A story in the NY Times today discusses some changes that the Emmy Awards producers tried (and failed) to make to boost the ratings for the show that fell to its lowest level in nearly two decades last year (historical data below).
I think fiddling with the broadcast format misses the bigger problem that is highlighted by this quote from the same article.
If the same, relatively lightly viewed, shows keep winning year after year, why is the ratings slide a surprise?
Leading the pack with 22 nominations this year was “30 Rock,” the NBC comedy that last season ranked about 60th among all prime-time series in total audience, attracting about 7.5 million viewers per week, according to Nielsen Media Research. That is roughly the number of people who watch reruns of “Two and a Half Men” every day of the week.
Last year “30 Rock” won seven Emmys, including best comedy actor (Alec Baldwin), best comedy actress (Tina Fey) and, for the second straight year, best comedy series. The show is up for all three of those awards again this year....
via NYTimes.com.
Notable recent repeat Winners:
Outstanding Comedy Series: 2003, 2005, Everybody Loves Raymond; 2007, 2008, 30 Rock
Outstanding Drama Series: 2000-2003, The West Wing; 2004, 2007, The Sopranos
Outstanding Variety, Music or Comedy Series: 1998-2002 The Late Show With David Letterman; 2003-2008 The Daily Show
Outstanding Lead Actor Comedy Series: 2003, 2005, 2006 Tony Shalhoub
Outstanding Lead Actor Drama Series: 2000, 2001, 2003, James Gandolfini; 2004, 2005, 2007 James Spader
Outstanding Supporting Actor Comedy Series: 2002, 2003, 2005 Brad Garrett; 2006-2008 Jeremy Piven
Outstanding Reality-Competition Program: 2003-2008, The Amazing Race.
Here is a chart of the Emmy Awards viewership and 30 second ad cost from 1986 through 2008:
2006-8 viewers are Live+SD.
Here are the detailed historical Emmy Awards ratings and other data back to 1956 (updated with 2009 information):
| Household | Number of | Number of | **Cost per | |||||
| Day | Date | Time | Net | Rating | Share | Homes | Viewers | 30 Sec Spot |
| SUN | 9/21/2009* | 8:00PM-11:05PM | CBS | 8.7 | 14 | 10,015,000 | 13,471,000 | $395,000 |
| SUN | 9/21/2008* | 8:00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 8.2 | 13 | 9,371,000 | 12,339,000 | $284,000 |
| SUN | 9/16/2007* | 8:00PM-11:14PM | FOX | 8.4 | 14 | 9,445,000 | 12,951,000 | $583,100 |
| SUN | 8/27/2006 * | 8:00PM-11:00PM | NBC | 10.6 | 17 | 11,669,000 | 16,184,000 | $435,000 |
| SUN | 9/18/05 | 8:00PM-11:03PM | CBS | 12.5 | 20 | 13,760,000 | 18,683,000 | $528,100 |
| SUN | 9/19/04 | 8:00PM-10:58PM | ABC | 9.4 | 15 | 10,336,000 | 13,788,000 | $441,900 |
| SUN | 9/21/03 | 8:00PM-11:05PM | FOX | 11.8 | 19 | 12,751,000 | 17,937,000 | $520,000 |
| SUN | 9/22/02 | 8:00PM-11:15PM | NBC | 13.5 | 21 | 14,397,000 | 19,987,000 | $475,000 |
| SUN | 11/4/01 | 8:00PM-11:04PM | CBS | 11.4 | 16 | 12,045,000 | 17,117,000 | $383,400 |
| SUN | 9/10/00 | 8:00PM-11:05PM | ABC | 14.2 | 23 | 14,554,000 | 21,798,000 | $424,400 |
| SUN | 9/12/99 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 11.7 | 19 | 11,777,000 | 17,454,000 | $400,000 |
| SUN | 9/13/98 | 7:00PM-11:01PM | NBC | 13.6 | 23 | 13,526,000 | 19,365,000 | $323,000 |
| SAT | 9/14/97 | 8:00PM-11:01PM | CBS | 13.5 | 21 | 13,264,000 | 18,774,000 | $327,900 |
| SUN | 9/8/96 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 14.4 | 23 | 13,962,000 | 20,582,000 | $242,000 |
| SUN | 9/10/95 | 8:00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 12.4 | 20 | 11,892,000 | 18,041,000 | $277,900 |
| SUN | 9/11/94 | 8:00PM-11:02PM | ABC | 14.6 | 23 | 13,928,000 | 21,246,000 | $223,000 |
| SUN | 9/19/93 | 8:00PM-11:01PM | ABC | 13.6 | 21 | 12,811,000 | 18,900,000 | $221,600 |
| SUN | 8/30/92 | 8:00PM-11:32PM | FOX | 13.9 | 24 | 12,802,000 | 20,415,000 | Not Available |
| SUN | 8/25/91 | 8:00PM-11:04PM | FOX | 12.5 | 22 | 11,640,000 | 18,507,600 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/16/90 | 8.00PM-11:15PM | FOX | 8.2 | 14 | 7,630,000 | 12,299,566 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/17/89 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 11.4 | 19 | 10,500,000 | 17,209,500 | Not Available |
| SUN | 8/28/88 | 8.00PM-11:22PM | FOX | 10.4 | 18 | 9,210,000 | 15,426,750 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/20/87 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | FOX | 8.8 | 14 | 7,800,000 | 14,383,200 | Not Available |
| SUN | 9/21/86 | 8.00PM-11:01PM | NBC | 23.1 | 36 | 20,190,000 | 35,796,587 | $179,000 |
| SUN | 9/22/85 | 8.00PM-11:00PM | ABC | 18.6 | 29 | 15,980,000 | Not Available | $170,000 |
| SUN | 9/23/84 | 9.04PM-12:39PM | CBS | 17.1 | 33 | 14,520,000 | 20,284,440 | $198,900 |
| SUN | 9/25/83 | 8.00PM-11:22PM | NBC | 18.0 | 30 | 15,080,000 | 24,505,000 | $160,000 |
| SUN | 9/19/82 | 8.00PM-11:04PM | ABC | 21.7 | 35 | 18,080,000 | 33,014,080 | |
| SUN | 9/13/81 | 8.00PM-11:03PM | CBS | 22.3 | 37 | 18,170,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/7/80 | 9.00PM-12:02AM | NBC | 15.0 | 29 | 11,670,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/9/79 | 8.30PM-11:10PM | ABC | 27.3 | 45 | 20,830,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/17/78 | 8.27PM-10:30PM | CBS | NL* | ||||
| SUN | 9/17/78 | 11.03PM-12:34AM | CBS | 18.3 | 33 | 13,630,000 | Not Available | |
| MON | 5/17/76 | 9.00PM-11:40PM | ABC | 25.3 | 42 | 17,610,000 | 31,381,020 | |
| MON | 5/19/75 | 9.00PM-11:05PM | CBS | 25.0 | 44 | 17,130,000 | 30,834,000 | |
| WED | 9/4/74 | 10.00PM-11:40PM | ABC | 10.0 | 21 | 6,850,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/20/73 | 9:00PM-11:10PM | ABC | 29.0 | 49 | 18,790,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/6/72 | 10:00PM-12:15AM | CBS | 25.1 | 54 | 15,590,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/9/71 | 10:00PM-12:00AM | NBC | 30.3 | 59 | 18,210,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/7/70 | 9:00PM-11:20PM | ABC | 21.4 | 42 | 12,520,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/8/69 | 10:00PM-12:05AM | CBS | 23.2 | 50 | 13,220,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/19/68 | 9:00PM-11:00PM | NBC | 27.9 | 53 | 15,600,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 6/4/67 | 9:00PM-11:15PM | ABC | 24.1 | 45 | 13,230,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/22/66 | 10:00PM-11:45PM | CBS | 30.3 | 58 | 16,300,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 9/12/65 | 10:00PM-12:00AM | NBC | 25.1 | 51 | 13,500,000 | Not Available | |
| MON | 5/25/64 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 31.9 | 65 | 16,360,000 | Not Available | |
| SUN | 5/26/63 | 10:00PM-11:50PM | NBC | 29.8 | 63 | 14,840,000 | Not Available | |
| TUE | 5/22/62 | 10:00PM-11:50PM | NBC | 28.1 | 61 | 13,769,000 | Not Available | |
| TUE | 5/16/61 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 32.7 | 64 | 15,336,000 | Not Available | |
| * PRIOR TO 1961 RATINGS WERE CALCULATED ACCORDING TO EACH NETWORK'S UNIVERSE. | ||||||||
| THEREFORE, EACH NETWORK'S RATING WAS A PERCENTAGE OF ITS OWN UNIVERSE | ||||||||
| WED | 5/6/59 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 33.3 | 57 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| TUE | 4/15/58 | 10:00PM-11:30PM | NBC | 33.5 | 59 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| SUN | 3/16/57 | 9:00PM-10:30PM | NBC | 27.2 | 41 | Not Available | Not Available | |
| SUN | 3/17/56 | 9:00PM-10:30PM | NBC | 29.8 | 44 | Not Available | Not Available | |
-
*Cost Per Thousand books not available for years 1987,1988,1989,1990,1991 and 1992
* NL stands for ‘next listing’ which signifies the telecast had a time interruption and the rating data is reported in the next entry listed in this column.
