FarscapeWeekly Farscape Spin and Counterspin Response to SCI FI FAQ rebuttal

Spin and Counterspin
A response to the SCI FI Channel's Farscape Cancellation FAQ, not to be confused with FarscapeWeekly's Farscape Cancellation FAQ. Updated with some additional points from MediaSavant on 25 September 2002.
Joan Hedman ¤ 24 September 2002

On 18 September 2002, after nearly twelve days of being scrutinized and found wanting, the SCI FI Channel publised its own version of events in its Farscape Cancellation FAQ. The SCI FI FAQ is nothing more nor less than their "spin" on the situation, and, as could be expected, they present themselves as reasonable, in a bind, and really having been left no choice. The problem with spin, though, is that it relies on half-truths and omissions. SCI FI didn't outright lie in their FAQ, but they didn't tell the whole truth, either. What follows here is an attempt to fill in some of those blanks. Most of this information was presented in different form in our own FAQ here at FarscapeWeekly, but it's useful to see the data presented this way, rebutting each of SCI FI's points.

Quotes from SCI FI's FAQ are presented in black text.

Q: SCI FI cited poor ratings as a reason for the cancellation. Aren't the ratings as high as they have ever been?
A: The fact is, ratings for the series have declined. Farscape's average primetime rating for original episodes in 2001 was a 1.4 [1,611,000 actual viewers] (Farscape's "rating" represents the percentage of homes that can get SCI FI Channel that tuned into the show). The show peaked in March 2001 with the season 3 premiere earning a 1.9. However, in 2002, season four's original episodes averaged a 1.2 [1,544,000 viewers]. Also, despite the fact that SCI FI is now available in nearly 3 million more homes than it was during season 3, the actual number of viewers for Farscape has gone down.

There are a few things going on here. First of all, SCI FI compares Farscape's average ratings in 2001 vs ratings in 2002. In 2001, there were six episodes that aired in March and April, which significantly boosted the average ratings for the 2001 episodes overall. Ratings are always lower in the summer, for the simple reason that fewer people are home watching television during the nicer weather.

The next thing to note is that SCI FI is limiting itself to the ratings for the 10PM airing, which have more or less remained flat. However, the ratings for the Midnight showing have increased, and the total viewership for the series in 2002 has actually increased 16-17%.

Another key point to note is that the 2002 episodes aired after a nine-month hiatus. It's almost certain that many fans assumed the show had been dropped from SCI FI's lineup, since it was MIA (there were no repeats aired on Friday nights during this hiatus) to remind folks that it did indeed still exist.

Additionally, in past seasons, Farscape had built upon its lead-in program (i.e., had more viewers than the program preceding it - a standard industry indicator of a show's success). For example, during the summer of 2001, Farscape increased 44% in ratings and 51% in households over its lead-in, The Invisible Man. However, this past summer, Farscape lost 29% of its lead-in program in terms of ratings, and 27% in households.

SCI FI conveniently doesn't tell us how much Farscape held onto, or increased, it's Midnight showing lead-in. Since its ratings actually increased in that slot, they must've been doing OK there.

We also have to look at demographics. The demographics for Stargate SG-1 and Farscape do have a significant overlap, but Stargate's audience skews much older, particularly among females, and those are the viewers Farscape is losing. The earthier themes and overt sexuality that Farscape presents are the antithetisis of Stargate SG-1. SCI FI here focuses on the negative, and fails to acknowledge that Farscape managed to expand its younger (and supposedly more desirable) demographic, especially among younger females.

Q: SCI FI also cited "the rising cost of production" for the cancellation. Isn't it true that the costs have not changed between seasons 4 and 5?
A: While it is true that there was no rise in production costs between seasons 4 and 5, there was a very steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4. At that time, the cost-benefit ratio was far more equitable - Farscape was the highest rated original series on the Channel and it consistently performed well. In light of the fact that the ratings failed to maintain, and actually suffered a decline during season 4, the overall high cost to produce Farscape became an issue. We were faced with a show that was costing considerably more than it had during its first three seasons, while attracting a smaller audience. Farscape was failing to meet its advertising estimates and its continuation for a full 22-episode fifth season no longer made financial sense.

