A story in the NY Times today discusses some changes that the Emmy Awards producers tried (and failed) to make to boost the ratings for the show that fell to its lowest level in nearly two decades last year (historical data below).
I think fiddling with the broadcast format misses the bigger problem that is highlighted by this quote from the same article.
If the same, relatively lightly viewed, shows keep winning year after year, why is the ratings slide a surprise?
Leading the pack with 22 nominations this year was “30 Rock,” the NBC comedy that last season ranked about 60th among all prime-time series in total audience, attracting about 7.5 million viewers per week, according to Nielsen Media Research. That is roughly the number of people who watch reruns of “Two and a Half Men” every day of the week.
Last year “30 Rock” won seven Emmys, including best comedy actor (Alec Baldwin), best comedy actress (Tina Fey) and, for the second straight year, best comedy series. The show is up for all three of those awards again this year….
via NYTimes.com.
Notable recent repeat Winners:
Outstanding Comedy Series: 2003, 2005, Everybody Loves Raymond; 2007, 2008, 30 Rock
Outstanding Drama Series: 2000-2003, The West Wing; 2004, 2007, The Sopranos
Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series: 1998-2002 The Late Show With David Letterman; 2003-2008 The Daily Show
Outstanding Lead Actor Comedy Series: 2003, 2005, 2006 Tony Shalhoub
Outstanding Lead Actor Drama Series: 2000, 2001, 2003, James Gandolfini; 2004, 2005, 2007 James Spader
Outstanding Supporting Actor Comedy Series: 2002, 2003, 2005 Brad Garrett; 2006-2008 Jeremy Piven
Outstanding Reality-Competition Program: 2003-2008, The Amazing Race.
Here is a chart of the Emmy Awards viewership and 30 second ad cost from 1986 through 2008:
2006-8 viewers are Live+SD.
Here are the detailed historical Emmy Awards ratings and other data back to 1956:
| Household | Number of | Number of | **Cost per | |||||
| Day | Date | Time | Net | Rating | Share | Homes | Viewers | 30 Sec Spot |
| SUN | 9/21/2008* | 8:00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 8.2 | 13 | 9,371,000 | 12,339,000 | $284,000 |
| SUN | 9/16/2007* | 8:00PM-11:14PM | FOX | 8.4 | 14 | 9,445,000 | 12,951,000 | $583,100 |
| SUN | 8/27/2006 * | 8:00PM-11:00PM | NBC | 10.6 | 17 | 11,669,000 | 16,184,000 | $435,000 |
| SUN | 9/18/05 | 8:00PM-11:03PM | CBS | 12.5 | 20 | 13,760,000 | 18,683,000 | $528,100 |
| SUN | 9/19/04 | 8:00PM-10:58PM | ABC | 9.4 | 15 | 10,336,000 | 13,788,000 | $441,900 |
| SUN | 9/21/03 | 8:00PM-11:05PM | FOX | 11.8 | 19 | 12,751,000 | 17,937,000 | $520,000 |
| SUN | 9/22/02 | 8:00PM-11:15PM | NBC | 13.5 | 21 | 14,397,000 | 19,987,000 | $475,000 |
| SUN | 11/4/01 | 8:00PM-11:04PM | CBS | 11.4 | 16 | 12,045,000 | 17,117,000 | $383,400 |
| SUN | 9/10/00 | 8:00PM-11:05PM | ABC | 14.2 | 23 | 14,554,000 | 21,798,000 | $424,400 |
| SUN | 9/12/99 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 11.7 | 19 | 11,777,000 | 17,454,000 | $400,000 |
| SUN | 9/13/98 | 7:00PM-11:01PM | NBC | 13.6 | 23 | 13,526,000 | 19,365,000 | $323,000 |
| SAT | 9/14/97 | 8:00PM-11:01PM | CBS | 13.5 | 21 | 13,264,000 | 18,774,000 | $327,900 |
| SUN | 9/8/96 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 14.4 | 23 | 13,962,000 | 20,582,000 | $242,000 |
| SUN | 9/10/95 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 12.4 | 20 | 11,892,000 | 18,041,000 | $277,900 |
| SUN | 9/11/94 | 8:00PM-11:02PM | ABC | 14.6 | 23 | 13,928,000 | 21,246,000 | $223,000 |
| SUN | 9/19/93 | 8:00PM-11:01PM | ABC | 13.6 | 21 | 12,811,000 | 18,900,000 | $221,600 |
| SUN | 8/30/92 | 8:00PM-11:32PM | FOX | 13.9 | 24 | 12,802,000 | 20,415,000 | Not Available |
