Believe me, I'm well aware of what The Onion is. Again, the dangers of trying to inject humor into an internet discussion. I'll telegraph my intentions with a plethora of laughing emojis next time to avoid the wrath of the literal-minded.
-
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
The Grammys Outside The Box
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
You need to setup the joke better.
So the ratings for the 2021 Grammy Awards were pretty bad. It struck me that there wasn't much in the show for people over the age of 40. Most of it was in the obituary segment. Then at the end, out walks Ringo Starr. I'm not kidding. Had they not said the name of his former band, I doubt anyone in the room would have known who he was. With that as a starting point, here's a great article from the LA Times:
www.latimes.com
For one night, at least, the Grammys banished the baby boomers
With a new executive producer at the helm, Sunday's show was dominated by young artists, to the near exclusion of music's elders.
www.latimes.com
So ... either young people actually prefer listening to older artists over the ones being marketed to their generation (which would delight the boomers who insist they know of many such teens, twenty-somethings and early-thirty-somethings) or they just aren't as willing to watch a three-hour television show in real time as previous generations have been -- or even to watch the whole show at all, instead opting to monitor social media for word of performances of interest by specific artists they love, thus reducing their personal Grammys viewing experience to 15 to 30 minutes or so of video, replayed several times. The last scenario is what I feel is happening, and represents the ultimate in bad news for CBS, which can't possible monetize that sort of hit-and-run, cherry-picking, totally time-shifted viewing.
My money is on the second scenario. Beyond there being a plethora of awards shows, but it’s simply not “must watch” live in this area. As a general category, awards shows are somewhat of anachronism. It’s not about the subject matter or artists being recognized (whatever the artistic medium).
Actually they know it's happening, and they build in pre-rolls and other systems by which they monetize the content. It just doesn't show up in traditional Nielsen ratings reports. It is counted afterwards. The views on social media GREATLY exceed the views in real time. The social media views is what they aim for. Not traditional real time tune in.
It's good news for the owners of CBS...bad news for the CBS affiliated stations that only get one "linear" shot at the content.
So the sharp Nielsen decline doesn't necessarily mean that the new executive producer is in trouble, or will have to eat humble pie and bring back the rock dinosaurs to the Grammy performer roster next year, assuming that the social media numbers increased in proportion to the decline in traditional?
They have limited rights to reuse the content in their own local newscasts and social media.
At some point, the Grammy folks will release a more complete press release that incorporates all of the media usage related to the show. Because a lot of the additional content was released outside the show on Grammy.com.
Not the target, but as the LA Times article stated, they've done various tributes to artists such as Elton John or the Bee Gees in recent years. No such thing this year.
For one night, at least, the Grammys banished the baby boomers
With a new executive producer at the helm, Sunday's show was dominated by young artists, to the near exclusion of music's elders.
www.latimes.com
Why would they do a major tribute when they are not in a live hall. I could see there being a complaint if this was a normal show.Not the target, but as the LA Times article stated, they've done various tributes to artists such as Elton John or the Bee Gees in recent years. No such thing this year.
For one night, at least, the Grammys banished the baby boomers
With a new executive producer at the helm, Sunday's show was dominated by young artists, to the near exclusion of music's elders.
The did lots of full performances complete with dancers. Just none aimed at boomers. They did the performances in the convention center. No audience, but they were able to stage full productions. Everyone was tested multiple times.
Boomers are not the target demo anymore. Why would they cater to them.
Did you read the article? It's explained there.
It's paywalled.
The pandemic played some role in why there were no older acts. And Rock seems to have been phased out of the show over the past 20 years. Some of the blame goes to the academy for who they nominate. Most of the nominees I have no idea who they are. The show has been drifting younger for some time now. They always show the pop acts and not the heavier or softer stuff. If you want a show that aims for the older crowd look to the OSCARS. Everything else is aiming for the younger viewer.
Explain.
- Status