Besides the fact:
-- that all it needs now are pink bows and unicorns and this channel will be every MY LITTLE PONY fan's wet dream...
-- That there is no "Science" in SyFy. At least not any we can see in the trailer. It's all some fantastic, quasi-mystical claptrap.
This trailer is hard to load and the website doesn't allow you to make your own damn decisions on where you want to go until you do see the trailer.
Hey, I have an idea - why don't I set up a web server or two and set up a Hulu-like site where you can get all sorts of Science Fiction / Fantastic Television for a low cost yearly subscription? It certainly would serve fans better than SyFy. We could sell merchandise too - DVD sets, toys, games, t-shirts, etc...
Tell you what SyFy - instead of Imagining Greater, why don't you imagine you actually respect our intelligence? Why don't you imagine you actually respect what it is you do as a network?
Because here it is - every step of the way - you've shot yourself in the foot. Cancelling FARSCAPE. Not promoting BATTLESTAR GALACTICA's critical acclaim. Creating reality shows for the network that have absolutely NOTHING to do with reality or science fiction.
How about imagining you're an HBO and you're going to do good shows? Critically acclaimed shows no matter what the budget?
Why don't you imagine you actually have some sense of taste? (WWE? Really? WHO WANTS TO BE A SUPERHERO? Really?)
If you actually created more shows you could be proud of - the BSG's, Eureka's, Farscape - then maybe you could actually hold your head high in pride instead of working twice as hard trying to put a dress on a pig and calling it art. Because when you do good work - word gets around. Fast. Hell, when you at least try word gets around.
But SyFy - admit it - you're embarassed to be associated with genre television. You want to broaden your demographic (Read: water it down, soften it). You want to go to parties and mention where you work. Again, the key to doing that:
Doing good work no matter what the budget.
(Case in point: DOCTOR WHO - 1960'S, 70'S 0r 80's. Shot on video. Still seen around the world)
Michael Jackson is dead and so is the Science Fiction Channel. At least Michael's funeral gets a Nielsen rating that's worth a damn.
6 comments:
SyFy is the new euphemism for "Allergic to Making Money." Because if they understood and respected their fanbase, the execs at SyFy would have been so busy following your suggestions and swimming in pools of cash, they wouldn't have even considered rebranding themselves into poverty and obscurity.
SyFy's problems are entirely that of money. If they could keep their earnings ratio and their debt low enough to not be a liability to their corporate parents they would be more than happy to create whatever kind of science fiction you want.
But the fact is that they cannot generate the kinds of debt-free revenue to keep themselves from being a sap on the corporate books -- and that causes shareholders to get ticked off because the share price is (possibly artificially) deflated by doing actual science fiction. Over the years they've tried, and failed again. Rebroadcasting WWF is more financially sound for them than creating original content. They're not stupid, they're in a bad place and nobody's discovered how to get out of that place considering the constraints they're under.
Now those economic aren't a problem if you're an independent -- your overhead is lower and you don't have shareholders giving you a hard time when you lose money (even if it's just losing "on the books" as a liability -- which is Sci-Fi's biggest issue with creating new content.)
If you think you really can get content and a subscription base for a sci-fi Internet "channel" then you should do it! ;-)
You might have a point Andrew except that every channel on the dial has a show that could and should have originated on SciFi.
Fringe
Lost
Terminator
Dollhouse
Heroes (which was rebroadcast on SciFi)
And while these shows are expensive and possibly too expensive for SciFi they indicate that there is a market out there for people who want to watch genre television.
AND THEY ARE NOT WATCHING THEM ON SCIFI...
Their problems are not of money - they are of mis-branding, mismanagement, and a complete disregard for their mandate. They diluted their brand with incredibly poor programming choices when there were plenty of opportunities for them to excel at a reasonable cost and a reasonable profit.
You know SciFi has screwed the pooch when AMC - AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS - is bringing a beloved SciFi / Spy Fi classic to the screen: THE PRISONER.
You know ScFi has screwed the pooch when the didn't jump on the DOCTOR WHO bandwagon right away instead of making audiences wait a year.
