RIP SCI FI; WTF IS SYFY?

Rebranding of Sci Fi Channel to “Syfy” shows the channel is bereft of imagination.

A bunch of mindless jerks

“The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes”

Apparently, the same can now be said of the marketing bozos at the channel-soon-to-be-formerly-named-SCI-FI (or is it “Sci Fi” or “SciFi”?) See, some branding genius (London’s Landor Associates) Michael Engleman, hired last year by NBC-Universal was convinced that the term “Sci Fi” had a bad connotation: it bespoke of complicated stuff, like science… and um, fiction. And  people who liked that kinda thing were frankly undesirable.

So said one of the Sci Fi Channel’s founder (and now “TV historian”) Tim Brooks:

The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular.

(Because, of course, you can’t build a channel identity on that sort of thing!)

See, the problem—contrary to critics—wasn’t that the shows they broadcast sucked, or that there weren’t enough compelling reasons to watch the channel, it’s that the network name wasn’t cool enough.

Solution? A new name!

Imagine Syphillis?

So the story goes that after hunkering down for months with an “internal team” and trying out 300 different variations, Landor Associates Engleman hit upon the brilliant notion of offering up as a new name… wait for it… “Syfy.” And taglined it with the utterly meaningless “Imagine Greater.” (Greater what, stupidity?)

Yes, NBCU actually spent somewhere north of $250k (according to comments on Nikki Finke’s blog) to misspell “Sci Fi” — and are convinced it will improve their “brand identity.” Apparently none of the branding Einsteins noticed that the new moniker now bears a striking resemblance to a veneral disease. (And apparently, a Polish vulgarity.)

According to network Pres Dave Howe, “When we tested this new name, the thing that we got back from our 18-to-34 techno-savvy crowd, which is quite a lot of our audience, is actually this is how you’d text it.”

For that 18-34 demo: O RLY?

I can just imagine that text message: “OMG, MY GF’S GOT SYFY. WTF?”

Howe goes on: “It made us feel much cooler, much more cutting-edge, much more hip, which was kind of bang-on what we wanted to achieve communication-wise.”

Or, that you’re a total douche and  managed to alienate everyone. Congratz, the twitter-blogosphere salutes you with ridicule! Comments across the Interwebs have been uniformally derisive.

The trademark thang

Granted, part of the impetus for a change was legitimate: the network’s heads claimed that “Sci Fi” was non-trademarkable, as a generic name. It couldn’t be “branded.” But was that actually so?

A quick search of the US Patent and Trademark office reveals an interesting tidbit: USANetworks had filed a trademark for “Sci-Fi Channel” starting in 1996; and in 1998, as part of their buyout, assigned their interest in the mark to Universal City Studios. What followed was a bit of a mystery: in 1999, after being being granted an allowance to the mark, all the studio lawyers had to do was submit a statement of use (“SOU”) to the trademark office. But three years later, after five (!) filing extensions, the mark was listed as “abandoned.” In other words, someone didn’t bother to send in the paperwork, which isn’t exactly hard to complete: it’s now available in an online form, and costs $100 per “class” of use.

The funny thing is that NBCU still publishes the supposedly generically-named “Sci Fi Magazine” for which it also holds the trademark. (Will that become Syfy Magazine now?)

So it’s pretty clear that had they chosen to, there was nothing preventing the network from sticking with “Sci Fi Channel” and geting their rights protected.

More likely that in truth— as in the recent Tropicana Orange Juice rebrand blunder— the change was made just for the sake of change.

But if the network brainiacs really wanted to give props to their audience, and launch a totally cool and unregistered name, they could have made themselves over into the FRAK Network. (Seriously, how awesome would that have been?)

PR uses many words to say nothing

Check out the semi-apologetic gobbledygook corporatespeak press release attributed to Dave Howe (but likely written by some marketing pinhead):

“Without abandoning our legacy or our core audience, we needed to cultivate a distinct point of view with a name that we could own that invites more people in and recognizes our broader range of programming with literally something for everyone…”

Translation: We don’t like you nerds; we want to sit at the cool kids’ table.

“Syfy allows us to build on our 16-year heritage of success with a new brand built on the power that fuels our genre: the imagination. Syfy ushers in a new era of unlimited imagination, exceptional experiences and greater entertainment that paves the way for us to truly become a global lifestyle brand.”

Translation: We don’t have a clue what we want, but we got a whole lotta imagination. And with that, we’ll take over the world!

“Syfy—unlike the generic entertainment category “sci-fi”—firmly establishes a uniquely ownable trademark that is portable across all nonlinear digital platforms and beyond, from Hulu to iTunes.”

Translation: We couldn’t milk you geeks for enough pocket change.

Syfy also creates an umbrella brand name that can extend into new adjacent businesses under the Syfy Ventures banner, including Syfy Games, Syfy Films and Syfy Kids.”

Translation: Now I’m just blowing sunshine up your skirt.

One winner in the debacle is Michael Hinman, of the formerly “SyFy Portal” which turned into “AirlockAlpha.com” earlier this week. Since January, he had been in lucrative negotiations with mystery lawyers (calling themselves the “New Fizz Corporation”)  who apparently wanted to sweep the Syfy name from the Net in preparation for the launch of “syfy.com.” Naturally, he’s now a bit chagrined and defensive at the fall-out over the name “Syfy”— but to his credit, the buy-out hasn’t stopped him from criticizing the new owners.

My own take is that the rebrand could ring the death knell for the 16-year old network. Considering it actually had growth under its supposedly “problematic” identity, this is just a profoundly mistake, indicative of the contempt the current NBCU regime has for its audience. It’s no wonder that the viewers are peeved and in revolt.

Viva La Revolución!

Note: added additional info, July 7

Read the follow-up article On the Origins of Syfy