Dear SyFy

That article was full of some of the worst marketing decision making I've seen in some time (I have an MBA in marketing, FYI).

Like the words that immediately preceeded the section you quoted:

Sci Fi is coming off the best year in its history. In primetime it ranked 13th in total viewers among ad-supported cable networks in 2008. It’s a top-10 network in both adults 18 to 49 (up 4%) and adults 25 to 54 (up 6%).

During its fourth-quarter earnings call, parent General Electric said Sci Fi racked up a double-digit increase in operating earnings despite the beginnings of the recession.

Nevertheless, there was always a sneaking suspicion that the name was holding the network back.
Click to expand...

Changing things after coming off your best season ever, with upwards trends? Dumb. Shedding your geeky image on a channel based on geek appeal? Dumb. Thinking that shows like pro-wrestling are your future when its not even in your top 10 ranked shows? Dumb.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I agree with your earlier points in response to me, but would also point to sci-fi shows that did well in other slots only to be moved to fill the "Friday night X-Files slot" only to die within a season of moving. Nevermind that Friday night X-Files had passed almost a decade before to Sunday nights. Nevermind that X-Files ratings increased by moving it to Sunday nights (except the final season).

Dannyalcatraz said:
Changing things after coming off your best season ever, with upwards trends? Dumb. Shedding your geeky image on a channel based on geek appeal? Dumb.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts.

Dannyalcatraz said:
Thinking that shows like pro-wrestling are your future when its not even in your top 10 ranked shows? Dumb.
Click to expand...

I have no inside knowledge, but I doubt they believe pro-wrestling is their future. There are a multitude of other programs that belie that thought. I believe it was a simple matter of ratings support. They knew basically how well rated a show Friday Night Smackdown was and moved it to a sister network that could support the ratings. It doesn't matter which network you put a pro wrestling show on. The fans would follow. If they moved it to Lifetime Women's Network then I would be watching that channel to keep up with the show. It's two hours of programming out of 168, not quite a new direction for the channel.

I do agree over the "reality" ghost hunter shows. There are too many of them to not call it a trend. Watching some guy whisper "Did you see that?!" while I answer "No, *click*" is not even remotely entertaining. This crap should be shoved into the overnight lineup on Chiller, not SyFy.
 

While I would love to see a throwback to the true Sci-Fi channel again, I happen to like a "few" of the reality shows on SyFy. The Ghost Hunter (GH & GHI) shows are not bad, of course the Ghost Hunter Academy (GHA) sucked and then tanked (thankfully).

The other reality shows are crap, no two ways about it. But, as someone whose done the "industry" thing (music to be sure, but the same sharks swim the waters) it's pretty clear that the programming execs see reality shows on other channels winning shares so the hop on board the train, leaving proven winners behind.

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen something like the "The Next WWE Star", "American Wrestler" or "So You Think You Can Wrestle?" GHA was an obvious step in that direction, but they can't see the landmines in the field marked, DANGER - LANDMINES!
 



Thunderfoot said:
But, as someone whose done the "industry" thing (music to be sure, but the same sharks swim the waters) it's pretty clear that the programming execs see reality shows on other channels winning shares so the hop on board the train, leaving proven winners behind.
Click to expand...

From the perspective of the studio/television/cable network executives, what exactly is appealing about reality shows?

Do they cost less to produce per episode?

Do they bring in a large significant viewership base, compared to traditional scripted tv shows?

Are reality shows successful in the syndication rerun market?
 


From the perspective of the studio/television/cable network executives, what exactly is appealing about reality shows?
Click to expand...

Relative to scripted shows, they are dirt-cheap to produce, thus if they attract the same viewership, are much more profitable.

As essentially unscripted shows, they do not run afoul of conflicts with the Writer's Guild.

The execs & producers can change the cast virtually on a whim.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Relative to scripted shows, they are dirt-cheap to produce, thus if they attract the same viewership, are much more profitable.

As essentially unscripted shows, they do not run afoul of conflicts with the Writer's Guild.

The execs & producers can change the cast virtually on a whim.
Click to expand...

On NPR, they had an article about MTV's big anniversary coming up. On the section about the Real World, the origins of it was basically a screw-up. They'd had some issue with casting for a show at the last minute, so they just opened it up and went unscripted. And that is what killed the Video Star.
 


Remove ads

Top