1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Syfy Channel: Discussion (take 2)

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by Stuart Sweet, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. Aug 1, 2009 #321 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Your memory is faulty, Stewart. Again, the overriding purpose ever given for the name change was the ability to exploit the name as a brand.

    I think you've really hit the nail on the head here, in categorizing and characterizing not only your own reaction but most of the reaction I've seen with respect to the name change: fear of not being the focus of the network's intentions.
     
  2. Aug 1, 2009 #322 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Rather, I suspect it is more a matter that you're not the kind of person that tends to make purchases based on the commercials you attentively watch while enjoying television programming. :)
     
  3. Aug 1, 2009 #323 of 378
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    With that last bit, not spending money unless you have to, you're essentially an agent that takes from the system but contributes nothing to it. It is reasonable to expect that the system won't work especially hard to attract you to its offerings.

    And that raises an interesting point. My wife I find ourselves often in the position of being pleased with changes that other people go on and on and on and on about with regard to their disappointment. Why is it that so much of our national infrastructure crafts its offerings to please us, while disappointing so many others? What is the dynamic going on here that accounts for that difference? My wife and I are in that "old" category, that typically gets marginalized by the aforementioned infrastructure. We have DVRs and as a rule don't watch commercials. I don't really respond much to the few commercials we do watch (though we do buy things, but mostly based on what we read in sources like engaget, and in forums like this, actually). I don't really know what they generally advertise on television these days, but I have to assume that a lot of it is stuff that my wife and I have no interest in. So why are we so favored, and others so discounted?
     
  4. Aug 1, 2009 #324 of 378
    dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,747
    26
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    Its isnt in the same place:

    The few weeks before the name change it was around 20th for the week.
    After the name change its been 8th & 9th for those 2 weeks.

    I know the show debuts helped....im just saying its not in the same place.
     
  5. Aug 3, 2009 #325 of 378
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,369
    56
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    It's all kind of funny actually because when they first announced the name change (well it's really the same name just spelled differently, so it's essentially just a logo change) my first reaction was that I didn't really like it, thought it looked silly and thought it meant a continuing downward trend for programming that started (at least in my eyes) when they added wrestling. But in the end as it turns out, for me anyway, it really hasn't changed anything and it's ended up being one big non-issue in all actuality. So even though I still think it looks silly in the end it just didn't matter, imagine that! Yeah turns out if they play shows I like i'll watch and if they don't I won't no matter how they spell it. Huh, whodathunkit? :D
     
  6. Aug 3, 2009 #326 of 378
    mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    1,711
    1
    Jul 29, 2006
    Sounds pretty logical, tsmacro. We're all just hoping that they don't go too far in "broadening" the programming mix.
     
  7. Aug 3, 2009 #327 of 378
    tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,369
    56
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Yes that's one sentiment I definitely am in agreement with!
     
  8. Aug 3, 2009 #328 of 378
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Thats because I dont have to reply to his post line by line :)
    As I said if your debating me and expecting a reply, lets keep it short.

     
  9. Aug 3, 2009 #329 of 378
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Bicker I guess we will never agree, but I will say that I see your point, you believe that going after a broader market will be better for them, and my opinion is that it's bad for them. It may end up being better for them, but I suspect that the Name SyFy is still going to drive away 95% of women :lol:
    My wife does not even see the channel in the guide, it's like her brain has tuned it out, not surprising since I do the Same thing with the Oprah channel, and yet she loves that channel.



     
  10. Aug 3, 2009 #330 of 378
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    No one was expecting them to make an overnight change, it's logical for them at this point to put on the Best Science Fiction prg's they can! They have a huge number of people on multiple forums calling them a sell out, so they have to first prove to everyone that it's the same SciFi channel of old.
    What you need to worry about is what will happen next year when they decide to use the Wider scope that this new name makes possible.

     
  11. Aug 3, 2009 #331 of 378
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Why is it that when someone disagree's it's "Whining" but when one of the Directv Fan Boys posts his 6001 post on how great Directv is, it's considered Ok:lol: (Not calling you a Fan Boy) but this is the trend all over this forum.

    Anyway I agree, lets wait and see, I suspect right after they finish this season, you will start to see one or two very very losely based scifi series slipped into the Mix. which most likely by 2011 will be followed stuff that has nothing to do with Scifi.

