Oscars A Ratings Disaster
Hollywood and ABC Television are scrambling to explain how the Oscars telecast managed to shed 21% of its audience since just last year. The dismal figures are the lowest in at least 20 years. Especially devastating was the drop in the crucial 18 to 49 demographic - they lost 25% in that group.
But the worst news for academy officials might have come amid the results for young viewers, the demographic most eagerly sought by TV executives. Sunday's show posted a 10.7 rating in the crucial demographic of adults ages 18 to 49, shedding fully one-quarter of that group compared with last year.
Much of the blame might rest with this year's Oscar contenders, which, as Stewart noted, consisted of exceptionally dark films with limited popular appeal, such as "There Will Be Blood" and the best-picture winner, "No Country for Old Men." Nothing lures viewers like blockbuster nominees. In 1998, the year "Titanic" won best picture, the TV audience numbered 55.2 million.
Schedule disruptions caused by the recent writers strike also might have hurt ABC's efforts to bang promotional drums for the show.
Whatever the cause, academy officials, who've spent years trying to bolster ratings, are now confronting an urgent crisis on how to stem further viewership declines. Not so many years ago, the Oscars were linked with the Super Bowl as the only perennial programs that could attract great masses of viewers. But while this month's Super Bowl on Fox attracted a record-high 97.4 million total viewers, the Oscars are now routinely outrated by Fox's "American Idol." Just last month, the singing contest delivered its season-to-date high of 33.5 million total viewers.
In other words, Hollywood is not making movies people actually want to watch. But they can't figure out why the ratings are tanking? There's clueless, then there's Hollywood.
By Maggie, Tuesday, 26 February , 2008 @ 11:42 am
Proving, once again:
1) Hollywood is out-n-out dumb/stupid when it comes to the general population of this country
2) Hollywood is/has failing/failed at "influencing" the public to the degree they hoped they would
3) Hollywood is making some really BAD business decisions
4) Hollywood, much like the rest of the MSM, talks/writes to hear itself
By martian, Tuesday, 26 February , 2008 @ 12:52 pm
I’m sorry but I find a bunch of people sitting around patting each other on the back fairly boring. That’s why I don’t watch. It’s very nice to be recognized by your peers for a job well done, but why inflict it on the rest of us? I could really not care less who mixed the best sound or hung the best lights or any of dozens of other items they hand out awards for on the show. Nor do I care who wore what or who showed up with who. Please! Some od us have actual lives!
By tabitharuth, Tuesday, 26 February , 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Ever since Cher stopped showing up in outrageous outfits, I haven’t had the urge to watch. Especially this year when I hadn’t seen any of the movies (blech) and Masterpiece Theatre was showing Pride and Prejudice.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Tuesday, 26 February , 2008 @ 8:16 pm
In other words, Hollywood is not making movies people actually want to watch. But they can’t figure out why the ratings are tanking? There’s clueless, then there’s Hollywood.
Don’t be surprised if Hollywood tries to parade these low ratings as "proof" of their moral and intellectual superiority. After all - how can the ignorant, unwashed masses understand the likes of them? Hollywood represents a quantum leap in human evolution - or so they believe.