?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Such · a · pretty · girl · Happy · in · an · ugly · place


Syfy channel rebrand.

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
this is the least offensive of the station identifiers

this is the least offensive of the station identifiers

This post brought to you by me being bored and poking around The Skinny.

So the Scifi channel has rebranded to “Syfy”. I would like to jump on the bandwagon and say that this was a poor move. It’s way too web 2.0/trendy of a name, especially when the old one wasn’t dated. Are they trying to appeal to the trendy pseudo-intellectuals, or have the station execs just gotten too lazy to stop using txt speak?

To be fair, the creative (by Motionographer) is gorgeous. The animation is flawless and interesting. The attention to detail is superb. However, I agree with the author over at The Skinny. If you didn’t know the history of Scifi, you have no idea what the channel is about from these. It’s so cerebral and far-removed from what the actual channel airs, it ceases to make sense.

Viewing the trailer on the Syfy website doesn’t help clarify. It’s just as generic and mismatched as the rest of the campaign to their existing identity and line-up of shows. What about scifi programming exactly warrants the gratuitous use of glitter and butterflies? Have the people doing the rebranding never met scifi fans? Here’s a hint: they’re not Mariah Carey.

It’s a shame that such gorgeous creative is essentially being wasted on an ill-concieved rebrand. I can only imagine how amazing the product would have been if the branding direction had any basis whatsoever in reality.

crossposted from fuzzdecay.com.
* * *
* * *
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:07 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i would be more likely to watch it if it were called "twathole channel", at least that's edgy :P
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:13 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
We recently did a rebrand of a university and OMFG it was the worst job ever. Everything was "design by committee" and every time you tried to bill them, they'd cry no money. They ended up spending a bit under $200k, not including all the brochures we're still rebranding a year and a half later.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:18 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i'm going to have to make a rule about the mentioning of comic sans.

THIS IS A COMIC SANS FREE AREA.
also, papyrus and hobo.
* * *
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:35 am (UTC), johnphys commented:
Yeah, I don't exactly think "Battlestar Galactica" when I see glitter and butterflies. Definitely not the best rebrand. What's to rebrand?
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:46 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
yeah, most of my issue is that the rebrand was completely unnecessary.
* * *
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:45 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
it's insulting that "glitter and butterflies" is their idea of trying to attract female viewers. the female population that reacts to that is too busy watching bridezillas on We to be bothered watching scifi.
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 07:46 am (UTC), belindashort replied:
while I agree with this, I also think we're missing the 'buffy' types that will be drawn in by the fantasy
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:05 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
I can see that, but it's alienating their core market, which is never a good idea. i don't think they will pick up enough regular women viewers to justify alienating all the geeky boys.

I'm curious to see how well the rebrand sticks. They have high hopes for it, but I really don't. You know how entrenched in familiarity and routine geek boys get.

Edited at 2009-07-23 02:07 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 03:47 pm (UTC), belindashort replied:
Oh, I totally agree, don't get me wrong. I don't think they'll lose their asses over it, but I mean hell, they've been playing WWF shit for a while, so its not like its been all sci-fi.
[User Picture]
On July 25th, 2009 07:09 pm (UTC), fiduch replied:
hey! i resemble that remark!
* * *
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 03:20 am (UTC), jadeinbetween commented:
I just noticed this a day or two ago and wondered when the hell they decided SciFi was too hard to spell...

If they're trying to appeal to more females last I checked there are quite a few hotties floating around the network at their disposal. Hit 'em with the pretty and they'll stop to see that they're interested in the storylines.

Anyway, I think 'Mtn Dew' annoys me more.
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 02:09 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
Pepsi's rebrand was terrible all around. The creative was terrible, the name changes were terrible... it was just full of fail. what's tragic to me is that if this were better executed, this would be amazing. and it's not, it falls flat.
[User Picture]
On July 25th, 2009 07:10 pm (UTC), fiduch replied:
i thought you liked the new pepsi logo?
[User Picture]
On July 25th, 2009 07:13 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i do like the new pepsi logo, but that's the only thing out of that rebrand i actually like. i was going to amend my first comment, but then i realized that the rest of the reband was so bad, one decent logo doesn't make it better.
* * *
[User Picture]
On July 23rd, 2009 07:45 am (UTC), belindashort commented:
I've been told that the rebrand is in fact to make the channel more 'female friendly' as well as being able to brand their genre, if that makes any sense.
* * *

Previous Entry · Leave a comment · Share · Next Entry