I see a lot of articles and blog posts online complaining about the length of Sunday night's Oscars telecast. They're right that it was too long but a lot of them seemed to think that was some kind of accident. With the possible exception of Chris Rock's opening monologue, nothing during the show ran way longer than the producers could have anticipated. Nobody made an hour-long acceptance speech. The show ran as long as it did because the producers chose to include what they did…and the network surely knew how long it would run because they sold enough commercials to fill that time period.
I also see a lot of articles and blog posts noting how poor the ratings were and blaming (a) the length and (b) the host. To know if it was the length, we'd have to see the ratings breakdown for every 10 or 15 minutes throughout the show. There's no way of knowing how much Chris Rock had to do with the ratings but my own suspicion is that the host rarely matters much, especially after the opening and the one big comedy spot he or she seems to always do later on. The event isn't about the host as much as it is about the awards and there are many years when the audience just plain doesn't care that much who wins. Were there people really rooting for Spotlight to steal the trophy away from The Revenant? Or who had money riding on Leonardo DiCaprio? I sure doubt it.
The main thing I think the ratings tell us is that viewing audiences have grown more impatient…and also less afraid of missing anything. Once upon a time, if there was a truly memorable moment on a show like this and you weren't tuned in at that moment, you might never see it. Now, you know it'll be replayed on other shows endlessly and viewable on YouTube and so on. Not that long ago, you couldn't do what I did and start watching about an hour into the show and fast-forwarding through what didn't interest me. We simply don't watch television the way we used to. You no longer have to be there when it happens.