Scifi article

[Cerberus]

Here is an interesting article about the Scifi Channel. It explains who their audience is and what type of shows they like to watch. It will be interesting when Vivendi Universl sales Scifi this summer what direction Scifi will take.

Scifi article

Thanks,

Cerberus

 

[Cerberus]

Here is an interesting article about the Scifi Channel. It explains who their audience is and what type of shows they like to watch. It will be interesting when Vivendi Universl sales Scifi this summer what direction Scifi will take.

Scifi article

Thanks,

Cerberus

 

[hypatia]

From the article, about the cancellation of Farscape:

The show's high production values, thoughtful scripts and memorable characters earned it an ardent, passionate following.

But last fall, during the show's fourth season, Sci-Fi decided that the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.

The network negotiated until "the 11th hour," Hammer said, with the Henson Company and "Farscape" executive producer David Kemper to make a deal that would have brought the show back for 13 more episodes. But the talks broke down.

Fans of the show were livid, and they deluged Hammer and Sci-Fi with letters, e-mails and other messages asking for a renewal.

A highly sophisticated Web site chronicles the progress of the "Save Farscape" campaign.

Ultimately, the show strayed too far from the kind of accessible fare that could appeal to the escapists or the young Marvels, Hammer explained.

So Sci-philes, female escapists, and young "Marvel" fans are the three categories Bonnie Hammer consideres in terms of a target audience for her channel. And the latter two are the future for the "Sci-Fi" channel.

And they are making better ratings with this strategy. I couldn't possibly be more disappointed about that.

 

[hypatia]

From the article, about the cancellation of Farscape:

The show's high production values, thoughtful scripts and memorable characters earned it an ardent, passionate following.

But last fall, during the show's fourth season, Sci-Fi decided that the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.

The network negotiated until "the 11th hour," Hammer said, with the Henson Company and "Farscape" executive producer David Kemper to make a deal that would have brought the show back for 13 more episodes. But the talks broke down.

Fans of the show were livid, and they deluged Hammer and Sci-Fi with letters, e-mails and other messages asking for a renewal.

A highly sophisticated Web site chronicles the progress of the "Save Farscape" campaign.

Ultimately, the show strayed too far from the kind of accessible fare that could appeal to the escapists or the young Marvels, Hammer explained.

So Sci-philes, female escapists, and young "Marvel" fans are the three categories Bonnie Hammer consideres in terms of a target audience for her channel. And the latter two are the future for the "Sci-Fi" channel.

And they are making better ratings with this strategy. I couldn't possibly be more disappointed about that.

 

[Mike G]

One is the die-hard, traditional viewer who might love the original "Star Trek" and its spinoffs, "Space: 1999," "Logan's Run," etc. Hammer calls this group "sci-philes."


Another set of viewers, which Hammer calls "escapists," is predominantly female. These are fans "who love good soap operas, who love great character development, great storytelling, but with a twist," she said. The escapists are helping to boost the box office proceeds of "The Matrix Reloaded" right now, and also enjoyed "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" film series.


The third group is a young male audience that likes stories about superheroes. Hammer refers to them as the "young Marvels." "Spider-Man" and the two "X-Men" movies have large appeal for this crowd.

So whe exactly did they think was going to watch Scare Tactics and Dream Team?

 

[Mike G]

One is the die-hard, traditional viewer who might love the original "Star Trek" and its spinoffs, "Space: 1999," "Logan's Run," etc. Hammer calls this group "sci-philes."


Another set of viewers, which Hammer calls "escapists," is predominantly female. These are fans "who love good soap operas, who love great character development, great storytelling, but with a twist," she said. The escapists are helping to boost the box office proceeds of "The Matrix Reloaded" right now, and also enjoyed "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" film series.


The third group is a young male audience that likes stories about superheroes. Hammer refers to them as the "young Marvels." "Spider-Man" and the two "X-Men" movies have large appeal for this crowd.

So whe exactly did they think was going to watch Scare Tactics and Dream Team?

 

[ElScorcho]

If they want to steer away from cult shows, why are thy playing the old Star Trek all day today?

It's not surprising that STEVEN SPIELBERG's Taken and FRANK HERBERT's Children of Dune were successful. They have recognisable names attached to them. Likewise with Stargate.

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

"But it became too 'in.' Even the fans started turning away because it became too hard to understand..."

Nearly every episode of Farscape last season had a "Last time..." teaser at the beginning. They always included information that would be critical to that show - so if you missed it the week before, you were caught up. And fans "turning away" from the show is new to me.

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.

 

[ElScorcho]

If they want to steer away from cult shows, why are thy playing the old Star Trek all day today?

