Maybe going hostless wasn't the best idea: The 2019 Emmys score record low ratings
Aux Features Television
Sunday night’s Primetime Emmys ceremony featured a number of moments that were both historic (think Billy Porter becoming the first openly gay winner of an Outstanding Lead Actor award) and shocking (like Fleabag snagging the bulk of the comedy awards, disrupting Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ long-running streak). It was also the first year that the Emmys chose not to appoint a host, leading to rushed, kind of mechanical transitions and odd methods of burning time. (Was a memorial for only a handful of wrapped shows terribly necessary?) The move to ditch a host might not have played to the network’s favor: Per Variety, this year’s Emmy Awards saw a 33% decline in ratings—roughly 6.9 million viewers—which is a record low for the program. Maybe not having a central figure to drum up interest and set the overall tone might have been detrimental in the long run, even if it did recently work for the Oscars.
This year’s ceremony, which aired on Fox, did also have the disadvantage of going up against Sunday Night Football. It’s an obstacle that last year’s Monday night ceremony didn’t have to contend with (even though last year’s Emmys were the worst rated, up until about 24 hours ago). The lack of enthusiasm could also have to do with awards show fatigue, in general. Watching a room full of privileged celebrities congratulate themselves for three hours doesn’t exactly ring like a fun time. But it is great to see genuinely bright talents like Jharrel Jerome of When They See Us and Phoebe Waller-Bridge get the recognition they deserve. Maybe now that some of the Emmy darlings have ended, fresh properties can continue to shake up the Academy in time for next year’s show. And for heaven’s sake, find a damn host.
60 Comments
I mean, it was a terrible show.
I was interested in the show, but Tom Lennon’s announcer banter made it really hard to get through the whole thing. Wouldn’t be surprised if it drove at least some viewers away.
Although I did like the moment when he messed up some lame joke about the Emmy’s being woke, and just admitted, “This is why people don’t do this, because it sucks.”
I was the opposite, as I really wanted to hear Lennon’s banter, but the sound was so poorly mixed that it was almost inaudible on our TV. I eventually turned off the whole thing halfway through.
I’m usually a fan of his, but whoever was writing his material for this… Big miss.
I’m usually a fan of his, but whoever was writing his material for this… Big miss.
If he’s not writing for himself, it’s not good. I tried watching The Odd Couple and the dialogue was horrible.
I could not stand him. I enjoy hearing trivia and info about the winner as they come to the stage which is normally what we hear. The garbage he was spewing was unfunny and made me want to mute.
Some of it also seemed a bit mean-spirited. I liked some of his quips, but pointing out that you’re not going to know a bunch of the people walking up to the stage kind of undercuts what is a pretty big moment for those people who worked very, very hard. Not saying everything has to be fawning — I thought his Felicity Huffman joke was a good one — but “I don’t know who this person is or why I should care that they’re going on stage” just felt a little mean.
In my 43 years on this earth, not only have I never watched an Emmy broadcast, but I don’t think I even heard a single person ever claim to have watched the program. Does anyone outside of the entertainment industry and press watch it, much less give a flying flip?
Yes.
Fewer people than ever before, Friend!
There’s a whole world of people out there who live lives that are completely different than yours. Who could have guessed??
Not even. One of my best friends works for Amazon Studios (basically pitching books/articles he thinks they should acquire the rights to and make into a movie/show) and even he doesn’t bother watching these things.
I don’t think I even know anyone who has ever watched an Emmy broadcast. I’ve certainly never discussed what shows won Emmys in real life, only online.
Not the Emmy’s but my family used to watch the Oscars quite a bit when I was a kid
Makes sense, I mean the Emmy’s gave Big Bang Theory 10 awards. No wonder people have finally understood it’s not worth watching.
* fake laughter *
I didn’t watch, because I knew I could just wait for the next day to see which of the winners I’m happy about (Jodie Comer & Phoebe Waller-Bridge) without any of the speeches….and sure enough, that worked pretty well.
This generally my approach to televised political debates as well, just give me the highlights the next day. Although I do think that Michelle Williams’ acceptance speech for her well deserved award was worth hearing.
There were some very deserving winners but the show felt both rushed and tedious. The most amusing part was probably Gotham getting memorialized. I actually watched Gotham and I realize it’s “because Fox” but of all shows to commemorate?
I know I’m probably in the minority and maybe it’s because I was pretty stoned but I thought Tom Lennon was hilarious. Most awards shows are only good to have on while playing a game on my phone/Switch, putting laundry away or doing other chores. I don’t really care all that much but is nice when artists/actors that I actually like win awards. I was very happy for Billy Porter to win.
I didn’t watch and I’ve heard the complaints about him, but Tom Lennon is goddam hilarious.
I think they’re making a show about the search for an uncontroversial host starring Walter Goggins called the Unicorn.
