Photos
Video
RSS
TwitterOscar ratings: Not good
Any number of explanations will likely be proffered for the steep decline in ratings for the Oscars this year -- the leading contenders (including best picture winner No Country for Old Men) were too dark or not popular enough, not enough people know or like host Jon Stewart, it was too soon after the writers' strike to produce a really good show, awards shows are an increasingly dinosaur-like.
Any or all of those things may be partly true, or none of them may have anything to do with the numbers. But the fact is, this year's Academy Awards will likely end up being the least-watched Oscars since Nielsen started keeping track of total viewers in 1974.
ABC says the Oscars averaged 32 million viewers Sunday night, based on "time zone-adjusted" fast national ratings that take into account the live nationwide broadcast. The ratings could tick up a little more when the final ratings come out Tuesday (check back for an update then), but unless the final ratings add a million viewers, this year's awards will remove the "lowest-rated ever" tag from 2003, when Chicago won best picture and only 33.04 million people watched.
By comparison, 40.17 million people watched last year, and in 2006 -- when there was a similar discussion about the field being dominated by little-seen and non-uplifting films -- 38.94 million people tuned in.
The show's adults 18-49 rating also took a dive, falling from 14.0 last year to 10.7 this year.
Also, expect much hand-wringing and warnings of a pop-cultural apocalypse because of this fact: The Oscars drew a smaller audience than the season premiere of American Idol.
Update, Tuesday: The final nationals offered no help to the telecast, which came in at just a shade over 32 million viewers. It may get a slight bounce in another week's time when seven-day DVR use is factored in, but big live events typically don't get much extra audience from delayed viewing.
As for the why, I'll let you hash it out in the comments. What are your thoughts on the ratings nosedive?
Post a comment
Zap2it Twitter Talk 
Two words: star power.
One word: boreing
Uninteresting movies (except for Juno)
Time of broadcast, too long and too self-obsessed. Interested to see how Grammy's were this year n comparison because that was a good show
33 million is still a very large number.
I think the internet may have a hand in it though. All the winners are displayed on Yahoo News the next morning. And any noteworthy moments will be posted on YouTube or somewhere similar.
I agree, 32 million is still quite a good number for a show of any type. I read somewhere that the days of 60 million viewers for any show is long gone thanks to cable, etc.
I don't think the show itself had any major issue except for the fact it was cobbled together quickly post-strike. If it had run an hour people would have complained it was too short - this thing can't win. People just like to cut down the Oscars - it's tradition. Personally I thought the show was just right in its length this year.
What the show needs is more of an interactive component, especially when the leading films aren't big box office draws. Or spend the money and film inserts featuring the stars in character giving out the awards. For example, if it were announced that the Best Actor Oscar was going to be given out by Harry Potter and friends in a special scene filmed on the set of Harry Potter, you'd gain a couple million viewers just for that. Or get some cross-promotion going and have Zachary Quinto on the set of Star Trek giving out the SFX Oscar.
Also, remove the 45 second limit and let the recipients spout off as much as they want about politics and the like -- controversy is always good for the ratings.
Forget Yahoo News--the winners are posted almost immediately in dozens of online locations.
The especially low ratings this year have mostly to do with the writer's strike--not because of any production questions (which might affect critical evaluations of the show, but not ratings), but because there was so little hype building up the the airing of the show. No matter how irrelevant the movies are to most people's lives, they still get caught up in the hype.
Awards shows are incredibly boring, but that's always been true, and it never made a dent in the ratings before.
Jon Stewart is terrible.
I'd have watched a lot MORE if he hadn't been there.
The writing sucked and wasn't funny - it just wasn't enjoyable to watch.
cx xc