Three months ago, The SciFi Channel (scifi.com) announced that it was changing its name to Syfy today. It took all of three months for this news to finally reach me, but in all honesty, I’m not in the network’s core demographic. I actually caught the promo for it while watching a Twilight Zone episode over the weekend and really thought nothing of it until I read CNN’s article on the subject.
It appears from this article that the network wants to open the channel to a new, broader demographic. I assume that means they’ve saturated the science fiction genre and want to take on a larger audience. They probably feel that generalizing will give them a greater market. The name, I suppose, is an attempt to not alienate those embarrassed to say they watch science fiction. Lots of assumptions, but this is a blog, not an academic paper.
Those familiar with any of Al Reis’ writings and the general principals of branding already know this tune. It’s a bad move. Moving out of their key market and becoming just another channel isn’t going to help, it’s going to hurt. However, I’m not so sure I agree to the comparison to the New Coke situation, which was more a mistake in assuming that taste tests and quality matter over brand loyalty.
Here, you have a successful entity ruling a category trying to be generic. THAT’S the mistake. The name is irrelevant at this point. Those branding pundits that the CNN article seem to quote can’t be very good experts if their focusing on how the audience will react to the name. It’s not necessarily about the name, though it probably won’t help.
There exists a potential problem with a generic SciFi Channel name. Bravo and Spike did great rebranding with their names. However, they didn’t generalize. Spike moved to a male-central programming theme. Bravo devoted itself to “Fine Arts.” (Side note: how is ‘Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’ a ‘fine art’?) If Syfy is about a broader audience, they only stand to lose.
Could they have chosen a better name? Probably. Syfy is the same name in different clothing. They should look a little harder for a distinct name that stands out. Syfy still sounds like “SciFi” and still carried all the connotations associated with it. What we have is the potential to alienate a portion of their core audience while not really attracting who they want to. Sometimes you have to remember that a brand is spoken as much as it’s seen.
And who did it? According to several articles I found, it was an internal decision. That makes sense. Landor Associates, the branding firm for the network claims they had nothing to do with the name change. Do they want to distance themselves from such a possible err, I suppose I would to. I’ve had situations where clients ignore me and go on their own merry way. They do seem to be distancing themselves from the name more than the concept though, and in all honestly, while the name may not be good or thought out, that’s not the bad part of this decision.
Tags: audience, Branding, name change, Sci Fi Channel, Syfy
To view this as a complete branding shift is a sweeping statement.
“Syfy still sounds like “SciFi” and still carried all the connotations associated with it. What we have is the potential to alienate a portion of their core audience while not really attracting who they want to. Sometimes you have to remember that a brand is spoken as much as it’s seen.”
In that one paragraph, you just took away from your own point. Really, “Syfy” still sounds like “SciFi.” These viewers aren’t idiots, they know it’s sci-fi entertainment. They’re not going to care as long as the programming doesn’t change.
And as far as the channel looking to branch out to a larger marketshare (as you so redundantly stated in the first three sentences of the second paragraph), I think it’s a good middle ground for them. Still looks and sounds sci-fi to the fans, yet some uninitiated channel surfers may stick around longer, momentarily fooled into dropping their pre-existing notions and give it a chance.
So, in sum, you exaggerate.
The sci-fi geeks are smart–I think a format shift would alienate them more than a logo change.
Actually, the main point was just that – that a format change would alienate the core constituency. Perhaps I spent too much time focusing on the name.
I don’t think the name change will alienate any of the existing audience by itself. A too generalized approach, however may. What you have is an attempt to appeal to more people by losing what distinguishes the channel as a catagory leader.
It may be insignificant now (and an exaggeration as you point out) but rarely do companies stop at that first step. Often, short term success pushes companies to continue into this “can be everything” approach. The landscape is littered with it. American car companies, Levi’s (since fixed themselves), Harley Davidson (fixed), Crest, and Miller are only a few. Syfy isn’t the only modern example, we see Dominos and Pizza Hut making the mistake (which is funny, because Dominos learned to focus their brand early on, and seems to have forgotten).
I only seem to be able to read half of the article. Is it my browser or the site?
Metaphysics
replica handbags
replica handbags
Louis Vuitton handbags
Chanel Handbags
Gucci Handbags
Designer Replica Handbags
replica louis vuitton handbags
fake designer handbags
replica designer handbags
knock off designer handbags
replica designer bags
replica fendi handbags
Louis Vuitton
gucci handbags
chanel bags