| SUN | 8/25/91 | 8:00PM-11:04PM | FOX | 12.5 | 22 | 11,640,000 | 18,507,600 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/16/90 | 8.00PM-11:15PM | FOX | 8.2 | 14 | 7,630,000 | 12,299,566 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/17/89 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 11.4 | 19 | 10,500,000 | 17,209,500 | Not Available |
| SUN | 8/28/88 | 8.00PM-11:22PM | FOX | 10.4 | 18 | 9,210,000 | 15,426,750 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/20/87 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 8.8 | 14 | 7,800,000 | 14,383,200 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/21/86 | 8.00PM-11:01PM | NBC | 23.1 | 36 | 20,190,000 | 35,796,587 | $179,000 |
| SUN | 9/22/85 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 18.6 | 29 | 15,980,000 | Not Available | $170,000 |
| SUN | 9/23/84 | 9.04PM-12:39PM | CBS | 17.1 | 33 | 14,520,000 | 20,284,440 | $198,900 |
| SUN | 9/25/83 | 8.00PM-11:22PM | NBC | 18.0 | 30 | 15,080,000 | 24,505,000 | $160,000 |
| SUN | 9/19/82 | 8.00PM-11:04PM | ABC | 21.7 | 35 | 18,080,000 | 33,014,080 | |
| SUN | 9/13/81 | 8.00PM-11:03PM | CBS | 22.3 | 37 | 18,170,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/7/80 | 9.00PM-12:02AM | NBC | 15.0 | 29 | 11,670,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/9/79 | 8.30PM-11:10PM | ABC | 27.3 | 45 | 20,830,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/17/78 | 8.27PM-10:30PM | CBS | NL* | ||||
| SUN | 9/17/78 | 11.03PM-12:34AM | CBS | 18.3 | 33 | 13,630,000 | Not Available | |
| MON | 5/17/76 | 9.00PM-11:40PM | ABC | 25.3 | 42 | 17,610,000 | 31,381,020 | |
| MON | 5/19/75 | 9.00PM-11:05PM | CBS | 25.0 | 44 | 17,130,000 | 30,834,000 | |
| WED | 9/4/74 | 10.00PM-11:40PM | ABC | 10.0 | 21 | 6,850,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/20/73 | 9:00PM-11:10PM | ABC | 29.0 | 49 | 18,790,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/6/72 | 10:00PM-12:15AM | CBS | 25.1 | 54 | 15,590,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/9/71 | 10:00PM-12:00AM | NBC | 30.3 | 59 | 18,210,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/7/70 | 9:00PM-11:20PM | ABC | 21.4 | 42 | 12,520,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/8/69 | 10:00PM-12:05AM | CBS | 23.2 | 50 | 13,220,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/19/68 | 9:00PM-11:00PM | NBC | 27.9 | 53 | 15,600,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/4/67 | 9:00PM-11:15PM | ABC | 24.1 | 45 | 13,230,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/22/66 | 10:00PM-11:45PM | CBS | 30.3 | 58 | 16,300,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/12/65 | 10:00PM-12:00AM | NBC | 25.1 | 51 | 13,500,000 | Not Available | |
| MON | 5/25/64 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 31.9 | 65 | 16,360,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/26/63 | 10:00PM-11:50PM | NBC | 29.8 | 63 | 14,840,000 | Not Available | |
| TUE | 5/22/62 | 10:00PM-11:50PM | NBC | 28.1 | 61 | 13,769,000 | Not Available | |
| TUE | 5/16/61 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 32.7 | 64 | 15,336,000 | Not Available | |
| * PRIOR TO 1961 RATINGS WERE CALCULATED ACCORDING TO EACH NETWORK’S UNIVERSE. | ||||||||
| THEREFORE, EACH NETWORK’S RATING WAS A PERCENTAGE OF ITS OWN UNIVERSE | ||||||||
| WED | 5/6/59 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 33.3 | 57 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| TUE | 4/15/58 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 33.5 | 59 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| SUN | 3/16/57 | 9:00PM-10:30PM | NBC | 27.2 | 41 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| SUN | 3/17/56 | 9:00PM-10:30PM | NBC | 29.8 | 44 | Not Available | Not Available | |
-
*Cost Per Thousand books not available for years 1987,1988,1989,1990,1991 and 1992
* NL stands for ‘next listing’ which signifies the telecast had a time interruption and the rating data is reported in the next entry listed in this column.
