I've noticed certain patterns
about the awards shows I watch in regard to TV. Let me share them.
For years the Golden Globes had
no hosts, then it had Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler co-host, then it
had a group of late night people hosts. It has controversy over its voting
members; it had to complete rebrand three years ago. It changed networks from
NBC to CBS two years ago.
In all that period there were
three constants. The first is subjective but in my opinion the awards they gave
for TV were top-notch and frequently were superior to the Emmys. The second was
that critics almost always gave the ceremonies pans most of the time and damned
with faint praise the rest. The third was the ratings either went down or were
essentially the same.
Around 2010 the Broadcast Critics
Association started giving awards for TV. At first it had a separate ceremony
in the summer, then it merged with film and now gives all of them at an end of
year ceremony. It has aired on A & E, the CW and now airs on E! Again there
are two constants: the nominations and awards are arguably the best in the
industry and the ratings have essentially all stayed the same - which is next
to non-existent. As for reviews of the ceremony this is an awards show that is
so relatively small that I've rarely seen reviews of the ceremony at all.
Finally there are the SAG-AFTRA
awards. For the first quarter of a century it aired on TNT. In 2022, it moved
to YouTube, it's now airing on Netflix. It had no host for nearly fifteen
years, it's had a few for the last three. It's format has barely changed at all
in thirty years. The two constants: the reviews of the ceremony have never been
that good and by and large the ratings having changed that much. The latter is
more subjective then the other two awards shows as the metric for how many
people watch a live event on streaming is different then the ones on cable. But
given how inside baseball it is, I'm skeptical that thirty million people are
tuning into Netflix on a Sunday night in March to see if Timothee Chalamet is
going to win for Best Male Actor because nobody ever tuned in when it was on
TNT to see if Leonardo DiCaprio was.
All of these were constants in
Hollywood before streaming became the center of every aspect of our lives as
well as the polarization of Hollywood's place in the universe. And that's
because of the common thread between all of these groups: you can't force
people to watch an awards show. As I've written before and will write
again, awards show are for the nominees and the industry infinitely more than
they are the viewer at home. Compared to the TV shows and films that they are
commemorating they're not as entertaining or spontaneous as live events and
they're not really supposed to be.
There's also the issue that I
think would be the constant even if we weren't living in an era of cable and
streaming. Unless you have a vested interest in the nominated shows or films as
well as the actors, there really isn't a good reason to watch them. I've been
doing it for more than a quarter of a century because I have both a
professional and personal interest, which is different then both those who
review the ceremony. And I completely get why, with so many choices before you
on a night for entertainment, you might not want to spend three hours watching
a bunch of celebrities giving speeches and hearing remarks about how important
the work in Hollywood is. I care about
who wins or loses because I've seen many of the shows and admire much of the
talent. I understand that puts me in a niche very few other people have and I
completely get why others would want to do something else. I don't judge them.
On the business side, however,
Hollywood seems either unwilling or unable to accept this basic fact. I
honestly think the main reason viewership for awards show has dropped in the
last decade has less to do with the increasing politics of the industry or even
the kinds of shows the industry recognizes then the simple fact that there are
now dozens, if not hundreds, of things you can be watching at any given day. There
was a period in my lifetime when networks wouldn't run live programming against
the Oscars or any awards show and they don't any more, in large part because
cable isn't either and streaming is always there. So naturally the ratings for awards shows
would drop the exact same way ratings for everything on network and
cable have dropped in the last decade. There are so many options that many
people, young and old, of all races, genders and sexual orientation, are
choosing to watch something else. That is their right.
The main reason ratings for awards
show like the Emmys were always high during the 20th century was
because there were only three channels and nothing else was going on against
them on those Sunday nights. The shows weren't necessarily better (indeed I'd argue the shows nominated today
are on average exponentially better than they were during the 1980s and 1990s)
but they had been seen by more people and there were fewer alternatives. Now
there are many alternatives.
On Monday night I have no doubt
that millions of people will not be watching the Emmys. Indeed I'm
willing to bet Monday Night Football will probably get higher ratings. The only
reason this is significant is because the pattern of watching the Emmys is
changing. The contract of rotating the Emmys between all four major networks is
up and there's debate whether a streaming platform will take over broadcasting
it, much like YouTube will be taking over the Oscars in two years' time.
The argument for shifting to a
streaming service is an attempt to reach a broader audience, which means
younger. This is yet another case of Hollywood missing the forest for the
trees. Several awards shows, including the Astras, have been broadcasting on
YouTube channels for five years and honestly I seriously doubt anybody but me
has been watching them.
The problem is that no matter
where you put an awards show, whether on network, cable or streaming, it's
still an awards show. As I mentioned
the SAG-AFTRA did the same thing five years ago, and I'll be damned if I've
noticed any change in viewership. Does Hollywood really believe that if you
move the Emmys to Netflix or Amazon or any streaming service, the millions of
people who have been watching other things when it was on networks or cable are
going to just go to it because its now on Netflix or Amazon?
