They’ve been fading away from relevancy for years.  The street-cred of the Grammy Awards has slipped in parallel with the steep decline of sales for the recorded music industry they celebrate.

This year was supposed to be different. A new strategy, and a call to arms. “We’re All Fans” was the tagline for the 2010 Grammy Awards, a flag in the sand establishing the Recording Academy’s footprint in the social media space. There were bonus clips online, real-time feeds of chatter about nominees, YouTube mosaics, and more. But it missed the mark, and here are a few reasons why:

1. We’re not all fans. Specifically the online audience the RA was hoping to cater to with the new 2010 initiatives. Juxtapose the Grammy Award nominees list against the Hype Machine’s Zeitgeist of 2009. There are a couple of artists that overlap.  You’ll find Phoenix and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs on both. Past that there is little in common between the artists the Academy heralds and the artists the internet heralds. And it absolutely does not go unnoticed. Twitter was buzzing with sarcasm related to this throughout the broadcast tonight.  If you are making a conscious effort to engage the 2.0 space, it seems shortsighted to overlook the music that has flourished in that world these past few years. A severe disconnect.
2. Time Zones. An effective social media strategy for the Grammy Awards would approach the broadcast much differently today than in 1990 or 2000.  In 2010 time zones are irrelevant. The web is real-time. It’s happening right now, and in three hours it’s a thing of the past. By the time the show was slated to broadcast in Los Angeles, the east coast already had its way with things.  We all knew who had won, and what the rest of the Twittersphere thought of every moment.  This show should be broadcast live on both coasts.  You won’t see the Super Bowl air next week in LA three hours after NY, and the Grammys should be no different.
   
3. No Live Streaming. Think about the missed opportunity here by not employing something like Ustream’s Facebook integration.  To start, it would have added a unique and exciting element to a show many of us have already moved on from. Second, the viral syndication of status updates and tweets would have driven a significant level of interest in the show.  Third, and what should hit a lot closer to home, there would have been more eyeballs to drive up ad revenue with.  In 2010 a viewer is a viewer, whether they are on the web or in front of the TV. Digital citizens shouldn’t be treated like second-class versions of their terrestrial counterparts.  Lastly, and again related to revenue - consider the impact “buy links” next to the Ustream player would have on iTunes sales.   Perhaps millions of dollars lost on the deal.
4. Substance. This goes back to point one about the Hype Machine, and it’s much bigger for the Academy to ponder than just their social media strategy alone. The same hip audience the Grammys were hoping to connect with via this year’s “We’re All Fans” campaign actually gave up years ago and it had nothing to do with the medium or the message. It has to do with the music.  Where the digerati judge music based on quality, the Academy judges based on quantity…of records sold.  I could be kidding myself, but it doesn’t seem like the Academy Awards ever became as much of a caricature as the Grammys have in this way. Underground film classics that most of us have never heard of win based on their artistic value, and it encourages us to see what we’ve missed.  The Grammys have gone astray from this over the past decade or so. It’s all well and good, and has been easy to see through for years. But never has it been so easy to point out, or to share in the sentiment of with millions of others.  If you’re going to embrace social media this is important to note.  Transparency and communication are great things, but should come along with an urgency to provide the greatest product possible. That’s not what we saw tonight, and outlets like Twitter and Facebook only magnify that.