NOTE: The Emmy Awards during 1948 -1953 were not yet broadcast nationally — In 1948 the EMMYS were broadcast on KTSL-TV, Los Angeles.
1949 the program was broadcast on KFI-TV in Los Angeles, in 1950 on KLAC-TV, Los Angeles. and in 1951 on KECA-TV, Los Angeles
*Ad expenditure data should be sourced as Nielsen Monitor-Plus
Source: NTI Pocketpieces, Nielsen Audience Composition Reports and Nielsen Galaxy Explorer
Copyright 2008 The Nielsen Company
* Live +Same Day Viewing Estimates Include DVR Playback On The Same Day, Defined As 3AM-3AM
That’s the problem I have the with Emmys. If they would nominate shows that have large viewerships (2.5 Men, CSI, TBBT, DH, GA, etc.), perhaps more people would watch.
Whoa, how in the world did Fox get the Emmy’s in 1987? It seems like after Fox started airing them, the show never really recovered.
to make the emmy peoples lives easier, there should be one big show, 30 mad anatomywives
=p
btw, epic fail in 2004, highest ad price, lowest viewers
How did the price per 30 second spot go up so much from 2004 to 2005? Shouldn’t they be based on how 2004 performed, which was dismally?
“If the same, relatively lightly viewed, shows keep winning year after year, why is the ratings slide a surprise?”
Uh, that’s basically what was behind the attempted — and aborted after protest — changes to this year’s program. They were going to timeshift, and therefore edit, a series of awards. The common link amongst those they were going to do this to? They were all lower-rated “niche” cable programs the broadcast networks didn’t want getting so much Emmy airtime.
The One True b!X, I don’t think those proposed changes (which primarily were to be for categories most people care much less about) would have helped much.
The big categories that people presumably still care about (which would not have been changed) have been dominated by the same, lightly watched, shows for a quite a number of years.
are you implicitly arguing award nominations should be based at least partially on popularity? I suppose you also get tweaked every year when movies that “nobody has seen” dominate the Academy Awards? These awards are about excellence, not popularity or commercial success with the masses of mush skulls.
One can argue whether awards should be handed to popular shows, but there is no doubting the fact people would prefer to see an awards show give awards to shows they’ve seen. The Emmys can continue to be about ‘excellence’ (I’d argue they’re more interested in elitist claptrap) but they can’t expect people to care about awards being given to shows they think to be rubbish.
It hasn’t only been cable or ‘niche’ shows like 30 Rock that have won recently–24 and Lost win in ‘05 and ‘06. And that variance in viewers can’t be explained away by the broader popularity (or lack thereof) of Mad Men. LA Law won in 1990, and I think it’s safe to say that consistently pulled well over 2m viewers an episode. The Emmy’s are less popular for the same reason any other network show can’t draw MASH ratings–simply because viewing habits are more diffuse, and not because anyone does or doesn’t think 2.5 Men is worthy of a statuette. Besides, do fans of CSI really care about the Emmy’s?
Although I do think that football on Sunday nights may be having more of an impact than people would assume.
I chalk up the demise of the Emmy ratings as another casualty of the internet. Most people who watch the Emmys only have a vague interest, and why sit through a 3-hour awards ceremony when you can spend 30 seconds looking up the winners online?
Greennogo, they held them preseason in 2006, and while the numbers were better than the past two years, they still dropped from 2005.
