Lacey Rose has a great article on Forbes that looks at what Mad Men means to AMC:
What's more, the heavily hyped series from The Sopranos writer-producer Matthew Weiner, which HBO, Showtime and others famously passed on, has redefined its formerly moribund host network. Once just another movie channel, AMC is now the buzz-worthy home of critically acclaimed and Emmy-winning fare like Mad Men, follow-up Breaking Bad and the upcoming mini-series remake of The Prisoner. (Though AMC's movies fail to generate the same level of awards or press, they remain an important revenue stream for the network.)
The article also has a bunch of numbers in it, and notes that Mad Men has more adult viewers aged 25-54 with household income greater than $100,000 of any show on cable.
I was also interested in the deal that AMC recently struck with Frank Darabont to Executive Produce, write and direct a TV series adaptation of The Walking Dead. They really do seem to be making a lot of interesting moves.
That’s all good and well, but it has so little actual viewers. You need viewers as well as demos for there to be any cheering.
A 33 per cent increase in actual viwers for the premier is just complete spin. A 2.8 million audience is still dreadful (especially as the show costs 2 million per episode to make).
So basically the article is saying that about 1.3 million viewers of Mad Men earn high incomes, therefore companies like BMW will wish to advertise with them and generate revenue. All that trouble to reach so few in the high income bracket. What a waste of advertising dollars.
Cruel_Heartless: First of all, Mad Men does not cost 2 mill an episode and only on USA would 2.8 million viewers be considered dredful, especialy when it premiered to less than 1 million viewers.
All the shows on FX (the main competetor of AMC) except Nip/Tuc are averaging less than 2 million and even some TNT shows are geting simmilar numbers.
Darling, can you read? Evidently not, as the article says nearly two million. Combined with the advertising it would be over two million.
Tom, clearly you are a fanboy and do not wish to see some home truths about your over hyped television ‘gem’. HBO is also another cable net where 2.8 would seem lacklustre and did you read about Drop Dead Diva and Army Wives? 2.8 million viewers is worrying considering all the exposure the show has had.
If the shows on FX cost the same amount, had the same amount of exposure and hype and licensing fees then I would be equally critical.
Though I think the most worrying thing of all in this article is if Mad Men has the highest amount of viewers in 100 000 plus earnings tier, then the other cable offerings must be the pitts.
Also, I would expect the recession would have some impact on the demo data this season.
Do you have a link that shows that an average episode of MM costs that much? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.
Wow I just saw that in the article now. That seems insanely high, especially since the show is never shot on location and never has any complicated action scenes.
I’d like to get back to something much more important. The Prisoner is being done as a remake? Awesome. One of my favorite shows of the past. Although it doesn’t hold up well – I recently got the series from Netflix and it’s definitely over-the-top. It will be interesting to see how an updated version is received by “the demographic”.
The story indicates that the channel is making money. $439m revenue vs. $157m costs, based on what it says. Who knows if Mad Men makes $26m to offset the reported cost, but it seems like raising the profile of the network and attracting upscale sponsors is fine enough for them at this point, or they wouldn’t keep renewing the show.
Who cares how many people overall watch it? It’s a niche show with niche appeal, and they’re doing as much as they can to grow the show at whatever rate it’s going to grow in the world right now. I know people love to get all boo hoo about “nobody watches my favorite show, they watch Army Wives instead,” but that’s a horrible way to think about things.
I’m not a fanboy!
It doesn’t matter if it’s 2.8 or 3.8, as long as AMC can convince advertisers to pay extra because of their “affluent” viewers.
I’m more surprised that Breaking Bad costs the same as Mad Men. I would think that the period detail required for Mad Men (Plus the rights for all the old songs they play) would lead to it costing more than BB (Which, though I haven’t seen season 2, doesn’t seem to require that much more).
Great and informative article.
I always assumed Mad Men is kind of a “loss leader” for AMC. They don’t hope to turn a big profit on the series per se, but it performs a number of things for them that are very valuable. Establishing their original-programming franchise, winning tons of Emmies, attracting quality writer-producers to AMC… that stuff has value to them that will pay off in the future.
But the income averages are all thrown off by the fact that I watch the show, and I am actually Warren Buffett in real life.