Tuned In

Mad Men Held Hostage: Drama over Advertising on an Advertising Drama

By James Poniewozik | @poniewozik | March 29, 2011 | +
AMC

I had unofficially resolved not to blog on any of the gossip and reports over the negotiations for the Season 5 return of Mad Men, figuring I’d just pick up the news when the inevitable renewal announcement finally came. It hasn’t, but from the reports, things are getting interesting.

Don’t get me wrong: whatever egos and money grabs are involved, I still believe that AMC and Matt Weiner are reasonable enough not to scuttle the channel’s flagship show and awards-hardware magnet. But things have dragged on long enough that the show will not be returning for its usual summer debut (USA Today says early 2012 is more likely).

[Update: AMC has "green-lighted production" for a fifth season, though that is apparently not the same as having a deal, and the network has confirmed that Season 5 will not air before 2012.]

If current reports are true, the Madison Avenue drama is being held up at least in part over — yep — advertising.

Reports Deadline.com: AMC — which butted heads with Weiner two years ago by asking for more commercials during the hit show — wants to cut another two minutes for commercials, work in more product integration and, by the way, cut a couple cast regulars to save cash. Lest I suggest that AMC is the only dollar-sign-eyed party here, it’s fair to note that Deadline says Weiner stands to make $30 million on a two-year deal, which it says would make him the highest-paid basic-cable show runner, even though Mad Men is not the highest-rated basic-cable show.

I’m not going to play arbitrator here not knowing the ins and outs of the negotiations, but I do hope AMC sees that it will do no one any good to compromise the show that made the channel’s brand for quality overnight. Yes, Mad Men still runs longer than most network dramas, but you know what? The length seems to be working for it. Two years ago, AMC compromised by letting the show run longer than an hour to fit extra ads, and I’d gladly have it run for 90 minutes if that meant letting the show tell the stories in the measured way that has made it great.

At this point, it seems like someone needs to sit at a table with these people and tell them to drop the BS and make some money and good TV together. Anyone have Bert Cooper’s number?

Related Topics: Mad Men, AMC, Business News

  • Latest on Entertainment

    IFC Films
    Cannes Film Festival May 23, 2012

    Kerouac's On the Road Comes to Cannes: Where's the Beat?

    Walter Salles’ film of the Beat Generation classic wastes a strong cast, including Twilight‘s Kristen Stewart, in a needless tribute to ’50s wanderlust

    From our Partners

    Surprise! The Lowest-Rated Show in Broadcast History Is Actually GreatSlate

    Adam Rose/FOX
    Review May 23, 2012

    Glee Watch: NYADA, NYADA, NYADA

    Spoilers for the season finale of Glee below:

    One beef I often have with Glee episodes is that they move too fast, go in too many directions, try to cram in too much at once. You might say that about “Goodbye,” the season 3 finale, but in this case that approach seemed about right. It’s an episode about graduation, and graduation is something that, no matter how much you plan for and anticipate it, still goes too fast. Graduating is something you do, but in the moment it feels like something that happens to you, suddenly and all at once, like going over a waterfall.

  • shootthecritic

    I completely agree with you — why waste time arguing when you’ve got the best show on television to put back on the air? Now we have to wait until 2012? That is crazy. They’ve got a gem at their disposal and they’re worried about ads? Don’t cut characters! Don’t cut show time! That’s ridiculous. AMC should feel lucky for having ‘Mad Men’, not squabble over ads. It’s the show and its characters that draw audiences (and revenue — no viewers, no ad money)–not ads. Keep the show at the length at which it works. The integrity of ‘Mad Men’ is what is priority, in my opinion. And it should also be the opinion of AMC.
    - Shoot the Critic, http://shootthecritic.com

  • Ashman

    “AMC and Matt Weiner are reasonable enough not to scuttle the channel’s flagship show”

    What does any of this have to do with Walking Dead?

  • chriskw

    Disclaimer: I have watched every Mad Men episode and have watched it since it started. So I am not hating on the show itself. As for its creator…

    I wonder what’s going through Frank Darabont’s head right now. “If Weinter gets $30 Million, shouldn’t I receive $90 Million.”

    Obviously I don’t know the guy personally. But through media reports, Matthew Weiner usually comes off as a jerk. I even remember one of his acceptance speeches where he shared an award with another writer. The co-writer thanked him in her acceptance, and then Weiner said something similar to, “Yeah, you better thank me.”

    Again, that’s paraphrasing. Maybe it’s on youtube.

    I know that doesn’t sound bad. But when you throw in some other comments and facts (like firing a different [or maybe it was the same] writer who won an Emmy with him) he just comes off as a delusional elitist.

    Seriously, $30 Million!!!! The show has never broken a 1.0 rating in the 18-49 demographic. That is the demographic that pays for shows. Emmys and Golden Globes don’t pay anything. Yeah, it helps for promotional purposes. But at this point, I think most people know Mad Men is an awards darling and yet they still don’t watch it.

  • chriskw

    I was thinking the same thing. I like Mad Men better than Walking Dead. But Walking Dead is the one that’s turning a profit for the network.

  • alaaaan

    I know its a little different of a situation, but how were the ratings affected when The Sopranos took a year off? It does not sound like a good idea for either side to delay the show.

  • chriskw

    @James

    Thanks for tweeting my comment. And thanks for adding the question mark that I left out.

  • rosseau

    Artists can be jerks. Not saying he’s Hitchcock, trying his actors to the limit, but he is allowed to be demanding and difficult, if that’s how he operates and if he gets results (and if he doesn’t screw his colleagues). Now that’s different than being a greedy jerk. He ought to take a pay cut if he’s making tens of millions of dollars. But if this is his personality, it’s his personality.

    Get rid of which characters? Have the agency through Harry go into more TV work, introduce two idiotic network execs, then have them die in a horrible bomb delivered by a Manchurian Candidate ten year old. Problem solved.

  • jeia56

    At least I have more time to catch up on Netflix now.

    Vince Gilligan and AMC better not pull this crap on Breaking Bad though.

  • The Hoobie

    @chriskw—I second your suspicion that Weiner is kind of a jerk. I remember this prickly Vulture interview with him after last season’s finale in which he basically said, “If you are one of the many people who thought Joan went ahead with the abortion and/or think Betty has become a monster, well, you’re stupid and wrong.”

    But I’m more worried about the trend these negotiations may represent for AMC—I realize that TV Is a Business, yadda yadda, and that AMC has a lot of shows in or just out of development to pay for, but the network execs are really in danger of beginning to look like artless, heartless bottom-liners. I was so impressed by John Landgraf’s extensive “I’m SO sorry we had to cancel Terriers!” tour last year, in contrast with the terse one-paragraph statement AMC issued when it canceled Rubicon (which had more viewers—though not necessarily more fans, of course—than Terriers).

    I’m really dismayed by the idea that they’d tell Weiner to cut some characters. (Particularly since I’ve been hoping to see Sal again, now that Lucky Strike is gone.)

blog comments powered by Disqus