Article on "Token" interesting quotes from SFC execs

[atomicblue]

Kansas is down........and I just had to post this link!!! Ameliamo sent it to me. Ugh!! Disgusting how Bonnie Hammer says that SFC "doesn't want to ignore the channels core following" Well, sorry guys!!!!! You already did!! Love it also how they say that Farscape fans are mad as hell. Eeek too on the 40 mil it took to produce "Taken".....love the word play "Token". Anyway read on for yourself!
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/021129/72/358oz.html#Scene_1

SFC network says the audience "prefers marathon scheduling".........well to be honest I can't wait until December 24th:cool:

[skinnyman27]

In making the decision to schedule "Taken" over two weeks rather than over a couple of months, Ms. Hammer studied the ratings for HBO miniseries "Band of Brothers" and "From the Earth to the Moon," which were run weekly rather than daily. While both started strong, ratings tapered off as the weeks wore on.

Oh wait! I get it now Ms. Hammer knows better than HBO on how to make and keep great origional shows. I may be wrong but did'nt band of brothers come out right before or right after 9/11. Still it was a knock out.

_______________________________________________
Hey you bastards.......John Crichton was here.

[MediaSavant]

$40 million works out to be $2 million per hour. Not that much higher than Farscape, when you think about it.

But, it is getting higher ratings.

It's not what you pay, it's how much you get back for it.

[waltersgirl]

The gamble in trying to widen one's programming reach lies in alienating the core audience -- in this case, science fiction fanatics. "It is going to be a challenge," Starcom Entertainment's Ms. Caraccioli says.

nail? meet head.

[waltersgirl]

but wait, there's more.

Ms. Hammer defends these moves, saying the channel needs to be a "bit more accessible." While she doesn't want to ignore the channel's core following, she also knows this audience isn't enough to sustain growth. "We're experimenting and trying to target different audiences," she says, adding that the network has to be brought "a little more back to earth."

one. you're called the SciFi Channel. in case you forgot.

two. if you jettison your core audience, that then becomes subtraction, not addition.


i recognize the position that Ms Hammer is in, really, i do. it's a matter of the larger channel picture vs the microcosm of a single show. that said, i fail to see how tanking your network identity is going to serve growth. they are, whether they like it or not, THE ONLY, science fiction channel on television. hence the name. that name comes with viewer expectations. if they want to do something else, then they would be better served changing their name, not cancelling their flagship shows.

i want to, no, need to, find a way to help Ms Hammer correct the decision she's made. we CAN find a way to help her save face, and help her not tank that network. i have faith. i don't have any ideas, but i have faith.

[Deneba]

Originally posted by MediaSavant
$40 million works out to be $2 million per hour. Not that much higher than Farscape, when you think about it.

But, it is getting higher ratings.

It's not what you pay, it's how much you get back for it.

How many millions in advertising budget were committed to "Taken", though, and where are the months-long hiatus in scheduling? How much advertising money was committed to Farscape?

Granted, Farscape is a complicated, arc-based story, but SciFi knew that going in. It was up to SciFi to make it easy for new and returning viewers to first of all find Farscape, then give them a basis to understand it.

D.

[Selena1]

i want to, no, need to, find a way to help Ms Hammer correct the decision she's made. we CAN find a way to help her save face, and help her not tank that network. i have faith. i don't have any ideas, but i have faith.

Only thing I can think of at this moment is maybe the MIB neuralizer...give her a few happy thoughts and the idea that she WANTS FS for season 5...

[robosapien]

They are operating on the false belief that growth is boundless, that if you're not growing something is wrong. But there is a naturally occuring limit to growth. There are only so many people who want to watch sci-fi. Even with this shift of focus to the paranormal, there will be another limit. Then what? Eventually they'll become USA-2, and virtually all the sci-fi will be gone.

Ad revenue of $179M, subscriber fess of $120M, programming budget is $208M? That seems like an awful lot for some of the crap they play. I wish they would just concentrate on good science fiction. One thing that has always puzzled me is the fact the science fiction themed movies do so well, but there is no support for it on television, and what little there is isn't very good.
"You don't want to be dependent on other peoples' content," says Michael Jackson
I think this is the one person responsible for the death of Farscape, simply because they had no ownership of the show.

[Dominar of Action]

one more frelling year does not mean you're dependent, Mr. Jackson :grr: