The Sternberg Report

Academy Awards Broadcast: Why it's Bad and How to Make it Good (and more viewer and advertiser friendly)

Of all the award shows on television, the Academy Awards is the most boring.  It shouldn’t be and doesn’t have to be.  But there has been little (or no) effort to make the broadcast more viewer friendly.  And it would be so easy to do.  

Some have complained about the length of the telecast (typically three-and-a-half hours) but that is only an issue because of how it’s presented.  Much was made last year about how eight “less significant” (to viewers) awards were given out before the Oscars telecast, and then edited for airing during the show.  This was supposedly to shorten the broadcast, provide more time for other bits, and possibly increase ratings.  To this viewer, it seemed as though all they did was cut some time that showed the winners walking to the stage – a very small impact on the home viewer for all the controversary and justifiably hurt feelings it caused.

There has also been some discussion over the past few years about whether there needs to be a host for the Academy Awards broadcast, and if so, who would be best suited for the role.  This came to a head in 2019 after the scheduled host. Kevin Hart, was forced to step down when some old controversial tweets were discovered.  For the first time since 1989, they proceeded without a host, and decided to do so again in 2020.  The pandemic restrictions in 2021 made a host irrelevant.  Last year, hosts returned, as Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Regina Hall shared the reins.  This year, Jimmy Kimmel took over the hosting duties.  There is little doubt that hosts do make the show flow better and provides more natural transition from one segment to the next.  But unless they resurrect Johnny Carson or a young Billy Crystal, any host will have little to do with whether the show does better or worse in terms of Nielsen ratings.

The problem is not who the host is or whether the show runs 3½ or 4 hours.  The main problem is with the structure of the show itself.  The Academy Awards broadcast is geared toward Hollywood insiders rather than the television viewer.  There’s no reason it can’t do both.

It’s a Generational Thing

As an avid movie fan and reasonably heavy moviegoer (pre-pandemic), I look forward to watching the Academy Awards every year.  And every year I find myself asking the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes” (“the slap” notwithstanding).  And every year I forget the previous year’s telecast and look forward to watching the show all over again.

But then, I’m a Baby Boomer.  Folks in my generation, as well as Generation X and early Millennials, grew up watching the Academy Awards at a time when you seldom saw or heard much about movie stars outside of what their publicists put out there or what you might see on talk shows.  Movie stars were more glamorous to the public, and it was interesting to see them in real-life settings.  There was no social media, and people generally did not see behind the curtain (and celebrities didn’t communicate with their fan bases on Twitter or Instagram as they do today).  There were also no streaming services, and no major competition for the broadcast networks, which typically scheduled repeats opposite the Oscars, which was always the second highest rated show of the year (next to the Super Bowl).  Among advertisers, it was dubbed the “Super Bowl for women.”

When I was 23 years old, back in the day, I had watched the Academy Awards every year since I was about 5 years old.  I bring this up because my now 23-year-old son hasn’t watched any of the Academy Awards since he was about 5 years old.  I asked him why he never watches it, and his response was, “because it’s boring as $hit.”

Thirty years ago, in 1992, the median age of Oscar viewers was under 40.  In 2022, it was over 55.  The show is not attracting new generations of viewers – much of its audience is simply aging along with the show.  It’s also interesting to note that the average age of Oscar voters in 2022 was 63, while the average age of moviegoers was around 30.

In a 3½ hour Broadcast, Why Present the Major Awards After Primetime?

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   Thirty years ago, there were basically only three broadcast networks, fewer cable networks and channels per home, no streaming options, no social media, and virtually no original programming opposite the Academy Awards.  But in today’s media world, with so many other outlets competing for viewers’ time, it is counter-productive to wait until after primetime to present the most popular awards.

What a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show, when they present Bet Actor, Actress, and Picture, is not even measured by Nielsen.  The ratings company only measures national telecasts through the last national commercials (the post-primetime portion of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials).  Ratings would undoubtedly be higher if the most popular awards were presented during primetime.      

In addition, particularly with big live events, social media often keeps viewers tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the like, would have seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

While either the Supporting Actress or Supporting Actor award is always presented during the show’s first half-hour, the Big Four – Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture – are held back until after 11pm (Occasionally the Best Director award is given out right before 11pm).