Bot d00d, did you actually say award shows are for excellence, lol, thats a good laugh, actually peed myself a little there. Award shows have never been about excellence, its about marketing stupids. These people get all dressed up in fancy cloths how many times a year to cart out their crap so all involved can pat them on the back and say good job. Its all fake, meant to show the glamor and fabulous entertainment industry lie, stroke their over inflated egos and appeal to their vanity of being stars. Sheeple lap it up in their royal worship of the various lucky sperm club members each network props up for us to envy. You want excellence watch the Nobel awards not the Emmys.
At least this year they picked a host people might tune in to see. Last year not only did they pick lame hosts but then they decided to give them nothing to do.
The biggest problem with any award show these days is the over exposure of our celebrities. It used to be a big deal when you saw an actor outside of the movie or tv show they were in. Now they are everywhere, talking about, or confessing to everything.
There is really no way to fix the nominating system. The people who vote in all likelihood don’t even watch television. Maybe the nominations should be a mixture of popular/academy/critical consensus, some kind of average. Then the academy could vote on the nominations.
As was mentioned before, it’s remarkable how the ratings plummeted when FOX started airing the EMMY’s. FOX was an upstart “netlet” back then with only two nights of programming. It was on a number of UHF stations and did not even reach many TV markets. Guess it’s sort of like what happened to the daytime soaps when they were pre-empted by the OJ Simpson trial for 8-9 months. The viewers could not see the show for awhile and just never came back.
I don’t think you can blame FOX for killing the Emmy’s. There’s way too much variance between ‘82–’84 and ‘87-’92 to say UHF bandwith is a primary factor. Although considering the internet, I wonder if the best way to draw viewers back to awards shows isn’t expanding to include more ‘popular’ material, but to maximize the benefit of being a “live” event–like the VMA’s. They’re still popular even though the network that shows them hardly even has music video’s anymore. People tune in to see something crazy happen, like Elton kiss Eminem, or Kanye steal a microphone. You don’t get a Brando’s proxy on AIM, or a drunken Bing Crosby moment anymore the way things are streamlined.
Those voting think too good of themselves and try to appear more intelligent than the average viewer. That’s the problem. Of course the awards shouldn’t be given based only on the audience numbers. But here’s an example: you have a great sitcom like Big Bang which happens to be very popular as well and it’s not even nominated. Instead 30 Rock wins year after year after year in all kind of categories. Can you really say everything is in order with these awards? But the big question is: who really cares about these awards?
In so far as EMMY awards going to shows nobody watches, the same thing is heppening to the Oscars. The process for selecting nominees and winners is arguably flawed. The reality is everyone has different tastes and preferences. There will never be a 100% concensus on what is the “best”.
The last time the Emmys actually increased in viewership was the first year Desperate Housewives and Lost were nominated for awards so this article certainly has merit.
Maybe they should stop nominating things that are so low rated then. I
won’t be watching this year.
And Rob-exactly! (Even though I don’t watch Big Bang Theory.)
Well, you need to be careful that the Emmy judges don’t start nominating shows solely because they’re popular and not because their quality. I mean the list of comedies (except for Family Guy) and dramas are all great shows deserving of nominations.
Part of the problem is the award the same show again and again every year, too. It’s not just that 30 Rock doesn’t have a huge audience (though it is growing). It’s just that what’s the point of tuning in to see who won Best Comedy when you know they’re going to win it because they’ve won the past couple of years. Mad Men has only won once but it’s already falling into that same trap. You know it’s going to win best drama, so who cares.
They really should lay off HBO a bit though. Doesn’t the channel have like 99 nominations this year or something.
Actually looking back CBS hasn’t had a show up for best drama since 2004. I guess the judges can’t tell any of their procedurals apart lol.
These are the top 20 shows from last season. Many of these shows have some merit, but, even if one takes out the reality shows are any truly “outstanding”? IMAO, none of these are better than the ones nominated.
*Scripted
1 AMERICAN IDOL-WEDNESDAY FOX 26,878,000
2 AMERICAN IDOL-TUESDAY FOX 26,308,000
3 DANCING WITH THE STARS ABC 20,402,000
4 DANCING W/STARS RESULTS ABC 16,880,000
5 NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL NBC 16,859,000
*6 NCIS CBS 15,548,000
*7 CSI CBS 14,952,000
*8 MENTALIST, THE CBS 14,672,000
*9 DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES ABC 14,026,000
*10 TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS 13,462,000
11 SURVIVOR: GABON CBS 13,810,000
*12 CSI: MIAMI CBS 12,442,000
13 60 MINUTES CBS 12,456,000
*14 CRIMINAL MINDS CBS 12,475,000
*15 ELEVENTH HOUR CBS 12,105,000
16 AMERICA’S GOT TALENT-TUE NBC 12,941,000
*17 GREY’S ANATOMY-THU 9PM ABC 11,555,000
*18 WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 11,715,000
19 BACHELOR, THE ABC 11,529,000
20 SURVIVOR: TOCANTINS CBS 12,997,000
Judging from past Oscar broadcast ratings (if Wikipedia is to be trusted–a whole separate issue), the notion of comparative populism for an award nominated show or movie only seems to have a truly significant impact if the nominee in question is an absolute freak-of-nature outlier event–like Titanic. And Titanic was uniquely obvious within it’s context. And the notion of a conventionally popular show, rightly or wrongly, getting nominated swings both ways. The Emmy’s have notoriously ignored not only things like TBBT in the past, but stuff like genre or cop shows (except Cagney and Lacey). Yet I don’t think a nomination for The Shield this year, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer ten years ago would really have made too much of a difference. Just like a nom for Grey’s Anatomy isn’t likely to help pull the Emmy’s over the 20 million mark this year.
Yeah, about the only thing most of those top 20 shows could be nominated for over the current nominees is “Most Uninspired Show.”
And the winner is The Mentalist!
About half of those top 20 deserve nominations in major categories
hey, The Bachelor is scripted too
If IMDB is accurate, David Letterman hosted the Emmys on NBC (more than a bit of irony there
) in 1986, the last year the viewers topped 20+ million. In 1987 it was Bruce Willis. Draw your own conclusions 
I finally added some lists of repeat winners that I intended to be in the post from the beginning, but had to run out before adding this morning.
The biggest problem I’m having with the emmys is that the repeat wins are now for comedy and drama.
From 1994-98, Frasier won every year, but in that same time period a different show won for drama each year. Then from 2000-2003 The West Wing took over the drama category and the best comedy changed each year, so at least audiences had a little surprise each year.
This year, it seems pretty obvious that Mad Men and 30 Rock are going to win every category the can.
Last year when Bryan Cranston won for Best Actor in a leading role, I said to myself “Who the hell is this guy anyway? The Emmys are a joke.” And then i actually watched Breaking Bad and saw why he won. I guess when people see shows like Mad Men and 30 Rock winning instead of shows like House and Lost, they just get angry with the Emmys.
that the sopranos won outstanding drama series onlt twice is damning enough. the emmy’s are clearly irrelevant.
I agree with the whole people winning year after year especially in the acting catergories, Both James Spader and Jeremy Piven won countless times and while it may be great performances, I think newer or at least people who miss out the last time should be allowed to win and get nominated.
I think the Emmys should curb shows and people winning more than once or twice for the same awards to avoid repetition and as great as HBO is, I do think they dominate a bit too much and maybe it’s time to cut back on how many nominations they get per year to give other networks a chance.
Also, the fact that The Wire never won an emmy and got very few nominations is proof to me how little anyone should trust them
The ratings are down because the shows that are nomminated are watched by a small numbers of the tv audience, that is as simple as that.It is true for the Oscars too. Nomminate movies that people have seen and like and they will watch the Oscars. Nomminated shows that the larger audience watch then the ratings for the Emmy will go up.
As for the Emmy being about quality please…The Emmy is about making money, nothing else.
It doesn’t take a Rocket Scientist to figure out why some actors win and others don’t.
They have the People’s Choice Awards for low-IQ garbage like CBS Procedurals.
The last People’s Choice Awards show fell 2 million viewers short of the 12 million plus who viewed the last Emmys.
I love 30 Rock but I’m not really okay with the overflowing love the EMMYS are giving them like in the writing category 4/5 nominations are for 30 Rock (same goes for Mad Men for writing drama, I know those shows are well-written but 4/5 is a bit too much since there are a lot of well-written episodes from many shows. I guess to increase viewership the EMMYS should come up with production number/s that people would want to see.