It's not surprising that STEVEN SPIELBERG's Taken and FRANK HERBERT's Children of Dune were successful. They have recognisable names attached to them. Likewise with Stargate.

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

"But it became too 'in.' Even the fans started turning away because it became too hard to understand..."

Nearly every episode of Farscape last season had a "Last time..." teaser at the beginning. They always included information that would be critical to that show - so if you missed it the week before, you were caught up. And fans "turning away" from the show is new to me.

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

When you cannot find the bug you are reading the wrong subroutine.

Sci-Fi does not yet understand its 3 groups. So for the last couple of years it has been chasing something vague about women. Hopeful it will now improve.

Farscape was not picking up sufficient women viewers. The underlying love story was not sufficient, over 5 years, to continue to attract them. We do know who Crichton is going to marry.

The Sci-Fi management wanted Crichton to have sex with the bikini clad female alien of the week. This is porn - very popular with men but uninteresting to women. Women are looking for love; and are aware that with a love them and leave them man they will soon be last week's broken hearted sex object. Captain Kirk got away with being a serial snogger because he was a boy looking for the right girl, he simply had not found her yet (although he was in love with the Enterprise). Most women can dream that they are the right girl.

What Farscape probably needed was the eternal triangle - one girl, two men - she must choose. We are talking Barbara Cartland in space here. Crichton has already got his long-term girlfriend and if Aeryn started dating someone else the women would consider her a slut. Consequently one of the other females would have to start her manhunt.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

When you cannot find the bug you are reading the wrong subroutine.

Sci-Fi does not yet understand its 3 groups. So for the last couple of years it has been chasing something vague about women. Hopeful it will now improve.

Farscape was not picking up sufficient women viewers. The underlying love story was not sufficient, over 5 years, to continue to attract them. We do know who Crichton is going to marry.

The Sci-Fi management wanted Crichton to have sex with the bikini clad female alien of the week. This is porn - very popular with men but uninteresting to women. Women are looking for love; and are aware that with a love them and leave them man they will soon be last week's broken hearted sex object. Captain Kirk got away with being a serial snogger because he was a boy looking for the right girl, he simply had not found her yet (although he was in love with the Enterprise). Most women can dream that they are the right girl.

What Farscape probably needed was the eternal triangle - one girl, two men - she must choose. We are talking Barbara Cartland in space here. Crichton has already got his long-term girlfriend and if Aeryn started dating someone else the women would consider her a slut. Consequently one of the other females would have to start her manhunt.

 

[MartinRoth]

[sigh]

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

Then you weren't reading carefully enough. Here it is:

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.

Huh?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here, unless you're trying to make the case that what the "audience" wants is simply what you want.

The problem is that the "core" SF audience -- what Hammer calls the "Sci-philes" -- simply isn't large enough to sustain a major cable network.

The only way that "traditional" media SF is going to make it these days on the Sci-Fi Channel or anyplace else is if it goes beyond that core audience -- the way that the Star Trek franchise has, the way that X-Files did, the way that Farscape didn't, and, dammit, the way that B5 really didn't. Because the Sci-Fi Channel is not in business to provide quality programming; it is in business to make money.

It sucks. It means that there's going to be very little SF on TV that I'm willing to watch, and that people are going to continue to associate SF with the mindless drivel polluting the non-print segments of the genre these days.

But that's the way it works sometimes. Sticking ones head in the sand and attempting to deny the reality isn't going to change it.

 

[MartinRoth]

[sigh]

And after reading this article, I still haven't heard a reasonable argument for the cancellation of Farscape.

Then you weren't reading carefully enough. Here it is:

the show's ratings -- consistently at the 1.1 or 1.2 level -- weren't high enough to justify the cost of bringing it back for a fifth season.

It used to be that programmers tried to gauge what the audience wanted. People like Bonnie Hammer want to tell the audience what they want. That really pisses me off.

Huh?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say here, unless you're trying to make the case that what the "audience" wants is simply what you want.

The problem is that the "core" SF audience -- what Hammer calls the "Sci-philes" -- simply isn't large enough to sustain a major cable network.

The only way that "traditional" media SF is going to make it these days on the Sci-Fi Channel or anyplace else is if it goes beyond that core audience -- the way that the Star Trek franchise has, the way that X-Files did, the way that Farscape didn't, and, dammit, the way that B5 really didn't. Because the Sci-Fi Channel is not in business to provide quality programming; it is in business to make money.

It sucks. It means that there's going to be very little SF on TV that I'm willing to watch, and that people are going to continue to associate SF with the mindless drivel polluting the non-print segments of the genre these days.

But that's the way it works sometimes. Sticking ones head in the sand and attempting to deny the reality isn't going to change it.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

The problem is that the "core" SF audience -- what Hammer calls the "Sci-philes" -- simply isn't large enough to sustain a major cable network.

The real problem is different.

Fraction of population that view = half
US population = 252 million (est. 1991)
Number of stations = 300

Fair share of viewers = 0.5 * 252 m / 300 = 0.42 million

US cable and satellite station have not yet got used to the idea that they are aiming for viewing figures of half a million. So a rating of 1.1 is enormous.

By aiming for 3 to 4 million viewers Sci-Fi are planning on becoming one of the big boys. I hope that they succeed and remember to take all 3 groups with them.

Just remember: with girls that any station can show a love story and that once you lose the boys they may not return.

"BMW" and "HP" - nice group of advertisers

 

[A_M_Swallow]

The problem is that the "core" SF audience -- what Hammer calls the "Sci-philes" -- simply isn't large enough to sustain a major cable network.

The real problem is different.

Fraction of population that view = half
US population = 252 million (est. 1991)
Number of stations = 300

Fair share of viewers = 0.5 * 252 m / 300 = 0.42 million

US cable and satellite station have not yet got used to the idea that they are aiming for viewing figures of half a million. So a rating of 1.1 is enormous.

By aiming for 3 to 4 million viewers Sci-Fi are planning on becoming one of the big boys. I hope that they succeed and remember to take all 3 groups with them.

Just remember: with girls that any station can show a love story and that once you lose the boys they may not return.

"BMW" and "HP" - nice group of advertisers

 

[MartinRoth]

Fraction of population that view = half
US population = 252 million (est. 1991)
Number of stations = 300

Fair share of viewers = 0.5 * 252 m / 300 = 0.42 million

US cable and satellite station have not yet got used to the idea that they are aiming for viewing figures of half a million. So a rating of 1.1 is enormous.

Well, no.

First, the basic ratings numbers are percentages of households, not numbers of people. So all your math above is irrelevant.

Second, the 300 stations includes many regional and specialty stations that simply aren't a factor in national ratings because they're not available to enough people in the first place. The typical cable household has significantly fewer than 100 channels available. (Satellite and digital cable haven't yet spread widely enough to affect this.)

If you look at the weekly cable ratings for May 5 to 11, you'll note that the #15 show for the week had a rating of 2.4 and over 2.5 million households viewing. A rating of 1.1, or less than half of the #15 show, is far from "enormous".

 

[MartinRoth]

Fraction of population that view = half
US population = 252 million (est. 1991)
Number of stations = 300

Fair share of viewers = 0.5 * 252 m / 300 = 0.42 million

US cable and satellite station have not yet got used to the idea that they are aiming for viewing figures of half a million. So a rating of 1.1 is enormous.

Well, no.

First, the basic ratings numbers are percentages of households, not numbers of people. So all your math above is irrelevant.

Second, the 300 stations includes many regional and specialty stations that simply aren't a factor in national ratings because they're not available to enough people in the first place. The typical cable household has significantly fewer than 100 channels available. (Satellite and digital cable haven't yet spread widely enough to affect this.)

If you look at the weekly cable ratings for May 5 to 11, you'll note that the #15 show for the week had a rating of 2.4 and over 2.5 million households viewing. A rating of 1.1, or less than half of the #15 show, is far from "enormous".

 

[KoshN]

If you look at the weekly cable ratings for May 5 to 11, you'll note that the #15 show for the week had a rating of 2.4 and over 2.5 million households viewing. A rating of 1.1, or less than half of the #15 show, is far from "enormous".

What do Sci-Fi Channel Shows routinely get? 2.4? No, 1.4 is more likely. For them, 1.4 isn't too bad. However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep.). However, B5 and Crusade cost roughly $1 million per ep. Sadly, it looks like that's too expensive for Sci-Fi as well.

 

[KoshN]

If you look at the weekly cable ratings for May 5 to 11, you'll note that the #15 show for the week had a rating of 2.4 and over 2.5 million households viewing. A rating of 1.1, or less than half of the #15 show, is far from "enormous".

What do Sci-Fi Channel Shows routinely get? 2.4? No, 1.4 is more likely. For them, 1.4 isn't too bad. However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep.). However, B5 and Crusade cost roughly $1 million per ep. Sadly, it looks like that's too expensive for Sci-Fi as well.

 

[PillowRock]

However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep

The $1.4 mil or $1.5 mil was the *production* budget for Farscape. SciFi's deal picked up roughly half of that. The rest was funded through the sales to other markets.

 

[PillowRock]

However, it's just not enough to sustain a Farscape budgeted series ($1.4 million/ep

The $1.4 mil or $1.5 mil was the *production* budget for Farscape. SciFi's deal picked up roughly half of that. The rest was funded through the sales to other markets.