting rid of all the trappings of the genre, but rather just serving a broader definition of the genre.
> 
> And Syfy is regularly among the top 20 or so.
> 
> Syfy does effectively distinguish itself, even if you don't *like* the distinction "imagination-based entertainment".
> 
> Your saying so a second time doesn't make it true. They have gotten great ratings since the name change. AFAIC, you're just simply wrong.


----------



## dreadlk

No one was expecting them to make an overnight change, it's logical for them at this point to put on the Best Science Fiction prg's they can! They have a huge number of people on multiple forums calling them a sell out, so they have to first prove to everyone that it's the same SciFi channel of old.
What you need to worry about is what will happen next year when they decide to use the Wider scope that this new name makes possible.



tsmacro said:


> it really hasn't changed anything and it's ended up being one big non-issue in all actuality. So even though I still think it looks silly in the end it just didn't matter, imagine that! Yeah turns out if they play shows I like i'll watch and if they don't I won't no matter how they spell it. Huh, whodathunkit?


----------



## dreadlk

Why is it that when someone disagree's it's "Whining" but when one of the Directv Fan Boys posts his 6001 post on how great Directv is, it's considered Ok:lol: (Not calling you a Fan Boy) but this is the trend all over this forum.

Anyway I agree, lets wait and see, I suspect right after they finish this season, you will start to see one or two very very losely based scifi series slipped into the Mix. which most likely by 2011 will be followed stuff that has nothing to do with Scifi.



Drew2k said:


> I'll try to boil it down: There's just a lot of whining about a name change because the fear is that it means less actual science fiction. However, SciFi (the channel) was never 100% science fiction and for as long as I've been watching it, I only watched a few series each season, so there was never more than 4 hours a week. From the announced schedules for the new seasons of Syfy, this still appears to be what I will be watching, so for me the name change is meaningless. Time will tell whether that turns out to be true for everyone else, so I suggest everyone take a chill pill and just let it play out in realtime by watching the ratings. Let's come back in 6 months and then declare someone a winner, shall we?


----------



## dreadlk

Combination, some people have been interested in seeing if the new name changes the programming but mostly it's the new shows that are bringing in a few more people.



Supramom2000 said:


> I was wondering the same thing. Can the new name take the credit or the great programming for the month of July.


----------



## bicker1

> While it's definitely still early, given the results with Warehouse 13 it would be hard to argue that the rebranding isn't working out exactly according to the script.


http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/19/syfy-gets-the-last-laugh-on-network-rebranding/25097


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I wonder why they are trying to give more credit to the name change than the introduction of a new show?

It's almost like they want to undercut their own show by saying it was the name change that brought in the new viewers and not the programming.


----------



## bicker1

Their saying so has as much, if not more, validity than *all *the preemptive criticisms of the name change.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Their saying so has as much, if not more, validity than *all *the preemptive criticisms of the name change.


True... which is exactly my point in this case. They seem to want to stress how their name change is more important than their new show, which seems to undercut that new show of its own merits.

It would be like the Lakers crediting this year's championship to a logo change on the uniform moreso than the acquisition of key players to improve their roster.


----------



## phrelin

Maybe there is something to the rebranding thing. It appears that cable channels with scripted shows are growing an audience. Maybe we _sci_ence _fi_ction geeks complain but watch science fiction series if their decent no matter where they find them. I'd watch a good scifi series even if it was on Lifetime. SciFi was a slam dunk for me.

Maybe others had a problem with SciFi but Syfy seems all texting friendly and would be ok to watch something like "Warehouse" and "Eureka" with not only the old guys and ladies but the younger Sheriff's daughter and young hunk science type and hot young assistant on Syfy but whoda watched it on SciFi - geeks only.

What do I know? But I'm happy to see a wider demographic on Syfy this summer then the demographic two years ago - like more women, for instance. Maybe marketing types understand marketing better then me. I don't like it that over 40 is less valued and reaching geeks isn't every advertisers dream. But it's that world as defined by NBCU.

And this is hard because I'm the one who asked Stuart to restart this thread because I thought Syfy was just dumb.


