'Syfy' HD - Page 4

I wonder how much attention they are paying to the general lampooning the new name is taking. If people are thinking the name is goofy from the start....not a good sign.

With a name like "SyFy" which can be pronounced or altered so many different way "S'iffy" whether this is a good idea.

Well, they're kind of in a pickle because they can't reverse course now even if they didn't pay some overpriced consultant a small fortune to come up with it, focus-group test it, vet it, etc, etc, etc. They can't be seen as backing down due to fan pressure. It took Coca Cola years to finally shut down New Coke, and they just dropped the "classic" from the name that was originally stuck on there because of that marketing fiasco. Like it or not, Sci-Fi is stuck with SyFy for the near, and probably far, future.

New Coke wasn't a marketing fiasco at all. It was a deliberate ruse to allow them to completely switch over from sugar to high fructose corn syrup. Before New Coke, Pepsi had passed Coke in consumer sales - after Classic was brought back, they went back on top and stayed there.

Every now and then, i'll grab a bottle of coke from the mexican aisle of our supermarket. it's a 1 liter glass bottle, bottled in mexico and made with cane sugar. A little pricey, but worth it!

Mexican Coke is pretty good, but if you want a great Coke, hit up a Jewish supermarket and get some "Kosher for Passover" Coke. It's only bottled for passover each year (coming up in a couple of weeks) and only by the NYC bottling plant. The combination of sugar and NYC water blows away the crap we normally get. Unfortunately, outside of the NYC area, typically only two liter bottles are available.

I dunno; there was a lot of outrage when they introduced it, as I recall. There was so much resistance and push-back from their customers that they were eventually forced to backtrack and re-introduce the original product with the "classic" label to quiet the protests. Sounds like a bona fide marketing fiasco to me.

A "marketing fiasco" hurts sales, it doesn't propel you from #2 to #1.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but the move to New Coke did hurt sales. As in, people stopped buying it. It was only when they reversed course and came back with "Classic Coke" that their sales rebounded. So, they made a strategic blunder, which I've here termed a "marketing fiasco", that they later corrected. I really don't know what point you're trying to argue here, or why.

Coke was trending downward. Pepsi had passed Coke for the first time in history in consumer sales. Had they not introduced New Coke, there's nothing to suggest that Coke would not have continued their slide. That introduction, along with the very predictable outrage, allowed them to "bring back" Classic Coke with enough hype to not just rebound, but surge back ahead of Pepsi.

Bottom line - you can't call something a marketing fiasco if it is something that even with 20/20 hindsight, they would do all over again.

....this line of logic would work for "SyFy" only if they eventually go back to the original name and starting showing actual Science Fiction shows as opposed to wrestling and ghost hunting.

Okay, I see where you're going. I didn't realize Pepsi had passed them. But I do remember people calling it a huge fiasco back then. They said that business classes would use it as a textbook example of a major corporate strategic blunder. Perhaps they have a different take on it now that things seem to have worked out in Coca Cola's favor.

In any event, Sci-Fi is stuck with SyFy for the foreseeable future. Maybe in hindsight it might turn out all right as well, in spite of the "outrage" we're seeing now.

I'd be fine with the new name if they decided to dedicate themselves to Science Fiction.

If NBC/U had half a brain they'd embrace Sci Fi and own that genre, no matter how moderate the viewership is. They have plenty of outlets for general programming. Unfortunately, the people running Sci Fi are trying to compete with all the other cablenets instead of looking at the big (NBC/U) picture.

By having a generic channel with the occasional Sci Fi original programming, they put the focus (as evidenced in this thread) only on that small handful of original programming. If they had 24 hours of Sci Fi, the fans of the genre would consider the whole channel "must have", not just the original programming.

But can they make something like that financially viable? Adding wrestling looked like a desperation move, and subjected them to withering criticism (deserved, IMO), but I'll bet it draws at least double the audience of the best science fiction show in TV history which is drawing to a close this week. Part 1 of the 3 hour series finale of BSG drew less than 2 million viewers on Friday. That's both shocking, given the publicity, and profoundly disappointing.

Given the sad reality that when they do develop programming of remarkable quality, nobody bothers to watch - what are they to do?

But from NBC/U's perspective, the WWE could garner those ratings on one of their other dozen cablenets.

Diluting the science fiction on the Sci Fi channel, turns it into just another channel with an occasional primetime science fiction show - same as many other channels. If you want to lock up that genre, that isn't the way to do it.

