51 Fiendish Ways to Leave Your Lover

Monday Debates: Syfy or SciFAIL?

by Sarah Brandel

I still think it’s an April Fools joke that was released into the wild too early: Sci Fi Channel Aims to Shed Geeky Image With New Name.

And the new name is? Syfy. Syfy. As award-winning science fiction author John Scalzi has pointed out, this term is used in Poland to refer to crusty, scabby venereal diseases. The singular form, syf, is also used to refer to mess, junk, crap, filth, etc. Sure, you can copyright it, but would you really want to?

And the new tag line? “Imagine Greater.” Imagine Greater. That makes the grammarian in me want to curl up like the entomologist in Gary Larson’s Far Side cartoon. Think fingernails on a chalkboard and you’ve got something close to what this phrase does to my brain every time I read it.

For me, even worse than the change itself was the reason behind the change. In the article above, the spokesperson offhandedly insults fans of science fiction (isn’t this their target market?) by categorizing them as dysfunctional and antisocial, stating that the channel has been trying to distance itself from “science fiction” because it’s too limiting and turns too many people off. There’s also a bizarre claim that “Syfy” is how the 18-to-34 demographic would text the name of the channel or the words “science fiction,” somehow ignoring that “SF” requires typing two fewer characters.

Now, I know that the science fiction genre has a history of being a ghetto. Many authors (Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale among other science fiction-y yarns, always comes to mind) claim that they’re not writing science fiction in order to avoid being stigmatized as being part of the rockets-and-aliens crowd. It’s true that books with science fiction elements (The Time Traveler’s Wife, anyone?) that are marketed as fiction tend to have better sales. This is why many such books (think Jurassic Park and its myriad sequels) are marketed as “thrillers” rather than straight-up science fiction. Wandering through the fiction section of a bookstore these days, you can pick up books about vampires, demons, cloning, time travel, angels, people with super powers, and futuristic technology (which may or may not have been reverse engineered from crashed alien spacecrafts). It’s not clear that there’s much difference between these books and those shelved in the science fiction/fantasy section beyond how they’re marketed.

This change from “Sci Fi” to “Syfy” is also a marketing decision. But for a channel that is (supposedly) already targeted toward the rockets-and-aliens crowd, it seems to alienate the very demographic they serve. Then again, I hear the Sci Fi channel shows wrestling, now. Hm.

So: April Fools joke or sad failure of marketing? Or is this change something you could live with? Sound off!


Related posts:

  1. Monday Debates: Aliens–Friend or Foe?
  2. Monday Debates: Zombies and Science Fiction
  3. Monday Debates: Self-Publishing






4 Comments

  1. Posted March 23, 2009 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    It doesn’t affect me much, because I don’t watch the Sci Fi channel anyway. (I rarely watch TV at all, actually.) But I did find the geek stereotyping to be poorly worded and offensive to one of the channel’s primary demographics. As a business move, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, either. In today’s world of vertical markets, niche channels work well. By trying to expand their content and demographic, they are losing their niche.

  2. Posted March 23, 2009 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    This strikes me as pretty dumb.

  3. Posted March 23, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Oh, and add The Road to the list of sf not labeled as such. I wonder if it would have sold better if labeled “Syfy”?

  4. Posted March 23, 2009 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    I think the name is not as bad as the motivations behind it, the idea that it wants to “shed its geeky image”. In other words, it wants to get away from all those things that made it what it is. Or was. Or could have been. I don’t know…the tenses get all fubu when describing the SciFi Channel, much like trying to unravel a grandfather paradox. They have produced good shows, and they could have produced so much more, but with the recent trends towards Ghost Hunters ad nauseum and big monster of the week “sci fi originals”, they’ve clearly been going down the tubes for a while now. I think abandoning their “geek” demographic is not going to bring more people in; it’s going to shut their current audience out (witness the outrage around the web at the name change).
    I’d like to think that this change means we’re going to see the channel turn into more of a video version of the wonderful, but sadly defunct, Omni magazine. More likely, it means they will now have justification for developing an Enterprise themed version of Big Brother and a talk show hosted by Bruce Boxleitner.
    Ah well…we’ll always have our memories of Battlestar Galactica and MST3K.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*