Fun fact: his name is Walton.I was surprised too.
D’oh!
They could have hired him as a host, or Chloe Bennet maybe.
This may be an affect of most of the nominated shows being hidden behind a rapidly expanding number of paywalls while the ‘big three’ broadcast networks air junk. I was on a Korean TV recap site earlier today. someone was complaining about the quality of K-drama programming this year, but he ended his diatribe with the caveat “but I’ll NEVER go back to US TV.”
I think that’s a big part of it.Basic cable people have never seen, and never will see, most of the nominated shows.Maybe they should move the show to Hulu.
Hell I have streaming services but the commercials for Fleabag just don’t get me interested in it at all. Whereas What We Do in the Shadows didn’t get nominated for anything and GoT of course won so why bother nominating anything else even though it’s pretty widely agreed that the last season was lackluster.
I don’t think I ever saw a commercial for Fleabag, and I also can’t imagine how you would even sell the show in a 30-60 second spot. I would encourage you to give at least one episode a chance, because its very smart and funny and has a consistent and unique voice since the creator/star wrote all 12 episodes herself.
That’s probably part of it. However, I seem to remember (could be wrong) that ratings were trending downward and there was pressure from the entertainment media to nominate shows from streaming services, because “that’s what’s popular and what people are watching nowadays”. Well, they have been, to the point where I’d venture to guess a good chunk of most of America hasn’t watched nor heard of half of the nominees. And the ratings are getting worse.So it seems they are damned either way.
19.3 million people watched the finale of Game of Thrones. The past season of This Is Us averaged 11 million viewers. Chernobyl had a 6 million+ cumulative rating. To say that the shows aren’t being watched or aren’t well known isn’t really true. Netflix and Amazon aren’t hurting for subscribers.What has changed a lot is that when the Emmys or Oscars were on all other TV used to stop in its tracks. The networks wanted you to watch the Emmys or the Oscars. This year, football was still on. Most of the HBO shows excluding Last Week Tonight were on. There was no real reason to stop what you were doing and watch when you can just read through the winners on Twitter.
You’re kinda all over the place here pointing the most popular shows on HBO while also referencing a popular network show. What I was referring to was a fleet of shows that are behind paywalls of streaming services (say Maisel, Glow, Fleabag, etc etc). Just because those streaming services have subscribers doesn’t mean people are watching those shows. How many of Amazon’s subscribers are just in it for the Prime deals and never watch any of their shows? How many Netflix subscribers are just watching older shows and movies while not checking out any original content? And all those subscribers still pale in numbers compared to traditional TV even as its becoming more popular.So I’d say their nominations of shows does have some part in it (not all). If people aren’t watching said shows, there’s nothing for them to root for so they won’t tune into the Emmys. They just say “Why would I watch this award show with a bunch of shows I don’t watch or never heard of?”. It’s a similar thing the Oscars has dealt with where more popular movies never get nominated but more obscure films do.There’s also a good amount of fatigue for how the Emmys has a habit of basically picking a show/actor and giving them the nom/win every year for as long the show is on regardless of whether it was earned that specific season
The notion that these are little seen shows, however, is not accurate as highlighted by the fact that shows behind or not behind a paywall had followings with substantial nominations. Well, they have been, to the point where I’d venture to guess a good chunk of most of America hasn’t watched nor heard of half of the nomineesThat’s simply inaccurate. A good chunk more than watched the Emmys watched several of the nominated shows. This Is Us had 8 acting nominations and is largely seen with no paywall. Game of Thrones has a paywall and was still seen by a substantial audience. Throw in The Good Place, How to Get Away with Murder, The Voice, and a slew of older skewing actors (Michael Douglas, Alan Arkin, Viola Davis, Patricia Clarkson, Hugh Grant) and it’s not as if this was the most niche of any possible awards show.Game of Thrones is hardly Manchester by the Sea in terms of number of people who watched, followed and are aware of it.
Pointing out that some of the shows are popular doesn’t negate what I said. You also keep pointing out network shows, which are available in more households. I’m talking about paywall streaming services. I never said no one has heard of any of the shows therefore no one watches the Emmys. I said that streaming service paywall where less people might watch or are even aware of said shows could play a role in the decline. They’ve diversified their nominations in recent years, including more and more streaming service shows (which is fine, they should be) but that does mean there’s a chance the audience hasn’t seen or heard of them. If you’re less familiar with the field of shows nominated, it stands to reason you’d be less interested in the award show as a whole. You’re implying that because people have heard of This Is Us and like it, they’ll tune in anyway regardless. There’s many reasons for the show’s decline, each playing a part, and I do think this plays a small role.
