Sci Fi Channel Rebrands and Fails

Posted on 08. Jul, 2009 by Bradley Hebdon in Features

syfy
Coming off the best year in the Sci Fi Channel’s history, what better timing than to change what was already working. 

“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,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.

The hope is that changing to “Syfy” is less geeky than the name “Sci Fi.” At least Dave Howe, president of the Sci Fi Channel is betting the farm on this one.

The network worked with the branding consultancy Landor Associates and went through about 300 possibilities before selecting “Syfy” as the new name and brand.

“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,” Mr. Howe said. “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.”

The network made the changeover on July 7, when it launched the new series “Warehouse 13.”

Syfy? Really? It’s honestly difficult for me to believe their approach, and the new brand fails on so many levels.

Why the rebrand fails:

  • The logo doesn’t translate well to small sizes, and looks more like “Sgfg” in a smaller scale. 
  • It looks like a typo, at first glance – or perhaps a sign for a Finnish Genetics Lab.
  • This could be a new wonder drug for Syphilis – a particular strain from the future perhaps?
  • Too much attention to the name, and not enough to the programming.
  • Attempting to attract women, but confusing the existing viewer base.

This has the Tropicana OJ re-branding fiasco written all over it.

No related posts.

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Sci Fi Channel Rebrands and Fails”

  1. Noah

    26. Aug, 2009

    This reason given for why the rebrand fails is the most important:

    “Too much attention to the name, and not enough to the programming.”

    SyFy’s programming sucks. It has sucked for a long time. Apparently, it will continue to suck based on their focus. Besides Battlestar Galactica, what have they got to show for themselves? They can’t even play old, fun b-rated movies. They somehow manage to find only the old b-rated movies that actually were bad and worthless. All of their original movies are just terrible and stupid.

    I pretty much gave up on them when they squatted over my TV and crapped out John Edward’s “Crossing Over”. It wasn’t even remotely science-fiction. Fiction, yes, but not Sci-Fi. Who were they thinking would watch, believe, or enjoy that crap? That show still makes me mad and that was like 10 years ago.

    Reply to this comment

  2. Barry

    09. Aug, 2009

    Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson have pretty much screwed the Pooch with the asinine Live 08 Halloween Special- They can call it SyFy or whatever they want… I call it SUCK

    Reply to this comment

  3. Kmuzu

    08. Aug, 2009

    Could not agree more .. great post

    Reply to this comment

  4. TheLoneIguana

    08. Aug, 2009

    I think the fourth point says the most: Too much attention to the name, and not enough to the programming.

    They were having that problem long before the rebrand.
    Grade-Z movies, ghost hunting.. and Wrestling? It’s fiction, yes. Science fiction? No.

    Reply to this comment

  5. Michael Laborde

    22. Jul, 2009

    I have to kindly disagree.

    A rebrand does not necessarily equate to just a new logo. I think this article really misses the mark and jumps on the lynch mob style band wagon because they hate the word mark. A logo doesn’t make or break a brand, and it surely doesn’t cause it succeed or fail.

    It’s a pretty foolish argument to say the branding has failed because the success of the branding largely depends on the concept and application. Anyone who has seen the identity in action should understand they hit the mark.

    The concept is clear, and for all the tech/geeks who use flickr, skype, or orkut it seems they aren’t the only one trying to capitalize on strange spellings and made up words. The application is also appropriate for a network that wants you to “imagine greater”. A blank palette by which things can grow, change, or evolve into new and wonderful things.

    And the Tropicana argument is a poor comparison as well. That had a lot to do with 80 year old women becoming confused because they look for an orange with a straw in it as opposed to reading the words on the front. It was more about heritage and less about the design. Luckily for “Syfy”, they are dealing with techies who change phones, computers, and other gadgets about as much as they change their socks.

    Reply to this comment

    • Mike Morris

      22. Jul, 2009

      Still say nay. I’ve seen the rebranding in action. It’s my favorite TV channel. I also saw the change they underwent a number of years ago when they started calling themselves Sci Fi instead of the Sci Fi Channel. It was around the time of Farscape. That was a huge change that really impressed me and a lot of other folks.

      If this were a brand-new network with no history, I’d say it was impressive. But it’s a rebrand — that’s what they are calling it. It’s supposed to be more than just a logo change. But it’s an attempt that doesn’t really go anywhere. To use the techie/geek gadget analogy, it’s the same gadget with a slightly different skin on it. It’s not enough of a change to be meaningful.

      Furthermore, they (Syfy) say that it’s an attempt to target the non-geek, non-techie marketplace. Hmm. Again, I don’t think it’s different enough to target a different demographic.

      If flickr had slightly changed their logo, and gone from flicker to flickr, then I’d say their rebranding effort was weak and unnecessary as well.

      Imagine greater is a good tagline. No arguments with that.

      And, after all the talk, the proof is in the pudding. Let’s see how it goes. I hope things go well for SyFy.

      Reply to this comment

      • Michael Laborde

        22. Jul, 2009

        I tend to think you have emotional attachments to Sci-Fi :)

        The question isn’t if someone likes it or not. Taste varies, but to say it has failed seems to be a knee jerk reaction to everyone hating the word mark. No one even factors in everything else that came with it. The promos, animation, and other forms of collateral which sets a certain tone for the network.

        Personal taste ≠ success or failure. People are wearing ray-bans, which I hate, but I wouldn’t call them a fashion failure because of how I feel. All in all I would call it mighty successful, even if it is reluctantly.

        Wanna see some horrible branding, check out Fox Reality Channel, WEtv, Encore, or even the CW. It will make you yearn for something like SyFy.

        Me personally, I think channels like AMC, USA, and Discovery have the best branding… Especially in HD.

        Reply to this comment

        • Mike Morris

          23. Jul, 2009

          Haha – I think you have emotional attachments to your original position. ;)

          Never said anything about liking it or disliking it. It’s all about effectiveness. And if their goals are as stated are not being met by the rebrand.

          And I never said anything about hating the mark. It’s just not enough of a departure from their previous logo. It’s not fresh. Look at the two logos next to each other and you’ll see what I mean. They both have the same feeling. They’re both cut from the same fabric. Watch the old TV spots and compare them to the new. Different? Sure. But they feel the same.

          Ultimately, it’s weak as a rebrand. They could have done a lot better with a rebrand.Once again, if this were their initial brand, I’d say it’s fine. But it’s not far enough from their previous brand to make it worthy of a rebrand. And, again, I’m not just talking about their new logo. I’m talking about their content, their advertising, the logo, the whole package.

          Nothing knee-jerk here. I’ve had a while to think about this. And I imagine greater is possible.

          Reply to this comment

  6. Mike

    22. Jul, 2009

    Good points. I think that another thing that weakens the rebranding effort is that it is not enough of a change.

    The type doesn’t give a different feeling from the earlier Sci Fi logo. Not, it’s not the same, but it’s not distinctively different. I don’t think that spelling it SyFy adds anything at all. If anything, it’s confusing.

    The ads, while a departure from the one thing changing into another thing series, still have the same unreal atmosphere and feel.

    Overall, it’s meh.

    Reply to this comment

  7. Aaron Mc Adam

    15. Jul, 2009

    Yeah, this rebranding pretty much breaks all the rules of logo design! Nicely put, man :)

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply