2011 Academy Awards in Review: Why the Grammys was Better

Despite the promise to be 'young and hip,' the 2011 Academy Awards proved to be yet another boring ceremony. The 2011 Grammy Awards, on the other hand, was an exciting night full of great performances and over the top fashion. The Oscars can learn a thing or two from the Grammys, including how to cut out the boring awards, increase viewers, and give the people what they want.

Why the Grammys was better: Cut out the Boring Awards

The format of the Academy Awards and Grammy Awards are constantly evolving. New categories have been added over the years to recognize different genres, making the list of categories longer every year. There are two ways to handle this situation: air the presentation of each award live like the Academy Awards, or cut out the less anticipated awards like the Grammy Awards.

The Grammy Awards has successfully identified the need to have a pre-show during which all the lesser known, often technical awards are given out, saving the popular categories for the live show. This helps de-clutter the live award show and create a more pleasant experience for the viewer.

The Academy Awards, on the other hand, give out each and every award live, making the ceremony long and often boring. Although I was happy to see my favorite film, "Inception," win four technical awards, most viewers don't even know the difference between 'Sound Editing' and 'Sound Mixing.' By cutting out the less anticipated or talked about awards, the 2011 Academy Awards would have moved at a much quicker pace, keeping a hold of the attention of their viewers better.

Why the Grammys was better: Increased Viewership

The 2011 Academy Awards reached 37.6 million viewers. Although that may sound like a lot, the viewership is down almost 10% from last years 41.3 million. Most importantly, the key demographic of 18 to 49 years olds fell in 2011. This was despite the fact that Anne Hathaway and James Franco were the youngest co-hosts in Academy Award history. Looks like the tactic may have backfired.

The Grammys, however, were up 3% from last year, with 26.66 million viewers for the 2011 Grammy Awards show. Even though the Grammys reached fewer viewers, they managed to increase their viewership this year. Since these award shows make a profit through the sales of commercial time, it is in their benefit to increase viewership by giving viewers what they want.

Why the Grammys was better: Give the People What They Want

Even though the Academy Awards and Grammy Awards claim to aim at giving praise to talented artists, at the end of the day, both award shows aim to please their viewers. An award show full of lively performances and wacky fashion is much more entertaining than a prim and proper award show with no excitement.

The Academy Awards has always been known to be a more elegant affair, but if they are looking to appeal to a younger demographic, they may begin looking to shows such as the Grammys for advice. Having Anne Hathaway and James Franco as co-hosts was a good step, now lets see what the 2012 Academy Awards will have up their sleeves.

Sources

Deans, Jason, Oscars 2011: ABC's audience down by nearly 10%, The Guardian
Lavach, Renata, The 2011 Grammy Award Winners: A Review, Associated Content
Lavach, Renata, 2011 Oscar Countdown: Will Franco and Hathaway be Fab, or a Drag?, Associated Content
Webb Mitovich, Matt, Ratings: Grammys Hit An 11-Year High Note, TVLine
2011 Academy Awards Nominees and Winners

Other articles from this contributor:
'The King's Speech' Sweeps the Academy Awards, Wins Oscar for Best Picture
Natalie Portman Wins Academy Award for Best Actress for Work in 'Black Swan'
Jennifer Hudson Oscars 2011 Appearance: Will Hudson's Weight Loss Go Too Far?