You’re initial point appeared to be:
If people aren’t watching said shows, there’s nothing for them to root for so they won’t tune into the Emmys.My point is that that argument doesn’t hold much weight when among the most nominated fare were the highest rated shows that aired on both premium cable and network television.The 2004 nominees were also dominated by HBO (circa the Sopranos, Sex in the City, Angels in America) and very low rated network fare (Arrested Development). By comparison it had 13.8 million viewers. The type of shows hasn’t changed drastically. What has changed (going back to my original point that you chose to ignore) is how we watch TV — most prime demo people in the 18 – 35 age range don’t use terrestrial tv like they used to in order to watch awards ceremonies and waiting for highlights on social media. Most reactions are coming from people watching on Twitter while still watching all of the regular programming that was on. Sure, streaming has a larger market share, but smaller, less popular shows that are not available on the broadcast networks have been dominating the show for years. The declining trend has been in effect even with very popular, mainstream shows from the current inclusion of This Is Us to even more popular fare in past years like Modern Family and Big Bang Theory.
You’re not getting the point that I’m making.You keep equating the popularity of a specific show with the Emmys and
because said show as a large audience, that’s enough familiarity for
people to tune into the awards.It doesn’t matter if a specific show in the field is very popular. It’s that the field itself may be unfamiliar to the audience. The audience has rooting interests when there’s more shows they know about and are engaged in. That gives you reason to watch. You can have a very popular show like GoT or This Is Us, but if the audience doesn’t know a portion of the rest of the field, do they still have the incentive to watch?
The introduction of streaming services has changed the way TV is viewed. It’s more diversified, making it more likely that your audience may or may not be familiar or watching certain shows. You mentioned people following the Emmys on Twitter, well how many comments/jokes did you see saying some version of “who watches these shows?” That exists. And it stands to reason that there’s people that say the same thing that didn’t bother to follow along on Twitter much less tune in for the actual show which is why I think its a small part among many in the decline.BTW, I didn’t ignore your point about TV viewing habits as a way to be dimissive. I actually agree with it that its a factor, but I didn’t think it relevant to what I was referencing. I’ve acknowledged every time that there are many factors in the ratings decline. But I’m referencing the streaming service portion, which I’ve pointed out every time a small reason, among many reasons, for the decline. Your responses dismiss that part as not being a factor at all, which I disagree with so that’s why I only focused on that part.
I’d wager downward trending Emmy numbers has at least something to do with the fact that fewer younger generations have broadcast tv. As a few people pointed out, most people seemed to be “watching” on twitter. If it did air on YouTube or Netflix, more people would probably watch.
I think it’s also because of the length of the show. I don’t imagine a whole lot of people want to sit around and watch celebs circle jerk for 3 or so hours.
That’s a problem going back like two decades though, circa 2000 onward HBO shows have always filled up many of the categories. It may be even more split up now with various streaming services, but I would be willing to bet more Americans have Netflix now than had HBO in the early ‘00s.
I remember, being a little kid, and hating anything like the Oscars or the Super Bowl or whatever because it always fucked with the regular schedule. It was very frustrating because all three of my channels would be fucked, since the other two networks wouldn’t even try to complete against the Emmy’s. Basically, when the awards shows were on, that’s all there was to watch.Seems like these award shows struggle when they can’t literally cancel television for their events. Not at all surprising they are losing rating.
The Emmys were on last night? Who knew?
If I’m not mistaken, Billy Porter was the first openly gay black man as a lead actor in a drama.Not the first openly gay Lead Actor period. Jim Parsons won not too long ago and he’s an openly gay man.
I actually walked away thinking Anthony Anderson could have been a fun, congenial host. His opening bit did lean a little on the fact that he’s loud and yells, but at least it was amusing.
Many of the nominees and winners are not on broadcast TV. Maybe not enough people care about these shows because they have to pay extra to watch them. Compared to the Oscars and Grammys the Emmys always came across as the lamest of the three
I find it hard to really care any more. This isn’t the olympics where people are breaking records and people can actually come in first. Art is subjective so picking “the best” in anything artistic is inherently subjective and really.. just bullshit. It all comes across as a(to quote Jerry Seinfeld) “pretentious, high minded, self congratulatory bullshit event”
another award show, another article about how that award show has record low ratings. unless they figure out a worldwide streaming solution these shows are just going to get buried.
I generally dislike comments which are essentially “I don’t like this thing so I’m going to complain at people who do”, but I’m genuinely curious: why do people like these award shows at all? Even the people who say they like watching them mostly complain that the wins don’t match their opinions. It just all seems to be so monumentally irrelevant and navel-gazing. I imagine Drywall Association awards would be equally interesting if they began with models walking in wearing expensive clothes.
