Subscribe to JohnWallStreet

April 27, 2023

Editor's Note: Meet Jake Kline, the newest addition to the JohnWallStreet roster. Jake is a long-time reader with a sharp sports business mind and a commitment to content creation (he has an uber active Twitter account). While he is not taking over the Thursday AM slot, he will be writing a semi-regular column under the JWS banner. You will find his debut piece below.  

Awards Shows Should Take Cues From NFL Draft

The Oscars have long been considered the pinnacle of awards shows, featuring unmatched star power and opulence.

Yet ratings suggest that the ceremony has lost much of its luster. The '23 edition drew just 18.8 million live domestic viewers, the third-smallest number in the show's nearly 100 year history, and less than half the number who saw Ellen DeGeneres take her memorable selfie in 2014 (43.7 million).

Numerous other televised awards shows have seen a similar collapse. The most recent Grammys, for instance, also posted its third-smallest audience on record.

Uneven scheduling, the broad decline in primetime viewership, an outdated three-to-four-hour time block, and the societal disconnect between everyday Americans and the perceived Hollywood elite have all likely been contributing factors. But there is another that typically gets overlooked.

The lack of real-time analysis and live reaction.  

From a format perspective, awards shows tend to look a lot like the NFL Draft. There's buildup, the stars walk the red carpet, and they include a series of scripted bits meant to entertain.

The way the awards are presented are similar too. There's a moment of suspense, a person's name is called, the recipient goes up on stage, and the crowd applauds.

But the NFL has managed to transform its draft, once a lackluster event held behind closed doors, into a multi-day television extravaganza and in-person celebration that now draws hundreds of thousands of fans.

In recent years, the league has moved the first day of the draft into primetime, added a third day of coverage, and started taking its show on the road (historically, it was held in New York City). Cities across the country now vie to host the annual selection show.

However, no factor has played a greater role in the draft's growth as a spectator event than the addition of analysts –like Mel Kiper Jr.– who laud or criticize every pick, and provide stats and origin stories following each selection. 

By contrast, awards show viewers get little to no additional context when an award is handed out. Instead, they’re left with a stale, formulaic reading of names.

The producers of awards shows should consider adding on-air commentators. They could help to inform viewers and fill dull moments in the broadcast. 

They might also help to establish storylines and narratives that would keep the audience engaged. One could imagine commentators discussing 

The Banshees of Inisherin

’s being shutout at the Academy Awards the way Kiper talks about a player's unexpectedly long stay in the green room. 

And why stop there? If the doors are going to open to on-air commentators, awards shows might as well introduce simulcasts and/or a Megacast.

ESPN, ABC, and NFL Network will all carry the draft with their own distinct team of analysts. The same could be done with a high-profile award show like the Grammys.

One could envision complimenting the traditional CBS broadcast with a music-focused MTV broadcast and a country-style version airing on 

Yellowstone

-broadcaster Paramount Network—all under the Paramount corporate umbrella.

While implementing commentators has the potential to revitalize awards shows, it seems unlikely we'll see it happen anytime soon. Many awards shows are run by unions/guilds and it is not in their constituents’ best interests to be criticized in a public forum.

Nevertheless, the idea of a reworked broadcast should merit consideration. It comes down to a long-existing concept, one integral to the TV model: if the viewer feels engaged, they are more likely to stay and watch.