It's like owning a small mall with 20 specialty shops - each one offering the widest selection of products for their target market. The stores will have varying levels of traffic, but as the owner of all of them, who cares as long as each store is considered the best in the city for its market. If the individual GMs of each store cut back their selection in order to carry the best products from the other 19 stores, you'll end up owning 20 mini Wal-Marts. A handful of the stores will show improvement, but the net effect for you is a radical drop in total traffic.

It's quality and not quantity. Look at Mad Men, which aired on the even more obscure AMC, had less viewers than BSG (about 1 million per episode), yet won the Emmy as Outstanding Drama. Could this bode well this coming September?

FYI, I think SyFy will be rather iffy.

What it boils down to is NBCU wants their own response to Viacom's Spike! and Comcast's G4 and rebranding and diluting Scifi to SyFy is the easiest way for them to do it. Science fiction's prime demo is 18-34 year old males so they feel if they push programming in the general direction of these other "man" networks, they already have a built in audience.

They've already been heading in that direction with ECW and that WCG Ultimate Gamer crap that they show during the week. Then you start to look at the plethora of reality shows they either have current or coming down the pipe and it's pretty clear what direction they intend to go. As far as original programming goes that comes even close to science fiction, I'm pretty sure we are going to be confined to a 3 hour friday night block.

Nothing would make me happier, but nothing is likely what will happen - again. How ridiculous is it that BSG has never had even a nomination in one of the "Big 3" Emmy categories (best dramatic series, actor, actress)...?

Hate to say it. As soon as we lose this Sci Fi channel name from our television line up start demanding a Science Fiction Channel. You know, pretend they ripped us off one Science Fiction Channel and demand we get a Science Fiction Channel back in our choices.

Here the hard part. We are going to have to pay for it as a stand alone premium channel. Let them know we are willing to pay for a rotating 12 hour new program block each day.

And put a fork in NBCU and move on.

???

why does SyFy make me think of sh**face?

perhaps that's the recommended state for watching the bulk of their programming?

It would be interesting if one of the Premium channels, Showtime, Starz, HBO developed a SciFi/Supernatural type channel, be nice to see all these movies/shows without commercials and unedited. Probably not enough interest, but I'd subscribe to something like that.

It's essentially trying to be FOX, a network that could have great original sci-fi programming like X-files, Firefly, Sarah Connor, Fringe, etc, while still dredging the lowest common denomonator reality programming along the lines of 'When Midgets Go Bad'. It's an unfortunate mistake to try to beat FOX at their own game.

Little off topic here, but since it's been on all day, did Dark Angel get a fitting end to it's run? I know it only ran two years, but did it get some closure with the final episode?

I can't recall if I even made it through to the end. That show had a pretty good first season but re-tooled dramatically for the second, I think because of network interference. The result was a 'Desperate Housewives' or 'Heroes' level crash in sophomore season quality. It limped in to an inglorious finish, as I recall, but I don't remember being around to witness it.

Was'nt the Outer Limits and Stargate-SG1 originally on Showtime? I wish Star Trek would return as I am gettig tired of all the Crime shows we have now. Even a good western would be a great change of pace (I know not SYFY).

Yes, they were, I remember watching Stargate on Showtime, never really got into Outer Limits.

Showtime Science Fiction series: Outer Limits, Stargate, Jeremiah, Odyssey 5, Syns (in development).

Boy, that's news to me. I always thought the Science Fiction Genre was skewed to an older, more experienced, audience. Maybe that is the problem, they're trying to reinvent Science Fiction and target it to the demographic they want, not to the viewers that actually want to watch it. (or can understand it)

Action/Adventure tends to be aimed at a lower age group but Science Fiction generally requires some Political and Historical knowledge, appreciation and understanding of satire and parody. (other than the shoot-em-up Summer Blockbuster Movie variety)

Or maybe I'm just getting old and cranky and would rather have a good story than scantily clad characters. (I would take both together, however)

I'm glad someone else noticed that. I was barely a teenager then, I noticed that and shook my head. Of course, anyone who lives in a family with corn allergies noticed that change, too.


Emmy voters hate science fiction shows. They never showed "Buffy" any love, either.

Sounds like you would have been a 'Firefly' fan. Best of both worlds.


With all due respect, 'Buffy', while a very entertaining show, wasn't in BSG's class in terms of heady drama. Virtually nothing has been.