When you get a nice English person like Phoebe Waller Bridge or Olivia Colman they seem genuinely overwhelmed by the praise they’re getting. Someone usually gives an impassioned speech about their triumph over racist or sexist industry practices, like Michelle Williams this year. Then there are fun sketches like Bob Newhart standing motionless and reminding Ben Stiller that he’s not dead. There are also funny celebrity roasts (moreso at the Golden Globes) like Thomas Lennon’s subtle jab at Felicity Huffman. This is about a quarter of the show (probably less).Then there’s a lot of filler, like tech people or other unknown behind-the-scenes people winning awards. That can be interesting though, like when that guy proposed to his girlfriend on the Oscars. You don’t need to give your whole attention to an awards show. It’s like an episode of Saturday Night Live.For people who don’t like sports, this is the only live entertainment that’s on broadcast TV. There’s something about live TV that’s just exciting, no matter what it is, even if you know that nothing of consequence will really happen. That being said, I’ve never watched the Super Bowl, but I could ask the same question about it that you’re asking about awards shows. People who watch football mostly complain about their team making bad plays, or not winning.I doubt a drywall awards show would be as fun to watch, unless you were deeply embedded in the drywall industry, and knew who most of the big awards winners were, and they were all professional entertainers or athletes at the top level of their profession.The wins not matching your opinion is a big part of the fun too. It’s fun to debate why someone deserved an award more than someone else. It’s not important, but it doesn’t have to be to make it worthwhile. Sometimes it’s just fun to talk with your friends about things that don’t matter, but you like anyway. Not everything people like should be important. What would the world be like if there weren’t irrelevant or navel-gazing things that only interest some people?
The lack of a host made the show run so smoothly. And it actually finished on time. I’d be fine if this is the way it was now and forevermore.
If anything backfired, I’d propose it was Game of Thrones. The Emmys is always loaded with too many shows people aren’t watching so they figured all the GoT love would be a great ploy to increase ratings, but S8 scorched viewers bad enough that they didn’t tune in because they *didn’t want to see it win.
But yea. Awards shows just have to get used to the ratings decline. Its
happening all over television. Too much divided attention. The numbers
will never be good again. It’s fine.
*This theory is a work in progress
Awards shows are 15 minutes of crap I’m interested in, and 2 hours and 45 minutes of crap I’m not. Once upon a time, we only had a couple other choices if that didn’t sound appealing, now we have hundreds. I can’t imagine ratings are going to improve more than slightly, ever.
Tim Allen’s suit is really nice. Thus ends my hot take.
The Emmys suck and the nominations were horrible. Legion didn’t even get a technical nom this year.
Fuck the Emmys.
I may be slightly out of the demo as a big NFL fan but I absolutely would have tuned in on a Tuesday evening. I can’t think of a worse plan than to put your once a year show up against the ratings juggernaut that is NFL football. This is the highest rated shows of 2018, you’ll notice the NFL has 5 spots in the top 12.
They got it in at three hours, though, which is a damn miracle. I shamelessly love awards shows (Stars! Just like us! Wearing designer gowns and getting free swag they can already afford!) but I think one thing that the Emmys always suffers from is that they tend to reward the same shows over and over. GOT needed to receive 0 awards (except maybe writing for A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, which wasn’t even nominated!) and yet they were splashed all over the ceremony just by how many times they were nominated. Are there people who exist who needed to watch an emotional goodbye to Big Bang Theory? Are awards show viewers (who I presume skew older in general) going to recognize Halsey?All these awards shows play out exactly as if forty random people located in a mall designed them . . . which I suspect is exactly how it happens.
Here’s a better idea: Stop putting awards shows on tv. People aren’t watching because they don’t want to watch. First, there’s a lot more out there to watch than there was 10, 15, 20+ years ago, all of it far more entertaining than watching people get industry awards. Second, people don’t need to watch an annual ceremony to see their favourite celebrity anymore. Between Facebook, Instagram & Twitter, people can stalk/connect with/talk at their celebrity of choice as much as they want. The market is sending you a message. Take the hint. Stop putting them on tv.
Ratings for award shows have been trending south for a long time now, a reflection I think of the disintermediation of broadcast content in general. We’re a fractured, frayed people with rapidly dwindling capacities for paying attention to anything that lasts longer than, what, an hour, 30 minutes, 10 minutes? To watch an awards show bloated by ads and content you don’t care about in order to catch a few moments you do care about simply doesn’t add up – especially if you can catch the highlights on Twitter. It’s all dying a very human-generated death much like the ice caps and glaciers.
All the *British* shows being nominated. Netflix airs Korean TV series too. Should they also be considered American because ‘Netflix’? By that logic all films made by Sony Pictures should be in the foreign films category.
No host was necessary. That wasn’t the problem. Tired, scripted lines by tiresome actors was the problem. And wasting time with things that no one cares about. Just announce the names and get off! The musical number with the adorable Andy Devine was fairly awful no fault of his.
No it’s the nominated contents, the political bs shoved in..
Why is the image associated with this article a picture of Tim Allen?