The "steep rise in cost between seasons 3 and 4" was, in fact, negotiated by SCI FI. It's not like it was a surprise to them. In addition, Jim Henson Company execs have gone on record stating that production costs themselves did not increase. The additional cost per episode was because SCI FI wanted to purchase rights to air each episode more times. This licensing fee is Henson's primary means of recouping their investment in the series. Unlike SCI FI, they have no ad revenues to offset their expeditures.

Farscape was still the highest rated original SCI FI Channel series when it was axed. It was consistently in the top 5 of the ratings report, frequently number two following the imported Stargate (which, by the way, is also available in many other markets as a syndicated program).
The ratings failing/declining semantics, and Farscape's failure to meet its advertising estimates are another example of SCI FI only looking at half the data available. Since their advertisers usually sponsor the entire "Friday Prime" block, it makes more sense to look at the total ratings, not just the 10PM slot. SCI FI themselves crowed about the increase in ratings for the block in a 28 August press release, just about one week before they cancelled Farscape.

Q: Did SCI FI have any intention of producing season 5, or was the two-season pick-up announcement just a publicity stunt?
A: SCI FI had every intention of going forward with season 5 when the initial deal was made. However, with the slip in ratings, we could not justify production of another 22 episodes at Farscape's current high cost. We then immediately began an aggressive pursuit of a shortened 13-episode season 5. We did this knowing that we would be forced to incur significant financial penalties, above and beyond the usual per-episode cost of production. Up until the last moment, we all believed that this would work out. Unfortunately, we could not come to terms with our production partners. We certainly did not want to see Farscape end abruptly. We are disappointed to have the series end this way.

SCI FI's "aggressive pursuit" included coming to the table offering less money per episode, not more, in spite of their statement regarding incurring "significant financial penalties". Simply put, this show can't be made for less money. SCI FI and Henson are already taking enormous advantage of the bargain-priced talent pool in Australia; were this production located anywhere else, costs could easily be doubled. Henson Company decided they would rather not compromise the quality of their product in declining SCI FI's reduced offer.

As for SCI FI's "beliefs", "wants", and "disappointment", these statements ring false in the light of all the previous spin.

Q: Didn't you hurt the ratings by changing Farscape's time period?
A: Farscape was moved to the 10pm spot in the hopes that new SCI FI viewers tuning into the debut of Stargate SG-1 would stay around to sample Farscape and become hooked on the show. For the first few weeks of the new SCI FI Friday lineup, we even created special episodic promotions for Farscape that aired within Stargate, in an effort to push viewers to Farscape. However, despite the fact that large numbers of new viewers did show up to watch Stargate, not enough of them stayed tuned for Farscape.

Once again, what we're witnessing is SCI FI's execs failing to look at the demographic overlap (or lack thereof) between Stargate and Farscape. Stargate is, shall we say, leisurely-paced. Farscape is not. More happens in the first 15 minutes of the typical Farscape episode than happens in entire episodes of other genre series. This is appealing to a certain type of viewer, but it is a turn-off to others, particularly those who don't want to watch a show that really makes them think. Pairing Stargate with Farscape and expecting it to be a good fit was unrealistic.

Additional Points: There has always been an overlap between SCI FI's Friday Prime viewers and Showtime viewers. When Farscape was on at 9PM, about 10% of its audience flipped over to Showtime rather than watch whatever was following it on SCI FI. Having acquired a show from Showtime (Stargate SG-1), the problem was only accentuated. It seems that SCI FI could've put its ex-Showtime series in the 10PM slot to try and prevent the switchover.

As for building on lead-ins vs. losing lead-ins, the 8PM shows have been low-rated. It would be hard for any show not to build on that lead-in, and for SCI FI to compare the difference in behavior between the two is another example of apples-to-oranges.

