Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
CNN Hits 20-Year Weekday Primetime Low 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
Best Buy Shares Up Pre-Market As Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Will ‘Paperboy’ Heat Domestic Buying At Cannes? … 
Millennium Films Buys Spec Thriller ‘Playing … 
Will ‘American Idol’s’ Jessica Sanchez … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
CBS’ ‘Rules Of Engagement’ Renewed For … 
Facebook Shares Fall Below Offering Price Even As Market … 
UTA Signs ‘Intouchables’ Star Omar Sy 
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.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
There must be larger forces at play here– like Jeff Zucker being involved in a TRADING PLACES-like bet with some other sap to see who’s “The Dumbest Person Alive.”
SciFi needs to be changed from the inside out, emphasizing quality programming like Galatctica instead of watering down its core audience with WWE events, Z-grade movies and decades’ old repeats. But lord knows that doesn’t make any sense to someone like Jeff Zucker, the George W. Bush of the entertainment world.
Dyp Shyt move.
It’s a bad bad move. “Sci Fi” evokes memories of great works of fiction spanning decades if not centuries. I hear the word “Sci Fi” and I immediately associate it with Asimov, Jules Verne, Star Wars, Star Trek, and on and on. The Scifi Channel is lucky to have those coattails to ride on.
“Syfy”, on the other hand, is a made up gibberish word that means nothing to me. It reminds me of the wacky here today gone tomorrow websites that you hear about all the time. (Cuil anyone?) “Syfy” the channel evokes thoughts of cheap made for tv movies where mutant alligators and giant ant people fight each other. The winner gets to eat the people in the cabin. (There are always tasty people in a cabin in these movies.)
At least we know the marketing industry is alive and well. Boom times for them.
The name change is probably for the best as under Bonnnie Hammer’s “leadership” the channel has been moving away from real science-fiction as fast as it can. Wrestling? Reality shows about haunted houses? “Scare Tactics”? After Galactica finishes this week, I’ll have no reason to turn to the channel at all…
At a time, and in a Cable universe where niche branding is almost everything, the decision to change from SciFi to SyFy is simply put, absurd. Instead of doubling down and being the go to place for SciFi and SciFi related kind of programming– really courting the community and being creative with its programming, they completely fold the creative tent for advertisers and viewers. Instead of telling the world they are renewing Battlestar for two more years, or are dedicated to being the destination for the Fringe and Heroes network business, even if done with different economics, they decide to implode one of the most obvious branded plays in television. How do these decisions get made???
The biggest problem has to do with the network itself, however. Everything is slow to dead, they never read, they never make decisions with any kind of purpose and they have never told the world how to bring them product. Hmmm… let’s see… if I were to consider what Peter Liguori might find interesting it would seem uber oversight of NBCUNI’s Network and Cable businesses might be something to contemplate. But then again, we ARE talking about the paralyzed nature of GE’s creative assets as overseen by an executive who has failed more times than one can imagine from high above Rockefeller Center. And by the way, bringing in a talent like Liguori would probably intimidate him because he’d know once corporate spent any time with a real executive who understands every aspect of the broadcast and cable business, he’d be kicked out the door!
Sigh? Fie!
While this may be a stupid move fiscally at this time, I can understand their desire to have a name they can copyright. Even if their choice and motto seem like lame choices to me.
But I don’t see how this name change is going to alienate anyone. And the comment that one wouldn’t “call” it “SyFy” makes me chuckle and wonder about possible pronunciation choices.
And be fair about the programming. As another poster pointed out, their mini-series are typically very good, stamped from a completely different mold than their idiotic monster movies of the week. And BSG has not just been a great SciFi Channel show — it’s been a great show without qualification. I don’t think someone like, say, the CW can claim a similar feather in the cap.
If it can be screwed up NBC/Uni will find the way to do it! They’re kind of geniuses, no?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which is the way Zucker runs NBC. You can bet an outfit like Landor would charge NBC at least $500K-1M for a new name. And what did they come up with? A bastardized spelling of the original name! So what if the name cannot be trademarked. They can trademark their logo and probably did, years ago.
Seriously – this just sounds like a goddamn April Fool’s Joke. What a bunch of maroons, to quote Bugs Bunny.
This is the “in thing” for cable executives that have nothing to occupy their time. Relaunch the channel under a new brand.
They don’t actually care that there hasn’t been any data to show that these relaunches improve ratings or viewership. Anecdotally at least, these changes only seem to confuse viewers.
The SciFi channel has seemed hellbent on turning itself into another cable channel that is indistinguishable from USA, Spike, Lifetime or what have you.
Good luck with that.
This is like renaming the ship “The Tytanic.”
This is so lame. Shouldn’t the f at least be capitalized? It looks ilke sy-fee or sif-fee right now. Which sounds like a disease (like some slang term for syphilis).
“Dude, I slept with that slutty girl last year and caught syfy.”
When I was at a meeting at SciFi a couple years ago, they said they were no longer interested in any material that had to do with space or aliens. I said “aren’t you the scifi network?”
They said they were tired of only being a network for geeks and young men. They wanted to appeal to a broader audience. That meant that the only science fiction they were interested in was stuff about psychics and ghosts. Because they thought that stuff would appeal to women.
It seems as if not much has changed in the last couple of years.
Maybe they should call it Sci-Ho
Unfortunately that has other perhaps unintentional implications. I guess they think Syfy (ick) would somehow be a better umbrella for all the horror programming they schedule.