     
  12. Aug 3, 2009 #332 of 378
    dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    Combination, some people have been interested in seeing if the new name changes the programming but mostly it's the new shows that are bringing in a few more people.


     
  13. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
  14. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I wonder why they are trying to give more credit to the name change than the introduction of a new show?

    It's almost like they want to undercut their own show by saying it was the name change that brought in the new viewers and not the programming.
     
  15. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Their saying so has as much, if not more, validity than all the preemptive criticisms of the name change.
     
  16. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    True... which is exactly my point in this case. They seem to want to stress how their name change is more important than their new show, which seems to undercut that new show of its own merits.

    It would be like the Lakers crediting this year's championship to a logo change on the uniform moreso than the acquisition of key players to improve their roster.
     
  17. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,943
    294
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Maybe there is something to the rebranding thing. It appears that cable channels with scripted shows are growing an audience. Maybe we science fiction geeks complain but watch science fiction series if their decent no matter where they find them. I'd watch a good scifi series even if it was on Lifetime. SciFi was a slam dunk for me.

    Maybe others had a problem with SciFi but Syfy seems all texting friendly and would be ok to watch something like "Warehouse" and "Eureka" with not only the old guys and ladies but the younger Sheriff's daughter and young hunk science type and hot young assistant on Syfy but whoda watched it on SciFi - geeks only.

    What do I know? But I'm happy to see a wider demographic on Syfy this summer then the demographic two years ago - like more women, for instance. Maybe marketing types understand marketing better then me. I don't like it that over 40 is less valued and reaching geeks isn't every advertisers dream. But it's that world as defined by NBCU.

    And this is hard because I'm the one who asked Stuart to restart this thread because I thought Syfy was just dumb.
     
  18. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    I think that really hits on the main point: No matter what anyone says, in the end, what matters to viewers is the actual programming, and what matters to the network is the money. You cannot legitimately judge the network's intelligence versus "dumb"-ness based on viewers' objectives -- you can only legitimately judge the network's intelligence based on the network's objectives. And by that metric, the name change wasn't dumb. It was a reflection of the reality of business.
     
  19. jeffshoaf

    jeffshoaf Icon

    641
    2
    Jun 17, 2006
    I think I just realized what irritates me so much about the name change: They changed it w/o really changing it, trying to have their cake and eat it too.

    I doubt anybody sees the new name out of context and pronounces it as "SciFi" - they'd pronounce it "Siffy." They'd have been better off naming it something radically different. If new viewers would be turned off by seeing it spelled as "SciFi", they would be just as turned off when they find out that "Syfy" is pronounced the same way - especially during "water cooler" discussions.

    I really believe they would have met their stated goals (a trademarkable name that appeals to a wider audience) if they had really changed the name to something that would be a logical extension to their legacy viewers while being more inviting to new viewers - something like "New Horizons" or "Other Horizons" would make sense to their legacy fanbase of SF and Fantasy fans and not be off-putting to any viewers embarassed to be associated with those genres.
     
  20. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    That actually the ideal. If I can do something that allows me to continue to reap the benefits I have been reaping, and reap more benefits, I will always do that. I bet so would you; any reasonable person would.

    I don't understand why someone else improving their own lot would cause you concern, unless you feel that someone else improving their lot means that there is less (of what, I don't know) for you to use to improve your lot.

    Of course, if we go down this path too far, we end up talking about the health care debate, and we just don't want to go there in this forum! :grin:

    I think you're grossly underestimating the complexities. "New Horizons" is already a registered trademark (it's a child-care center, I believe). And "Other Horizons" cannot be trademarked because the term has already been used as a service mark (even though not registered). There is a reason why we have companies named Verizon, and Keyspan, and other things which are not English words. That is an essential business requirement that a new trademarkable name typically must satisfy.

    So try your experiment again, limiting yourself by that restriction, even if you personally don't agree with it -- your personal feelings regarding that restriction do not obviate the reality that the foundation for the restriction exists and is overriding, from a business point of view. I know it is hard for a consumer to try to look at things from a business perspective, but when you do you probably will go from being "irritated" to understanding why things have gone the way they have gone.
     

Share This Page