SyFy- New dumb name, same dumb shows

TV networks are stupid. Well, the people making the behind-the-scenes decisions at television networks are stupid.

Though networks are probably taken to task too much by people like me, the decision-makers certainly screw up on a regular basis, whether it is by canceling a show that did not get its fair time to grow, or some scheduling faux pas – network brass cannot be trusted.

But as dumb as most choices made by network management are, the recent name change of Sci Fi to Syfy will find its way to the top of any stupidest-moves-made-by-TV-network lists in the future.

After announcing the name change months ago to loads of criticism, Syfy (I feel like a massive tool just typing that), a cable network owned by NBC Universal, made the switch official last week. The rationale for the more phonetic, almost text message-like name is two-fold.

First (and I guess somewhat understandable) is the network did not want to be named after a genre that is printed on books, films, video games and all sorts of other media around the world – science fiction. Moreover, it is easier to obtain and protect trademarks with a name like Syfy than Sci Fi (the only intelligent point in this argument). Yeah that makes sense, NBC Universal. Maybe the History Channel should change its name, too. How does HsTry work for everyone?

In relation to that, the brass also didn’t want the general public to think that the network only offered science fiction programming that appealed to, ahem, nerds. When discussing the rebranding process, Syfy’s president Dave Howe said they want people to know the network “isn’t just about aliens, space and the future.”
 
Not to be a contrarian here, but let’s take a look at Syfy’s most famous original programs: “Battlestar Galactica” (space, robots), “Stargate”  (wormholes, space-time travel) and the mini-series “Taken” (aliens). Though its newest programs (“Eureka,” “Caprica”  and “Warehouse 13”) are a bit less science fiction they both deal with supernatural and science fiction elements.

And even if they say this move is about the future and creating shows that don’t quite fit into that genre bracket, then what are we to make of Howe’s comments that he’s actively searching for a “space opera” to replace “Battlestar Galactica.”  How does that click with his other statement?

It doesn’t. And that’s the point. This is a marketing and business decision, as most are, but even that rationale might not clear up this muddy picture. Consider the following: Since 2002, Sci Fi grew in viewership each year, with 2008 being its best year on record. Average viewership was up 7 percent, making it the fifth-best cable network with adults 25-54 and the ninth among adults 18-49, according to the Nielsen ratings.

So although the network can trot out “facts” like the increase in advertiser interest since the name-change announcements and its ability to increase global penetration with the new moniker, it seemed like Sci Fi was working just fine.

Let us not forget that the way TV has been heading for a while now is powered by the narrow, targeted strategy. While the broadcast networks have stuck with trying to appeal to the broadest audience, cable networks have long gone after smaller, niche markets and it has worked, especially for Sci Fi. 

I guess in the end if Syfy continues to produce interesting programming, most fans won’t care about the name difference (though there is a significant online backlash to it).

But the fact that the network heads are openly admitting the name stemmed from how cool it looks in logo form (they actually said “it looks like the Y’s are smiling at you!” ) and they launched it with a theme park in Manhattan just doesn’t instill much hope.
But hey, at least we get to look at a logo in which “the letters just look like they’d be great big plush toys.”