Looking at the last few years, we see little change, although it did reach new heights of ridiculousness in 2017 when at 11:36 pm they announced, “When we return, the biggest awards of the night.”  Best Director was presented at 11:41 pm, Best Actor at 11:46 pm, Best Actress at 11:55 pm, and Best Picture at 12:02 pm.  Since then, it’s gotten slightly better.  But still, in 2022, while Supporting Actress and Actor were presented at about 8:20 and 9:15, respectively, we had to wait until 10:55 pm for Best Director, 11:07 pm for Best Actor, 11:23 pm for Best Actress, and 11:31 pm for Best Picture.  The show ended at 11:38pm.

This year was no exception, although for some reason they decided to present the award for Animated Feature Film first (8:16-8:21).  Then they presented Supporting Actor (8:27-8:34) and Supporting Actress (8:34-8:39).  The awards presented between 8:50 and 11:10pm, during the bulk of primetime, when TV viewing is highest, were, Live-Action Short Film (8:54-8:56), Cinematography (9:02-9:07), Makeup and Hairstyling (9:16-9:19), Costume Design (9:26-9:30), International Feature Film (9:41-9:45), Documentary Short Film (9:50-9:52), Animated Short Film (9:52-9:56), Production Design (10:06-10:10), Original Score (10:10-10:14), Visual Effects (10:21-10:25), Original Screenplay (10:38-10:42), Adapted Screenplay (10:42-10:45), Sound (10:51-10:54), and Original Song (10:54-10:57).  After primetime, from 11:05-11:09 they presented the award for Film Editing.

It wasn’t until 11:10pm that they got around to presenting the Big Four awards – Directing (11:10-11:14), then a local commercial break (11:14-11:18), Actor (11:19-11:25), Actress (11:25-11:30), and Best Picture (11:30-11:35).

Making The Oscars More Viewer (and Advertiser) Friendly

I’m not suggesting giving short-shrift to any of the current awards or not showing them live; simply spreading them out differently so they surround what most viewers at home consider the major awards.  But if they spread out the awards by presenting the six acting/directing/picture awards every 30 minutes or so, ratings for the entire broadcast would be significantly higher.  For example, present Supporting Actress at 8:15, Supporting Actor at 8:45, Director at 9:15, Actor at 9:45, Actress at 10:15, and Best Picture at 10:45.  Schedule everything else to fit into these parameters, and boom, the show is finished by 11pm – and even if it still runs long, ratings will not be negatively affected.

There are other ways to make the broadcast more viewer and advertiser friendly.

One solution would be to have a separate hour-long show from 7:30-8:30 pm for these “other” awards (with a different host). Then they can have longer clips of how costume design, makeup, production design, sound mixing, etc., are done, which may actually be interesting to a lot of people.

The main awards show can then be from 8:30-11:30pm.  In the main awards show I would include Best Picture and Director, the four acting awards, as well as Original and Adapted Screenplay and Original Song.

Here are some suggestions on the flow of the main show.

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Best Director at 9:00, Best Actor at 9:30. Best Actress at 10:00, and Best Picture at 10:30.  Precede the award presentation with 2-3 minute clips of each nominee.  This will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  It will also serve as more effective promotion for the nominated movies.

Each half-hour segment of the show, for Best Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture can be sponsored by a different advertiser.  While showing the clips, they could give viewers a chance to vote online and by phone, and then show their choices at the end of the show (or on an after-show) to see how viewers’ votes compared to the actual winners.  Viewers would vote only for the nominated movies – last year’s attempt at Twitter voting for some made-up categories was awkward, and didn’t seem to belong here.

If these suggestions are implemented, the show will flow better, viewer and social-media interest will be elevated, ratings will improve, younger viewers might tune in, and people may be interested in seeing some of the nominated movies they might have missed.  A win, win, win, win, win, win.

Making the Academy Awards More Viewer and Advertiser Friendly (4/22)

As an avid movie fan and reasonably heavy moviegoer (pre-pandemic), I look forward to watching the Academy Awards every year.  And every year I find myself asking the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes” (“the slap” notwithstanding).  And every year I forget the previous year’s telecast and look forward to watching the show all over again. 

