How the Emmys warned about the nightmare of low audiences at the awards

(CNN) – The low viewership ratings of last year’s Emmys turned out to be the red flag of the general fall of the audience of the award ceremonies; the alarm of an unwelcome wake-up call.

However, if the hope is everlasting that these shows can at least partially recover, the challenges associated with the pandemic and the shift to online broadcasting only exacerbate the problems already plaguing the top TV accolade and TV showcasters. prizes in general.

The 73rd Night Emmys will air this Sunday, after a record 6.1 million viewers last year, despite what most agreed was an impressively ingenious virtual ceremony. While that number sparked modest nervousness, in hindsight it served as a warning for the plummeting of more than 50 percent of the Golden Globes, Grammys and Oscars viewership that followed.

The pandemic and virtuality surely had something to do with it. The sad state of the world not only made Hollywood patting on the back seem even more inconsequential, it deprived events of red carpet glamor and debates about “Who wore it better?” They elevate these shows beyond who wins or doesn’t.

However, even before the coronavirus, audience ratings for award shows have declined. In part, this has to do with the challenges of an industry in transition, evolving from the broad appeal of the early days of television to the silo viewing of a divided audience paying for what they want to watch.

The Emmys, in particular, have had to deal with the abundance of content that has fragmented the audience to the point that most people haven’t heard of many of the nominees, let alone watched them avidly.

Include programs like “WandaVision” and “The Mandalorian” of Disney + (each of them awarded multiple Emmys in the ceremonies of the Creative arts) could broaden the appeal, especially among sci-fi / genre fans who have rarely garnered much recognition at award ceremonies.

At the same time, the push towards streaming has only accelerated the fragmentation of television, as subscribers to certain streaming services do not even share the same options as those who might pay for others. As if that weren’t enough, we don’t know how many people watch series nominated like “Ted Lasso” or “The Boys“on Apple TV + and Amazon, respectively, as those media do not share viewing data.

Everyone, of course, has an explanation for why awards’ ratings have dropped, starting with the availability of clips that reduce the need to tune in live. Conservatives blame Hollywood politics and overtly liberal stars, a factor, to be sure, but one that cannot by itself explain the pace of losses, especially as such dynamics are not new.

Of course, the awards galas serve a purpose that goes beyond ratings as they reflect the career achievements of those in Hollywood who seek to receive recognition from their industry peers. But they are also commercial initiatives for the networks that broadcast them and the organizations that support them, which derive most of their income from television fees.

The Emmys will go on, as will the Oscars and Grammys. Thanks to the hunger for traffic on the web, they will be covered and scrutinized by the media, overlooking how much those lights have dimmed.

The truth, at this point, is that you may not be able to fix a problem with so many parties involved. The only thing networks can do is try to make these presentations as attractive as possible, and hope that is enough to retain the audience.