Current Meaning of "AMC" Discovered

[justpassingthough]

For every post in this thread about AMC losing their way, there seems to be an equal post for people like myself that never watched AMC before (I didn't even know we had it or which channel it was on) and who now watch their original programming like Mad Men, the Walking Dead and Breaking Bad. What were the viewership numbers like when they were showing classic movies? Miniscule. The season 2 premiere of the Walking Dead had over 7 million viewers in the first hour, 11 million viewers over the night, and broke all original cable drama viewer records for total viewers and 18 to 49. I think they can afford to lose all their old viewers and feel just fine about it.

MTV, similarly, has seen record viewership for programs like Jersey Shore, which was regularly attracting 8 to 9 million viewers per premiere episode last season.

These cable networks are starting to match or even better the broadcast networks, despite lower household penetration, by offering fare that actually attracts an audience. It would be the worst decision in the world to sacrifice profits and fail to evolve as a network.

 

[imhomerjay]

Precisely...which is why the idea of "losing their way" is so funny. Businesses of all type evolve--some do it well and some make missteps. But the biggest misstep is often standing pat and not being willing to take a risk (albeit a calculated risk).

Their audiences change, their competition changes...and they're supposed to still be living in decades gone by? Yeah, there's a good business strategy.

 

[justpassingthough]

Precisely...which is why the idea of "losing their way" is so funny. Businesses of all type evolve--some do it well and some make missteps. But the biggest misstep is often standing pat and not being willing to take a risk (albeit a calculated risk).

Their audiences change, their competition changes...and they're supposed to still be living in decades gone by? Yeah, there's a good business strategy.

Agreed. This is why all the hate towards MTV is unwarranted. MTV was about the music, but it was always about so much more- the art of video, youth culture, consumer culture, the alternative scene, etc- and it blended, mixed, and matched various aspects of young America. It was never intended to be just strictly a music jukebox. As it evolved, other media saw the influence it had, and moved to match its influence by combining music with other elements of entertainment. "Miami Vice" was one of the first and most tangible examples of MTV's influence in the early era.

As other media evolved, it forced MTV to evolve too, and its now a lifestyle progamming service that while still tied to music, isn't dead set on just playing music. As MTV wisely noticed from the beginning, music is generally only a part of the media consumed by their audience.

 

[mnradiofan]

I'm betting they'll get over that loss.

not that i really give a sh*! but, how many can they lose like me?

In a word: plenty.

Whatever... i can tell you AMC is losing a cable system when i am, due to a 50% price increase they are trying to shake them down on. hope they can afford to lose them to.

In the end, because their product is in high demand, they'll come to terms. This only proves my point. They wouldn't be able to ask for, and in most cases, get these huge increases if it weren't for the shift in programming.

the local cable system took a survey a few months ago before all this, and found NO ONE WAS WATCHING AMC OR KNEW WHAT IT WAS!

Is there an entire system that was built in a cave? Because I just cannot see how NOBODY could even know what AMC was, especially given the number of critically acclaimed shows that are on it these days. They only have the highest rated drama on basic cable right now, so you're right, nobody is watching.

 

[mnradiofan]

Precisely...which is why the idea of "losing their way" is so funny. Businesses of all type evolve--some do it well and some make missteps. But the biggest misstep is often standing pat and not being willing to take a risk (albeit a calculated risk).

Their audiences change, their competition changes...and they're supposed to still be living in decades gone by? Yeah, there's a good business strategy.

Agreed. This is why all the hate towards MTV is unwarranted. MTV was about the music, but it was always about so much more- the art of video, youth culture, consumer culture, the alternative scene, etc- and it blended, mixed, and matched various aspects of young America. It was never intended to be just strictly a music jukebox. As it evolved, other media saw the influence it had, and moved to match its influence by combining music with other elements of entertainment. "Miami Vice" was one of the first and most tangible examples of MTV's influence in the early era.

As other media evolved, it forced MTV to evolve too, and its now a lifestyle progamming service that while still tied to music, isn't dead set on just playing music. As MTV wisely noticed from the beginning, music is generally only a part of the media consumed by their audience.

While I'll agree to some regards with the MTV analogy, to state that it was never intended to be all about music means you didn't see the launch. The network WAS intended to be 100% music related, music videos, music news, etc. As technology changed, and (more importantly) new management came on board and wanted to see longer viewings, the network evolved into what it is now.

 

[FightingIrish]

Used to be a good channel. Now it is a wasteland

I'd disagree as of late personally. Most of the original programming they put out is beyond amazing. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead are all fantastic shows that end up playing more like movies.

But, for those that don't know, AMC was basically forced to adopt a new model or die, once Turner took it's old movies to launch a channel, and Fox took all their old movies to launch another channel, there wasn't much left to air, so they adopted a different model.

Totally agree here. AMC had to change, since they had little product left once Turner Classics launched and took away much of AMC's inventory. Instead, they became a commercial network that airs more recent movies and high-quality original shows. At least they didn't pull a Viacom and program a lot of stupid reality programming. All in all, they did the best they could with the options presented to them, and I think AMC is a pretty good cable network.

 

[cspotrun]

the local cable system took a survey a few months ago before all this, and found NO ONE WAS WATCHING AMC OR KNEW WHAT IT WAS![/i]

And you've seen all the responses to know "no one" knew of them, we can assume.

just curious, how much AMC Stock do you own?

 

[imhomerjay]

A whopping 0.

I'd say it's a nice try, but that tired old technique doesn't even deserve that cliche anymore.

 

[DToTheJ]

Totally agree here. AMC had to change... At least they didn't pull a Viacom and program a lot of stupid reality programming...

No, not "a lot" of reality series, just two:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/amc-greenlights-kevin-smith-workplace-230288