At the TCA's yesterday Syfy unveiled its scripted projects in addition to some of what's in the works on the unscripted side.
Syfy has seven scripted projects in the works (they will not necessarily all wind up as series), and it prompted one commenter to ask where Syfy got the money to have so many projects.
While it's fun to imagine a world where an all-powerful Sharktopus will pay all of Syfy's bills, I'm not sure that will even cover Syfy's vice president of giving away t-shirts on Twitter* (and yes, I know Craig is actually on the online side). The answer to the question of how Syfy makes its money and funds a litany of projects is pretty simple. Like most basic cable networks, Syfy has a dual revenue stream made up of funds received from cable, satellite and telco TV operators, and advertising.
*Just envy talking! Craig (and his USA counterpart @TedonTV) has one of the best jobs ever.
Subscriber fees
This isn't updated, but at the end of 2009, Syfy was estimated to be in over 96 million homes in the U.S. and SNL Kagan estimated that on average Syfy received $.21 per month, per subscriber from the cable, satellite and telco TV operators. That's over $20 million a month or $240 million a year in revenue before they've sold a single ad.
Advertising revenue
Of course, like the rest of the basic cable networks, Syfy also sells advertising and though we don't have any good estimates on how much it makes on advertising, as a starting point it's not unreasonable to guess Syfy generates as much money on advertising as subscriber revenue. I''m not sure if that's on the right block, or even in the right zip code, but it's probably at least in the same state. Those estimates get Syfy somewhere in the vicinity of half a billion dollars a year in annual revenue.
And though this blog generates a lot more chatter about all things Stargate, Caprica, Eureka and Warehouse 13 (and of course, Sharktopus) than say...Ghost Hunters, if I'm an advertiser I almost certainly want to get my advertising out in front of the people who believe in ghosts!
Plus, whether anyone likes it or not, Ghost Hunters is Syfy's highest-rated show. So, in some ways, in addition to your subscriber fees, the advertising sold for the shows on Syfy that you don't watch is helping subsidize new shows you might want to watch.
I think International Licensing also plays a decent part in their revenue stream. Anyone who has ever been around a Science Fiction fan in Australia knows Stargate is VERY popular over there (at least SG-1 was). It might just be the limited size of the market for it but Sci-Fi shows tend to jump oceans more readily than a lot of their counterparts (as SyFy gets many of its shows from the BBC, Nine, et al)
Anyway I suspect the revenue per viewer is minuscule for these licensing deals but there are a lot of countries out there and I'd think it eventually adds up to serious revenue.
good article. a lot of my favorite shows nowadays are on cable, so I often wonder how lucrative the cable biz is and how much financial sense scripted series make for cable channels.
when NBC Universal produces the shows, the international licensing definitely plays a role. I don't think it matters for the Stargate franchise though — that's MGM's money and really only plays a factor for Syfy if, for some reason MGM cuts Syfy a break on U.S. licensing.
BTW, people should not conclude that they are paying only $.21/mo. for Syfy. That's the wholesale estimate that the cable/satellite/telco operators pay. We pay retail!
Many of Syfy's projects are _very_ low budget. The recent 'Princess of Mars' actually came out on DVD before it was aired by Syfy and in the commentary the producer said Syfy only gave them two weeks to shoot it. Its probably not all that hard to generate lots of titles when you're paying the Hollywood equivalent of pennies for each.
Have you seen the incredibly freaky Scientology ads on Syfy? I know they have deep pockets!
Thanks for the insights, Robert. I'm curious–do you know how this stacks up against the revenue generated by, say, the NBC network? I'm just wondering if SyFy is actually generating more profit (which is different from revenue, I know) than their network counterpart under the NBC/Universal umbrella.
I tried to watch Princess of Mars and the two-week shooting schedule showed in the bad quality — even by Syfy standards. Of course, hiring a former porn star and a truly bad actor for the leads doesn't help that quality. Only Syfy could ruin, or pay someone to ruin, a classic science fiction story like Burroughs' John Carter of Mars series.
Not nearly enough data to comment on relative profitability. From an ad revenue perspective Syfy is but a tiny sliver of whatever NBC makes (NBC is strong in the morning and with the evening news and relatively strong late night, despite a last place finish in primetime).
Not sure what kind of carriage fees NBC proper receives but that's more complicated (particularly with non owned and operated affiliates). Carriage fees for broadcast networks are thought to be a potentially huge source of revenue, but I doubt you'll here a peep out of NBC about that until a while after the Comcast acquisition is approved.
Yeah, I was wondering how the Comcast deal might affect their bottom line as well. I also didn't think about their morning and evening news programming as far as ad revenue was concerned; I was just thinking of their primetime shows, many of which drew ratings not much better than SyFy's primetime programming last year (Trauma, Mercy, etc.) and are now canceled.
I think I Saw something where STTNG can get anywhere from 700K to 1.2 mil viewers for some re-runs.
if that is true…wouldn't that help generate revenue from nothing? I am sure they pay to air the episodes..but geez ESPN airs tons of stuff that gets less viewers then that…I would assume shows like that can bring in some good ad money..they can't be paying to much for it.
lol Isn't it obvious they don't have money for their show projects? I mean…Sharktopus?
It's just cheap unadulterated cheesy fun. lol no money needed…(relatively)
It's true, a lot of scifi's shows do seem to screen here in Australia (and be popular). Not sure if that's the same for other countries?
So it's in 96 million homes but it's average daily viewership according to the weekly tables (generously provided by TVbtN) runs at about 1 million and it's Primetime average sometimes doesn't even make the table. Sounds like running a cable network, even one that isn't in the USA or TNT grouping is pretty lucrative. Thanks.
I just wish they make some more exciting shows. They have been pretty dull latley, with the exception of Dr. Who. CGI has made Sci-Fi boring, but I'm not knocking it, at least they are scripted shows and not that realty BS. I'm sure there will be people that will disagree with me.
Well here's where they get their ideas. http://tinyurl.com/278t5pu
Sorry to get of topic but has their been any word on Legend of the Seeker being picked up by Direct TV? SyFy showed some of the reruns, It would be a great fit. They wouldn't have to spend money on that, like Dr. Who is an import from BBC. They use to save the canceled Sci-Fi shows.
SyFy doesn't do too bad with its website either. The forums are very active and right now the Eureka forum at SyFy is particulary abuzz.
I should point out that in the case of Sanctuary, SyFy didn't pay out much if anything. That show was developed on the Web financed by the producers, and only after it got four million eyeballs on the Web site did it move to SyFy, and even then it was partly because the CBC and ITV were in on the deal. And the producers STILL have to scramble to raise the money to produce the show themselves every season. And of course the show has a relatively low budget because a huge amount of it is green screen using the RED camera.
Sharktopus probably cost SyFy $1.98 to produce an episode…based on that stupid picture, anyway.
Eureka and Stargate Universe are great. Too bad about all the unscripted taking over a channel that's supposed to be imaginary.