Instead of buying cheap overnight classic programming to make Scifi a destination stop for folks who don't want to watch infommercials at 2am and could rewatch via their Tivo - they flooded their channel with cheap infommercial crap that didn't speak to their audience at all. Again, diluting their brand and making the channel the place NOT to go for genre programming.
As far as nobody discovering how to get them out of a bad place. If you can't solve the problem it means you're playing by the rules.
They didn't play by the rules when it came to SciFi Channel original movies - their cheesy Sat. Nite lineup - and guess what? People tuned in. A lot.
In business, it is management's job to remove constraints wherever possible (within the law) and focus on the goal (to make money).
But now it's too late. The "Genre TV" reigns have been taken away from them (hell, they handed them over)and they've descended into a mirky quagmire of brand hell.
I'm suggesting that the problems are more NBC/Universal's than the SciFi Channel themselves. The "rules" the work under are entirely about liabilities on the books when they create new programming. When they contract with a producer to create new programs the budget (which SciFi doesn't actually have to pay out in cash until delivery) sits on their books as a debit -- on the red side of the ledger. This gets added to NBC's books (they're still owned by NBC/Universal, right?) as a liability. NBC doesn't care if it doesn't actually involve cash outlays. Unless they get sold, there's few ways to play outside those rules.
Sci-Fi's original programming was a fantastic moneymaker for them for a while -- until Neilson changed their way of measuring Tivo and then SciFi's ratings plummeted. Which of course sucks for people like us because we'd be making SciFi Channel movies right now...
That's why someone starting up without the overhead has a better chance to make some money. Of course, it's still phenomenally risky.
I suspect that AMC could vastly outbid SciFi for The Prisoner because of how TNT works with their catalog (and that they have more cash reserves.) While SciFi has had to actually pay for movies and for things like Battlestar, AMC has hit a genre where they essentially get their material for free. With The Prisoner, AMC can use its cash reserves and make a long-term catalog item.
My guess is that the economics for real sci-fi would require, say, embedded commercials in torrents and streaming with commercials. I'd rather be a content provider than to run that business though! ;-)
"I'm suggesting that the problems are more NBC/Universal's than the SciFi Channel themselves. The "rules" the work under are entirely about liabilities on the books when they create new programming. When they contract with a producer to create new programs the budget (which SciFi doesn't actually have to pay out in cash until delivery) sits on their books as a debit -- on the red side of the ledger."
-------------------------------
Yes & No. SciFi may come in as a partner but their outlay is always less than the prodco's / studio's. Their risk is minimal.
--------------------------
Sci-Fi's original programming was a fantastic moneymaker for them for a while -- until Neilson changed their way of measuring Tivo and then SciFi's ratings plummeted. Which of course sucks for people like us because we'd be making SciFi Channel movies right now...
----------------------------
Scifi also held the DVD rights for most of those programs (SF originals). They made money, many times before they even aired or even finished shooting.
-----------------------
I suspect that AMC could vastly outbid SciFi for The Prisoner because of how TNT works with their catalog (and that they have more cash reserves.)
--------------------------
AMC not Turner Movie Classics. AMC and AMC Hollywood classics are owned by Rainbow Media. They don't have Turner money.
And they still have to pay license fees when they buy programs.
So AMC, a much smaller network, with fewer resources is making a name for itself by creating great television shows like MAD MEN, BREAKING BAD and so on... even going so far as to commission something from Warren Ellis AND licensing THE PRISONER and you don't think SCIFI dropped the ball?
SciFi is no longer synonymous with fantastic genre fiction television.
Hence the name SyFy.
AMC, not TMC. My bad.
My only point is that even when they were making money they were losing money on the books. Otherwise there would be (literally) hundreds of contracts out there for whatever kind of original programming they felt they could get ratings with.
If they'd remained independent of NBC, they might still be doing that. But they can't. So maybe we'll simply be able to bypass them with some sort of fabulous VOD or streaming/torrent service.
Post a Comment