Posted on 02/14/2005 6:10:59 PM PST by Pikamax
Audience stays away from star-studded Grammys Associated Press
NEW YORK — From J.Lo to James Brown, Usher to U2, the Grammys had it all this year -- except a lot of interested viewers.
An estimated 18.8 million people watched Ray Charles' swan song clean up with eight awards Sunday night, a startling 28 per cent drop from the 2004 Grammys. After two years on an upswing, Grammy ratings sunk to their lowest level since 1995, according to Nielsen Media Research.
It may be an ominous sign for the granddaddy of awards shows, the Academy Awards, Feb. 27 on ABC.
People at CBS and elsewhere in the industry were somewhat perplexed by the numbers on Monday, given that the show was jam-packed with performances and star power.
"This was the show to beat in terms of how it was produced," said Shari Anne Brill, a television analyst for Carat USA. "It was just great. It wasn't about someone handing out awards. It was about performances. Viewers who didn't tune in missed a treat."
The Grammys, which has a long history of being derided as the Grannies within the music industry, even drew an endorsement from one of pop's potentates. "I think this is the best Grammys we've ever seen," U2 lead singer Bono said as the group accepted an award toward the show's end.
It was a continuation of a recent Grammy trend of minimizing awards presentations and maximizing live performances.
While there were misfires, such as the cacophonous opening number where several acts briefly played different songs all at once, there were plenty of thrills. Alicia Keys' smouldering If I Ain't Got You, Kanye West's resurrection, the duet between Usher and Brown and songs by Green Day and U2 all come to mind.
CBS spokesman Chris Ender noted last year's show benefited from Janet Jackson's Super Bowl fallout. Controversy sells.
Brill agreed: "Don't you think if Michael Jackson did a duet with someone with his trial going on, more viewers would have come?"
ABC is also much more competitive. Desperate Housewives had more viewers than the Grammys in the same time slot on Sunday, Nielsen said. But there was little evidence that many people switched over to the Grammys when Desperate Housewives was done.
Charles' big win could have been a hindrance, too. While a music legend, his best work may have been a mystery to many young viewers. Since he died last June, viewers were denied heartwarming scenes of him basking in the glory.
It continues a trend of less-than-stellar ratings for awards shows.
The Emmys last fall had its smallest audience ever. The Golden Globes last month had its fewest viewers since returning to broadcast television in 1996, down a whopping 10 million people from 2004. The 12.9 million people who watched the American Music Awards in November was a distant echo of the 48 million who tuned in two decades ago.
"I'm wondering if there are so many awards shows that they have lost some of their specialness," Brill said.
The Academy Awards, frequently the year's second-highest-rated entertainment event after the Super Bowl, usually considers itself immune from such outside factors. But big-box office films tend to juice the ratings and the Oscars haven't approached the 55 million who watched when Titanic won in 1998. This year has no dominant film.
Host Chris Rock may draw in the curious, particularly with his unique brand of promotion. The Internet's Drudge Report on Monday was circulating excerpts from a recent Entertainment Weekly interview where Rock said, "What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one!"
ABC has been more aggressive promoting an event that usually sells itself.
Well said!
The movies and recording stars used to be mysterious and "special". Now they're just a bunch of idiots mouthing off all the time. Who wants to watch them?
Gonna make sure I have to knit a sweater or tune my car on Academy Award night......hehehe...
They do not have a clue. I and thousands of others have turned off our TV's permanently except as a monitor for video games or an occasional good movie or football game. That is IT. It is never on.
Not only is it trash, but I make a conscious decision NOT to watch it anyway so as not to support Hollywierd and the big businesses who prostitute themseves as advertisers at the alter of greed.
Well, the Oscars could have nominated "The Passion of The Christ", but no....
That would have been the only thing that would have caused me tune in and ONLY if it won as it deserved.
The problem with the award shows is that they aren't heros. We have a number of insiders congratulating insiders. The heros are in Iraq, Afganistan, across our globe fighting to defend this country. Heros are those that serve honorably here at home with little glory whether they be cops, fire fighters, parents raising their children with strong values keeping the country moving with unremarkable jobs that attract little thanks.
When you toss in celebrities that disrespect the "little people", their country, their values and their chosen representatives why bother watching? The escapist glamour is lost.
We didn't have to watch. We had FReeper reports.
I would suggest a name change if they want to increase viewership. Instead of the "Grammy Awards" they change the name of the show "The Bro's and Ho's Awards".
I didn't watch but while I was changing stations, I saw some guy singing in Spanish.
It was very bizarre.
My thought at that moment was that I couldn't believe anyone in Middle America would feel comfortable watching this.
It was just too foreign and out of place.
I didn't stay tuned for any rappers. Maybe they were the highlight. I'll never know.
Amen to that, well said! Bro's and Ho's awards,,,,lmao!
ps. J.Lo sucked.
That is simply the best and most complete definition I have ever read.
Why would someone waste precious time to watch overpaid, over-hyped, over-dressed, under-dressed, cross-dressed, untalented, arrogant, coked-up Leftists parade themselves in front of the cameras and tell each other how great they are?
Yuck.
"It may be an ominous sign for the granddaddy of awards shows, the Academy Awards..."
Yes, and the movies nominated are no big shakes either. I've got no interest in it this year.
The simple fact that they've given the the impeached ex-President two Grammies for best spoken-word tellls me all I need to know about the whole stinkin' mess.
I watched a few minutes before getting nauseous and turning to the Westerns Channel for some relief.
Poor CBS. They seem to believe in the formula: "Controversy sells."
But last night, they offered none.
And thus, they lost viewers.
Looks like they themselves are at fault, but since this is CBS, which is the same company that keeps Dan Rather around, they won't blame themselves for their own failures.
Let's say what is really on viewer's minds...
TS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.