NOTE: The Emmy Awards during 1948 -1953 were not yet broadcast nationally -- In 1948 the EMMYS were broadcast on KTSL-TV, Los Angeles.
1949 the program was broadcast on KFI-TV in Los Angeles, in 1950 on KLAC-TV, Los Angeles. and in 1951 on KECA-TV, Los Angeles
*Ad expenditure data should be sourced as Nielsen Monitor-Plus
Source: NTI Pocketpieces, Nielsen Audience Composition Reports and Nielsen Galaxy Explorer
Copyright 2008 The Nielsen Company
* Live +Same Day Viewing Estimates Include DVR Playback On The Same Day, Defined As 3AM-3AM
That’s the problem I have the with Emmys. If they would nominate shows that have large viewerships (2.5 Men, CSI, TBBT, DH, GA, etc.), perhaps more people would watch.
Whoa, how in the world did Fox get the Emmy’s in 1987? It seems like after Fox started airing them, the show never really recovered.
to make the emmy peoples lives easier, there should be one big show, 30 mad anatomywives
=p
btw, epic fail in 2004, highest ad price, lowest viewers
How did the price per 30 second spot go up so much from 2004 to 2005? Shouldn’t they be based on how 2004 performed, which was dismally?
“If the same, relatively lightly viewed, shows keep winning year after year, why is the ratings slide a surprise?”
Uh, that’s basically what was behind the attempted — and aborted after protest — changes to this year’s program. They were going to timeshift, and therefore edit, a series of awards. The common link amongst those they were going to do this to? They were all lower-rated “niche” cable programs the broadcast networks didn’t want getting so much Emmy airtime.
The One True b!X, I don’t think those proposed changes (which primarily were to be for categories most people care much less about) would have helped much.
The big categories that people presumably still care about (which would not have been changed) have been dominated by the same, lightly watched, shows for a quite a number of years.
are you implicitly arguing award nominations should be based at least partially on popularity? I suppose you also get tweaked every year when movies that “nobody has seen” dominate the Academy Awards? These awards are about excellence, not popularity or commercial success with the masses of mush skulls.
One can argue whether awards should be handed to popular shows, but there is no doubting the fact people would prefer to see an awards show give awards to shows they’ve seen. The Emmys can continue to be about ‘excellence’ (I’d argue they’re more interested in elitist claptrap) but they can’t expect people to care about awards being given to shows they think to be rubbish.
It hasn’t only been cable or ‘niche’ shows like 30 Rock that have won recently–24 and Lost win in ’05 and ’06. And that variance in viewers can’t be explained away by the broader popularity (or lack thereof) of Mad Men. LA Law won in 1990, and I think it’s safe to say that consistently pulled well over 2m viewers an episode. The Emmy’s are less popular for the same reason any other network show can’t draw MASH ratings–simply because viewing habits are more diffuse, and not because anyone does or doesn’t think 2.5 Men is worthy of a statuette. Besides, do fans of CSI really care about the Emmy’s?