----------



## bicker1

I think that really hits on the main point: No matter what anyone says, in the end, what matters to viewers is the actual programming, and what matters to the network is the money. You cannot legitimately judge the network's intelligence versus "dumb"-ness based on viewers' objectives -- you can only legitimately judge the network's intelligence based on the network's objectives. And by that metric, the name change wasn't dumb. It was a reflection of the reality of business.


----------



## jeffshoaf

I think I just realized what irritates me so much about the name change: They changed it w/o really changing it, trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I doubt anybody sees the new name out of context and pronounces it as "SciFi" - they'd pronounce it "Siffy." They'd have been better off naming it something radically different. If new viewers would be turned off by seeing it spelled as "SciFi", they would be just as turned off when they find out that "Syfy" is pronounced the same way - especially during "water cooler" discussions.

I really believe they would have met their stated goals (a trademarkable name that appeals to a wider audience) if they had really changed the name to something that would be a logical extension to their legacy viewers while being more inviting to new viewers - something like "New Horizons" or "Other Horizons" would make sense to their legacy fanbase of SF and Fantasy fans and not be off-putting to any viewers embarassed to be associated with those genres.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> I think I just realized what irritates me so much about the name change: They changed it w/o really changing it, trying to have their cake and eat it too.


That actually the *ideal*. If I can do something that allows me to continue to reap the benefits I have been reaping, and reap more benefits, I will always do that. I bet so would you; any reasonable person would.

I don't understand why someone else improving their own lot would cause you concern, unless you feel that someone else improving their lot means that there is less (of what, I don't know) for you to use to improve your lot.

Of course, if we go down this path too far, we end up talking about the health care debate, and we just don't want to go there in this forum! :grin:



jeffshoaf said:


> I really believe they would have met their stated goals (a trademarkable name that appeals to a wider audience) if they had really changed the name to something that would be a logical extension to their legacy viewers while being more inviting to new viewers - something like "New Horizons" or "Other Horizons" would make sense to their legacy fanbase of SF and Fantasy fans and not be off-putting to any viewers embarassed to be associated with those genres.


I think you're grossly underestimating the complexities. "New Horizons" is already a registered trademark (it's a child-care center, I believe). And "Other Horizons" cannot be trademarked because the term has already been used as a service mark (even though not registered). There is a reason why we have companies named Verizon, and Keyspan, and other things which are *not English words*. That is an essential business requirement that a new trademarkable name typically must satisfy.

So try your experiment again, limiting yourself by that restriction, even if you personally don't agree with it -- your personal feelings regarding that restriction do not obviate the reality that the foundation for the restriction exists and is overriding, from a business point of view. I know it is hard for a consumer to try to look at things from a business perspective, but when you do you probably will go from being "irritated" to understanding why things have gone the way they have gone.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> That actually the *ideal*. If I can do something that allows me to continue to reap the benefits I have been reaping, and reap more benefits, I will always do that. I bet so would you; any reasonable person would.
> 
> I don't understand why someone else improving their own lot would cause you concern, unless you feel that someone else improving their lot means that there is less (of what, I don't know) for you to use to improve your lot.
> 
> Of course, if we go down this path too far, we end up talking about the health care debate, and we just don't want to go there in this forum! :grin:
> 
> I think you're grossly underestimating the complexities. "New Horizons" is already a registered trademark (it's a child-care center, I believe). And "Other Horizons" cannot be trademarked because the term has already been used as a service mark (even though not registered). There is a reason why we have companies named Verizon, and Keyspan, and other things which are *not English words*. That is an essential business requirement that a new trademarkable name typically must satisfy.
> 
> So try your experiment again, limiting yourself by that restriction, even if you personally don't agree with it -- your personal feelings regarding that restriction do not obviate the reality that the foundation for the restriction exists and is overriding, from a business point of view. I know it is hard for a consumer to try to look at things from a business perspective, but when you do you probably will go from being "irritated" to understanding why things have gone the way they have gone.


And I think you're just trying to live up to your screen name! 