But then, I’m a Baby Boomer.  Folks in my generation, as well as Generation X and early Millennials, grew up watching the Academy Awards at a time when you seldom saw or heard much about movie stars outside of what their publicists put out there or what you might see on talk shows.  Movie stars were more glamorous to the public, and it was interesting to see them in real-life settings.  There was no social media, and people generally did not see behind the curtain (and celebrities didn’t communicate with their fan bases on Twitter or Instagram).  There were also no streaming services, and no major competition for the broadcast networks – which typically scheduled repeats opposite the Oscars, which was always the second highest rated show of the year (next to the Super Bowl).  Among advertisers, it was dubbed the “Super Bowl for women.”  It’s no coincidence that over the past 20 years the median age of the broadcast has gotten older by roughly 20 years – they’re not attracting new generations of viewers, and the audience is aging along with the show.

There’s been a lot of discussion over the past few years about whether there needs to be a host for the Academy Awards broadcast, and if so, who would be best suited for the role.  This came to a head in 2019 after the scheduled host. Kevin Hart, was forced to step down when some old controversial tweets were discovered.  They proceeded without a host, and decided to do so again in 2020.  The pandemic restrictions in 2021 made a host irrelevant.  This year, hosts returned, as Wanda Sykes, Amy Schumer, and Regina Hall shared the reins.  There is little doubt that hosts do make the show flow better and provides more natural transition from one segment to the next.  But unless they bring back Johnny Carson or a young Billy Crystal, any host will have little to do with whether the show does better or worse in terms of Nielsen ratings.

Much was made this year about how eight “less significant” (to viewers) awards were given out before the Oscars telecast, and then edited for airing during the show.  This was supposedly to shorten the broadcast, provide more time for other bits, and possibly increase ratings.  To this viewer, it seemed as though all they did was cut some time that showed the winners walking to the stage – a very small impact on the home viewer for all the controversary and justifiably hurt feelings it caused.

That, of course, had little to do with improving either the broadcast or the show’s ratings.  The problem is not who the host is or whether the show runs 3 ½ or 4 hours.  The main problem is with the structure of the show itself.  The Academy Awards broadcast is geared toward Hollywood insiders rather than the television viewer.  There’s no reason it can’t do both.

Some relatively simple changes could revitalize the show, make it more viewer and advertiser friendly, and perhaps stall or reverse the trend that saw its median age rise from 40 to nearly 60 during the past 20 years.

Some have complained about the length of the telecast but that is only an issue because of how the show is presented.  The show is generally about three-and-a-half hours long, and they still don’t give out the biggest awards until after primetime.

In this year’s award ceremony, while the Supporting Actress award was presented at around 8:20 pm, it took another hour before they got to Supporting Actor.  The other awards presented between 8:30 and 10:55, during the bulk of primetime, when television usage is at its peak, were for sound, cinematography, documentary short subject, visual effects, animated feature film, animated short film.  international feature film, live action short film, costume design, original screenplay, adapted screen play, original score, film editing, documentary, and original song.

Now, I’m not suggesting giving short-shrift to any of these important awards or not showing them live; simply spreading them out differently so they surround what most viewers at home consider the major awards.  The Oscar for Director, for example, was presented at 10:55 pm (EST).  The award for Best Actor was at around 11:10 pm, Best Actress was at about 11:25 pm, and Best Picture wasn’t until 11:30 pm.  Anyone who pays attention knows that if they tune in after 11pm, they can still catch the three or four biggest awards.

What a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show is not even measured by Nielsen.  The ratings company only measures national telecasts through the last national commercials (the post-primetime portion of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials).

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   Thirty years ago, there were basically only three broadcast networks, much fewer cable networks, no streaming options, no social media, and very little original programming opposite the Academy Awards.  But in today’s media world, with so many other outlets competing for viewers’ time, it is counter-productive to wait until after primetime to present the most important awards.      

In addition, particularly with big live events, social media often keeps viewers tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the like, would have seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

I suggest that if they spread out the awards by giving out the six acting/directing/picture awards every 30 minutes or so, ratings for the entire broadcast would be significantly higher.  For example, present Supporting Actress at 8:15, Supporting Actor at 8:45, Director at 9:15, Actor at 9:45, Actress at 10:15, and Best Picture at 10:45.  Schedule everything else to fit into these parameters, and boom, the show is finished by 11pm – and even if it still runs long, ratings will not be negatively affected.