Although I do think that football on Sunday nights may be having more of an impact than people would assume.
I chalk up the demise of the Emmy ratings as another casualty of the internet. Most people who watch the Emmys only have a vague interest, and why sit through a 3-hour awards ceremony when you can spend 30 seconds looking up the winners online?
Greennogo, they held them preseason in 2006, and while the numbers were better than the past two years, they still dropped from 2005.
Bot d00d, did you actually say award shows are for excellence, lol, thats a good laugh, actually peed myself a little there. Award shows have never been about excellence, its about marketing stupids. These people get all dressed up in fancy cloths how many times a year to cart out their crap so all involved can pat them on the back and say good job. Its all fake, meant to show the glamor and fabulous entertainment industry lie, stroke their over inflated egos and appeal to their vanity of being stars. Sheeple lap it up in their royal worship of the various lucky sperm club members each network props up for us to envy. You want excellence watch the Nobel awards not the Emmys.
At least this year they picked a host people might tune in to see. Last year not only did they pick lame hosts but then they decided to give them nothing to do.
The biggest problem with any award show these days is the over exposure of our celebrities. It used to be a big deal when you saw an actor outside of the movie or tv show they were in. Now they are everywhere, talking about, or confessing to everything.
There is really no way to fix the nominating system. The people who vote in all likelihood don’t even watch television. Maybe the nominations should be a mixture of popular/academy/critical consensus, some kind of average. Then the academy could vote on the nominations.
As was mentioned before, it’s remarkable how the ratings plummeted when FOX started airing the EMMY’s. FOX was an upstart “netlet” back then with only two nights of programming. It was on a number of UHF stations and did not even reach many TV markets. Guess it’s sort of like what happened to the daytime soaps when they were pre-empted by the OJ Simpson trial for 8-9 months. The viewers could not see the show for awhile and just never came back.
I don’t think you can blame FOX for killing the Emmy’s. There’s way too much variance between ’82–’84 and ’87-’92 to say UHF bandwith is a primary factor. Although considering the internet, I wonder if the best way to draw viewers back to awards shows isn’t expanding to include more ‘popular’ material, but to maximize the benefit of being a “live” event–like the VMA’s. They’re still popular even though the network that shows them hardly even has music video’s anymore. People tune in to see something crazy happen, like Elton kiss Eminem, or Kanye steal a microphone. You don’t get a Brando’s proxy on AIM, or a drunken Bing Crosby moment anymore the way things are streamlined.
Those voting think too good of themselves and try to appear more intelligent than the average viewer. That’s the problem. Of course the awards shouldn’t be given based only on the audience numbers. But here’s an example: you have a great sitcom like Big Bang which happens to be very popular as well and it’s not even nominated. Instead 30 Rock wins year after year after year in all kind of categories. Can you really say everything is in order with these awards? But the big question is: who really cares about these awards?
In so far as EMMY awards going to shows nobody watches, the same thing is heppening to the Oscars. The process for selecting nominees and winners is arguably flawed. The reality is everyone has different tastes and preferences. There will never be a 100% concensus on what is the “best”.
The last time the Emmys actually increased in viewership was the first year Desperate Housewives and Lost were nominated for awards so this article certainly has merit.
Maybe they should stop nominating things that are so low rated then. I
won’t be watching this year.
And Rob-exactly! (Even though I don’t watch Big Bang Theory.)
Well, you need to be careful that the Emmy judges don’t start nominating shows solely because they’re popular and not because their quality. I mean the list of comedies (except for Family Guy) and dramas are all great shows deserving of nominations.
Part of the problem is the award the same show again and again every year, too. It’s not just that 30 Rock doesn’t have a huge audience (though it is growing). It’s just that what’s the point of tuning in to see who won Best Comedy when you know they’re going to win it because they’ve won the past couple of years. Mad Men has only won once but it’s already falling into that same trap. You know it’s going to win best drama, so who cares.
They really should lay off HBO a bit though. Doesn’t the channel have like 99 nominations this year or something.
Actually looking back CBS hasn’t had a show up for best drama since 2004. I guess the judges can’t tell any of their procedurals apart lol.