<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mad Men Ratings Down in Week 2?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:50:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-259194</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-259194</guid>
		<description>Michael, it&#039;s actually a commentary on both the first and second episodes -- many television critics got a DVD with both beforehand.  At any rate, the numbers for the second episode definitely dropped. Writing a post on that now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, it&#39;s actually a commentary on both the first and second episodes &#8212; many television critics got a DVD with both beforehand.  At any rate, the numbers for the second episode definitely dropped. Writing a post on that now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-259195</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-259195</guid>
		<description>that&#039;s actually the review of episode 1.  check the date.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that&#39;s actually the review of episode 1.  check the date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-14512</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-14512</guid>
		<description>Michael, it&#039;s actually a commentary on both the first and second episodes -- many television critics got a DVD with both beforehand.  At any rate, the numbers for the second episode definitely dropped. Writing a post on that now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, it&#39;s actually a commentary on both the first and second episodes &#8212; many television critics got a DVD with both beforehand.  At any rate, the numbers for the second episode definitely dropped. Writing a post on that now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-14511</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-14511</guid>
		<description>that&#039;s actually the review of episode 1.  check the date.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that&#39;s actually the review of episode 1.  check the date.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anoel</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-14510</link>
		<dc:creator>Anoel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-14510</guid>
		<description>I *hope* it&#039;s not too much down. I was so excited about the increase last week. But I think some of the increase was more people getting hooked in the last year so I&#039;m hoping some of it will stick around. I agree with the pace but I love it. It interests me a billion more times than other shows with fast paces but great writing can do that. Thanks for the book metaphor which made me draw the connection between it&#039;s pace and the way The Wire is paced. Always love finding those similarities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I *hope* it&#39;s not too much down. I was so excited about the increase last week. But I think some of the increase was more people getting hooked in the last year so I&#39;m hoping some of it will stick around. I agree with the pace but I love it. It interests me a billion more times than other shows with fast paces but great writing can do that. Thanks for the book metaphor which made me draw the connection between it&#39;s pace and the way The Wire is paced. Always love finding those similarities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Webomatica</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-14509</link>
		<dc:creator>Webomatica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-14509</guid>
		<description>All the episodes of seasons 1 and 2 (so far) are in iTunes, so I&#039;ll likely do a taste with S1E1. Thanks for your input.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All the episodes of seasons 1 and 2 (so far) are in iTunes, so I&#39;ll likely do a taste with S1E1. Thanks for your input.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: holditdown</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-13428</link>
		<dc:creator>holditdown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-13428</guid>
		<description>clearly the numbers arent as good, or else we would have heard something on them by now. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;but from a pure &quot;results&quot; standpoint, the numbers are going to be good enough to keep the show on the air for as long as the producers want it, i would assume. and thats really all that matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>clearly the numbers arent as good, or else we would have heard something on them by now. </p>
<p>but from a pure &#8220;results&#8221; standpoint, the numbers are going to be good enough to keep the show on the air for as long as the producers want it, i would assume. and thats really all that matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304133</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304133</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the first episode of season two is the best way to start.  If you have Comcast, season one is on the On-Demand, but if you don&#039;t... I suck as a salesman, so I&#039;d never make it in advertising! 

The main appeal to me is that it&#039;s a show about the frailty of the human condition.  It highlights these frailties spectacularly at times. It&#039;s a glimpse of how far we&#039;ve come, but how some of our progress is largely superficial.  It&#039;s well-produced end-to-end (writing, acting, cinematography).

It&#039;s not for everyone.  Bill Gorman, the other half of TVbytheNumbers didn&#039;t love it. He&#039;s on vacation or I&#039;d have him chime in with counterpoint. He liked how it captured the 1960 era in great detail, but the story didn&#039;t reel him in. I think he gave it one or two episodes and bailed.   But, if you like a mix of human drama with some social commentary thrown in, I&#039;d try starting at the beginning and sticking through four episodes.  If you don&#039;t like that sort of thing, it&#039;s probably not for you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the first episode of season two is the best way to start.  If you have Comcast, season one is on the On-Demand, but if you don&#8217;t&#8230; I suck as a salesman, so I&#8217;d never make it in advertising! </p>
<p>The main appeal to me is that it&#8217;s a show about the frailty of the human condition.  It highlights these frailties spectacularly at times. It&#8217;s a glimpse of how far we&#8217;ve come, but how some of our progress is largely superficial.  It&#8217;s well-produced end-to-end (writing, acting, cinematography).</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not for everyone.  Bill Gorman, the other half of TVbytheNumbers didn&#8217;t love it. He&#8217;s on vacation or I&#8217;d have him chime in with counterpoint. He liked how it captured the 1960 era in great detail, but the story didn&#8217;t reel him in. I think he gave it one or two episodes and bailed.   But, if you like a mix of human drama with some social commentary thrown in, I&#8217;d try starting at the beginning and sticking through four episodes.  If you don&#8217;t like that sort of thing, it&#8217;s probably not for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304134</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304134</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the first episode of season two is the best way to start.  If you have Comcast, season one is on the On-Demand, but if you don&#039;t... I suck as a salesman, so I&#039;d never make it in advertising! 

The main appeal to me is that it&#039;s a show about the frailty of the human condition.  It highlights these frailties spectacularly at times. It&#039;s a glimpse of how far we&#039;ve come, but how some of our progress is largely superficial.  It&#039;s well-produced end-to-end (writing, acting, cinematography).

It&#039;s not for everyone.  Bill Gorman, the other half of TVbytheNumbers didn&#039;t love it. He&#039;s on vacation or I&#039;d have him chime in with counterpoint. He liked how it captured the 1960 era in great detail, but the story didn&#039;t reel him in. I think he gave it one or two episodes and bailed.   But, if you like a mix of human drama with some social commentary thrown in, I&#039;d try starting at the beginning and sticking through four episodes.  If you don&#039;t like that sort of thing, it&#039;s probably not for you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the first episode of season two is the best way to start.  If you have Comcast, season one is on the On-Demand, but if you don&#8217;t&#8230; I suck as a salesman, so I&#8217;d never make it in advertising! </p>
<p>The main appeal to me is that it&#8217;s a show about the frailty of the human condition.  It highlights these frailties spectacularly at times. It&#8217;s a glimpse of how far we&#8217;ve come, but how some of our progress is largely superficial.  It&#8217;s well-produced end-to-end (writing, acting, cinematography).</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not for everyone.  Bill Gorman, the other half of TVbytheNumbers didn&#8217;t love it. He&#8217;s on vacation or I&#8217;d have him chime in with counterpoint. He liked how it captured the 1960 era in great detail, but the story didn&#8217;t reel him in. I think he gave it one or two episodes and bailed.   But, if you like a mix of human drama with some social commentary thrown in, I&#8217;d try starting at the beginning and sticking through four episodes.  If you don&#8217;t like that sort of thing, it&#8217;s probably not for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: webomatica</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304131</link>
		<dc:creator>webomatica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304131</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m very curious about this show. I watched some of the first episode of season 2 on Hulu and might take the plunge. What would you say to &quot;sell&quot; me on this show (in the finest advertising agency pitch) ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m very curious about this show. I watched some of the first episode of season 2 on Hulu and might take the plunge. What would you say to &#8220;sell&#8221; me on this show (in the finest advertising agency pitch) ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: webomatica</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304132</link>
		<dc:creator>webomatica</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304132</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m very curious about this show. I watched some of the first episode of season 2 on Hulu and might take the plunge. What would you say to &quot;sell&quot; me on this show (in the finest advertising agency pitch) ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m very curious about this show. I watched some of the first episode of season 2 on Hulu and might take the plunge. What would you say to &#8220;sell&#8221; me on this show (in the finest advertising agency pitch) ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304129</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304129</guid>
		<description>As I said, I had to watch the first 4 or 5 episodes before I got reeled in. I don&#039;t blame someone who isn&#039;t running a blog about TV Ratings for not sticking with it that long. June Cleaver is definitely not the reality of Mad Men!  

the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar.  Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of &quot;too low&quot;. But that&#039;s pure conjecture on my part.  I&#039;m not privy to production costs -- and I also have no idea how the actor&#039;s contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I said, I had to watch the first 4 or 5 episodes before I got reeled in. I don&#8217;t blame someone who isn&#8217;t running a blog about TV Ratings for not sticking with it that long. June Cleaver is definitely not the reality of Mad Men!  </p>
<p>the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar.  Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of &#8220;too low&#8221;. But that&#8217;s pure conjecture on my part.  I&#8217;m not privy to production costs &#8212; and I also have no idea how the actor&#8217;s contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304130</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304130</guid>
		<description>As I said, I had to watch the first 4 or 5 episodes before I got reeled in. I don&#039;t blame someone who isn&#039;t running a blog about TV Ratings for not sticking with it that long. June Cleaver is definitely not the reality of Mad Men!  

