Should the Tony telecast be about "show" or "business"

[tazber]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 5:04am

I could easily argue both sides here.

But I think I (begrudgingly) agree that this year's show needs to do something to recapture ratings or there may not even be future telecasts.
It's not unpreceneted both the Grammy's and the Oscar's to relegate several categories to unaired ceremonies (and at least we get to see our unCBS awards on PBS) and even they have been struggling with viewership.


What do you guys think? Would love to hear your opinions on this.

Disclaimer - this isn't about the significance of the unaired categories. Everyone on this board knows how vital they are. This is about the most effective way to promote Bway to the masses.






link

Updated On: 6/3/09 at 05:04 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 6:11am

Taz -- I think you are asking different things:

Do you mean "saving" the future telecast of the Tony Awards? Or promoting B'way sales?

I don't think there is any way to turn non theater goers to Tony Award watchers. I have no interest in watching an award show about weight lifting for example. Even in C. Jackson were hosting. If you don't care about the source, nothing matters about the awards.


As far as promoting bway itself, I think the Tony Awards being able to do that is rather like preaching to the choir. Yes, it works for show individually -- in my younger days, when I couldn't get to the city but rarely, I would make my decisions on what I most wanted to see my the performances.

In my "theater circles" -- my friends, my students are all over it and can't wait. But my other friends -- family, colleagues: they just have no interest.

[winston89]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 7:43am

dramamama611, I think that I would have to agree with you. I don't see people who aren't interested in theatre say that they can't wait to watch the Tony awards this year based upon whoever is hosting it or what shows are performing. That is something that Just doesn't happen.

I have said before that I think that theatre is a niche audience and that it is hard to get those who aren't already interested in wanting to to.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 7:45am

Then why does CBS even bother to broadcast it at all. They must think that the audience can grow given the right type of presentation.

[winston89]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 8:14am

Try as they might they fail every year. They got Hugh Jackman during the height of his X-man run while he was on Broadway doing Boy From Oz to host. Now, Huge Jackman might have gotten people to buy tickets to his show on Broadway but not to watch the awards on TV

Neil Patrick Harris has been in a lampoon of himself in two very popular comedy flicks as well as being in a popular TV sitcom. However, I don't think that will draw audiences into watching that aren't theatre people.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 8:19am

Is it just me or are the Awards going to be anticlimactic this year? I think it could be just me; I happen to think the 4 best musicals were nominated, the 16 best actors were nominated and so forth. There's no hatred, on my part, to any of the nominees.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 8:41am

When I enter a theatre and experience a performance, I want SHOW. The Tony Awards broadcast though should be about BUSINESS. They should do whatever they have to do to bring people into the theatres. This is the only opportunity the theatre community has to reach out to the non-theatre going public. If the word would get out that this is actually an entertaining show, then maybe those people would watch and maybe they'd be moved to buy a ticket.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 8:51am

Aren't they always anti-climactic?

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:01am

I think they accomplish both...and do it better than the Academy Awards do.

However, I think that the number of "lay" people who watch the Tony Awards to see what shows to see for an upcoming NYC trip or the number of people who randomly watch the Tony Awards and get inspired to come to NYC and see a show is VERY small.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:12am

As to WHY CBS is willing? It's a Sunday Night, no new shows are airing...why not? I'm sure there is no bidding war over getting to air them...and that they aren't paying anyone but the production team. (unlike sports where the station pays the league to cover the games, series, etc.)

A pretty small percentage of the general population are theater goers, and most of those that ARE only see MAYBE one show a year. Those of us that see MANY are really only a drop in the bucket.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:14am

I agree. I meant that they need a draw - be it a Hugh Jackman, Angelina and Brad, the cast of Star Trek, WHATEVER. Once they have them looking, then it's the musicals and plays responsibility to hook them. Make the clips GRABBERS. Use actual clips - like movie trailers - interspersed with live performances. Make the actual awarding of the Tonys very quick and then move on to the next clip/performance.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:18am

I don't think that would get viewers. I haven't been a watcher of SNL for YEARS. I tuned in to watch NPH's monologue, DVR'd the rest and ONLY watched his scene. If it had been an award show of something I don't know or care about...I'm not even tuning in.

And clips of B'way shows suck. It's not directed for film. And the evening is about awarding excellence....it's about the people. The winners (whether we agree with the choices or not) deserve their time in the spotlight. To simply gloss over that aspect demeans the entire Tony process.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:49am

As long as it doesn't feature Susan Anton, I'm ok with it.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 9:58am

What do you call "their time in the spotlight"? I'm ONLY talking about the television coverage of the awards - not the awards themselves. If no one is watching, no one will broadcast ANY of the awards and theatres only contact (with the outside world? lol) will be cut off.