I never said that my personal feelings should override a company's business point of view and I didn't say that either of the name options I presented should be used by the Syfy folks. I merely stated the reason that I found the name change irritating and the direction that I felt they would have been better off going in to meet their stated goals. I thought I made if very clear that my posting was driven by my personal feelings!

And understanding why a business does something does not mean I won't still be irritated by it - I understand the reasons the company I work for changed the retirement plan and I agree that those reasons make sense, but it still irritates me! 

"New Horizons" is a trademark for a tech training company; I've attended some of their classes and know that it's not available to Syfy. I got an e-mail from them and realized that would have been a good name for the channel if it weren't already taken, thus presenting it as an example of what I thought would have been a better direction for the channel renaming. I'm sure there's something in a similar vein that is available. Here's more examples that are probably in use: "Open Horizons", "Far Horizons", "Open View", "Far View", "Other Horizons", "Other View", etc.

Yes, I know that there are companies out there that specialize in finding/creating names for companies. And I know that they often make up meaningless names that are supposed to sound familiar and elicit certain connotations that aren't explicit - after all, I bank at the Allegacy Credit Union!


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> And understanding why a business does something does not mean I won't still be irritated by it


True but it could help reduce the irritation for some folks. I think irritation is often exacerbated by the feeling that what is is the result of someone else doing something wrong, instead of just someone else doing what's right according to a different set of criteria.



jeffshoaf said:


> "New Horizons" is a trademark for a tech training company


That's right! My third guess would have been a retirement community. 



jeffshoaf said:


> I'm sure there's something in a similar vein that is available.


Then please explain Verizon, Keyspan, Qwest, etc. (And please don't fall-back on that old yarn, that you're smarter than the people who run and advise those companies.)



jeffshoaf said:


> "Open View"


Is Barbara Walters inviting Rosie O'Donnell back? 

Your suggestions suck compared to "Syfy" IMHO. 



jeffshoaf said:


> Yes, I know that there are companies out there that specialize in finding/creating names for companies. And I know that they often make up meaningless names that are supposed to sound familiar and elicit certain connotations that aren't explicit - after all, I bank at the Allegacy Credit Union!


Then why cannot you accept that they know what they're doing? (Or are you saying that you CAN, and therefore don't really think that naming the channel Syfy was necessarily the wrong move.)


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> True but it could help reduce the irritation for some folks. I think irritation is often exacerbated by the feeling that what is is the result of someone else doing something wrong, instead of just someone else doing what's right according to a different set of criteria.
> 
> That's right! My third guess would have been a retirement community.
> 
> Then please explain Verizon, Keyspan, Qwest, etc. (And please don't fall-back on that old yarn, that you're smarter than the people who run and advise those companies.)
> 
> Is Barbara Walters inviting Rosie O'Donnell back?
> 
> Your suggestions suck compared to "Syfy" IMHO.
> 
> Then why cannot you accept that they know what they're doing? (Or are you saying that you CAN, and therefore don't really think that naming the channel Syfy was necessarily the wrong move.)


And I still think you're just trying to live up to your screen name...

You keep arguing that my opinions aren't valid because they're not coming from a business viewpoint. I've admitted that they're my personal opinions; since I'm not a business, by default they're not coming from a business viewpoint.

And your opinion that my suggestions suck are coming from your personal viewpoint as indicated by the "in my humble opinion" acronym, so by your own statement, they're not valid!

You're also assuming that I haven't accepted the name change; I've never said that - I didn't get a vote, it's not my responsibility, it's there on my TV screen, so I have not choice but to accept it - I just said it irritates me. Why does my irritation irritate you so much? You seem to be having trouble accepting that some folks don't like the new name - why can't you accept that?

You seem to be enjoying the argumentive aspect of this discussion and are taking delight in pointing out that folks dislike of the name change is due to personal opinion and feeling and not sound business principles. The two things (personal dislike of a possibly sound business decision) are not mutually exclusive (as I pointed out in my example of my company's retirement plan change). You've made that point - you don't need to respond to every poster's admitted personal opinion with the same argument, especially since you seem to be doing it just to have someone to argue with.

Please be careful commenting on people's intelligence; you don't know me and I assume you don't know the people that run and advice Syfy, so it's extremely inappropriate to comment on our relative intelligence. I certainly didn't. Intelligent folks can disagree.

And, with that, I'm stepping out of this argument and maybe this thread.


----------



## bonscott87

I don't know anyone that pronounced it "SciFi" anymore. Everyone I know pronounces it as "Siffy".

Frankly I don't see any reason why a name change on the channel would effect someone actually watching Warehouse 13 unless there really was a large group of people that simply would never tune to the "Sci Fi Channel" thinking nothing they would like would be there. And somehow "Siffy" isn't a barrier to entry.

Then again, I'm not in marketing.


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> And I still think you're just trying to live up to your screen name...


No more so than you are. It's a family name. Your attempt to try to make it into some inane personal smear is inappropriate.



jeffshoaf said:


> You keep arguing that my opinions aren't valid because they're not coming from a business viewpoint.


Incorrect. I keep arguing that your opinions reveal something about your personal preferences, but not about whether what the network did was the correct thing for them to have done. You apparently either haven't understood that, or refuse to acknowledged it because in doing so you hope to drown out a perspective that you don't like.



jeffshoaf said:


> And your opinion that my suggestions suck are coming from your personal viewpoint as indicated by the "in my humble opinion" acronym, so by your own statement, they're not valid!


Incorrect. My opinions reveal something about my personal preferences, not about whether the names you came up with would have been a good name for a network to have adopted.



jeffshoaf said:


> You seem to be having trouble accepting that some folks don't like the new name ...?


Not at all; what I object to is the translating of not "liking" the new name into some type of negative conclusion regarding the network or its managers.



jeffshoaf said:


> You seem to be enjoying the argumentive aspect of this discussion and are taking delight in pointing out that folks dislike of the name change is due to personal opinion and feeling and not sound business principles.


Not at all; rather I'm a very strong advocate against entitlement mentality, and I view any case where someone translates their own personal preferences into criteria for appraising the actions of someone else as entitlement mentality. I think that translation is a cancer on our society, and is one of many things that leads our society down a bad path.

And rather than people getting on my back time after time about representing my perspective in this thread, is if the thread was "theirs", I wish people would just let me have my say as they have their say, and not try to brow-beat me into not representing my perspective. This isn't an unrebutted soap-box for one side of this issue.


----------



## Charise

We all pronouce it as "Siffy" because that's the phonetic pronounciation of Syfy. The network spokesperson or whoever he was who said that Syfy is phonetically correct as sci-fi can go blue in the face explaining that one. That's why I dislike the new name.

However, I will watch the shows I like on whichever network they happen to be showing, so they won't lose me as a viewer of _Eureka_ or _Warehouse 13_--or if they bring back _The Dresden Files_ (not that many would consider that sci-fi in nature).

As for why this thread is so long? Syfy has so many crawls at the bottom of the TV screen and their logo is in the corner for so long, that it makes it difficult to ignore what I consider to be their dumb name. They, of course, can call themselves whatever they wish, but the pronounciation is left to the viewer, and for me--it is now and will remain Siffy. Apparently, other posters agree with that.


----------



## bicker1

Heck, my wife pronounces is "siffy". And the point about the thread being so long is interesting. Perhaps it is the manner of the social climate in the country, but I suspect that any time there are two sides to a coin, these days, the extent and depth to which each side will discuss and consider their side of the issue is far greater than in the past. I know, focusing on forums where more weighty subjects are discussed, like politics and religion, that the rhetoric is far far far far more "extreme" than ever before -- not by a little, but rather by a lot. I think we're facing many years of it continuing in that direction, and spreading to more and more aspects of our society, before it perhaps returns to a state where it was before -- if ever. Perhaps we're aiming in a direction where practically everything will become critically important and worthy of advocacy.


----------



## jeffshoaf

bicker1 said:


> No more so than you are. It's a family name. Your attempt to try to make it into some inane personal smear is inappropriate.
> 
> Incorrect. I keep arguing that your opinions reveal something about your personal preferences, but not about whether what the network did was the correct thing for them to have done. You apparently either haven't understood that, or refuse to acknowledged it because in doing so you hope to drown out a perspective that you don't like.
> 
> Incorrect. My opinions reveal something about my personal preferences, not about whether the names you came up with would have been a good name for a network to have adopted.
> 
> Not at all; what I object to is the translating of not "liking" the new name into some type of negative conclusion regarding the network or its managers.
> 
> Not at all; rather I'm a very strong advocate against entitlement mentality, and I view any case where someone translates their own personal preferences into criteria for appraising the actions of someone else as entitlement mentality. I think that translation is a cancer on our society, and is one of many things that leads our society down a bad path.
> 
> And rather than people getting on my back time after time about representing my perspective in this thread, is if the thread was "theirs", I wish people would just let me have my say as they have their say, and not try to brow-beat me into not representing my perspective. This isn't an unrebutted soap-box for one side of this issue.


And I'm dragged back in...

I did not mean mentioning your screen name as a smear; I apologize if it seems that way - based on your postings in this and other threads, I think you like to debate which would make "bicker" an appropriate screen name for you regardless of your family name.

I've acknowledged in my past three postings in this thread that I was stating my opinion and why the chosen new name irritated me. I made no statement about whether it was the correct thing for them to have done or not, just that the new name irritated me, why it irritated me, and a direction they could have gone in that would not have irritated me while still meeting their stated goals for the name change.

Your responses to my last three postings have basically said that what I've said is my opinion and that my opinion doesn't have any bearing on whether the new name is good for Syfy. OK - I agree. I'm pretty sure I've said that too - my opinion is my opinion and it doesn't have any bearing on whehter the new name is good for Syfy.

The new name still irritates me!


----------



## bicker1

jeffshoaf said:


> Your responses to my last three postings have basically said that what I've said is my opinion and that my opinion doesn't have any bearing on whether the new name is good for Syfy. OK - I agree.


Great. Always good to reach an understanding! 



jeffshoaf said:


> The new name still irritates me!


And in the immortal words of Stuart Smalley: "That's okay!"


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm going to start pronouncing it...

_es-why-ef-why_

Either that, or _throat-wobbler mangrove_.


----------



## jeffshoaf

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm going to start pronouncing it...
> 
> _es-why-ef-why_
> 
> Either that, or _throat-wobbler mangrove_.


Or maybe _dubbya-tee-ef_...


----------



## dreadlk

So its about the 6th episode of Warehouse 13 and I am not impressed. Yes there have been about 3 good episodes, but thats been offset by the other 3 boring episodes.
If every week is going to be "hunt down the possed object" it's going to get old very quick. I will agree that the Sword episode was the best episode so far, mainly because there was a glimmer of hope that this whole story line might expand, but IMO this whole Friday the 13 remake is not really going anywhere very fast.


----------



## rebkell

dreadlk said:


> So its about the 6th episode of Warehouse 13 and I am not impressed. Yes there have been about 3 good episodes, but thats been offset by the other 3 boring episodes.
> If every week is going to be "hunt down the possed object" it's going to get old very quick. I will agree that the Sword episode was the best episode so far, mainly because there was a glimmer of hope that this whole story line might expand, but IMO this whole Friday the 13 remake is not really going anywhere very fast.


It's already been renewed for a 2nd season. Which suits me just fine. Funny, I thought this weeks episode was kind of a dud, compared to the others. Claudia was a great addition to the show and no Claudia this week. As far as I'm concerned WH13 is a character driven show and the case of the week is just an excuse to get the characters together, reminds me of NCIS in that respect.


----------



## phrelin

rebkell said:


> ...is a character driven show and the case of the week is just an excuse to get the characters together....


Let's see, are there any other shows on TV like this? Hmmmm.


----------



## bicker1

Good point. Truly, us folks who like shows that have over-arching arcs have had a very long road to trod, because that device often has seriously undercut the value of the program. It's a great device if the fan is willing to commit to watching each episode in order, but many people have much busier lives than would allow for that. I remember lots of talk about how there was continual pressure during the production of Alias to tone down the mythology elements because of how it was hurting the ability to maintain certain segments of the audience. Short of employing the soap opera device (unnatural character-delivered [re]exposition, reminding the audience what has happened over the last twenty episodes leading up to the current scene) the best approach to avoiding the downsides of the story arc was to avoid the device completely, making just stand-along episodes. (Most of the most successful programs on television are structured that way.)

Eventually, DVRs and DVD sales (and to a lesser extent, the fact that cable reruns each episode multiple times) came to the rescue. Each of these things opened new doors to allow busy viewers the ability to catch practically every episode.

However, as we've becoming spoiled with shows like X-Files and Lost, we shouldn't forget that some people actually like shows the other way. Not everyone wants to become invested in the televisions shows they watch. They just want to turn it on for a few minutes, every so often, and be entertained. Psych is a perfect example of this. There is practically no character development (I did say "practically", not "absolutely"), no long-range direction for the series, but it is very well received.

Having said that, I think that Warehouse 13 will employ the story-arc device to some extent. They've just been introducing characters, and building back-stories to some extent, so far. However, I think they're following a pattern that Sanctuary followed. The story-arc there isn't particularly substantial, but there are recurring elements that have tied bits of the series together. It seems to me that that's the way Warehouse 13 is going.


----------



## phrelin

bicker1 said:


> Having said that, I think that Warehouse 13 will employ the story-arc device to some extent. They've just been introducing characters, and building back-stories to some extent, so far. However, I think they're following a pattern that Sanctuary followed. The story-arc there isn't particularly substantial, but there are recurring elements that have tied bits of the series together. It seems to me that that's the way Warehouse 13 is going.


That seems true. Heck, even the Warehouse itself seems to have a backstory that will become part of the assumed viewer knowledge should the show go for more than two seasons.


----------



## dreadlk

SyFy has no choice but to renew, they are not in a posistion to pick and choose, they have almost no good programming left! 
Another reason is that WH13 does have a few good episodes to look forward to:

The Warehouse history
Mrs Fredericks background
Arties Background
More missing agent stories
The Governments real involvement and why.
The first Artifact that was found
A time travel episode (You know it's coming)
Who is Leena

After these stories have been done, there is not much more left other than finding new Artifacts and thats what will kill the show. This week its a belt buckle next week a Tea pot, there is only so far you can go with this stuff before people change the channel.



rebkell said:


> It's already been renewed for a 2nd season. Which suits me just fine. Funny, I thought this weeks episode was kind of a dud, compared to the others. Claudia was a great addition to the show and no Claudia this week. As far as I'm concerned WH13 is a character driven show and the case of the week is just an excuse to get the characters together, reminds me of NCIS in that respect.


----------



## Drew2k

You forgot one plot line we're sure to see played out over the season(s): Why did Mrs. Fredericks specifically pick these two agents? One has premonitions or intuitions, the other does not seem to posses a special skill, but they were both sought out for some reason we don't yet know.


----------



## bicker1

dreadlk said:


> SyFy has no choice but to renew, they are not in a posistion to pick and choose, they have almost no good programming left!


Except for Eureka, my wife's absolutely favorite show, and perhaps Caprica, the pilot for which looked fantastic, and Stargate Universe, which has a killer cast, and Sanctuary, which is another "good" show. As a matter of fact, Syfy has as much "good" programming "left" as they have ever had before.



dreadlk said:


> Another reason is that WH13 does have a few good episodes to look forward to: ...


Sounds like an embarrassment of riches in terms of possible story ideas. You've made it sound like Warehouse 13 has a great future ahead of it, despite your best efforts to disparage the show.


----------



## BobaBird

Charise said:


> We all pronouce it as "Siffy" because that's the phonetic pronounciation of Syfy.


The first y is not a short i because it is followed by only one f. You had to introduce a second f to make clear you're not saying the name with a long i. Also the first syllable Sy looks a lot like psy which is pronounced as sigh in the first syllable of many words. The second y could be a long e or a long i.

