Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Casey Dougall
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Jim Davis wrote: > > Wouldn't this be more appropriate on April 1st: > > http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php > > Or maybe on "Apryl Fyrst"? > > Stupidest friggin' thing I've ever heard. > > Jim Davis > Next up Comedy Central ch

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Cameron Childress
Well, a new Stargate series is coming out this year. I'm looking forward to that... Tonight's going to be good though... -Cameron On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > It does not matter anyway.  As of 11:00 PM EDT tonight, there will once > again be nothgin worth wacthing

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Scott Stroz
It does not matter anyway. As of 11:00 PM EDT tonight, there will once again be nothgin worth wacthing on SciFi or SyFy or SighFigh or whatever On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Cameron Childress wrote: > > Yes, changing the name of a geeky channel to be more "teen l33t" is > just what will

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Cameron Childress
Yes, changing the name of a geeky channel to be more "teen l33t" is just what will make that channel less dorky and geeky - uh huh. I wonder if the guy who came up with this has a "really cool" tattoo of NKOTB on his arm. You know, since they were cool and trendy and never going to change. Seri

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Jerry Johnson
They are changing the name of the channel to SyFy Their reasoning is: they don't like the people that currently watch their channel, want them to go away (because they are antisocial nerds), and hope that the new viewers they attract don't realize that syfy is the same as sci-fi. On Fri, Mar

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Jerry Johnson
Ah. I missed the thread hijack. 2009/3/20 Erika L. Walker > > hehe > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM, morgan l wrote: > > > > > So WTF is wrong here? I don't get it. > ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most impo

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Erika L. Walker
hehe On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM, morgan l wrote: > > So WTF is wrong here? I don't get it. > > ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doublec

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread morgan l
So WTF is wrong here? I don't get it. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Deanna Schneider < deanna.schnei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > > > I am not sure what bothers me most: > > > > 1. The fact that he essential called me a dysfunctional, anits

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Michael Grant
> > Some balls on this guy, changing the spelling of the name of the channel > and > calling it a major achievement. Give that man a multi-million dollar bonus! ~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dram

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Scott Stroz
That is awesome! On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Deanna Schneider < deanna.schnei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > > > I am not sure what bothers me most: > > > > 1. The fact that he essential called me a dysfunctional, anitsocial geek > > > > or

RE: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Jim Davis
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > > > I am not sure what bothers me most: > > > > 1. The fact that he essential called me a dysfunctional, anitsocial > geek > > > > or > > > > 2. The fact that its true. Or the fact that he thinks misspelling it will "fool" others into thi

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Deanna Schneider
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Scott Stroz wrote: > > I am not sure what bothers me most: > > 1. The fact that he essential called me a dysfunctional, anitsocial geek > > or > > 2. The fact that its true. > Speaking of marketing screw ups. Who can spot the screw up here: http://www.witouri

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Scott Stroz
I am not sure what bothers me most: 1. The fact that he essential called me a dysfunctional, anitsocial geek or 2. The fact that its true. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote: > > > Wouldn't this be more appropriate on April 1st: > > > > http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/0

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread C. Hatton Humphrey
> Wouldn't this be more appropriate on April 1st: > > http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php > > Or maybe on "Apryl Fyrst"? > > Stupidest friggin' thing I've ever heard. Y am offyndyd! I mean, seriously, "The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunct

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Robert Munn
Some balls on this guy, changing the spelling of the name of the channel and calling it a major achievement. On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Maureen wrote: > > Yeah, buy a channel named Sci-fi then by your own admission spend most > of a decade trying to distance the network from fans of sci

Re: This can't be serious (further failures of Marketing Departments)

2009-03-20 Thread Maureen
Yeah, buy a channel named Sci-fi then by your own admission spend most of a decade trying to distance the network from fans of science fiction. Stupid does not begin to define it. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Jim Davis wrote: > > Wouldn't this be more appropriate on April 1st: > > http://w