There are other ways to make the broadcast more viewer and advertiser friendly.

One solution would be to have a separate hour-long show from 7-8:30pm for these “other” awards (with a different host). Then they can have longer clips of how costume design, makeup, production design, sound mixing, etc., are done, which may actually be interesting to a lot of people.

The main awards show can then be from 8:30-11:30pm.  In the main awards show I would include Best Picture and Director, the four acting awards, as well as Original and Adapted Screenplay and Original Song.

Here are some suggestions on the flow of the main show.

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Best Director at 9:00, Best Actor at 9:30. Best Actress at 10:00, and Best Picture at 10:30.  Precede the award presentation with 2-3 minute clips of each nominee.  This will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  It will also serve as more effective promotion for the nominated movies.

Each half-hour segment of the show, for Best Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture can be sponsored by a different advertiser.  While showing the clips, they could give viewers a chance to vote online and by phone, and then show their choices at the end of the show (or on an after-show) to see how viewers’ votes compared to the actual winners.  Viewers would vote only for the nominated movies – this year’s attempt at Twitter voting for some made-up categories was awkward, and didn’t seem to belong here.

If these suggestions are implemented, the show will flow better, viewer and social-media interest will be elevated, ratings will improve, younger viewers might tune in, and people may be interested in seeing some of the nominated movies they might have missed.  A win, win, win, win, win, win.

How to Make the Emmys Better

My mother-in-law hasn’t watched the Emmy Awards in five or six years.  The main reason, as she puts it, “none of the shows I watch get nominated anymore.”  Now, I’m sure the networks aren’t particularly concerned about the 75+ crowd, but they do seem intent on driving away generations of people who grew up watching the Emmys without doing much to bring in younger viewers.  I also know a fair number of 45+ viewers that no longer watch the Emmys.

The Emmys continues to award TV series that most people haven’t seen, which only serves to depress ratings.  How many viewers have seen the 2019 major comedy award winners. Fleabag, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, and Barry?  Not many.  In the drama category, Game of Thrones was the lone major award winner with a sizable viewing audience (and was still available in less than half of TV homes).  Despite press accounts that often predict the demise of broadcast television, the highest rated (i.e., most popular) shows on the air are still primetime broadcast network series (The Walking Dead and Yellowstone notwithstanding), few of which get nominated for major awards these days.

The Emmy telecast has alternated among the Big-Four broadcast networks over the years because of the once true notion that it’s a major promotional vehicle for all the broadcast networks. This, of course, is no longer the case.  Of the 100 major comedy and drama nominees in 2020 – best comedy, best drama, best limited series, and the acting categories in each group – nearly half were on HBO and Netflix (each with 24).  A sign that we really are in the era of Peak TV+, 44% of these nominations are for series on streaming services.  The broadcast networks account just 11 nominations combined, 3 of which are for Saturday Night Live – 4 are for NBC’s The Good Place, 2 for ABC’s Black-ish, and 1 each for NBC’s This is Us and Brooklyn Nine Nine.

Among premium cable, HBO’s nominations are split among eight series, although the majority go to just two, Succession and Watchmen, which garnered 7 apiece.  The network’s other nominees are, Insecure (3), Westworld  (2), Big Little Lies (2), Curb Your Enthusiasm (1), Euphoria (1), and I Know This Much is True (1).  Showtime managed just one nomination, for Black Monday.

Netflix’s nominees are split among 10 series, some returning favorites – Ozark (4), The Crown (3), Dead to Me (3), The Kominsky Method (3), GLOW (1), and Stranger Things (1), and some new – Hollywood (4), Unbelievable (2), Unorthodox (2), and Self Made (1).

Among the other streaming services, Amazon Prime Video’s 6 nominations are all for its perennial award winner, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel ; Hulu has 9 nominations divided among four series, The Handmaid’s Tale (4), Little Fires Everywhere (2), Ramy (2) and Normal People (1); Apple TV+ has 4 nominations, all going to The Morning Show, and Disney+ got a nomination for The Mandalorian.

On the ad-supported cable front, FX nabbed eight nominations for three series, Mrs. America (6), Pose (1), and What We Do in the Shadows (1).  Pop TV got 5 for Schitt’s Creek, AMC got 1 for Better Call Saul, and BBCA got 4 for Killing Eve.

There were a few notable snubs (although I hate that word – perhaps overlooked is better). 

• I don’t understand how Apple TV+’s The Morning Show can be nominated for best actor, actress, and supporting actor  and not be nominated for best drama (Reese Witherspoon deserved a nom for supporting actress as well).  Instead, Disney+’s The Mandalorian  scored a surprise nod.  It is essentially a space western about bounty hunters in the outer reaches of the Galaxy (taking place five years after the events in the Return of the Jedi movie).  Decent and entertaining, but hardly Emmy-worthy.  I guess voters wanted to throw Disney a bone for its new streaming service.  The Morning Show deserved this spot.

• If CBS’s wonderful new supernatural drama, Evil, was on Netflix, it might be hailed as the best new show of the year. Only the current bias against broadcast series prevented it from being nominated.  Few deserved a best actress nomination more than Evil’s  Katja Herbers, or best supporting actor more than the deliciously creepy Michael Emerson.  Likewise, ABC’s excellent new drama, Stumptown, and the always great Cobie Smulders deserved some consideration.  Among comedies, CBS’s Young Sheldon was as funny as anything nominated, and The Big Bang Theory, in its final season, deserved some love.

• Saturday Night Live should not be competing with regular original scripted comedies. It grabbed two spots in the supporting actress category and one for supporting actor that should have gone to those who were in actual series.

• I don’t see how Rhea Seehorn was overlooked for her sublime performance in Better Call Saul. Or how the great Titus Welliver never gets considered for Amazon Prime Video’s Bosch, which is only the best procedural drama on television.

• And how is CBS All Access’s The Good Fight not nominated for anything?

In 2019, None of the major acting or outstanding series awards for comedy or drama went to a broadcast network show.  In fact, a broadcast series hasn’t won for best drama since 24 got the honor in 2006.  In 2017, This is Us was the first broadcast drama even nominated in six years (it was also nominated in 2018 and 2019).  There are no broadcast series nominated for best drama in 2020  The last broadcast show to win for best comedy was Modern Family six years ago, in 2014.  In 2018, Black-ish was the only broadcast network comedy nominated, while in 2019 and 2020, NBC’s The Good Place was the only broadcast comedy to make the nomination cut (although Black-ish did get a best actress nomination and both Black-ish and The Good Place got best actor nominations).

TV series that air on different video outlets have different creative limitations based on levels of language, sex, and violence, and whether they must answer to advertisers. Having them all compete with one another is inherently unfair, and works against the more traditional broadcast networks – particularly since streaming series generally have between 8 and 13 episodes per season while the broadcast networks typically have between 17 and 24.  The obvious solution is to divide the awards into three categories – ad-supported, premium cable, and streaming services.

Had this been implemented for 2020, we might see an ad-supported drama category including, Evil, Stumptown, This is Us, Better Call Saul, Killing Eve, and Pose.  The premium cable drama group might have Westworld, Succession, Billions, Watchmen, Big Little Lies, and Vida competing against one another (get rid of limited series – there’s no difference between one season of Watchmen and Succession).  And the streaming drama category could have Ozark, Stranger Things, The Handmaid’s Tale, The Good Fight, Bosch, and The Crown.  We’d get a similarly diverse group of shows in the comedy categories.

There are so many good TV shows on the air these days that it might be a good idea to break it down to sub categories.  Instead of best drama for example, have best procedural drama, best supernatural drama, best action drama, best comedy-drama, best romantic comedy, best workplace comedy, and best family comedy. 

This would also pave the way for ending category gender divisions, so performers such as Billions star, Asia Kate Dillon, the first gender-nonbinary performer to play a nonbinary character on a major television series, won’t have to choose between “male” or “female,” neither of which identifies them.  With more nonbinary roles being cast, now is the time to do this.  With the additional sub categories, not having enough nomination spots available would no longer be a concern in ending gender distinctions (you could still have five or six nominees per category).

This way, more television series that people have actually seen would be up for major awards without negatively impacting the high-quality shows that are only available to subscribers in half the country. There’s little doubt that ratings would improve as well. Otherwise, let Netflix or HBO have the Emmys. In its current form it has become a vehicle to promote the broadcast networks’ competitors, so why not let one of them air it.  Given that the broadcast networks recently extended their rights to alternate the award show, however, now would be a good time to implement the above suggested changes.

