Unbound Edition - And the Loser Is...

Although Oscar advertisers paid upwards of $1.82 million for a 30-second commercial, they didn't quite get the bang for their buck that they may have hoped for.

Ratings for the 80th Annual Academy Awards were the lowest ever, with only 32 million viewers - a 20 percent decrease from 2007 and a million and a half shy of this season's premiere of "American Idol."

Not only did advertisers pay a lot of money for not a lot of viewers, but comparisons to the Super Bowl seemed to be a little premature as well. Initial reactions to the spots themselves ranged from disappointment to boredom.

Did you watch the Oscars? Why do you think there was such a decrease in viewership? Was the writers' strike to blame, or have the Academy Awards lost track of the mainstream? What about the advertising? Click here to vote and leave your thoughts below.

It's not the Oscars...
written by snickerdoodle, February 26, 2008 11:59 AM

...it's the movies that are losing their share of the mouthbreathing audience. And that's fine by me. This year's films were among the smartest, most well crafted in years. Fortunately, there wasn't a crap popular crowd pleaser anywhere to be found among the nominees. (Really, can anyone out there convince me that "Forrest Gump" is worthy of an Oscar?) 90 percent of America thinks "Norbit" or something from The Rock's oeuvre is great weekend entertainment, but only a select few can embrace the likes of "There Will be Blood." Thinking people's movies always go by the wayside if there's someone in a fat suit or a bunch of CGI gas tank explosions to gander at. So it's not surprising at all that the mainstream opted out of the Oscars this year. When they can't appreciate great films, the idea of three and a half hours of drawn-out speeches, painful presenter banter and god-awful song performances is even less appealing.

let them eat brioche
written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, February 26, 2008 03:16 PM

I agree with snickerdoodle, and advertisers shouldn't be too sad. The remaining viewers, while fewer in number, are primarily upper-income professionals with more disposable income. What they lost in impressions they retained in buying power, right?

...
written by CGI Gas Tank..., February 26, 2008 05:49 PM

Was it something I ate?

who won? oh ya, I saw it on youtube
written by Theresa, February 27, 2008 10:17 AM

I feel that a change in technology may also cause lower viewership. My whole reason for not watching the Oscars was that all the good parts would probably be on youtube anyway. I logged onto yahoo.com and was delighted to find that "No Country for Old Men" won best picture. I loved the smart, insightful and curiously dark nominees this year. I'm just not amused by the over-hyped, super-egos of everyone else in the audience. I seriously can't believe Whoopi Goldberg still shows up.