{"id":1431,"date":"2009-07-07T07:31:38","date_gmt":"2009-07-07T13:31:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/?p=1431"},"modified":"2009-07-07T07:31:38","modified_gmt":"2009-07-07T13:31:38","slug":"bye-bye-sy-fy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/2009\/07\/07\/bye-bye-sy-fy\/","title":{"rendered":"Tune in, turn on, or drop out?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/clipart\/scifi.jpg\" alt=\"Sci-Fi Channel\" class=alignright \/>Today is the day that we officially declare the Sci-Fi Channel dead.  The question is&#8230;do we say long live &#8220;SyFy&#8221;?<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s see&#8230;um&#8230;no.  Just not feeling it.  Being the card-carrying sci-fi geek that I have been since about the age of four or so, you&#8217;d think I&#8217;m a shoo-in for just about anything that airs on this channel, regardless of what they call it, but the more I think about their rebranding as &#8220;SyFy&#8221; &#8211; supposedly so they can &#8220;own their brand&#8221; (okay, I do understand that&#8217;s important) without alienating their core audience &#8211; the more a voice in the back of my head is saying &#8220;Guys?  <em>You&#8217;re doin&#8217; it wrong.<\/em>&#8221; <!--more--> Somehow, the top brass at Sci-Fi and parent company NBC Universal have talked themselves into believing that calling the channel &#8220;SyFy&#8221; instead of &#8220;Sci-Fi&#8221; will somehow get new people in the door to sample their offerings.  I&#8217;m just not thinking that a silly intentional misspelling will have that effect, you know?<\/p>\n<p>And for all of SyFy&#8217;s &#8220;imagine&#8221; promotion &#8211; and here&#8217;s where I&#8217;m going to get on my former-TV-promo-guy high horse and claim that <em>I do know of what I speak<\/em> (whether anyone wants to believe that or not is largely up to them, naturally), why didn&#8217;t they go for a more radical change?  Case in point: Canada&#8217;s equivalent of the Sci-Fi Channel is called Space: The Imagination Station.  I&#8217;ve known that practically since it took on that name, and I don&#8217;t even live in Canada &#8211; that&#8217;s because the name is <em>so damned catchy<\/em>.  The Imagination Station.  That&#8217;s all kinds of awesome &#8211; and if one were to leave off &#8220;Space&#8221;, there&#8217;d be nothing tying it down to space\/hardware-based SF (i.e. Galactica, Stargate), which is the expensive commodity that Sci-Fi\/SyFy keeps trying to ditch without losing their base; instead they keep trying to fill the roster with Earth-based shows like Eureka and Warehouse 13, which is fine, and grade-Z movies that can&#8217;t even bothered to go straight to DVD, which is less than fine.  Something like &#8220;The Imagination Station&#8221; would cover that ground <em>so much better<\/em> than trying to claim to be Sci-Fi any longer, regardless of how it&#8217;s spelled.<\/p>\n<p>I won&#8217;t even get into the wrestling shows on Sci-Fi\/SyFy.  The channel constantly defends those by pointing out that they pop a number.  So did WWF Smackdown on UPN &#8211; and while it drew the wrestling audience to UPN, the wrestling audience didn&#8217;t make itself conspicuous by hanging around to sample the rest of the network&#8217;s programming.<\/p>\n<p>And where is UPN now?  Oh&#8230;yeah.  One or two of its shows were subsumed into the CW, a mongrel-dog hybrid of UPN and the WB, and even those shows are now history.  You&#8217;d think someone might have taken notice of that lesson.  But by the same token, you&#8217;d think more folks would remember <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.media\/category\/books\/dumont\/\">the DuMont network<\/a> too.  No such luck.<\/p>\n<p>When <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2009\/SHOWBIZ\/TV\/07\/06\/scifi.syfy.change\/index.html\">even battle-hardened marketing folks in the industry think SyFy is most likely making a misstep<\/a>, one has to wonder if there isn&#8217;t more to it than a bunch of vocal, disgruntled fans who are cranky without their Galactica fix.  Sci-Fi has made so many critical missteps that I&#8217;ve lost count.  The Universal Studios vaults are heavy with classic genre fare that&#8217;s barely even being exploited in the daily &#8220;marathon to fill the morning\/early afternoon dayparts&#8221; marathons; arguably, there could be a Classic Sci-Fi Channel sitting comfortably alongside the current one.  This rebranding is ham-fisted at best.  And by ignoring such things as the fan filmmaking community, imported fare such as Doctor Who (which Sci-Fi was <em>very<\/em> late in picking up, and has now recently lost to BBC America) and international co-productions (for which you&#8217;d think that the partially-Sky-One-bankrolled Galactica would&#8217;ve helped them develop a taste), Sci-Fi has done all it can to make sure everyone knows that space\/hardware SF is &#8220;too expensive&#8221; for them.<\/p>\n<p>But they need to come up with something better than a bunch of Earthbound alternate universes that look like the woods outside of Vancouver.  Caprica&#8217;s an encouraging step &#8211; not really space-based, but it has the high concept going for it &#8211; and Eureka&#8217;s a lot of fun when it&#8217;s not taking itself too overly seriously, but we&#8217;re talking about two hours out of the entire schedule.<\/p>\n<p>Face it, SyFy, the Canadians beat you to the punch fair and square.  &#8220;The Imagination Station.&#8221;  Rolls off the tongue nicely &#8211; and I kinda wish I could watch <em>that<\/em> instead of SyFy itself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today is the day that we officially declare the Sci-Fi Channel dead. The question is&#8230;do we say long live &#8220;SyFy&#8221;? Let&#8217;s see&#8230;um&#8230;no. Just not feeling it. Being the card-carrying sci-fi geek that I have been since about the age of four or so, you&#8217;d think I&#8217;m a shoo-in for just about anything that airs on this channel, regardless of what they call it, but the more I think about their rebranding as &#8220;SyFy&#8221; &#8211; supposedly so they can &#8220;own their brand&#8221; (okay, I do understand that&#8217;s important) without alienating their core audience &#8211; the more a voice in the back [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-television-movies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelogbook.com\/earl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}