If changes are not implemented to ensure that some of the most popular series are included, perhaps the broadcast networks should go back to the future and institute their own version of the long defunct CableACE Awards.  These were given by the National Cable Television Association to recognize excellence in American cable television between 1978 and 1997 – when the Emmys refused to recognize cable shows, and were the exclusive domain of broadcast network series (ACE stood for Award for Cable Excellence).  In the final year of the CableACE Awards, HBO’s OZ won for best drama and The Larry Sanders Show won for best comedy.

How to Make the Emmys More Viewer Friendly

Last year’s Emmy Awards broadcast was the least watchable I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been watching them forever). It seemed sparse, hollow, and low-budget.  Most of the skits were not funny in the slightest. They seemed intent on driving away older viewers (my mother-in-law couldn’t take watching it after about 30 minutes), without having any idea how to appeal to a younger crowd.  The structure of the show was awkward and disconnected – announcing the nominees, then bringing out celebrity presenters to banter, and then announcing the winners.  By the time they got to presenting each award, I forgot who was nominated.

 

Aside from the unfortunate structure of the show, the Emmys continues to award TV series that most people haven’t seen, which only serves to depress ratings.  How many viewers have actually watched The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (best actress, supporting actress in a comedy), Barry (best actor, supporting actor in a comedy), The Americans (best actor in a drama), The Crown (best actress in a drama), Westworld (best supporting actress in a drama) or Godless (best supporting actor and actress in a limited series)?  Not many.  Game of Thrones (outstanding drama series, best actor) was the lone major award winner with a sizable audience.

 

The Emmys have alternated broadcast networks over the years because of the once true notion that the telecast is a major promotional vehicle for all the broadcast networks. This, of course, is no longer the case.  Of the 67 major comedy and drama nominees – best comedy, best drama, and the actor/actress and supporting actor/actress categories – HBO and Netflix led the way with a combined 29 nominations (43%), 16 and 13, respectively, while the five broadcast networks accounted for a total of just 15 (22%), five of which were for Saturday Night Live.

 

None of the major acting or outstanding series awards for comedy or drama went to a broadcast network show.  In fact, a broadcast series hasn’t won best drama since 24 in 2006.  In 2017, This is Us was the first broadcast drama even nominated in six years (it was also nominated in 2018).  In 2018, Black-ish was the only broadcast network comedy nominated.  This year, there may be none (unless they decide to honor the final season of Big Bang Theory).

 

TV series that air on different venues have different creative limitations based on levels of language, sex, and violence, and whether they must answer to advertisers. Having them all compete with one another is inherently unfair, and works against the more traditional broadcast networks. The obvious solution is to divide the awards into three categories – ad-supported, premium cable, and streaming services.

 

For the ad-supported drama category, we might see This is Us, Madam Secretary, Better Call Saul, Killing Eve, Yellowstone, and Pose competing with one another. For premium cable we might see competition among Game of Thrones, Westworld, Homeland, Big Little Lies, American Gods, Billions, and Vida. And for streaming dramas we might get The Handmaid’s Tale, competing with Ozark, Bosch, Bodyguard, The Good Fight, Stranger Things, and The Crown. We’d get a similarly diverse group of shows in the comedy categories.

 

We also might get to see some stellar acting performances such as Titus Welliver (Bosch), Krysten Ritter (Jessica Jones), Alice Braga (Queen of the South), Billy Bob Thornton (Goliath), and Giovanni Ribisi (Sneaky Pete) – finally get some well-deserved Emmy recognition.

 

This way, more television series that people have actually seen would be up for major awards without negatively impacting the high-quality shows that are only available to half the country or less. There’s little doubt that ratings would improve as well. Otherwise, let Netflix or HBO have the Emmys. In its current form it has become a vehicle to promote the broadcast networks’ competitors, so why not let one of them air it.  Given that the broadcast networks have just extended their rights to alternate the award show, however, now would be a good time to implement these changes.

How to Fix the Academy Awards Broadcast (Hint: the host doesn't matter)

There’s been a lot of discussion about who might be the host of this year’s Academy Awards broadcast after Kevin Hart was forced to step down when some old controversial tweets were discovered (although he is still apparently a possibility).  While interesting, and perhaps newsworthy, whoever the host turns out to be will have little to do with whether the show is successful either from an aesthetic or ratings standpoint (unless they bring back Bob Hope or Johnny Carson).

