Everyone knows that corporate rebranding costs a bundle. So it makes no sense in this climate of economic crisis and budget cuts and staff layoffs that NBC Universal would waste money like this. Yet already put-upon GE shareholders are being Jeff Zuckered yet again. Stuart Elliott’s always interesting advertising column in The New York Times reports that the Sci Fi Channel and its website today will introduce its new name of ”Syfy” and its plain vanilla logo and lame new slogan “Imagine Greater”, effective as of July 7th. Adding to the idiocy is that there’s already a company called SyFi Global, an information technology company. Arguing that the name “Sci Fi” was so generic it could not be trademarked, the channel’s rebranding campaign ”seeks to distinguish the channel and its programming from cable competitors.” Both Bonnie Hammer and Dave Howe over the years actually sat though many meetings where a name change was debated. The corporate and brand identity consultancy Landor Associates as well as two London marketing agencies were hired at what I’m sure was great expense. Meanwhile, Sci Fi Channel’s programming mostly really Zucks.






While I agree this is beyond stupid, what would you expect from an idiot like Jeff Zucker? However, not all programming on SciFi (and I don’t think I’ll ever call it SyFy — a truly stupid name) “Zucks.” SciFi’s problem, at least since becoming part of the NBC sinking ship, has been a lack of funds to make truly good programming. Sadly, the best show they ever had is leaving the air Friday. Without Battlestar Galactica there’s little reason to watch SciFi. While I’m a fan of Eureka, it’s no BSG. While I’m very interested in seeing what the people behind BSG can do with Caprica, I don’t hold out hope that NBC Universal will give it more than one season.
Like most networks, and especially NBC Universal, it comes down to demographics. Unfortunately for all of us, the demographic NBC and advertisers constantly chase are drawn to the crappy Saturday monster movies, wrestling, and silly reality programs. Hell, SciFi doesn’t even invest in their great winter mini-series anymore. Mini-series like Taken and Dune helped put this network on the map but when was the last time SciFi premiered a great SCIENCE FICTION mini-series? Tin Man may have been a ratings success, but it’s a poor man’s fantasy and certainly not science fiction.
First reaction is that this will likely alienate the people that actually watch the channel. People into Science Fiction aren’t going to take well to seeing it spelled Scyence Fyction. Some rethinking and polish would be welcome for this network but this looks like navel-gazing marketing originated by people clueless to the inherent appeal of the brand run amok.
You’d think they’d be more worried that the only show worth watching on SyFy (Battlestar Galactica) is going off the air this week.
I’m seeing a lot of negativity toward the new name, and I guess I am a little biased about it since I’m the one who actually created the name (and sold the brand last month).
To me it makes sense to try and create a name that can actually be branded. I know some people think it’s a stupid name, but we never got that in the decade we used it as SyFy Portal. In fact, it was a spelling that for a lot of people became the new way they would write “sci-fi,” even in stuff away from the site.
I want to see science-fiction succeed on television, and I’m not necessarily the biggest fan of all the decisions made at SciFi Channel. But I am willing to give them a chance, and to see how well the name works. A big part of me wants the name to succeed, because I’ve always liked the name, was sad to let it go, and don’t want to see it sullied in a bad move. I don’t think this is a bad move, but only time will tell.
So I am putting my support behind it. Some might say it’s a lone voice, but I don’t think so … I’m sure there are others who like it, too.
The real reason is obvious: just like “The Nashville Network” eventually evolved into “Spike”, and “Cartoon Network” is adding “CN REAL” to it’s logo to justify it airing more and more Live-Action programming- “SyFy” is planning to eliminate it’s actual science fiction programming.Which is understanable, because they really don’t do it very well. Expect a lot more cheap reality shows…
Well, “Sci-Fi” was always a stretch of a name, given the channel’s general lack of, well, science fiction in its programming. The channel has been far from a darling and friend to fandom over the years, with plenty of anger over the cancellations of Farscape and MST3K while truly horrendous “original movies” and Ghost Hunters continue to dominate the channel. BSG – the one thing fandom has largely appreciated – has always seemed good in spite of Sci-Fi, not because of it.
Ironically, in an era where other channels, including NBC, have increasingly developed a reputation for smart, well-written sci-fi, the Sci-Fi channel has largely left itself in the dust. And even as some of those mainstream offerings see cancellation (Firefly, Threshold, Pushing Daisies) or a marked decline in quality (Heroes), one has to wonder why Sci-Fi wasn’t the destination for any of them.