Or maybe they should ride the vampire bandwagon and do something that will pull the vampire-lovin fans to watch haha.
I’ll be watching football Sunday night. I’ll check the Internet for a list of Emmy winners and save three hours of my life.
My problem with the Emmys is not that are “niche” shows the ones which win.
What puts me off is the fact that they seem rigged, I know that they are, but at least they should make it look like less obvious.
‘Till some years ago I used to watch the grammys. After 2-3 years I began to understand how all worked and the politics behind them. Yeah, the people winning them were good, but how many other good singers that year were there and more deserving?
The same can be said for the Oscar and the emmys. It’s more like “look at who are the most powerful/respected people in the tv business” rather than “look at how good that show/actor is”.
For example, I think Sally Field is a good actress. But the fact that she’s nominated once again (after having already won an emmy for that role), it’s a bit too much.
It’s not that last year she gave an outstanding performance in that role. Ok, she nailed that part, but how many other actresses did the same in their respective roles? But they don’t get nominated.
Sally Field gets nominated because she is Sally Field. They did the same with some shows.
And after a while it became tiring and uninteresting.
There isn’t the “curiosity” factor anymore.
One idea I’ve had: once someone wins an acting award for one program, or one show wins drama or comedy, that person or award should be removed from contention. So, no repeat awards for the same roles or shows and continual fresh blood.
Forg, Stephen Moyer (vampahr Beeell) is presenting an award. That’s the only reason I’ll DVR the Emmys (and I like 30 Rock, but it’s sort of a so-what-else-is-new situation with that show and the Emmys).
Personally I haven’t paid attention to the emmys much in the last 10 years because they seem so heavily biased in favor of HBO.
who here liked to sit through school award assemblies when they knew they or their close friends weren’t up for anything? Now stretch that to 3 hours and do you really want to sit through it?
And with today’s internet, I can just click on the site and find out who has won. if they give a good speech, it’ll pop up on youtube.
and maybe the Emmys are “biased” towards HBO because they are about quality and not merely spin-off fever.
Anonymous, it’s not that the Emmys are rigged, it’s that Emmy voters have some sort of inferiority complex toward the Oscars, and will just vote for the biggest star slumming it on television.
And it sucks that they always nominate shows nobody’s watching, but if they started nominating shows based on popularity, Jerry’s right, it’d just be another People’s Choice Awards. And the People’s Choice Awards suck even more than the Emmys.
“and maybe the Emmys are “biased” towards HBO because they are about quality and not merely spin-off fever.”
No they are biased towards HBO because the hbo logo is like the apple logo – it can make some think something okay is great. If most HBO shows aired on a broadcast network it’s unlikely they’d be so praised. True they’d be shorn of most nudity and bad language but if they were really good that wouldn’t matter.
I think two things are at play here. 1) The internet. Instead of having to watch the long drawn out awards show, you can get the winners, who was wearing what and who said anything of note in about 10-15 minutes the next morning. No brainer really.
2) At least for me, the Emmys are completely irrelevant. They should be searching for the cutting edge in excellent television, the innovators. Instead, it’s a glorified industry popularity contest. Several shows that have ample popular and critical success have never got so much as a nod from the Emmys because the shows don’t fit into a traditional box (BtVS, the Wire and BSG are the most glaring ones I can come up with right now). A poster earlier up suggested some sort of composite Emmy voter/critic/audience vote to get the nominations and I think that’s an interesitng idea. It might expand the Emmy landscape and make the Emmys mean something again.
The problem is that most primetime network shows are junk. That’s not the fault of the Emmy’s. They’ve got to go to HBO etc to find anything decent. If the Oscars were based on ‘who watched it the most’ the awards would go to mindless drivel every year
could award shows feel the change in television viewing habits more harshly than other serials because one does not need to watch the shows in order to stay current with the results — which get posted on the internet instantly even while one watches something else?
also, do we have numbers on how well the “red carpet” shows have done over the same period of time? one might argue that those many interested in the glamour and ceremony of the evening might tune into one of those shows instead.
do we have comparable numbers for the grammys, american music awards, etc. which often reward the most popular?