The problem is with the structure of the show itself – not who presents the opening sequence and introduces subsequent sections of the telecast.

I look forward to watching the Academy Awards every year, and every year I ask myself the same question: “Is it always this boring?”  I invariably find myself answering, “yes.”  And every year I forget the previous year’s telecast and look forward to the show all over again.

Some relatively simple changes, however, could revitalize the show, make it more viewer and advertiser friendly, and perhaps stall or reverse the trend that saw its median age rise from 45 to over 55 during the past 15 years.

Here are some suggestions:

Part of the problem is that the Academy Awards broadcast is geared more toward Hollywood insiders than the television viewer.  In and of itself, this is not a bad thing, but it need not be the only thing.

The telecast is boring.  Some have complained about the length of the telecast but that is only an issue because of how the show is presented.  During last year’s entire three-and-a-half-hour broadcast, there was only one (moderately) funny scripted entertainment segment. 

While Best Supporting Actor was the first award presented, over the next two-and-a-half hours, during the heart of primetime, when TV viewing is at its peak, they presented makeup and hairstyling, costume design, documentary feature, sound editing, sound mixing, production design, foreign language film, best supporting actress, animated short film, animated feature, visual effects, film editing, documentary short subject, live action short film, adapted screenplay, original screenplay, cinematography, original score, and original song.  I was bored just writing this list.

The big four awards (Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture) aren’t presented until after primetime.  While these awards were actually presented earlier than the previous year, we got Best Director at about 11:10pm, Best Actor at 11:20pm, Best Actress at 11:30pm, and Best Picture at 11:40pm. 

Because they air so late, they tend to rush through the most important awards so the show can end by midnight.  And what a lot of people don’t realize, is that what should be the highest rated portion of the show is not even measured by Nielsen, since it only measures national telecasts through the last national commercials (the final 20 minutes or so of the broadcast typically contains only local commercials).

There was a time when it was logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.   Thirty years ago, there were basically only three broadcast networks, much fewer cable networks, no streaming options, no social media, and very little original programming opposite the Academy Awards.  But in today’s media world, it is counter-productive to wait until after primetime to present the most important awards.  There are a lot of other viewing sources out there.  People know they can tune in after primetime and still catch the major awards. 

 

In addition, particularly with big live events, social media often keeps viewers tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the like, would have seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

The biggest box-office successes (i.e., the ones most viewers have seen) often are not nominated.  My wife and I are relatively heavy moviegoers, and we saw just three of the seven Best Picture nominees from last year, and only two of the five pictures that had Best Actor, Actress, and Director nominees.

The Academy tried to address this by creating a completely new category for “popular” movies, but quickly rescinded this idea after a backlash – it seemed too much like they were trying to distinguish between popular box-office successes and Oscar-worthy productions, thereby creating two different classes of movies..

A much better solution would be to simply give the three highest grossing movies of the year automatic entries into the Best Picture category, along with five that the Academy nominates.

Here’s how to make the show more viewer and advertiser friendly.

While the bulk of the awards ordinarily presented between 9 and 11pm are no doubt important to the industry at large and friends and family of the winners, they are not the main draws for the average TV viewer.

One solution would be to have a separate hour-long show from 8-9pm for these “other” awards (with a different host). Then they can have longer clips of how costume design, makeup, production design, sound mixing, etc., are done, which may actually be interesting to a lot of people.

The main awards show can then be from 9-11:30pm.  In the main awards show I would include Best Picture and Director, all the acting and screenplay awards, as well the Original Score and Song.

Here are some suggestions on the flow of the main show.

After the opening sequence, present Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress.

Present one of the four major awards every 30 minutes – Best Director at 9:45, Best Actor at 10:15. Best Actress at 10:45, and Best Picture at 11:15.  For Best Actor, Actress, and Picture, precede the award presentation with 2-3 minute clips of each nominee.  This will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  It will also serve as more effective promotion for the nominated movies.  I would also consider making a deal with Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Hulu to make all the Best Picture nominees available for streaming during the week leading up to the Oscar broadcast.