Is this why the popular website, SyFy Portal, recently changed its nake to Airlock Alpha? Was there money exchanged that no one told the people who visit the site?
This is the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a long time.
This is the kind of idea you are supposed to realize is stupid after the drugs wear off.
Heard on Twitter is that the 18-34s in the focus group stated that SYFY is the way they would TXT it.
I can’t wait for ABC to rebrand as OMG!
Ever since the early days when the Sci Fi Channel debuted by running oldies like The Immortal, I have referred to it as Skiffy. It rhymes with iffy which is fitting considering that the four words I fear more than “we need to talk” are “Sci Fi Channel Original”.
I used to work for Landor, so I know exactly what it cost – somewhere between $250K – $500K, plus materials, travel and expenses. It could even be more, depending on the amount of service they extend. It’s a year-long process, involving naming strategists, branding gurus and all manner of psychology of consumer awareness mumbo-jumbo. You literally would not believe the amount of research they do, then rely upon, to support the costs around these absurd name changes. And companies just buy it and eat it up. They love this crap – a year’s worth of seduction, brain washing and slow pick pocketing. They line up for this.
wow. BAD move.
I agree with, Joe. If this is true, this may well be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.
Anyone who likes Sci Fi will drop a network “ashamed” of being itself — nerds can sniff out the disingenuous — and anyone who doesn’t like Scifi now will not like a SciFi homonym any better.
The strong performance of mini-series events, BSG, and Eureka have proven that it is programming and NOT brand identity that is sorely lacking here.
Well, that and a leadership that hates Sci-Fi. Wrestling, anyone?
But other than BSG, what was the last good decision the folks at SciFi made? Killing Dresden Files? Greenlighting Flash Gordon? Allowing Pain Killer Jane to be seen by anyone? ECW? The list goes on and on and on.
Here’s to SG:U but I doubt even a new Stargate could save them from SyFy.
Seriously I thought the headline was a joke. What kind of nut even considers crap like this, much less, greenlights it? I want to be in that meeting with the exclamations of approval and high five for “SyFy”… just looney.
Jimmy is right, BSG is really the only redeeming production on SciFi (I thought Stargate Atlantis was a winner, but alas too is gone).
Wait a minute, wasn’t the Sci-Fi Channel the only NBC-Universal business doing well with Battlestar Galactica?
I guess that means they had to spend millions re-branding it into the ground by making it look like some sort “lifestyle” channel that specializes in shows about making your own granola.
Boy, when you think NBC Universal has hit bottom, they break out the shovels.
LAME.
BSG is nearly over, SG1 is gone, they hardly do anything with SciFi anyway… Good rucking fiddance.
Only thing worth watching besides BSG is _Twilight Zone_ reruns, and I’d rather just get the entire series on disc..
Oh, come on! Can I have a side of SyFries with that? Imbecilic. Who keeps upping Zucker? I don’t get it. I know, we live in a town, and work in an industry, that has a habit of rewarding failure and stupidity. But, really, this guy… You know, Zucker must have been a saint or martyr in another life to have karma like this in this one.
Looks like they made SyFy Portal (a fan news site whose news shows up in Google News Searches all the time and a domain name registration that predates this asshat of a rebranding move) to Airlock Alpha
http://www.airlockalpha.com/?cmp=OTC-SyFyNotice
Oy vey iz mir…this is silly.
Foolish. Needless. Futzing with a successful recognized brand name for a reason that only MBAs will appreciate.
I used to wonder why the GE board would tolerate a dolt like zucker. But after watching the Wall Street Meltdown, it’s clear that there are a lot of dolts running these corps into the ground. This country is headed in the wrong direction.
Legal Affairs probably realized that they couldn’t trademark Sci-Fi, a term that is already offensive to science fiction (sf) fans, so they figured, hell, change it to SyFy and seal the tomb of credibility forever. What SsHolz.
At least it’s a vaguely…okay, phonetically…sensible name. Channels in the UK have undegone a completely nonsensical rebranding so that what was UKTV Gold 2 is now known as Dave.
And the time-shifted +1 service is known as Dave ja vu.
It’s a laugh a minute this side of the Atlantic. Honest.
That’s kinda dumb.
Ok this really sucks. SyFy? OMG, what genius thought that up? Everyone I know knows what SciFi Channel is all about. SyFy? Sounds like a rock band, or a sexual appliance… Really lame.
This is executive navel-gazing at its worst. The Titanic is sinking! What do they do? Rename it “Tytanic.”
OK, seriously, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.