Comments on: Football, Future President, and Zack & Cody Lead Weekly Cable Viewing

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:50:57 +0000

AMC is owned by cablevision, so the pockets are fairly deep if they want them to be. Because its primary intent is to air old movies, it’s not a channel that generates the kind of viewing that say USA generates with its scrited dramas and comedies, but it’s cost structure is also no doubt significantly less than USA.

I certainly could be wrong, but I posit that AMC is happy with Mad Men (and also Breaking Bad) even if the shows have half the viewership of Army Wives, because it gains them critical acclaim and attention and more people watch Mad Men than anything else on AMC, giving more attention to AMC.

By: luc

luc — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:07:51 +0000

Why should AMC be happy with Mad Men’s ratings? All the other cable channels cancelled lots of shows having better rating than that. Don’t they operate in a similar fashion. AMC is not premier cable like HBO, Showtime which rely heavily on subscribers. Besides, it seems like Mad Men cost much more on production and marketing than the other basic cable shows. I wonder how deep is AMC’s pocket.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:42:36 +0000

Actually, we do know that HBO is in about 28% of homes, but that's probably similar to their numbers when the Sopranos and Sex and the City were on, so the dreadful performance of their current shows is still noteworthy.

By: BIG DADDY

BIG DADDY — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:35:13 +0000

You do know that HBO is in like 10-12% of homes….

By: Johnthemon

Johnthemon — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:48:36 +0000

gosh…with ratings like that how can HBO manage to keep it’s shows on the air? Must have a lot of subscribers who aren’t watching.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:21:08 +0000

people have to stop comparing everything on hbo to the blockbuster culture changing series sex and sopranos. it’s going to be impossible to replicate that time on hbo. even for showtime and other cable channels. that time was a perfect storm of creativity and timing that will not happen again. these series became part of the american culture. appealed to different audiences and existed at the same time. and hbo could build around them with shows like six feet. it’s not going to happen again. and it’s not right to knock any hbo or showtime show now or in the future for not matching that once in a lifetime moment.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:17:07 +0000

Ian, those drops aren’t dropping like a stone if you look at the bigger ratings picture for the season (the link is in the post above). Dropping from 2.1 mil for the premiere to 1.1 mil a couple of weeks later during the summer was dropping like a stone. 1.6 million against a FULL lineup of new shows on the broadcast networks is actually very good for AMC.

By: Ian White

Ian White — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:53:47 +0000

What really amazes me is the drop for HBO and its shows. Their numbers are beyond terrible. Granted, none of the shows are that great either, but this is the same network that ran ‘Six Feet Under’, ‘Sex…City’, ‘Deadwood’, and of course the ‘Sopranos’.

HBO lost its edge.

I don’t see how AMC can be happy with the numbers when the show dropped like a stone after winning the Emmy. ‘Mad Men’ is not an inexpensive show to produce and having thrown millions at it, not to mention the millions spent on marketing, it can’t be bringing in the bucks right now with 1.6 million viewers.

One positive thing…it is doing very well on iTunes but Apple doesn’t release what that translates to in regard to actual numbers.

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:29:24 +0000

If it was on a broadcast network and had those numbers or even triple, yes Mad Men would have been cancelled. So would Dexter, Entourage, and almost every show that is on cable. It’s not on a broadcast network. It’s not on FOX. It’s on AMC, my guess is that AMC is pretty happy about the ratings increases, but that’s only a guess.

While like the first season, parts of season two have dragged, though this past Sunday’s episode was awesome.

By: Ian White

Ian White — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:20:01 +0000

Mad Men’s numbers speak volumes. Not only did the audience not grow, but it fell by 280,000 a week after winning the Emmy for Best Drama. It’s great that the audience has grown from Season One, but perhaps the truth is that Season Two has been a total let-down from a quality perspective. It’s become so boring.

If this show (not that the networks would have had the balls to do a show like ‘MM’) was on a major Broadcast network, it would have been cancelled by now due to a lack of viewers.

Isn’t that the case with Fox and the ‘Sarah Connor Chronicles’?

By: knowhuddle.com » [NFL] MNF Leads Ratings With 11.9 Million Viewers

knowhuddle.com » [NFL] MNF Leads Ratings With 11.9 Million Viewers — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:44:58 +0000

[...] Source: Nielsen [...]

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:31:09 +0000

Thanks Wyatt, appreciate it! I added them to the post.

By: Wyatt

Wyatt — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:27:21 +0000

HBO & Showtime Sunday Ratings:

- “True Blood” (HBO): 1.82 million viewers (A18-49: 0.9/2; HH: 1.1/2)
- “Entourage” (HBO): 1.6 million viewers (A18-49: 1.0/2; HH: 1.0/2)
- “Dexter” (SHOW): 1.2 million viewers (A18-49: 0.5/1; HH: 0.7/1)
- “Little Britain” (HBO): 0.54 million viewers (A18-49: 0.2/1; HH: 0.3/2)
- “Californication” (SHOW): 0.522 million viewers (A18-49: 0.3/1; HH: 0.4/1)
- “The Life & Times of Tim” (HBO): 0.299 million viewers

Sources:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3iec318db6d1b1e0a6b0fb370ba89ecba8
http://pifeedback.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63310451/m/681106361/p/14

By: Robert Seidman

Robert Seidman — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:14:00 +0000

Raising the Bar sunk to 2.5 million on Monday 9/22 w/o The Closer…

By: Sandy

Sandy — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:54:31 +0000

Any word on how much worse Raising the Bar’s been doing sans The Closer?