One other unfortunate point to note is that at 10pm, Farscape faced no competition from UPN, WB or Fox, as those networks stop broadcasting dramatic shows after 10pm, and in most markets switch to local news. Yet, even with less broadcast network competition at 10pm than at 9pm, Farscape's ratings still declined this season.

This statement is disingenuous at best. USA Networks premiered the very successful Monk in the 10PM time slot opposite Farscape, and Showtime debuted its own new genre program, Odyssey 5. To say that Farscape had less competition at 10pm because some networks switch to news at that hour is laughable. UPN, WB, and Fox never showed new episoded of genre programming during SCI FI's summer Friday Prime. This summer, however, there were two strong new contenders that SCI FI conveniently ignored.

Additional Points: News programs aren't big ratings draws, anyway. By this reasoning, Lexx and The Outer Limits should've been getting a ratings bump and beating Farscape in previous years.

SCI FI consistently fails to mention the fact that the midnight showing's ratings went up. This seems to support the idea that some people purposely watched the later broadcast because they knew they could take advantage of the encore presentation.

Q: Wasn't SCI FI's lack of promotion of Farscape directly to blame for the series' failure to reach new viewers? Stargate SG-1 was given far more promotion by the network.
A: This is a misconception. SCI FI made a conscious decision to promote both Friday night original series equally. All of our promotion was directed at the night - SCI FI Fridays. Therefore, Farscape received equal advertising and promotional dollars as Stargate SG-1, and received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere. In fact, over the years, SCI FI has dedicated more promotional dollars to Farscape than to any other SCI FI original series.

Without a doubt, that last statement is true, if only because SCI FI has never had another original series go to four seasons. (First Wave only ran for its original three-year contract, surprisingly it did not get cancelled even though its ratings dropped precipitously -- it was still allowed to run through the end of its contract.)
Note carefully the wording of the answer, though: "received more marketing support for the launch of season 4 than it had at any other time aside from its premiere." After the season 4 launch, though, Farscape's ads definitely decreased. Perhaps they were all aired during Stargate, and that's why I missed seeing them -- but I recall many evenings cruising over to SCI FI during commercial breaks specifically to try and catch a Farscape spot, and seeing countless Stargate ads. That's anecdotal, yes, but many folks have said the same thing: we couldn't find a Farscape ad (before the "Season finale" ballyhoo) but were hip deep in Stargate promos.

Q: How can you call Farscape a "beloved show" and still cancel it?
A: Despite what many seem to believe, those who work at SCI FI Channel truly love Farscape. It was one of our first original series, and became our signature show. With four full seasons, it is also the Channel's longest running original series. However, television is a business and despite every effort on our part, with the ratings dipping, the Channel could not commit to the high financial cost of producing another season. We were deeply involved in Farscape's inception and development and continue to be extremely proud of the series. Farscape was birthed here and ran for four full seasons - it was a very difficult decision.

This statement is the most honest and heartfelt response in the entire piece. The executives at SCI FI Channel, including Bonnie Hammer and Tom Vitale, really do love the show. This decision, however, was out of their hands. Whether they could've fought harder to save it, or fought smarter, it's impossible to say at this point. The short-term thinking of SCI FI's parent company is apparent here. There will be long-term consequences of this decision. Already SCI FI has taken a beating in the media press, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

Q: Is it true that SCI FI cancelled Farscape in order to finance another season of Stargate SG-1?
A: No. Negotiations for the series are completely separate. The decision to end Farscape after season 4 was based solely on its ratings performance in relation to its high cost of production. Whether we do more episodes of Stargate or not has nothing to do with Farscape.

This is another disingenuous statement. There's only one wallet that's holding the cash, folks, and there's only so much cash to go around. That's why it's particularly irksome that SCI FI just forked over a bundle for the rights to THE X-FILES, which are available on at least two other cable channels and have already been beaten into the ground in reruns.