Of course not. The people that
you're trying to reach will still end up watching clips of it the day after or
the week after. They're not going to start caring about seeing the Emmys just
because its on a streaming service that they can see on their phones now. Most
of them don't have the attention span to watch shows as long as Ted Lasso anymore.
You really think they'll sit through a three hour awards show because it's on
TikTok?
What it will do is drive away the
older audience that is still watching it on network and cable. We all know that
this is part of the endless drive or television to try and reach 'a younger
audience'. You know, the people who already think institutions like the Emmys
and the Oscars are outdated anyway. Not to state the obvious but everybody gets
old and at this point most of the people who once watched streaming are
essentially starting to get tired of the model and now appreciate the way its
being dropped weekly. You know, like network and cable are doing.
To be fair most seniors don't
watch these shows either because most of the shows aren't on platforms they
watch or can even find. But that's not the Emmys fault either – entirely. (I've
had this debate about how the Emmys has been short-shrift network and cable for
over a decade but this isn't the time for it.) They still have the patience to
watch your ceremonies. That you're cutting off an audience you still have for
one that has never been part of your bailiwick and never will be shows yet
again the short-sightedness of Hollywood.
The other argument for doing this
is that the Emmys must be 'relevant'. But 'relevant has always meant different
things depending who you ask.
To an older viewer 'relevant'
refers to a time of nostalgia when the family all gathered around the set and
where we all watching the same program as a country. The bigotry is not always
overt but considering that so much of television during the 20th
century was built on censorship and putting together a homogenous view of
America where 'everybody knew their place' its clearer than other institutions.
To someone younger its another
one of those hazy terms they just can't define but they know that it isn't something
that it's older than them. This has always been the case even before the
internet existed and its just as true today.
To women, people of color, members
of the LGBTQ+ and other people of that level in the industry what is 'relevant'
is how many of the nominated shows, performers and creatives are women, people
of color, etc. They see this as a societal issue rather than simply being an
industry matter. Systemic racism won't be fixed by Salli Richardson-Whitfield winning
a Best Director Emmy this year any more than it would effect the patriarchy. Thinking
does not make it so despite what the people in the industry believe.
And of course we've discussed
what the critics need to believe in order for it to be relevant, but in this
case they're more clueless than usual.
Personally much as I respect and
admire the work the Emmys have done in the 21st century I can assure
the vast majority of Americans don't take it seriously or think about it much.
At best they might focus on it the night it airs but that's it. I'd say at most
the Emmys is like every other TV awards show: it's relevant to the industry in
general and the nominees most specifically. It's never been one of those
subjects that people who are invested in heavily about focus on more than the
weeks leading up to it and then only a few days afterwards.
I've had my issues about shows
that have been nominated and won over the years and I do hold some grudges. But
there comes a point when it's not relevant to focus on it. Am I still upset that
Better Call Saul never won a single Emmys while shows such as Succession,
Ozark and Game of Thrones which I truly found lacking in comparison
received so many? Yes. But I'm not going to spend the rest of my life holding a
grudge. There's always next year, another show and in many cases the nominees
will get another chance, even if it doesn't work out. But just because I think
they have given the awards to the wrong shows and actors doesn't make them
irrelevant. It makes it a subject for lively debate. The awards matter at most
to the nominees and the shows. That's it. Putting the Emmys on a streaming
service isn't going to change that nor is going to make any more people watch
then it did whenever another awards show changes networks or moves to
streaming. It's a niche audience and that's not going to change no matter what
Hollywood does.
For what it's worth I do
understand the position the industry is in right now and I get the lack of
stability. But I also know that with everything else today Hollywood is
forgetting the simple moral that if you try to please everybody you're not
going to please anybody. And you're a business so you have to try and get as
many people to come to the same place and offend the fewest number of people.
Here's my nickel's worth of
advice: keep the rotation in play and show the Emmys on a streaming service
every year. Will it improve the ratings? No but neither will moving it
permanently to a streaming service. You're still going to be faced with the problem
that people have free will and that awards shows are long and arduous. That's
always going to be a feature and not a bug.
Will the industry grouse about
being relevant? That is the same argument Hollywood always makes. To be clear
relevance, like everything else, is on a sliding scale and the people who make
the argument that something like the Emmys are irrelevant today are the same
people who were making those arguments thirty years ago: young people and
critics. That they're doing it on social media and the internet only means the
methods have changed, not the tenor of their complaints or their logic.
And for the love of God stop
holding awards shows to the same metrics as TV and movies when it comes to
critical and rating responses. I don't know now many times I have to keep
saying this, so I'll keep saying until somebody who actually is in the industry
gets it. The awards shows are for the nominees and the industry first and
foremost, the viewer and the critic a distant second at best. The former rarely
gets this fact, the latter never does. If they haven't realized it after nearly
80 years of them being broadcast, they're not going to get it if you move it to
a streaming service. All you're going to accomplish is make it harder for those
who do care to find it and they will take it harshly. That will make
your industry irrelevant far more then trying to reach the people who consider
it a given.
That's all I have to say. I'll
see you Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment