TV Ratings: Emmys Tumble 33 Percent to All-Time Low

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/l...me-low-tv-ratings-sunday-sept-22-2019-1242417

Yes its like other awards shows mentioned on this board in the past year having lower ratings.

Fox's broadcast of the awards goes (well) under 10 million viewers for the first time.
For the second year in a row, the Emmy Awards have hit an all-time low in the ratings.

Time zone-adjusted ratings for Sunday's telecast on Fox have the awards pulling in 6.9 million viewers, down almost a third (32 percent) from last year's Emmy ceremony on NBC. The 10.21 million viewers was the previous low for the awards.

The show also pulled in a 1.6 rating among adults 18-49, down 33 percent from 2.4 a year ago and also an all-time low.

The adjusted numbers show an ever bigger fall than the preliminary ratings, which came in at a 5.7 household rating in metered markets. That was off by 23 percent from the 7.4 for the 2018 Emmys, which aired on a Monday night (to avoid conflicts with NBC's NFL contract).

The last time Fox aired the Emmys, in 2015, the ceremony drew what was then an all-time low of 11.87 million viewers.

The slide for the Emmys is also easily the biggest decline among the major televised awards shows in 2019, which reversed, or at least halted, several years of declines from a mid-decade peak. The Oscars improved by more than 10 percent in both total viewers and adults 18-49, and the Golden Globes and Grammys were fairly steady year to year.

 

[landtuna]

Why is this a surprise? Clowns dressed as clowns.

I was at the ice rink watching my adult son play his weekly game of hockey. So were a ton of other people. I saw exactly one person watching the Emmy show on the TV. It was not me.

 

[davideduardo]

Why is this a surprise? Clowns dressed as clowns.

I was at the ice rink watching my adult son play his weekly game of hockey. So were a ton of other people. I saw exactly one person watching the Emmy show on the TV. It was not me.

This is simply a reflection of the fragmentation of TV / Video audiences.

There are few TV shows anymore that create "water cooler talk" such as they did up to just a couple of decades ago.

Many of the winners in recent years have been on paid channels like HBO. Most are now from cable channels that make much of their money from subscriber fees from cable and satellite hookups. Few are from ABC-CBS-NBC-Fox.

Yet when viewership is looked at, the network shows generally have much greater audience. So, like the Oscars where the blockbuster movies seldom win anything except, maybe, cinematography or sound technical awards, the Emmys are conducted by just another bunch of people in expensive evening wear congratulating themselves on their exquisite taste in entertainment.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Yet when viewership is looked at, the network shows generally have much greater audience.

Much greater audiences than cable, but declining over the years. "Big Brother" was the top show of last Thursday night, with 4.4 million viewers. In 2007, Big Brother was getting around 8 million viewers.

That doesn't help anyone be a trendsetter.

 

[TheBigA]

We've had this conversation before about every other TV special. Using 20th century metrics in the 21st century is going to result in declining viewership. It's inevitable. It's like the music industry measuring the success of its latest album by physical sales numbers. They're completely useless. No one goes down to Tower Records to buy the latest album by anybody any more. Tower Records is gone, and so are all the other 20th century music stores.

So the main job for these TV event producers is to create video that will cause people to want to watch certain moments the next day on some personal device. They have pre-roll ads attached to those clips, and those views will add up to millions more people than traditional Nielsen viewership numbers.

 

[Kelly A]

Many of the winners in recent years have been on paid channels like HBO. Most are now from cable channels that make much of their money from subscriber fees from cable and satellite hookups. Few are from ABC-CBS-NBC-Fox.

Critically acclaimed, but not widely viewed.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Why is this a surprise? Clowns dressed as clowns.

I was at the ice rink watching my adult son play his weekly game of hockey. So were a ton of other people. I saw exactly one person watching the Emmy show on the TV. It was not me.

People out of home at a more sports oriented venue didn’t happen to be watching an event that didn’t cater to that audience? Well, color me shocked. That’s clearly evidence of...well, some people in one place not watching something. They also weren’t watching how many other countless programs that aired at the same time?

 

[vchimpanzee]

This is simply a reflection of the fragmentation of TV / Video audiences.

There are few TV shows anymore that create "water cooler talk" such as they did up to just a couple of decades ago.

Many of the winners in recent years have been on paid channels like HBO. Most are now from cable channels that make much of their money from subscriber fees from cable and satellite hookups. Few are from ABC-CBS-NBC-Fox.

I think a lot of the winners were actually from streaming services.

I only remember two winners from the Big Four, and both were SNL.

What I don't understand is that the "All in the Family"/"Jeffersons" special was nominated and its category was never on.

I found the show entertaining, regardless, but Thomas Lennon's comments were pointless. Except when he mentioned Herve Villechaize and I went back to the clip and for the first time understood what the man was saying.'

Not enough clips of quality performances, too much nonsense.

 

[landtuna]

People out of home at a more sports oriented venue didn’t happen to be watching an event that didn’t cater to that audience? Well, color me shocked. That’s clearly evidence of...well, some people in one place not watching something. They also weren’t watching how many other countless programs that aired at the same time?

You have to understand that, like most big sports attractions, lots of people show up not to watch the sports action specifically but to be seen and "people watch". Since there were other games going on at the same time there were also a ton of parents there and I will bet not every one of them was a hockey fan. It is usual to see throngs of people ogling the multiple TV's in the lounge. I saw only one (female) watching the Emmy's.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

And that means...nothing. Out of home, apart from the Oscars, really isn’t the comparable between sports and awards shows. Nor does it mean that the scenario in 2019 is materially different than it would have been in, say, 1979.

 

[landtuna]

And that means...nothing. Out of home, apart from the Oscars, really isn’t the comparable between sports and awards shows. Nor does it mean that the scenario in 2019 is materially different than it would have been in, say, 1979.

I can't think of a single reply you've ever made that has merit. Therefore, you are now blocked.

 

[davideduardo]

Much greater audiences than cable, but declining over the years. "Big Brother" was the top show of last Thursday night, with 4.4 million viewers. In 2007, Big Brother was getting around 8 million viewers.
.

Big Brother is a tired show with a shopworn concept. Comparing it to it's performance when fresh and new is like comparing the price of a brand new 2007 car back then... and now.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

I can't think of a single reply you've ever made that has merit. Therefore, you are now blocked.

My heart weeps.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

We've had this conversation before about every other TV special. Using 20th century metrics in the 21st century is going to result in declining viewership. It's inevitable. It's like the music industry measuring the success of its latest album by physical sales numbers. They're completely useless. No one goes down to Tower Records to buy the latest album by anybody any more. Tower Records is gone, and so are all the other 20th century music stores.

So the main job for these TV event producers is to create video that will cause people to want to watch certain moments the next day on some personal device. They have pre-roll ads attached to those clips, and those views will add up to millions more people than traditional Nielsen viewership numbers.

Yes the current music industry is currently measuring success with the number of Youtube views as mentioned before. I remember when Viacom aired the MTV awards it was mentioned that they were using social media facebook and twitter likes as an indicator of how many people are watching a section of the awards show though.

Also Watch Parties have been a big thing when it comes to Sports like Super Bowl, the NBA Finals, World Cup and the World Series. Some of these televised events are judged by crowd size at a specific venue though.

I am guessing for award shows LA and NYC are more likely to have watch parties than the rest of the country though.

 

[Kelly A]

I can't think of a single reply you've ever made that has merit.

Longing for the old days, doesn't mean they're still here.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Or that they were so magical as one often suggests. Or that they were appreciably better.

 

[Gregg.]

I have to complain about Thomas Lennon's comments. I know they were supposed to be funny and ironic. I found them just silly. When a star is going up to receive his/her award, we used to have the voiceover person tell us this is the first nomination for this actor, who once had been an NBC page or something like that. Lennon was trying to give us ironic comments. But on my TV, he was drowned out by the music and applause. I wanted to hear real added facts, not made up for their "humor."

 

[KTN Corp]

Big Brother is a tired show with a shopworn concept. Comparing it to it's performance when fresh and new is like comparing the price of a brand new 2007 car back then... and now.

Yet the Bachelor/Bachelorette franchise is still going strong. Hannah's sex life caused a stir in pop culture after Luke "slut-shamed" her. The commentaries on social media fueled the whole controversy!

Being on Fox may have hurt ratings. It's still prime time only, but isn't equal in stature with the Big 3 to morph it into the Big 4 yet. They still don't have a broadcast news division and the legacy of being relegated to the UHF PSIPs (and dial distance from the Big 3 affiliates) still haunts them. They haven't been able to get on VHF PSIPs in Chicago, Denver, and a few other places where VHF is available but is affiliated with The CW or an independent. Sadly, they weren't able to get Tribune's VHF assets (for now).

 

[rnigma1]

Also, Fox's prime time is only 2 hours (3 on Sunday), compared to the 3-hour (4 on Sunday) prime time of the legacy networks.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I have to complain about Thomas Lennon's comments. I know they were supposed to be funny and ironic. I found them just silly. When a star is going up to receive his/her award, we used to have the voiceover person tell us this is the first nomination for this actor, who once had been an NBC page or something like that. Lennon was trying to give us ironic comments. But on my TV, he was drowned out by the music and applause. I wanted to hear real added facts, not made up for their "humor."

I agree. All we should have heard at that time was respectful and informative comments.