Oscars 2016: Why were ratings down again?

Ratings for the 2016 Oscars ceremony were the lowest in total viewers in eight years, though the numbers were up for young viewers as well as male TV watchers. What accounts for these numbers?

Mike Blake/Reuters
Best Supporting Actor Oscar winner Mark Rylance (l.), Best Actress Oscar winner Brie Larson (second from l.), Best Actor winner Oscar Leonardo DiCaprio (second from r.), and Best Supporting Actress Oscar winner Alicia Vikander (r.) appear at the ceremony.

Ratings continue to fall for the annual Oscars broadcast, which experienced the lowest ratings for the Academy Awards in eight years. 

The ceremony, which was hosted by Chris Rock and followed the Academy nominating only white actors for the second year in a row, was held on Feb. 28 and reportedly drew more than 34 million viewers.

That audience was the lowest since 2008, when the Coen brothers movie “No Country for Old Men” won Best Picture and Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” hosted. 

Of course, low ratings for the Oscars would be great ratings for almost anything else, especially in the current broadcast TV world. In addition, the show apparently drew more young people this year, with ratings having increased since last year for adults age 18 to 34 years old. More male viewers were drawn as well, with ratings for male viewers age 18 to 49 years old having increased also. 

The Oscars continue to draw more viewers than any other awards show, such as the Grammys or the Emmys. 

Critics for the most part considered Rock’s hosting a success and Leonardo DiCaprio winning the Best Actor Oscar after being nominated several times for various prizes was considered a big moment of the night. It became the moment at an Academy Awards ceremony that had inspired the most tweets, topping former host Ellen DeGeneres’ celebrity-filled selfie in 2014. 

So why were ratings down? 

Some industry watchers believed before the ceremony that the lack of nominees of color and what Rock would say about this could draw viewers, but that was obviously not the case.

“The lower figures could reflect civil rights leader Al Sharpton's call for a ‘tune out’ to protest the absence of people of color among the nominees,” BBC staff suggested. 

USA Today writer Gary Levin also believed that viewers may be tired of these ceremonies in general. “[There’s been] a recent trend that's seen the decline in ratings for awards shows, following a period of upticks credited to social media,” Levin wrote. “CBS's Grammy Awards, which claimed 25 million viewers on Feb. 15, hit a seven-year low.”

Stephen Battaglio of the Los Angeles Times also wrote that, once again, the fact that box office hits did not dominate the Best Picture nominees may have contributed as well. (The Oscars ceremony in which box office smash “Titanic” won Best Picture is still the highest-rated of all time.)

“While ‘The Revenant,’ ‘The Martian’ and ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ were popular with moviegoers, other nominees, including [Best Picture winner] ‘Spotlight’ and ‘Room,’ weren't widely seen by American audiences,” Battaglio wrote.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.