the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar.  Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of &quot;too low&quot;. But that&#039;s pure conjecture on my part.  I&#039;m not privy to production costs -- and I also have no idea how the actor&#039;s contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I said, I had to watch the first 4 or 5 episodes before I got reeled in. I don&#8217;t blame someone who isn&#8217;t running a blog about TV Ratings for not sticking with it that long. June Cleaver is definitely not the reality of Mad Men!  </p>
<p>the final numbers for last week were ~2.1 million which for AMC is stellar.  Because of the critical acclaim and press it generates for AMC, it probably has to do worse than last year to be in the realm of &#8220;too low&#8221;. But that&#8217;s pure conjecture on my part.  I&#8217;m not privy to production costs &#8212; and I also have no idea how the actor&#8217;s contracts were done and whether Jon Hamm and the rest of the cast will be asking for fat raises soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Em</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304127</link>
		<dc:creator>Em</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304127</guid>
		<description>Ok Robert, I tried...I really did. It&#039;s just not my cup of tea.  I think maybe its the era.  I was never really fond of the 60&#039;s.  I also read a number of reviews including Ken Tucker&#039;s, and he liked MM,  &#039;sexual banter isn&#039;t yet harassment&#039;  and Missy Schwartz commenting &#039;June Cleaver as domestic perfection&#039;.  I thought June Cleaver was science fiction or maybe that was Donna Reed?  I&#039;m really glad for you though and for AMC,  I hope MM continues to do well!   So their season two premier had 1.9 million viewers, 955,000 under 50. This is good?  Is this because the show costs are low or because they have low expectations for numbers?  What would be too low?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Robert, I tried&#8230;I really did. It&#8217;s just not my cup of tea.  I think maybe its the era.  I was never really fond of the 60&#8242;s.  I also read a number of reviews including Ken Tucker&#8217;s, and he liked MM,  &#8216;sexual banter isn&#8217;t yet harassment&#8217;  and Missy Schwartz commenting &#8216;June Cleaver as domestic perfection&#8217;.  I thought June Cleaver was science fiction or maybe that was Donna Reed?  I&#8217;m really glad for you though and for AMC,  I hope MM continues to do well!   So their season two premier had 1.9 million viewers, 955,000 under 50. This is good?  Is this because the show costs are low or because they have low expectations for numbers?  What would be too low?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Em</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/08/04/mad-men-ratings-down-in-week-2/4593/comment-page-1/#comment-304128</link>
		<dc:creator>Em</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4593#comment-304128</guid>
		<description>Ok Robert, I tried...I really did. It&#039;s just not my cup of tea.  I think maybe its the era.  I was never really fond of the 60&#039;s.  I also read a number of reviews including Ken Tucker&#039;s, and he liked MM,  &#039;sexual banter isn&#039;t yet harassment&#039;  and Missy Schwartz commenting &#039;June Cleaver as domestic perfection&#039;.  I thought June Cleaver was science fiction or maybe that was Donna Reed?  I&#039;m really glad for you though and for AMC,  I hope MM continues to do well!   So their season two premier had 1.9 million viewers, 955,000 under 50. This is good?  Is this because the show costs are low or because they have low expectations for numbers?  What would be too low?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Robert, I tried&#8230;I really did. It&#8217;s just not my cup of tea.  I think maybe its the era.  I was never really fond of the 60&#8242;s.  I also read a number of reviews including Ken Tucker&#8217;s, and he liked MM,  &#8216;sexual banter isn&#8217;t yet harassment&#8217;  and Missy Schwartz commenting &#8216;June Cleaver as domestic perfection&#8217;.  I thought June Cleaver was science fiction or maybe that was Donna Reed?  I&#8217;m really glad for you though and for AMC,  I hope MM continues to do well!   So their season two premier had 1.9 million viewers, 955,000 under 50. This is good?  Is this because the show costs are low or because they have low expectations for numbers?  What would be too low?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