I agree with Jimmy on “Taken” and “Dune” although I haven’t watched “BSG.” I did watch “Dr. Who” and subsequently caught “Primeval” and “Torchwood” on BBC America, both of which are good shows in my opinion, but I expect we won’t see anymore of “Torchwood” on Sci-Fi because of certain content. At least if I miss those shows on BBCA I can buy them on iTunes. I wouldn’t pay for anything else on Sci-Fi but “Battlestar Galactica.”
THANK YOU! for finally telling the terrible truth. I’ve googled “scifi channel sucks” for years without finding any mass outcry against the giant-animal-bad-fantasy-d-grade-horor-and-execrable-ghosthunters-marathon travesty that the franchise peddles.
At last– some recognition…
This is the most ridiculous, stupid, idiotic, imbecilic, asinine, unnecessary thing I’ve ever heard.
I agree with Joe – this will completely alienate SciFi fans. Speaking as one, having people who just don’t get it muck around in our business is abhorrent. It’s bad enough their stupid programming decisions and lack of original thinking are running the channel into the ground (talking about SciFi here, not NBC, though it’s applicable to both obviously), now they’re issuing the ultimate insult: they’re sanitizing the channel so “regular” people will watch it. News flash: They won’t.
Leave it to the GE-NBCUNI braintrust (sic) to completely undermine one of the few truly branded networks in television. But then again, when you don’t know how to program for that brand, then you start to unduly tinker like this. In a Cable universe where niche is more and more coveted from an audience standpoint and an advertiser standpoint, they decide to not only throw away SciFi, but make it SyFy (WTF).
Let’s face it though, when a network can’t articulate to the town what it truly wants and stands for, when a group of executives take months (not weeks) to look at material, it’s no wonder they flounder.
Hmmm… I wonder what Peter Liguori would do with this? Then again, why would the NYer overseeing all things related to NBC from high above Rockefeller Center bring in a bonafide star? Maybe because he’d finally be proven to be the emporer without any clothes!
What a collossal waste of an opportunity… on all fronts.
this is the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard in my life
seriously, why is there not a revolt of ge shareholders to replace these buffoons…syfy?
congrats – ‘new coke’ has now fallen as the dumbest rebrand ever
i hope your children burn in hell
SO INCREDIBLY LAME!
Well,what do you expect from a network ashamed of its own fans and programming ? This is just a sad pathetic bid to move them even further away from their roots and make a cheap buck churning out “reality programming” (if you can call ECW “reality”) The only true Sci-Fi left on the network is Battlestar and Eureka and most people watch those online or buy the DVDs. R.I.P. Sci-Fi
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8okd6_forry-farewell_shortfilms
Ridiculous. Because what better way to piss off your detail-oriented, BSG-loving base than to change your name to a trademarkable typo?!
Not that I intend to watch a single thing on SciFi… ugh, Syfy, whatever… other than Caprica, and even then it’ll likely be for two episodes and Bear McCreary’s music.
But yeah, of course they’d use the golden opportunity of BSG not to build up that base or rescue other good sci-fi shows, but instead to lame the network up with reality ghost-hunting and The Giant Rubber Hose That Attacked Us From The Sea.
Go ahead and change it to Syfy, morons. Eventually someone will come along and know how to properly market to Sci-fi fans, and will know how to rescue network shows in a way that also draws some of the main-network audience. You can’t hurt BSG anymore, so big whoop.
Sounds like big changes are about to come- why cheapen the name if you’re not planning to cheapen the brand too? Sounds like Syfy is about to become a second-rate cable network full of repeats of Science Fiction shows- shows like Stargate, Lost In Space, Quark, TekWar- vault type shows rather then new production shows. Hey, the advertisers will still plunk down their money but the ad sales dept will have an easier time filling the available ad sales inventory. They’ll be able to concentrate on B-name ad sales clients and they’ll still make a profit on it all. I were an employee of The Sci Fi Network I’d get my resume together.
What a bunch of complainers! Did you pay attention to the idea behind the name change? Outside of loyal nerds, no one watched the Sci Fi channel. That, despite the fact the biggest blockbusters are fantasy or futuristic titles like Halo 3, Watchmen, Twilight, Race to Witch Mountain and Wolverine. Syfy now has a chance to attract that audience. They should be making shows like Heroes and Lost on the channel, not just crap about aliens and space travel.
What’s the big deal? It’s pronounced the same, just spelled differently. Lots of opinions, not many facts. Here’s a few.
– A trademarkable brand is important.
– The Sci Fi niche audience is not enough to support a network. Ad sales has trouble selling this demo.
– Sci Fi is not failing – it just had its best year ever and is a top ten cable network.
– The programming stays the same – only the name changes.
– Those who like Stargate have a new Stargate to look forward to.
– As someone mentioned, Sci Fi fans already don’t like calling it “Sci Fi” so why would they be pissed off about this?
– Those who like BSG have Caprica to look forward to.
– BTW, BSG was not canceled – ending it was Moore & Eick’s idea.
– Calling the channel “Sci Fi” was a huge stumbling block to large segments of the audience who automatically stay away because they’ve decided that Sci Fi is only for geeks. If BSG had been on a major network it would have been showered with Emmys – on Sci Fi, not so much.
– It wasn’t Zucker’s idea.