“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.