![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7I've found out, today, that, rather than utilizing existing revenue streams to emphasize product quality over style, shore up its fan and customer base, learn from their MANY mistakes, give the people what they want, and perhaps put its name and face in more and more conventions to sincerely shore up its cred, SciFi Channel has decided to Change It's Name and 'Brand Image.'.
By which I mean, "Do Exactly The Opposite Of Everything I Just Said."
Now, if you tie this to their Continual destruction of popular shows, the moment they become "too expensive to produce," their ill-conceived and clumsily-executed Product Placement foray in this past season of Eureka!, their seeming inability to inconnectively market what they do have and create Well, via their parent corporation (NBC/Universal), it paints a picture which shows me that it's really just a matter of time before SciFi (or "SyFy," if they prefer) tanks in a maybe-not-so-massive-anymore ball of flames.
The only network which was actually and in fact catering to an increasingly-out-in-the-open crop of SF/F fans-- a group with disposable income, distinct, and definite, if varied opinions-- has decided that it wants to turn its back on them, entirely, to try to make itself seem "Edgier," "Cooler," more "Textable." And they've decided to do this at a time when they're cutting several well-loved shows, and making newer, shittier movies, by the dozen? They Chose... Poorly.
And this: '"We couldn't own SciFi; it's a genre," said Bonnie Hammer, the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment and Universal Cable Productions. "But we can own Syfy."'
We should all be deeply dismayed and not at all surprised by the fact that they haven't recognized that A) most long-term lovers of science-fiction will either say "Science-Fiction" or will abbreviate it "SF," these days, and B) "Sci-Fi" was orginally coined as a mirror/echo of "High-Fi," to make it (and here comes the irony train) sound cooler and more hip. In terms of books, it made no damn sense, it did not map, because the "Fi" in question was a completely different thing. Hence: "SF." But with the Advent of an entire fucking TELEVISION CHANNEL, the "Fi" mapped, again. It fully took on that dual meaning.
It took a meaning that it couldn't have had if the genre hadn't been given a misnomer, to begin with, and one that makes the changing of that channel name a Very. Stupid. Thing. USE the brand recognition. HOLD the market, and draw more attention to the fact that you are "High-Fidelity. Science-Fiction. Sci-Fi." Or Some bullshit, like that. JESUS CHRIST THIS ISN'T HARD.
But you know what? You'll never read this. You're going to lose your market, your base, your fans, and then your properties will be subsumed and redistributed, quietly, and without "much fuss."
Because, by that point, everyone will have ceased caring.
Starting with me.
By which I mean, "Do Exactly The Opposite Of Everything I Just Said."
Now, if you tie this to their Continual destruction of popular shows, the moment they become "too expensive to produce," their ill-conceived and clumsily-executed Product Placement foray in this past season of Eureka!, their seeming inability to inconnectively market what they do have and create Well, via their parent corporation (NBC/Universal), it paints a picture which shows me that it's really just a matter of time before SciFi (or "SyFy," if they prefer) tanks in a maybe-not-so-massive-anymore ball of flames.
The only network which was actually and in fact catering to an increasingly-out-in-the-open crop of SF/F fans-- a group with disposable income, distinct, and definite, if varied opinions-- has decided that it wants to turn its back on them, entirely, to try to make itself seem "Edgier," "Cooler," more "Textable." And they've decided to do this at a time when they're cutting several well-loved shows, and making newer, shittier movies, by the dozen? They Chose... Poorly.
And this: '"We couldn't own SciFi; it's a genre," said Bonnie Hammer, the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment and Universal Cable Productions. "But we can own Syfy."'
We should all be deeply dismayed and not at all surprised by the fact that they haven't recognized that A) most long-term lovers of science-fiction will either say "Science-Fiction" or will abbreviate it "SF," these days, and B) "Sci-Fi" was orginally coined as a mirror/echo of "High-Fi," to make it (and here comes the irony train) sound cooler and more hip. In terms of books, it made no damn sense, it did not map, because the "Fi" in question was a completely different thing. Hence: "SF." But with the Advent of an entire fucking TELEVISION CHANNEL, the "Fi" mapped, again. It fully took on that dual meaning.
It took a meaning that it couldn't have had if the genre hadn't been given a misnomer, to begin with, and one that makes the changing of that channel name a Very. Stupid. Thing. USE the brand recognition. HOLD the market, and draw more attention to the fact that you are "High-Fidelity. Science-Fiction. Sci-Fi." Or Some bullshit, like that. JESUS CHRIST THIS ISN'T HARD.
But you know what? You'll never read this. You're going to lose your market, your base, your fans, and then your properties will be subsumed and redistributed, quietly, and without "much fuss."
Because, by that point, everyone will have ceased caring.
Starting with me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 06:16 pm (UTC)Especially since they know they are already losing viewers which is why they have fooled themselves into thinking this is a good idea. There is no science fiction lowest common demographic to appeal to and they need that pointed out to them. Again.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 06:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 08:08 pm (UTC)Not that I don't watch "Television Shows." I just don't watch many television channels.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 08:52 pm (UTC)Instead of devoting whole weeks to repeated playings of seasons of things no one remembers, change it up a little. Have a retro cartoon slot, with some Transformers and old Trek cartoons, and the Spiderman and Batman I watched when I was still wearing the feety-pajamas with the velcro capes.
But,
no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-16 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-17 05:44 am (UTC)Aggressive marketing
Date: 2009-03-17 02:35 pm (UTC)"HyperReality" "Transhuman TV" "Quantum Universe"
Pick up the nerdy fanboys SyFy is trying to shake loose... along with all the regulars (be it the pit stop redneck who likes flipping over for Ghost Hunters, the fangirls drooling over all the man-meat in Star Wars, the high-powered CEO with doors that open when you walk towards them and a complete collection of Trek memorabilia) who are turned off by this move... and take them. (Insert "I'm drinking your milkshake" idea here.)
Somebody could make a killing with this.
Re: Aggressive marketing
Date: 2009-03-17 02:49 pm (UTC)Re: Aggressive marketing
Date: 2009-03-17 02:59 pm (UTC)"So they toss it, and they leave it, and I pull up quick to retrieve it."
or...
"Are you gonna finish that?"
Or, to continue with Mr. Ellison's diatribe, "It's all about the money." Money makes the world go 'round.
If they were stepping up to the plate, there'd be no need, or opening. But if they're abandoning their core audience, somebody might as well fill in for the little lost lambs...
hm. I seem to be switching into the justifications people use to "steal" people in relationships. But it still applies, moreso since the audience is the product rather than an equal partner in the relationship.
Re: Aggressive marketing
Date: 2009-03-17 03:10 pm (UTC)It is, in fact, about the money, and the market left to be filled.
Funny timing...
Date: 2009-03-17 04:31 pm (UTC)Check this out: http://mgafm.livejournal.com/359982.html?view=944942#t944942