Are split seasons for ‘Mad Men,’ ‘Outlander,’ other shows smart ideas?

This is an article that has admittedly been percolating in our brain for a while now, especially when we are seeing more and more that split seasons are becoming a scheduling phenomenon.

AMC are the original pioneers of this in the modern era. They began it with “Breaking Bad,” airing eight episodes of the final season one year and then eight the next. They are halfway through doing this with “Mad Men,” and are getting set to begin this with “Hell on Wheels.” That’s a lot of time to make viewers wait to see something when many other networks, take for example FX or HBO, runs their entire seasons at one.

However, we cannot look at AMC as the only network who enjoys this model. Starz is airing its first season of “Outlander” in chunks nearly nine episodes apart, and USA recently renewed “Royal Pains” for two eight-episode seasons. It is effectively the same thing as the AMC model, just with a deviation.

So why make this move? The reason why AMC has adopted it seems to be for a combination of reasons, with the principal one being giving fans the optimal amount of time to catch up or discover the show. The reasons that “Breaking Bad” scored such high ratings was in part due to Netflix. Also, for some specific shows, it helps with awards consideration … though we are still not entirely sure that it is going to bring someone like Jon Hamm the Emmy win he has been long seeking.

From the network point of view (and it is networks, not shows, deciding this), there are many clear benefits. However, are there downsides? We are still waiting to figure that out, such as if viewers will forget about “Mad Men” in its second half. This is a format that many viewers are not fond of, since it is such a tiny taste of something.

What we’re curious about from you is this: Do these split seasons work for you? Share with a comment.