[jasonf]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 10:09am

I don't think there's any hope of saving the Tonys in the form it's in now. Reality is most of the public doesn't give a damn about theater, and honestly, who can blame them? First, shows being centered in NY means the majority of the country would need to make a special trip to see anything. Mostly everyone on this board lives in or around NYC. How many of us would get to see shows if Broadway was in LA? The majority of the country, which CBS plays to, has no association with theater. Add to that the increasing snob appeal given how expensive shows are, and the audience for theater is going to diminish. So, given all that, how many people who can't get to NY anyway, and even if they got there couldn't afford to see one show let alone multiple shows, are going to care about these awards?
I wish, of course, it was different, but sadly there will never be a mass interest in Broadway. Never.

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 11:29am

Tom's Cat, I don't disagree with you that that would be ideal. However, for the reasons others have cited, I just think it's unrealistic. Broadway just doesn't have the impact on most of the country we'd desire. It doesn't matter, I believe, WHO or what is shown on the Tonys--it just fundamentally isn't of interest to most people. Like it or not, in many ways Broadway is very much regional, and theater as a whole--like opera or ballet or the symphony--is, with few exceptions, not something many people care about.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 11:32am

Why not move all the award-giving to the PBS pre-show, and have CBS do a variety show the current Best of Broadway, mentioning which ones won the Tony?

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 11:36am

PalJoey, that's a really good idea. The casual, curious viewer wouldn't have to sit through "boring" snippets of plays and long speeches by people they don't know, while we enthusiasts can get the real deal in its entirety.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 12:08pm

CBS is glad to broadcast the Tony Awards because while the audience may be small, it's extraordinarily wealthy and well-traveled- ideal targets for certain advertisers. Watch the ads- You'll see financial services, cruise lines, high-end products. They are selling to people with lots of disposable income.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 12:38pm

But I think I (begrudgingly) agree that this year's show needs to do something to recapture ratings or there may not even be future telecasts.

Points to consider:

1. Overall network TV ratings are in decline. A hit series now attracts 1/2 to 2/3 of the total viewers compared with
10 years ago.

2. CBS likes the Tony awards because even though the audience is small it attracts a very desirable demographic that they can sell to certain advertisers. These are people who do not generally watch commercial TV. This is why CBS wanted the extra hour from PBS a few years ago.

3. The Tony awards are in June outside of the main season, and even low ratings do not diminish the seasonal standings.

4. CBS has always tried to position itself s the classiest network of the bunch, and the Tony Awards help foster that image.

5. Award shows in general are in decline as there are too many of them. Even the Oscar telecasts no long attract the record breaking ratings they did in the early years.

6. The potential audience for the Tony Awards is small. Unlike the Grammys or Oscars where viewers can go see or buy the award winners the following week, only those either going to New York or living in the tri-state area can see any of the winners.

For the time being, the show is not in danger. Down the road it may indeed wind up on PBS or a specialty cable network or on a 'net feed. Our world is changing and Television as we know it is becoming more and more archaic.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 1:15pm

And like so many things, the idea that TV might not continue to air the Tonys if the ratings don't improve, this discussion has been had for a goog decade or more. Things haven't changed.

Interesting thought about the advertising demographic. Although the funny thing, I certainly don't fit it, but do see gads of theatre -- so it's wasted on me!

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 1:28pm

Honestly, I think it has to be a little bit of both. I agree that choosing to not air some of these categories is disrespectful to the shows, but I do not think one should completely disregard the business side of the industry.

Hopefully, somewhere down the road, there will be a better solution to all of this.

[Brick]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 1:51pm

frontrowcentre2, all wonderful points.

And I think the attempt to build ratings is doomed.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/3/09 at 2:35pm

I think we have found that soloution...last year I watched the "outsider" categories on line form 7 to 8 then watched the broadcast from 8 to 11.

Tv viewere will stay to see the songs and production numbers. The awards themselves mean nothing beyond our core group. As promotion for Broadway, CBS is absolutely right to want to devote as much air time as possible to the entertainment segments and focus just on the major awards.

When PBS ran the first hour they showed 10 awards:
Sets, Lighting, and Costume designs; Book, Score & Orchestrations, Director of a Play, Director of a Musical, Choreographer, and the regional theatre award.

Since then the design awards have doubled from four to 8 (honouring both plays and musicals) so the fact that the network is relegating those awards to pre-show status is understandable. We now have 8 Acting Awards, The awards for Play, Musical, Revivals of a Play and Musical, Theatrical Event, Book, Score, Orchestration, Direction of a Play, Musical and Choreographer; plus 8 design awards. That's 27 regular awards. Add to that 4 special awards (Lifetime Achievement, The Regional Theatre Award, The Isabelle Stevenseon award and the Tony Honour.) So in all that's 31 awards.

As a game- YOU be the producer. You can only show 12 regular awards on air. What 12 awards do you show?