Geeking the Future.

The big SF news at the end of last week came from, brace yourself, the people at Syfy.

Scott Edelman, the Features Editor for Syfy's SCI FI Wire, announced that the site would be discontinuing its regular columns from a number of contributors, including Wil McCarthy and John Clute.

The reason?


That the company "learned via research and focus groups that 'the whole online column idea has become passe, because the medium has evolved.'"

The time of the column, they were told, was over.

Crock of crap?

Definitely. But it shouldn't be unexpected, given how the channel's view of those who enjoy and/or adore SF/Sci Fi/Syfysmo has been morphing since their entertainment mission changed earlier this year.


This move is not about "the medium"and its evolution. People who say that the online column is "passe" do not read political websites, news sites, or any other form of information site. On most other websites, the column is alive and well and people are writing lengthy compositions about issues and ideas that attract hundreds of comments and draw people to those sites. The medium has plenty of room for thoughtful discussions and passionate rants using the essay form. People still want to read well-written, focused articles that develop a thesis and then explicate it, hopefully with some wit and erudition (as seen here at FoG!).

This is also not about SCI FI Wire going in an exciting new direction. An examination of the site shows that it retains a lot of the same formatting and the usual array of brief puff pieces and video clips. Nothing seems to have changed except that the posts with a lot of words are gone. At the end of last year the site underwent some revisions (in line with the eventual shift to the channel's new "Syfy"image), but there seems to be no new "evolution" going on, and a lot of what they are putting up is similar to what you see on io9, Geek Tyrant, or sometimes even on this lovely site. So if they aren't innovating their site, or most of its content, what evolution are they talking about?

I believe the evolution is one that they covet in their audience. What has changed, or what they want to change, are the people who watch the channel or check out the website, whose primary goal is to lead people to the channel. There has not been some amazing change on the Web in the past year; there has been a change in the way that the Syfy Channel is trying to create consumers of its product. "Research" (most likely surveys) and "focus groups" are two varieties of information-gathering that tend to pre-select their subjects and lead them to a small array of choices and outcomes. While they have some utility for the information they gather, they tend to revivify already-existing ideas, or at least put a better spin on them. They also tell researchers more about the people themselves than about some new product or program. So, if there is an evolution, it is in the preconceptions and desires of the Syfy's channel's target audience.

What they learned, it appears, is that the channel's desired audience is not interested in columns, but are interested in brief opinions on "Why Rambo 5 should be a sci-fi epic." They figured out that those who enjoyed the columns were outnumbered by those who were interested in both the channel's new programming variety and in some distancing away from the idea of being a science fiction fan. This distancing has been an underpinning of their new programming philosophy, and we should have realized that it was only a matter of time before they extended it fully to their news site. In a sense, what they found out was that the channel's ideas were mirrored in their audience.

And yet, it is obvious from the site that what they learned was not the whole story. People do read and engage the columns. A column by John Clute on J.G. Ballard's writing got more commentary (some with great substance, some of it trolltastic) than a column by Michael Cassutt on popcorn flicks. When looking at the comment totals for posts from the last few days, only a few (such as "The 8 Greatest Star Trek Cameos Ever!") have as much engagement from readers. This is just one detail that argues against the column-form as passé.

What may be "passé" is what all of the columns provided: thoughtful criticism. In an unending stream of movie promotions, silly lists, and the odd rant, what stuck out was the long column. With their shift to blog format it became clear that the columns were a holdover from the "old"channel. Syfy's shift to a programming philosophy that saw stereotypical "sci fi"as too highbrow finally spilled over to their website. If you want to cultivate an audience that has no problem with the term "Syfy" or with ghost-wrestling (as a number of wags have put it in comments about the change), you have to evolve your message, both its content and its presentation. And it has to appeal to people who aren't terribly worried about putting hours of hard thought into their entertainment. It has to condition their expectations, not give them food for critical thought.

That appears to be the real evolution behind this change. Which is too bad, because in a form of natural selection, the site (and possibly the channel) will lose some very fit audience members who will find their challenges and wonders elsewhere.