• 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

TV Ratings: 2019 Grammy Awards Inch Up in Early Numbers

Y2kTheNewOldies

Y2kTheNewOldies

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/grammy-awards-tv-ratings-sunday-feb-10-2019-1185245

Here is the Preliminary numbers for the Grammys

CBS' broadcast is just a smidge above 2018's numbers and those of the Golden Globe Awards in January.
The 2019 Grammy Awards show is running ever so slightly ahead of the 2018 broadcast in early ratings figures from Nielsen.

The awards drew a 12.8 rating/22 share in metered-market households, a 1 percent improvement on the early ratings for 2018's ceremony. Last year's Grammys ended up with 19.8 million viewers, the smallest total audience since 2009, and a 5.9 rating among adults 18-49, an all-time low for the awards.

The preliminary rating for the Grammys is also a smidge higher than that of January's Golden Globes, which ended up with 18.61 million viewers and a 5.2 rating in the 18-49 demographic.
Click to expand...
 
There was a lot of wasted time.

Did they actually give out two rap awards? There were some genres not even getting a single award on the air.

The idea of not having a host would be a good one. I just didn't care for Alicia Keys. Although her performance on two pianos was great.

I fast-forwarded through most of the performances. The tributes to the legends were mostly good but Katy Perry had no business singing with Dolly Parton. She just didn't sound right at all.
 
The goal of the Grammy awards is to mix genres. You want country stars singing a tribute to Dolly? They already did it on the CMA.

Also keep in mind they're programming this like a radio show. The performances by the most popular stars go in power spots.

And yes some genres didn't get a single award on the air. Watch the pre-awards online, and you'll see them all there.

At a time when fewer people are watching real time TV, this show did very well. I think it beat the projections.
 
Don CT said:
3 hours 42 minutes is way too long. Why did they do the Aretha / in memorium so late.
Click to expand...

I thought the whole purpose of the "Awards Presented Earlier" was to be able to get the show in at originally 2, but now 3, hours. Now even that's not enough to keep the show from running over. But if it has to run over at least it's on a Sunday night. But I'll admit that this happens with other awards shows, especially the Oscars as well.
 
TVCOOL said:
The awards shows are too long, better if they trim it to 2 1/2 hours with a 30 minute preshow.
Click to expand...

The length of the show doesn't really affect the ratings. People don't decide not to watch because of the length.

They may tune out, but that's expected in any long form broadcast. The sponsors buy their spots accordingly.
 
TheBigA said:
The length of the show doesn't really affect the ratings. People don't decide not to watch because of the length.

They may tune out, but that's expected in any long form broadcast. The sponsors buy their spots accordingly.
Click to expand...

People have been complaining about the length of award shows since I was a kid, and I'm old. But when the producers try to change it, - like giving some awards out before the televised show, or giving them out during commercial breaks, like the Academy Awards has proposed - people in the industry get angry. Martin Scorcese, Quentin Tarantino, and Spike Lee have banded together to protest the Oscar plan.

Awards shows will always have slow spots, sometimes the host's jokes won't be funny, some of the segments will always be boring, blah, blah. We need to all get over it.
 
LKellerIII said:
People have been complaining about the length of award shows since I was a kid, and I'm old. But when the producers try to change it, - like giving some awards out before the televised show, or giving them out during commercial breaks, like the Academy Awards has proposed - people in the industry get angry. Martin Scorcese, Quentin Tarantino, and Spike Lee have banded together to protest the Oscar plan.

Awards shows will always have slow spots, sometimes the host's jokes won't be funny, some of the segments will always be boring, blah, blah. We need to all get over it.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the CMA Awards in years, but I remember that in the 1990s and early 2000s, while the Grammys and Emmys and Oscars were running long, the CMAs always ended right on time and the 11 p.m. (Eastern) news was never delayed. Does the CMA still run a tight ship or has award-show sprawl spread there, too?
 
CTListener said:
Does the CMA still run a tight ship or has award-show sprawl spread there, too?
Click to expand...

They try. A couple years ago they went 20 minutes long. But they mostly end on time. The one show that always ends on time is the Academy of Country Music show from Las Vegas on CBS. It's produced by Dick Clark Productions, and Dick was a stickler for ending on time. Although he's been gone for a few years, and his company has been sold, they still hold pretty firm to ending on time. Probably in his memory.
 
I guess so many awards shows running over is why a lot of them have gone to being on Sunday nights where it doesn't matter as much. They could probably be on Saturday nights as well, but I know they don't want to do that with it being the deadest TV night of the week.
 
anotherguy said:
I guess so many awards shows running over is why a lot of them have gone to being on Sunday nights
Click to expand...

That's not the reason. Sunday night is historically the night for the highest potential audience. Homes using TV is highest on Sunday, and lowest on Saturday.

It may be dead for you, but not everyone else. Sunday night is dead for radio because everyone is watching TV.
 
Interesting article in Sunday's New York Times about attempts to keep this year's Academy Awards show to three hours:

"Donna Gigliotti, head producer for the Oscars, is still aiming to make Sunday's ceremony as close to a three-hour telecast as possible amid a recent change to include all originally scheduled awards. The show is now estimated to go over the ideal broadcast time, but not having a host should help keep things concise."

The only way to shorted the show and still include all scheduled awards is to get rid of the entertaining parts of the show, such as the musical performances, the clips from the movies, and the historic montages. No host means there won't be an opening monologue, so that saves about 15 minutes.

One proposal was to give some awards out during commercial breaks. That of course was shot down by the Academy. But the attendees are just sitting in their seats during the breaks. Nothing is going on. They visit with their friends, meanwhile the show is going long. Seems like a good idea to me, but I'm not one of the winners.
 
TheBigA said:
Interesting article in Sunday's New York Times about attempts to keep this year's Academy Awards show to three hours:

"Donna Gigliotti, head producer for the Oscars, is still aiming to make Sunday's ceremony as close to a three-hour telecast as possible amid a recent change to include all originally scheduled awards. The show is now estimated to go over the ideal broadcast time, but not having a host should help keep things concise."

The only way to shorted the show and still include all scheduled awards is to get rid of the entertaining parts of the show, such as the musical performances, the clips from the movies, and the historic montages. No host means there won't be an opening monologue, so that saves about 15 minutes.

One proposal was to give some awards out during commercial breaks. That of course was shot down by the Academy. But the attendees are just sitting in their seats during the breaks. Nothing is going on. They visit with their friends, meanwhile the show is going long. Seems like a good idea to me, but I'm not one of the winners.
Click to expand...
How about just go back to 5 best picture nominations, that will cut some time out.
 
So how about that? They Oscars ended EARLY! They expected to run to 11:30, and they ran the credits at 11:18. I honestly couldn't tell you what they cut. The speeches seemed to be their normal length. They had all the songs performed. They showed highlights of all the nominated films. So I don't know where they made up the time. I'm sure there will be an article tomorrow that will tell us.
 
TheBigA said:
So how about that? They Oscars ended EARLY! They expected to run to 11:30, and they ran the credits at 11:18. I honestly couldn't tell you what they cut. The speeches seemed to be their normal length. They had all the songs performed. They showed highlights of all the nominated films. So I don't know where they made up the time. I'm sure there will be an article tomorrow that will tell us.
Click to expand...
No opening monologue or host comedy filler bits during the show. Technically they still went long as the show was scheduled for 3 hours.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom