Saturday, July 04, 2009

Is The Niche Cable Network Dead? (SyFy Channel Rant)


This TV By The Numbers article on cable networks who abandon the branding and content that made them famous is spot-on.

Why is the Sci-Fi/SyFy Channel changing their branding so radically? Even their new logo and recent ads look generic and decidedly non-genre:


It's because they feel they can make more money and reach a greater audience by being generic. I call it "Nerd Flight." Which, with "fanboy" culture having such a deep influence on current pop-culture, seems rather pointless. If anything, I think Sci-Fi would have made far more inroads by turning into a G4 sort of cable network instead of something that looks like, based on their current branding, a cross between Apple Computer and Lifetime. I look at that ad for SyFy and I expect the "Sex in the City" girls to walk out of the scene any second. Not that there's anything wrong for that, but when think Sci-Fi Channel I think "Mansquito."


But this all started with MTV replacing most of its music videos for reality-based TV shows based on touring Kid Rock's garden shed, right? Then you have the Cartoon Network's brilliant move to include their own live-action reality programming. Because goddammit I don't turn to CN for Speed Racer – I want to see basketball player dads and America's Greatest Rollercoasters.

This is not to mention channels like Bravo & A&E, which 10 years ago I considered something along the lines of PBS, getting schlocky with even more reality programming. Remember the old days when AMC didn't have commercials and you'd just fire up that sucker and watch some awesome movies? Of course, "Mad Men" has redeemed AMC somewhat, but I will always remember those Halloween & POTA marathons with fondness.

But this is all moot because we are fast approaching an on-demand broadcast structure where we choose what episodes to watch and when – largely for free. In that light, I see the desperate branching-out of the various niche cable networks as a last-ditch effort to wave as much shiny objects in front of the public until even Mr. & Mrs. "Not With The Times" are watching the latest "Burn Notice" on their iPhone without a second thought.


That said, it is not just that SyFy is getting more generic – they are getting more Internet-ready. That's why they chose a silly-but-catchy nonsense word as their new branding, much like Hulu, et al. Far from being clueless, they know exactly what they are doing. We only think they are being clueless because we don't know the full story.

That said, my heart will always belong to "Mansquito."

18 comments:

JMY said...

Mansquito?? They had some good shows and opportunities to pick up quality shows in syndication, yet they chose not to. Eureka is the only show worthe watching on that channel right now.

Derek O'Brien said...

We had a similar situation in the UK: at first just two BBC channels and one commercial station, in the 8s they started up Channel Four, which was supposedly there for youth programming, independent documentaries and foreign films. Now they do Big Brother and repeats of Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond. The so-called digital explosion has been pitiful, UK versions of Bravo and Sci-Fi... as it is, I rarely watch "live" TV any more, just DVD box sets of my favourite shows or movies.

wcdixon said...

Nice post

PUPPETBOY said...

The entertainment industry has gotten stupid over the years, with boatloads of reality t.v. taking over the airwaves.the last straw for me was them putting reality shows on T.V. land a network dedicated to classic t.v.And nick at night not only showing shows from the 90's but also six episoedes each of the same three shows when they used to have seven different shows in their lineups.It seems like even though we have more channels now, we have less variety on T.V. than we did 20 years ago.As far as sci fi or syfy(whatever you call it)changinging their branding,I'm not surprised about it in the day and age of BSG/Matrix style sci-fi that's not really sci-fi.

Cal's Canadian Cave of Coolness said...

How the hell did I ever miss Mansquito?? That kind of delicious craptertainment is right up my alley. I must be getting old. At least in Canada SPACE is almost entirely science fiction programming until they show movies like "Who Killed Baby Jane" late at night when they think we aren't watching

GC said...

Its Jonas Quinn!

Kevie said...

How depressing-- all the niche channels abandoning their specialties and racing each other to put out the exact same lowest-common-denominator sludge. This has got to violate the laws of branding, doesn't it? Maybe the bottom line is that there's just no money in producing anything but reality crap.

algeya said...

does anyone has checked the ratings?
has the cartoon network, sifi channels increased their viewership since they changed?

John M Osborne said...

Just to add -

One of the reasons why we see less cable nets doing the internet streaming thing is licensing.

The cable programming license doesn't include syndication on-line whereas the nets do.

On the other hand, the nets aren't at all about niche programming and internet streaming doesn't figure well into their profit margin.

Brian said...

Eureka is horrible, and it had so much potential, too. It's gotten BETTER, but it's still plagued by obvious network notage. Oh, and the worst case of ad placement in the history of television.

I am quite certain of my last statement's validity, and I have only lived 26 years.

Funny story about Eureka. We (my film group) may of actually, accidentally been responsible for them changing their tagline because our small internet show had the same exact word-for-word tagline, and we unwittingly told the producer this. We have no verification of this.

So, yeah, Eureka is weird. I have no idea why people still flock in droves to SDCC's Sci-Fi panels. The only immensely popular shows on that channel are BSG and Stargate, and both of those are gone. Yeah, yeah, S:U is starting up, and Caprica is coming (and if you have not seen the sneak peek preview yet, do so; it is fantastic, almost better than BSG at it's best). But other than that, they have nothing. They are competing with Fox right now for Most New Shows That Are Rip-Offs Of Our Channel's Existing Shows.

(Honestly, Mental may be the worst show that I have ever seen)

My favorite quote is from a Sci-Fi executive who claimed that the name change is not due to a younger market... it's just easier to text SyFy.

magopaco said...

Great post. In the end everything will be generic, discoloured and genetically dull...

Flashman85 said...

When I first heard they were changing the name to "SyFy," I seriously stared at the date they were planning to do it to determine whether or not it was anywhere near April Fools' Day. Then I got upset.

Is there something wrong with science fiction just being science fiction--you know, space and robots and genetic experiments gone wrong? Do we need to make EVERYTHING mainstream, more accessible to the masses?

I mean (and maybe I've said this before), the Nintendo Wii left a lot of traditional gamers behind with the radically different motion controls, which appealed to a broader group than just traditional gamers. The new Star Trek movie made a lot of dedicated fans angry because there was a focus on making the franchise more accessible to the mainstream, perhaps at the expense of staying true to what Star Trek is.

Finding a broader audience doesn't automatically make something good, and if Sci-Fi is suffering because of poor programming, rebranding is just a quick fix that could end up burning them in the long run. Even if there's a very solid plan behind the rebranding, the logo alone is a big turnoff to me, and I feel there's even less of a reason for me to bother turning on the TV anymore.

Dean said...

I would think that the looming video on-demand market would encourage more niche branding. After all, something like BSG is product that SciFi could sell in perpetuity in theory. Conversely, weakly branded reality shows cannot have much shelf life. The channels that have moved the most aggressively away from their core missions are the most likely to have faded into obscurity a decade from now.

KarenR said...

SciFi jumped the shark years ago when they stopped showing actual classic scifi shows and movies and began doing mftv movies like "Mansquito". No offense to Parker Lewis, of course. I guess producing crappy movies costs less than the rights to good ones? I get the kitsch value, but can't stomach them myself.

But I liked the old SciFi better. And I'm assuming the new, female friendly SyFy will no doubt have more romance in their human-animal hybrid movies.

Brian said...

Flash, did you honestly just say that the Wii and the new Star Trek film are bad because people get them?

Brian said...

mispelled Ror's name.
am sad.

Brian said...

Substitute Mansquito for Rorschack. Is it really that different a movie?

Brian said...

wow, it's like the early 1990s and crap had a kid and named it SyFy.