Q: Why won't SCI FI Channel release Farscape to another network? Wouldn't that save the show?
A: SCI FI has not been approached to release Farscape to another network. From what we understand, despite efforts otherwise, there was no deal possibility for the show at any other network.

Notice how they didn't answer the question, "would you release it to another network?" Rest assured, this possibility is still being explored.

Q: Did SCI FI make the cancellation announcement on a Friday to keep it quiet?
A: Actually, SCI FI did not make the announcement. As of close of business on Friday, September 6, we were still in negotiations regarding Farscape's future. Late that night, unbeknownst to SCI FI, the cancellation was announced to fans via an impromptu online chat conducted by a few people at the production. We confirmed the news when it became official on Monday morning.

SCI FI's intention was to announce the cancellation in 2003, probably as the final four episodes of season 4 were set to air. Much as they called the "summer finale" the "season finale", they probably planned on slipping in a "series finale" promo spot. At that point -- months after production had been suspended, the odds against reviving the show would have been greatly increased.

Q: Is it true that SCI FI automatically deletes any e-mail with the word "Farscape" in it?
A: This is not the practice of the Channel. However, we have requested that fans direct their e-mails to a specific e-mail address (programming@scifi.com) in order for us to monitor and keep track of their messages. It is only when messages are sent directly to SCI FI employees that there is a danger of deletion, since our mailboxes can only handle a certain volume of e-mails. They simply cannot all be read. We request viewers to direct their messages to the appropriate addresses. Viewers are also encouraged to direct their phone calls to our Viewer Hotline, (212) 413-5679, which is checked frequently throughout each business day.

Direct your correspondance wherever you want to. It is probably a good idea to "cc" the programming address on any emails, however.

Q: There are rumors that SCI FI cancelled the series because "the network brass hated the series." Is this true?
A: Once again, there is no truth to those rumors. Farscape's greatest supporters can be found at the Channel. Farscape's creator, Rockne O'Bannon, has even been quoted in a recent interview as stating that SCI FI Channel President "Bonnie (Hammer) has always been a real strong supporter of the series and seen the value in it." This has been an extraordinarily difficult decision to reach for all of us here at SCI FI, at every level.

It may be true that Farscape's greatest supporters can be found at SCI FI, however, the top executives in the parent company (Michael Jackson and Barry Diller) aren't known for their support of "space shows".

Q: Have the sets been destroyed?
A: Although they were initially scheduled to be struck during the week of September 9, SCI FI Channel requested a reprieve as any possibility of saving the series was explored. Unfortunately, we understand that the sets will now be struck by Friday, September 20.

The sets have been struck. However, David Kemper reassured fans that the sets could be rebuilt, and there was some indication that, after four years, there were parts of Moya that were in need of a rebuilding, anyway. I believe some components are in storage. The state of the sets is not a cause for alarm nor should it be discouraging to those working towards a renewal.

Q: Is it true that Farscape has been taken off the air?
A: No. The remaining eleven new episodes of season 4 will begin airing in January. Additionally, SCI FI will air an 11-episode Farscape Chain Reaction on December 24 from 8am - 7pm ET/PT. After the conclusion of season 4, all four seasons of Farscape will continue to air on SCI FI in repeats.

"All four seasons [...] will continue to air [...]in repeats."
That's the most omninous statement in this entire FAQ. Given how SCI FI has handled Farscape's repeats to date, fans have little hope that SCI FI will do anything reasonable with the series in the future, like selling its rights to another network, or even airing it in a time slot and in episode order when it might do some good and generate new viewers for the series.

Additional points: Currently, SCI FI is planning a Chain Reaction of Farscape episode on December 24, one of the lowest Homes Using Television days of the year. If SCI FI's goal was to increase awareness of the series and build its fanbase, this is not the time to be "burning off" those oh-so-expensive-to-license episodes. A much better use of the episodes would be to air them in strips in SCI FI's "Early Fringe" timeframe (4-7PM). Their current programming in that block is showing wear and Farscape could actually boost their ratings in that time slot as well as increasing awareness for the remaining episodes of season 4 beginning in January.