Like most Hollywood trade groups, the Emmy voters express their own personal tastes in excellence, not what the public prefers. Unfortunately, each year they try to exhibit their snobbish choices to a general broad audience with an awards show… and now the public just doesn’t agree very often. “30 Rock” is indeed funny, but its smug tone keeps it off most people’s TIVOs.
Also, entertainment awards shows are inherently BORING. Winners stand up to thank associates and colleagues that few watching could possibly care about. There was a time long ago when those asides held fascination to a wide audience, but today, with a mountain of media piled up in front of everyone, and with anyone being able to achieve national fame with one cheap video on You Tube, the glamour of being a TV star has eroded to the commonplace.
Emmy IS the most prestigious award in the TV biz. Alot of people just want to know the winners and are not interested in the pomp and circumstance. I’m sure alot of former viewers now just go to the internet.
I don’t watch the Emmy Awards (or the Academy Awards) for two reasons:
First they are just plain boring. I’ve never found watching people I don’t know thanking other people I don’t know to be very entertaining.
Second, they are meaningless to me. I don’t base the shows I watch on the awards they win or for which they are nominated. I don’t let critics determine my viewing choices and I don’t see why I should let some anonymous academy members determine them either. The only thing that matters to me is whether or not I am entertained by a program.
Exactly. If the Emmy broadcast hopes to keep an audience, they need to do 2 things:
1. Make the show a LOT more entertainment than awards ( comedy bits, clips, and music )
2. Make a rule no one can get two Emmy in a row in the same category
I wouldn’t be all that excited about a 3 hour awards show ceremony, but Neil Patrick Harris is hosting. So I’m betting it’s gonna be great. Now it was just announced that John Hodgman will be an “announcer” which will be hilarious.
At least the Grammys are trying to be more entertaining. Last year, there were 112 categories. Exactly 12 were awarded during the telecast. The other 100 were presented that afternoon.
There was a lot more room for musical performances. The quality of the songs and the artists involved can be debated but there’s little argument watching musicians perform is more interesting than watching them offer bad oratory.
Even the Academy Awards hold their science and technical awards on a separate night. We know the Emmys tried to move a few of the most boring categories to a pre-telecast slot and members howled. The problem is, since they agree to put their show on television, it’s not for them anymore. It’s for the audience.
Ok, and I hate to say this, but this isn’t the people choice awards. Thats an award show that recognizes not quality but viewer audience. This and the Oscars are supposed to reward quality.
Just because a show is highly watched do you honestly think they are the best programs? Because if you do then I seriously think your judgment is flawed.
Now I am not arguing that who gets nominate truly reflects the best on tv (not even close), but in general they are closer then just picking the 5 most successful shows in each of the respective categories.
I mean seriously people.
I will say that one of the serious flaws of the Emmy’s is that tv tends to recognize actors or actress that have had a film career.
I also hate that the shows are based not a season’s work but on a single episodes work. Now I can certainly understand the writing and directing (and others of that nature) where different people are responsible for different episodes. But an actor is typically playing that same person week after week and as such should be judged based on their full performance for that season. Same for the show.
One of the other problems with this type of award show is that for the most part the voting members don’t watch a ton of TV. And as such they miss out on a ton of material (most of which is crap, but there are gems that never get noticed). At least with critics they are actually paid to watch tv (and a wide variety at that) throughout the full season.
I don’t know how a side by side comparison of the Oscars’ and Emmy’s recent audience slides would look, both in total numbers and % of year over year decline, but those are some sorry numberws for even just the past ten years for the latter. Awards shows in general, somewhat like beauty contests, just seem not to appeal to viewers under say 35 or 40 like they used to. I don’t mean to state the obvious, but I leave it there because as with so much cultural phenomena there are scads of reasons and hard to find the most crucial. I have to say the Internet in general has got to have done a number on the traditional way of covering celebrities – we all know it has for the magazine industry. BTW, of all the pathetic pseudo-spectacles on TV, the Emmys were always the worst, and apologetic and sheepish about it to boot, which only rubs salt in the wound for them.
Oh and the ideas to limit how many times a network, a show, an artist, a performer can be nominated is stupid.
