Ratings do not look good (6.9 million). But, they usually adjust up as the day goes on. Last year (2018), the show saw a brutal low as well. With only 10.7 million for a show that honors the best in TV (it is on TV) and it cannot get more than 20 million spells doom for the industry. No matter how they spin it, it is not good. Award shows serve as an advertisement and commercial for the industry, so if no one tuned it, that becomes a waste. Why advertise on a with such low ratings for a special, live event? show that It is designed to praise your industry and you want to people to watch it. Anybody that is in the business and says ratings do not matter and having viewers tune in is irrelevant, is not being honest. And do not let them tell you that the NFL took viewers away. Not likely since they are two different audiences, for the most part. The Oscars, without a host, rose in ratings, but was still low for that broadcast. But, the numbers the Emmys are getting hurt since it honors TV, and is on TV. See ratings. So, if this show was on Netflix, HBO, or Showtime, it would be even lower in ratings, so do not tell me because the shows that are nominated and win are not on broadcast TV, that does not wash with me. More households have broadcast TV and basic cable than those services. No one is getting to sign up for Netflix, Showtime, or HBO, just to watch an award show. And those who already have that service, apparently are not tuning in to see it, anywhere on TV. Putting it on You Tube, etc. is not the answer. There are no TV stars like their used to be and it is not must see anymore. A live event usually pulls in more people but the Emmys, or the Tonys, do not. They lose more and more every year.
* As the 71st Emmy Award telecast came to end, one thing was certain. Having no host suited the show just fine. And it went very smooth without one, as it did with the Oscars. Can this trend last or will it spark some sort of internal backlash among hosts and emcees? As expected "Game of Thrones" was crowned the top drama but other awards surprised. No, not that others were snubbed, some winners were not expected and that was a good thing. The one show, "Fleabag," was that surprise.
And what a fun one it was. Most people have never seen it and most likely will not, but it now has more interest then it every will.
Sure, that will die out. Nevermind the awards for a moment and ask yourself, do people still care about the Emmys? A show about TV stars has expanded to include streaming and You Tube.It feels like it is bloated and just because we consume our entertainment in many ways now, that does not mean the Emmys need to embrace all of it.
There is no way, even when I covered entertainment on a regular basis, could I keep up with all the product nowadays. Or would want to. They keep touting this era as the platinum time because of all the choices, but I contend that it is killing interest in the long run - and killing broadcast TV and even basic cable.
Yes, we live in a different time for TV consumption, but award shows have not seen the same interest as they used to, and that is their fault, not the viewers.
* Even I do not cover the show the same. Sure, I was younger, but it feels so different now. The Red Carpet shows are lame, and unprofessional. Even those had a different feel. Now, they have people who do not deserve to cover it, doing so. That was a badge of honor to be there and it was limited, that we felt honored to be a part of an exclusive event (yet televised).