I see the name as SIGH-fee, but pronounce it as siffy because it casts aspersions on people who made a nonsense decision I don't like.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

PsyPhi has a nice ring to it


----------



## Charise

BobaBird said:


> The first y is not a short i because it is followed by only one f. You had to introduce a second f to make clear you're not saying the name with a long i. Also the first syllable Sy looks a lot like psy which is pronounced as sigh in the first syllable of many words. The second y could be a long e or a long i.
> 
> I see the name as SIGH-fee, but pronounce it as siffy because it casts aspersions on people who made a nonsense decision I don't like.


If you look in the dictionary, there are very few words that start with "sy" that have a long "i" sound. Most are like synergy, syphilis (had to throw that one in), symphony, etc. Most words that end in "y" have a long "e" sound--jiffy, nifty, ready, etc. That's what I meant as phonetically sounding like "siffy."

Fair enough on pronouncing it as "siffy" despite your phonetic reasoning.


----------



## manzelmo

"syfy" is easier to "text" than SciFi

Being into Science Fiction is a disease, just like "syfy" definition #1 in the Urban Dictionary is a disease.

You can have wrestling on the the syfy channel, because it ain't science fiction.

I pronounce "syfy" and "scifi" the same because I have been into reading science fiction most of my life.

I still own a VCR because I have a whole bunch of "Dr Who" episodes that I taped off PBS. I really need to copy to disk one of these days. I really would love to see reruns of old "Dr Who".

I hope we actually get "Riverworld" some day Mr. Farmer wrote some really great stuff besides that series, "Image of the Beast" is one that I found in an adult book store, now that was a strange place to buy a scifi book.

A lot of people consider SciFi to include horror and fantasy, but not something like "Ghost Hunters"

syfy can be trademarked. You know that you don't actually xerox, or use a teflon pan, Unless the photocopier is made by Xerox or the pan is made with Dupont's ok.

I hope that syfy will pick up old shows like "Space 1999", "Carnivale", "True Blood" when that series ends and there are tons of other things we might enjoy seeing again. I really would love to season 1 of "Eureka"

I hope syfy can finally get rid of the middle of the night infomercials. Maybe they can come up with a new channel "syfy classics" with the old stuff and infomercials from 1-4 every night instead.

I patiently await SGU, ok, so not really all that patient, but nothing I can do about it. Good original programming and a variety of previously aired series will keep us watching the channel no matter what it called. I have no idea what "MAVTV" means, could be mature adult video for all I know, but I watch stuff on it.

Yes, I ramble, so what.

For a great series of movies I vote for "Nine Princes of Amber". A great serial show would be Spider Robinson's "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" or for the violence prone things written by David Drake. There is so much damn good SciFi, fantasy and horror that could be on. Why not yet another try at Norman's Gor?


----------



## bicker1

As much as folks hate the idea that it belongs on Syfy, Ghost Hunters continues to deliver.

LINK

Given how little the series costs, that's a bonanza. You can argue with success, but in my experience, in business, success always wins.


----------



## phrelin

trainman said:


> Even when it launched in 1992, the Sci-Fi Channel's mission was "science fiction, fantasy, and horror." Its program schedule has never been purely sci-fi, despite the channel name.


At some point the reality of the channel's heritage has to be acknowledged. From Wikipeidia:


> The Sci-Fi Channel was launched on September 24, 1992 by USA Networks, then a joint venture between Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios.
> 
> The channel was seen as a natural fit with classic film and television series that both studios had in their vaults, including Rod Serling's Night Gallery (from Universal TV) and Paramount's Star Trek and classic Universal horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and author Isaac Asimov were among those on the advisory board.


I'm not sure whether Gene or Isaac was the wrestling fan....:sure:

But other than the wrestling they seem to make money pretty much remaining within the framework of science fiction and horror plus some fantasy and occult, and the related "reality" show.

If Syfy works for them as well as it seems to be, I have to say, begrudingly perhaps, maybe there was some marketing wisdom in the name change.