Each segment of the show, for Best Director, Actor, Actress, and Picture can be sponsored by a different advertiser.  While showing the clips, they could give viewers a chance to vote online and by phone, and then show their choices at the end of the show (or on an after-show) to see how viewers’ votes compared to the actual winners.

If these suggestions are implemented, the show will flow better, viewer and social-media interest will be elevated, ratings will improve, younger viewers might tune in, and people may be interested in seeing some of the nominated movies they might have missed.

How to Fix the Academy Awards Broadcast

As I was watching this year’s Academy Awards broadcast, I had to ask myself, is it this excruciatingly boring every year?  Then I remembered – I asked myself the same question last year.  

 Many reviews have already been written focusing on the length of the show (3 hours, 38 minutes), the weak material, and the lack of diversity among the nominees (and the theater audience), the acceptance speeches (some stirring, some rambling), the songs (some stirring, some rambling), and the presenters (some stirring, some rambling).

 So rather than focus on those things, I want to discuss the actual structure of the show, which seems designed to minimize ratings and lose a whole generation of viewers.  I know it might be strange to say that about a program that is traditionally the highest rated non-sports event on television, but that may not be always the case if some relatively simple changes are not made.

 
Part of the problem is that the Academy Awards are geared for Hollywood insiders, not the television viewing public.  The first award presented was Best Supporting Actor.  After that, not counting the intermittent songs, clips, and routines, the following awards were presented over the next two hours or so – the period when primetime viewing is ordinarily at its peak:  Costume Design, Makeup and Hairstyling, Foreign Language Film, Live Action Short, Documentary Short Subject, Sound Mixing, and Sound Editing.  Then we finally got Best Supporting Actress, followed by Visual Effects, Animated Short Film, Animated Feature Film, Production Design, Cinematography, Film Editing, Documentary Feature, Original Song, and Original Score. 

 I got bored just writing this list.

At 11:10pm there was an announcement that “Lady Gaga is up next, and later, the awards for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Picture.” Later! 

 The rehearsals must have revealed that Lady Gaga’s Sound of Music tribute was spectacular. Why keep it near the end of the telecast?  It could have been moved up front and gotten people pumped from the get go.

 The show started at 8:30pm EST, and the traditional primetime daypart was now over, and the major awards had not yet been announced.

 The last 20-30 minutes of the telecast, when the major awards are presented, are typically not even rated by Nielsen.  This is because Nielsen only provides national ratings up to the last national commercial, and the last 20 minutes or so contain only local commercials. 

 It never made sense to me to hold back the major awards for the end of the show – particularly since that is always post-11pm on a school night.  My 15-year-old son got bored and left after about 20 minutes, so this is just one way they are driving away the next generation of viewers.  It’s interesting to note that in the past 10 years the median age of the broadcast rose from 47 to 54.

 There was a time (pre-1990s), when it probably seemed logical to hold back the major awards as a way to keep viewers tuned in.  But in today’s media world, with countless other award shows, and pundits talking about the Oscars for weeks on end, there is less doubt than ever about who will likely win each award.  There are also so many viewing choices out there, that many people probably don’t even tune in until after primetime because they know they won’t miss the big four awards. In addition, social media often keeps people tuned in.  Had the major awards been spread out over the entire telecast, Twitter, Facebook, and the like would have probably seen significantly more Oscar-related activity, and kept more people tuned in and discussing the show.

 Now, I’m not saying they should give the non-major awards short shrift, but the pace of the show and the ratings would improve dramatically if they simply spaced out the major awards throughout the show, and gave enough time to celebrate each.

 Here’s how I would do it:

 After the opening, which even this year was pretty good, present Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress.

 Then present a major award every 45 minutes.  For Best Actor, Actress, and Picture, precede the award presentation with three-minute clips of each nominee – this will provide a better picture of each performance and greater anticipation for each award.  While showing the clips, they could even give viewers a chance to vote online or by phone, and then show their choices online at the end of the show to see how they compare to the actual winners.    Each clip series – Best Actor, Actress, and Picture - can be sponsored by a different advertiser.

 At 9pm present Best Director.  At 9:45 present Best Actor. At 10:30 present Best Actress. At 11:15 present Best Picture.

 The show will flow better, it won’t be nearly as boring, and ratings will improve.