I mean take the Amazing Race, its won its category every single time. Now can you honestly argue that the show doesn’t consistently keep high quality for that field?
If you have a great actor (and especially when they are in an equally great role) and they do put out consistently great work, why shouldn’t they continue to get nominated?
If HBO keeps putting out great material (and it hasn’t in the last few years) why shouldn’t they get rewarded for their hard work.
Oh and since we are judging their performance in viewers what would be more interesting is to compare the trend of those ratings to that of broadcast tv of that year. And see if the declines are worse, or better then the decline of the viewing audience that seems to occur year after year on the networks.
Just looking at it, I would say less, for the most part with a few exceptions.
The Amazing Race was not high quality to begin with. The only reason it won every time is that the Emmy voters see it as the cleanest reality show.
I think that everyone is missing the 900lb gorilla in the room. The Emmy’s have become a political statement for the far left as much as about entertainment. Just look at the winners every year the more political and left of center the better chance of winning. many people see this and just tune out.
not only r the shows not familar, most of them get cancelled within 3 or 4 years. thats why viewership is down.
AS FAR AS THIS YEARS SHOW, THERE UP AGAINST SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL. GUESS WHO PLAYING. AMERICAS TEAM (DALLAS COWBOYS)AGAINST THE TEAM FROM THE NUMBER ONE TV MARKET IN THE NEW JERSEY….I MEAN NY GIANTS. SORRY!!! FOOTBALL: 17.1. THE EMMYS: 9.3.
P.S. HBO AND THE OTHER CABLE NEYWORKS HAVE NEW EPISODES OR SEASON PREMIRES OF THEIR SHOWS. GO LUCKY EMMYS!!!!
Not to go off-topic here, but all the award shows are centralised on the gays. It gets annoying after a while. Neil P.H. might be doing a number or two (i think he’s funny btw). Then Ellen is always hosting.
And not to mention, HBO. Please? what quality? Nudity and profane language makes good TV? Anyhow, that could be deemed as subjective. The Emmy people need to stop being so biased. (I love NBC)
They should have different categories for network shows and cable shows. Cable shows have much more time to make less episodes, it isn’t really fair.
Plus the viewers don’t really care about cable shows (who cares about Mad Men, Damages, Breaking Bad?) So if they saved the network category till last, the ratings might go up again. Also, skip the miniseries/movie part in the show, no one really cares about those either. Sorry.
There used to be just 3 main networks and a few other little stations here and there as we all know. So giving awards out wasn’t going to offend a lot of non-winners, just a few. There simply were not all that many shows compared to now. Despite the reported death of scripted TV, we’re in an avalanche lately of scripted tv.
My point is that I think to keep up with the times they really need to add more categories and more ways for people to win as a way of giving more shows a slice of the pie. Perhaps a mystery category and a scifi/fantasy category. Add an ensemble acting category. And so on. That will decrease people feeling alienated I bet and make the awards seem more relevant to viewers.
If not that then separating cable from broadcast as the poster above suggested would be better than no change at all.
like someone said earlier no one wants to watch because they keep giving the awards to shows nobody really watches. Or shows on cable that maybe get 2 million viewers. I mean the highest rated shows like CSI or Two and Half Men never seems to win. Back in the day the shows with the highest viewership use to win these awards
Who wants to watch the same over-paid leftist bloviate and blow smoke up eachothers backside for however long they are on, it is the last days of warmth where I live before 7 months of bad weather sets in, last night me and my son spent the night beside the lake staring into a campfire, listening to the Giants over the radio, would have loved to watch the game but we do not have a local NBC affiliate and dish network does not carry local channels (or the YES network either). one of the prices to pay for living in the wild north country, but it is well worth it
Blame the decline on people’s access to cable tv. its easier to get a bigger audience when you only have a few channels to pick from. as for FOX of the late 80’s, I don’t think they had the same market size as NBC, CBS, or ABC, it explains the lower numbers. But doesn’t explain why it doesn’t jump higher over ther subsequent years.
The entire process of nominating and selecting the winner needs to change. Give up the practice that a nominee has to submit their name for consideration. A select group of members judges determine the winner. Let the members of the Academy select the nominee and determine the winner aka Oscars.