And if it's necessary in order to create funds for taking a chance or two with scifi series shows, carrying more 21st Century sports with Frankenstein-themed drug-enhanced "athletes" somehow seems consistent.


----------



## phrelin

I started a thread over in the sports section WWE Mulls Own Cable Channel. The news articles mention keeping the shows on USA but they don't mention Syfy.


----------



## frederic1943

phrelin said:


> I'm not sure whether Gene or Isaac was the wrestling fan....
> But other than the wrestling they seem to make money pretty much remaining within the framework of science fiction and horror plus some fantasy and occult, and the related "reality" show.


Wrestling fits in well with syfy since it's pure fantasy.


----------



## bicker1

Recent News:


> New York, NY - October 13, 2009 - It was quite a week for Syfy. Propelled by Sanctuary, Stargate Universe and the Original Movie Megafault, Syfy was the *#3 cable entertainment network in Adults 25-54*, behind only USA and TBS, for the week ending October 11.


#3 cable entertainment network in a prime demographic... I cannot see how anyone can continue to consider their efforts over the last few years to be anything other than a massive success.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> Recent News:#3 cable entertainment network in a prime demographic... I cannot see how anyone can continue to consider their efforts over the last few years to be anything other than a massive success.


I find it interesting, though, that the shows quoted as being the big successes in this ratings windfall are SciFi shows. Now if they were crediting Wrestling or something for the increase in ratings, that seems more to me like proof of the direction change.

In any event, if the channel is doing well... that's good for me, so maybe more of what I like will keep coming.


----------



## bicker1

Wrestling is *just one show* on the network, and *isn't a significant part* of the direction change.

The big change is the *heavier focus on fantasy, space opera, and horror* instead of science fiction (as per this post), and the *heavier focus on relationship-based programming and light-hearted programming* instead of hardcore technical and military stuff. The big change is also reflected in the big leap in the percentage of *viewers of the network who are women*.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's fine... but some of what they were talking about in terms of "diversifying" sounded to me like they wanted to move away from SciFi programming on SyFy. Fortunately, it doesn't seem they have really done that yet... and apparently the increase in ratings might help keep things that way.


----------



## bicker1

The diversification that they were referring to, I believe, is embodied in programs like Alice, and Tin Man, for example.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bicker1 said:


> The diversification that they were referring to, I believe, is embodied in programs like Alice, and Tin Man, for example.


I DVRed Tin Man but keep forgetting about it! I am curious about Alice as well. I do wish they'd do more of this kind of stuff (and maybe they will be).


----------



## dreadlk

bicker1 said:


> Recent News:#3 cable entertainment network in a prime demographic... I cannot see how anyone can continue to consider their efforts over the last few years to be anything other than a massive success.


The reason for this is that WH13 and SGU are all new shows, so they will get a huge audience at the start. The real test is how are they doing 6 months from now. If SGU gets any worst it wont even be around in 6 months.


----------



## bicker1

I haven't seen SGU yet, but based on the positive impressions of the show I've seen expressed by people who's opinions about genre programming I typically categorically disagree with, I wouldn't be surprised if I dislike SGU intensely.


----------



## mreposter

bicker1 said:


> Recent News:#3 cable entertainment network in a prime demographic... I cannot see how anyone can continue to consider their efforts over the last few years to be anything other than a massive success.


Disco Duck was also a hit back in 1976 but it did little to advance the long-term success of the musical genre. 

Syfy can add all the ratings-broadening shows like Ghost Whisperer they want, but they risk watering down the brand. If they continue to invest in shows like SGU, Caprica, etc, things should go well. Just beware the duck.


----------



## bicker1

No, the risk redefining the brand, which is what their intent was. 

FWIR, SGU sucks. 

I feel that they need to invest in more shows like Warehouse 13 and Eureka... those really foster the brand that they're trying to build and represent the kind of programming my wife and I like best. 

Caprica sounds good too, though.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Caprica looks good, from the pilot... Eureka is good... Warehouse 13 I haven't fully engaged though I have it on the DVR.

There is room for some variety in the genre... SciFi programming doesn't all have to be serious.


----------

