• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Oscar ratings off...and an honest question

N

Nate Wesley

"Oscars Ratings Drop 10 Percent From 2005"

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060306/D8G663F80.html


And now the question: Why is this even news anymore? Thanks to a poster who shall remain nameless, we know ratings for the Winter Olympics were down (even if we didn't really care to know). Ratings have also been in significant flux for the MLB playoffs/World Series, The NBA playoffs & Finals, Monday Night Football, The Emmys, Grammys, so on and so forth.

(We can always count on Mike Tirico asking David Stern about this come Finals time...I don't remember an ABC telecast of the Finals where it wasn't asked.)

Of course the media buyers live and die by this information, but should ratings of these big events really be all that newsworthy anymore? Easily more choices, not only from television, but from other media forms as well. I can even imagine the Super Bowl losing a touch of its dominance with new cable efforts at counterprogramming.

Should we really be surprised that these events aren't the mega-draws they once were? It just seems like the bigger hoopla that's made about ratings is what causes the networks to implement more gimmicks and flash in hopes of bringing the scores up, often with little success or viewers wondering what they just saw. Thoughts?<P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

Perhaps the Oscar ratings are down for the same reason people are staying away from movie theatres.

1. Too many commercial interruptions
2. The program is boring
3. So-called media experts have been taking pot-shots at host Jon Stewart, claiming he would be horrible; therefore people just didn’t turn in.
4. Why waste three hours of your life watching someone babble on for winning a small statute when you can be doing something more constructive; like reading a book or watching a DVD.


As for movie goers, why spend all that money to sit in a theatre for a 1/2 hour watching commericals and upcoming previews? How many of you actually saw the movies that were nominated? <P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>
 
The Oscar telecast in 2003 also had dismal ratings since it was right when the current war in the Gulf had started.<P ID="signature">______________
The 2006 New York Yankees...on to title #27!</P>
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

For the price of a movie ticket(for 2 people comes to $18) plus the popcorn,soda and candy,you can buy the same DVD(I'll use "Walk The Line" as an example since it is out now on DVD) for the same price two months later and you can get the popcorn,soda and candy at the local grocery store. And voila: Instant entertainment PLUS you have the DVD forever.
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

> For the price of a movie ticket(for 2 people comes to $18)
> plus the popcorn,soda and candy,you can buy the same
> DVD(I'll use "Walk The Line" as an example since it is out
> now on DVD) for the same price two months later and you can
> get the popcorn,soda and candy at the local grocery store.
> And voila: Instant entertainment PLUS you have the DVD
> forever.

And that presumes you even want to see most of the movies.

Of the Oscar-nominated movies this year, I have seen exactly one, that being "March of the Penguins". And yes, I own it on DVD.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

Add

5. There are 5,642 other awards shows on from October-March. By the time people get this far...do they honestly care to see another person who has more than they will ever have get applauded by others who have more than they will ever have?
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

Watching these awards ceremonies is like watching C-Span governmental coverage ... nothing but a bunch of wealthy individuals, all dressed up, giving speeches, sometimes funny, sometimes full of lies, through which everyone has to add their own personal agenda. Aside from that, I think that basically people do not care anymore. Gone are the days where families would sit home together and watch TV. Now children are at practice, or rehearsal, or wherever else. Not to mention, kids tend to go off to their own rooms and watch TV or chat online. These events don't get the mass viewing audiences anymore because there is far more choice in programming. Many young people prefer cable channels like MTV or Disney, and rarely watch anything else, except perhaps FOX. This also means that they're not even seeing the marketing and advertising for certain events (like the Oscar's on ABC) because they're never even tuned into that channel to begin with. I can't think of many people that I know in the 18-34 age group that will even watch the various award ceremonies of Hollywood stars. The population is aging, and the younger generations aren't as interested in these types of events, not to mention many have 300 channels of alternative programming from which they can choose. It's also not as much of an annual tradition to them, as it may be for older generations.

I would say the only large televised events that will maintain their popularity in the future are likely to be the Super Bowl (unlike baseball or basketball, it's one game, on a Sunday, and marketed to death), and other holiday sporting events (i.e., Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's day games), when most people are stuck with their family, watching one program together. Otherwise, it's no surprise people aren't watching in droves the dragged out Olympics, or the stuffy Hollywood awards' ceremonies. Twenty years ago, you got the three big network affiliates, a public TV station, an independent or two, maybe some out of market channels. There was no way you could get lost in that lineup. But today obviously there is a growing number of "cable-only" kind of people who prefer to only watch ESPN, HBO, Food Network, and Discovery, for example. And there are the people who won't watch broadcast television at all. Times are changing, and with every new 'niche' cable channel that premieres, there are fewer and fewer people who tend to waste their time surfing/viewing the broadcast tier.
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

> Times are changing, and with every new 'niche' cable channel
> that premieres, there are fewer and fewer people who tend to
> waste their time surfing/viewing the broadcast tier.
----------
I refuse to pay money for most cable television channels. Most of those cable channels are useless anyway, because they are dumping grounds for unwanted programming and you don't even get programming that represents what the channel is supposed to be about. TLC used to actually be educational, but look at it today. On this board alone I see complaints about The Weather Channel every week it seems (the Canadian "Weather Network" at least is all weather forecasts, and it is one of the only cable channels I would pay for), as they devote too much time to "Storm Stories" or whatever it is called. If I just have a small group of free broadcast channels, then I don't spend as much time watching TV, and I can go do some more constructive things. And I can still get news, Law & Order, and the Simpsons. I'm willing to put up with the advertising.

As for the Oscars - who cares. It's all a popularity contest and I'm not going to waste my time with that ego-inflating ceremony for already inflated egos that star in movies that mostly suck anyways these days. The Oscars had a time and a place, but not anymore.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by mjlarochelle on 03/07/06 04:54 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

The problem was not the quaility of movies (this year's nominees were very strong), but the award show's formats themselves. Three and one-half hours to praddle on and these awards could have been presented in two hours max (and maybe one hour).

The days of "gathering around the family" is as gone as the console TV's that once graced living rooms.

Award Shows have become like boxing titles: too many, and meaningless in this day and age.
 
Question: How many here watched the Oscars?

How many of you here even watched the Oscars?
I did not watch the snoozefest, and I was pissed that World News Tonight was pre-empted for a stupid pre-oscar thing on WPVI. Like we care!
 
Re: Question: How many here watched the Oscars?

> How many of you here even watched the Oscars?
> I did not watch the snoozefest, and I was pissed that World
> News Tonight was pre-empted for a stupid pre-oscar thing on
> WPVI. Like we care!
>
I know a great number of people who watch the red carpet/pre-show coverage as intently, if not more intently, than the show itself. While I don't like it, it reaches a still extremely large audience, so running the coverage is the right call, just like the full day of Super Bowl pre-game shows, even though some people don't watch that either.
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

> The problem was not the quaility of movies (this year's
> nominees were very strong), but the award show's formats
> themselves. Three and one-half hours to praddle on and
> these awards could have been presented in two hours max (and
> maybe one hour).
>
> The days of "gathering around the family" is as gone as the
> console TV's that once graced living rooms.
>
> Award Shows have become like boxing titles: too many, and
> meaningless in this day and age.
What was said about the awards not being an event anymore is true. But I think the fact that it was not a strong year(in the blockbuster or mega-star sense)had much to do with the drop in viewership.
 
Re: Question: How many here watched the Oscars?

> How many of you here even watched the Oscars?
> I did not watch the snoozefest, and I was pissed that World
> News Tonight was pre-empted for a stupid pre-oscar thing on
> WPVI. Like we care!
>


I watched, mostly flipping back and forth between the awards show and Fox's telecast of "Bad Boys II". I mostly wanted to watch Three 6 Mafia perform their eventual Oscar-winning song. <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
 
Re: Oscar ratings off. No big surprise

Hi everyone:

> Add
>
> 5. There are 5,642 other awards shows on from
> October-March. By the time people get this far...do they
> honestly care to see another person who has more than they
> will ever have get applauded by others who have more than
> they will ever have?

And then there's.....

6. Does ANYBODY really care to watch the movie industry congratulate itself? (Same with the music industry during its Awards shows)

7. Why would ANYONE watch only a snippet of a given nominated movie when they can GET THE WHOLE THING in a matter of minutes from a video store (or days if purchased online)?

Feel free to add on :)

Cheers :)

Pat <P ID="signature">______________
patspodcast03a.jpg

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? :)</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom