Emmy ratings fall--no one can watch the winners

This just in—the ratings for the 2016 Emmys sucked. The only surprising thing about this is that the show surprisingly good. The pace was good, finishing early enough that there was some sense of padding at the end.  The In Memoriam was one of the best I’ve ever seen, interweaving photographs with film clips during lyric breaks in the song “Hallelujah” (my only critique is that they included non-TV performers like Muhammad Ali, Prince, David Bowie, and movie actor Anton Yelchin, whose last TV credit is over ten years ago). The winners were a pleasing mix of old favorites (Julia Louis-Dreyfuss cannot win too many Emmys) and new sensations like Rami Malek and Tatiana Maslany.  Jimmy Fallon’s ad libs were amusing, and the Jeb Bush cameo was (here is that word again) surprisingly funny.

So, what’s the problem?  Effective counter-programming, like the JonBenet Ramsey docu-drama?  Hardly; if there was real interest in the Emmys, the viewers would show up and DVR the competition. 

I believe the reason for low Emmy ratings is the same force that correlates Oscar ratings with the popularity of the expected winner for Best Picture.  When a popular movie is favored to win, as in 1998 when Titanic was a lock for Best Picture, the ratings soar.  When an indy film like Argo, or 12 Years a Slave, or Birdman, or The Artist are favored?  Not so much.

I have written before about the Balkanization of our viewing choices, about how television used to be an all-inclusive community that is being broken up into pay cable/streaming services niches.  I think this lowers the community unifying effect of TV, and also drives Emmy ratings down.

The big winners were, unsurprisingly, Veep and Game of Thrones, both repeating as Best Comedy and Best Drama.  Both are shown by HBO, a premium cable service relatively few households subscribe to.  There were two network shows up for Best Comedy, Modern Family and Black-ish; the rest were on premium cable (Veep, Silicon Valley) or pay streaming services (Transparent, Master of None, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt).  On top of the unavailability of most of the nominees, most were directed at a narrow target audience.  Political humor obviously dominated Veep; Silicon Valley was about high tech humor, a definite niche; shows like Transparent and Master of None have their audience but they aren’t exactly as large as Cheers’ target audience.

The only Best Drama nominee on a broadcast network was Downton Abbey on PBS, again a show with limited appeal to the heartland.  Homeland and Game of Thrones are on HBO; House of Cards streams on Netflix, and Better Call Saul, Mr. Robot and The Americans all are on basic cable.  Again, none of these shows is aiming at the same audience as CSI, NCIS, or Dancing With the C-listers.

Television is better than ever, with high quality shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones on an ever-expanding number of platforms.  But gone are the days when an action show like Mission Impossible could get multiple nominations for not only best drama but also multiple acting nominations (winning Best Drama and Best Actress in 1967).

Maybe the broadcast networks should stop televising the Emmy Awards.  HBO took over the TV movie category years ago; Drama and Comedy are now dominated by cable shows and streamers; the only niche left to broadcasters is reality.  It used to be a prestige thing to do, and the Emmys could be used to promote upcoming new shows on the network airing the Emmys. 

But viewers are trailing off, and new shows no longer all debut in September.  Maybe the Emmys should take the hint and move to basic cable.  Or better yet, just use twitter.