Big events, like the Oscars always seem to ask, how well did it do in the ratings compared to other years. And it seems this year, the social network element of the night seemed to invite more of a multi-screen presence. heck, even the co-host tweeted. So did the audience take advantage of the multi platform offerings?
"The Oscar.com website lured subscribers with 'exclusive cameras and content' at a price of $4.99. For 99 cents, customers could download an application for Apple's iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch that essentially offered the same package of privileged backstage views supplied by multiple cameras and supplemental commentary." I did not take advantage of this content. We dvr and watch with stops and starts. ANd while we were never more than a few minutes behind, we didn't fear missing a moment although there were hardly any amazing moments to miss.
What my wife and I did do was read our twitter feeds. Heck some of the comments (maybe most) were from these feeds and not the tube. It was the water cooler moment sharing what they liked or didn't like about the hosts, the presenters, and even the choices of winners. "The academy reported — via Twitter, naturally — that 1,600 Oscar-related tweets were being sent every minute at one point in the evening." Count us in that number.
And while the show was pretty dull, the other platforms did make the viewing more enjoyable for us. Did it affect the Nielsen ratings for the broadcast; we will soon find out. I suspect more people did watch simply to be a part of the conversation.