Between 1988 and 1998, the average per-show annual viewership was 49.612 million. This was a period when The Oscars had just four hosts, Chevy Chase, Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, and David Letterman. During that period, Crystal was The Oscars host six of those ten years and viewership never dipped below 40 million; the best year was 1998, when the blockbuster The Titanic, drove numbers to a high of 57.25 million.
But there was another dynamic driving these good viewing numbers: the long-term loss of the primetime broadcast network viewing audience was continuing a pattern that started in the 1980s with the introduction of cable television.
According to my analysis of Nielsen data, during Oscars "high" period from 1988 to 1998, the primetime broadcast viewing audience dropped from 40 percent in 1988 to just about 30 percent in 1998. In 1988, 8 percent of the total primetime viewership was going to cable; by 1998, that jumped to 25 percent; today it's just over 50 percent.
The amazing success of Titanic that year, plus The Academy's use of a "rotation" of hosts, still including the popular Crystal and Goldberg, but adding Steve Martin in 2001 and 2003, arguably masked and delayed the impact these structural changes in viewership had on Oscars ratings. But in 2003, Steve Martin was the host for an Oscar telecast that was a ratings disaster, pulling in just 33.04 million viewers.
That was the first year The Oscars pulled in less than 40 million viewers since 1987, but it would not be the last year. For six of the past 11 years, Oscars viewership has been below 40 million and average per-show annual viewership between 1999 and 2009 was 44.165 million. The question is why?
Cable, the Internet, And Shifting Hosts
There are three reasons: first, the aforementioned impact of cable television in shifting primetime network broadcast viewers to cable, second, the growth of consumption of Internet-related content, and third, The Academy's break from having one host or "rotating hosts" and toward trying new hosts every year. Only Jon Stewart hosted twice during this period, and while Steve Martin served as a host again in 2010, the second time should be marked with an asterisk because he was paired with Alec Baldwin.
Over this time from 2003 to present, the Internet population, the number of people online, has grown dramatically. That has formed another alternative form of entertainment that arguably competes against primetime network broadcasts for viewers. According to ComScore, about 22 percent of the World is online at any one time, and in December of 2009, that number surpassed 1 billion.
What's Oscar To Do?
Over this time, viewing performance of the Academy Awards has been more and more guided by movie box office success. So much so that two of the the last three best viewing years for the Oscars, 1998 and 2010, were paced by massive blockbusters in Titanic and Avatar; 2005 is an outlier, and can only be explained by the once-and-never-more appearance of comedian Chris Rock as The Oscars host. That year had The Aviator bested by Million Dollar Baby for Best Picture. Neither movie was a blockbuster; Shrek and Spider Man 2 were, taking in $441 million and $373 million respectively, and those films were not Best Picture nominees.
Mr. Rock was not retained as a host because he insulted some of the stars in the audience. This is not to say that Chris Rock is the answer, only to frame the issue: how to form an overall brand for The Oscars that's beyond the host or the movie, and embraces technological change such that The Oscars can be viewed online, not just on television.
Selling The Oscars: An Approach
One thing missing from the "selling of the Oscars" is the presentation of the show as a lifestyle. What draws viewers is just that: who's wearing what, and what parties are being held. It's almost as if the actual telecast is taking a backseat to this interest in style. And there's nothing wrong with that at all; it's just the way it's evolving.
The approach to meet this challenge starts with The Oscars host. While I said that it's important to get beyond the host driving ratings, I did not say that switching hosts annually is the answer; it's not. It communicates a lack of stability that's harmed The Oscars brand for the future, unless this practice is stopped. The Academy must identify one host and sign that person to a five-year contract, thus stabilizing that part of the ratings flux problem. Moveover, given that the most successful Oscars hosts have been comedians, that person should be a comedian.
Additionally, that person should be a known person, not an unknown. The host should be such that the mere mention of the person's name causes buzz. There are two people I think should be at the top of the list: Sarah Silverman and Dave Chappelle, two of the hottest comedians. Silverman's social networking platform, featuring a Twitter following of 1.3 million, can help promote The Oscars during the weeks before the telecast.
Yes, help promote.
The other part of this new approach is a pre-show social broadcasting (not networking) effort, that looks to drive videos, blog posts, and photos in a package that presents the "Style Of The Oscars," which I'll discuss more below. But the fact is The Academy's 20,000-plus Twitter followers are not large enough to drive needed buzz on their own; Silverman's 1.3 million, and that of other Oscars presenters, can help - if they're employed. The Oscars host and presenters must help, and that has to start three-weeks before the telecast. To help that effort, The Academy has to arrange for promoted Oscars-related hashtags over that period of time.
That this was done only on the day after The 2011 Oscars was a shameful waste of money, given that The Oscars were going to be blogged, written, and tweeted about anyway.
The Academy also failed to use videos on YouTube, Blip.tv (where The Academy lacks a channel), and other video-sharing sites in the pre-show marketing effort. What must be shown is the set of commercials that will be used on television, along with selected "retrospectives" from past Oscar winners - this is where the lifestyle and tradition of The Academy Awards are communicated. Some of those videos should be used in The Oscars telecast, and The Academy should have viewers vote online for the ones they want to see on Oscar Sunday.
Finally, the telecast itself should reflect the fact that The Academy has "official Oscar parties" being held around the country. The way to do this is to first announce that three special city locations will be randomly picked for Oscar Sunday. Then, on that day, in a segment of about two minutes, The Oscars hosts connects the partygoers with the audience in the Kodak theater, where the patrons at the parties get to applaud the Oscar nominees live.
I don't think it's a good idea to have a spokesperson for each Oscars city party, just some way of letting them know a few minutes ahead of time that they are "the city" and for them to be ready to applaud on cue.
As silly as this may sound, it's something that, if it is continued, will become a hallmark event of The Oscars, as it helps to breaks down the "wall" between The Oscars and its audience, and keeps everyone engaged. Moreover, its a way for The Academy to show the fans it appreciates their involvement. It also accomplishes the objective of bringing the party into the telecast.
Finally, The Oscars must be live streamed. People should, if they want, be able to see The Academy Awards on their smartphone. ABC Television should not stand in the way of this, else, they hamper the long-term ad revenue success of The Oscars. The Academy Awards must become "multi-platform" and be everywhere, not just on broadcast television.
The objective is to create an approach that helps move The Oscars beyond being driven just by the host or by movie box office performance. Yes, that dynamic will remain, but my assertion is a full plan that includes one host for five years, a coordinated social broadcasting effort that includes the host and presenters, and the use of video, and methods to bring the "party" of the Oscars into the telecast without harming the flow of the show, will help improve ratings overall and maintain The Academy Awards as the premiere entertainment awards program.
