The 46th annual Grammy Awards will air this 8 p.m. Sunday on CBS, and the real unanswered question is not who will win or lose, but just how big of a disappointment will the show be.

For years, the Grammys have battled accusations of mediocrity and its voters being out of touch, and viewership of the show has been on a steady decline for years as Grammy credibility has dropped like a lead balloon.

According to Nielsen ratings, the Grammys have been watched by fewer and fewer people each year for half a decade. The true cause of the decline, however, is still undetermined and sees no sign of stopping despite the academy’s attempts to bring younger acts.

Last year’s Grammys were watched by nearly 55 million people, but that is still a decline of nearly 10 percent from the previous year and nearly another 10 percent compared to 2001.

For the most part, the decline in viewership can simply be chalked up to viewer apathy.

“I won’t be watching them,” said music theory and composition professor Aaron Hunt. “I’m not that interested in the Grammys.”

This sentiment is echoed by many, even music fans, as the awards themselves carry little weight with anyone serious about the music business or entertainment, in general.

“The Grammys have always been a boring exercise in respectability,” said speech communication professor Joe Heumann. “As long as rock and rollers and hip-hop stayed away, it was a nice night for the geriatric set, who could enjoy watching their favorite crooner get some award. I’d rather do laundry than have to sit through such torture.”

Boring but profitable

While viewership is steadily on the decline, CBS still sells the international rights to the show for a whopping $100 million, according to Grammys.com. Along with the commercial viability of the publishing rights, a win at the Grammys often equates to greater sales for winning artists the following week.

“It’s a huge stimulus for sales,” noted former president of Mercury, Warner Bros. and Atlantic Records Danny Goldberg in the December issue of “Salon.”

One week after the awards show, Bob Dylan, Shawn Colvin and Paula Cole enjoyed big sales gains after performing and winning in key categories at the Grammy Awards in 2000. Artists like multiple Grammy winner Norah Jones rode her success through all of 2003, as her record, “Come Away With Me,” stayed in Billboard’s Hot 100 nearly the entire year.

On average, the Grammy telecast increased sales for the artists who either won or performed by 15 percent, according to a report in “Variety” in February 2003.

A Grammy win can hurt, however, in genres where mainstream success can be seen by fans as a sellout in credibility.

In 1996 when New York rapper Naughty By Nature won the inaugural presentation for best rap album, sales of the group’s album dropped nearly 30 percent according to SoundScan figures. While the drop in sales may have been merely inevitable, the decline was more than coincidence.

No respect

One reason the Grammys receive little respect, both in the industry and by fans, is the annoying trend of either rewarding the same artists year after year, or simply bypassing influential artists completely.

For example, Aretha Franklin has won 11 Grammy Awards for Best R&B Vocal Performance Female including eight years in a row from 1968 to 1975. Vince Gill has also won seven Grammy Awards for Best Country Vocal Performance Male including five years in a row from 1995 to 1999.

Lenny Kravitz won the Best Rock Vocal Performance, Male Grammy four years in a row from 1999 to 2002. Other back-to back winners include Frank Sinatra, who won Album of the Year two years in a row in 1966 and 1967, beating out influential members of the so-called British invasion. The only other man to repeat this feat was Stevie Wonder, who won in 1974 and 1975.

The Grammys are also famous for a number of notable snubs. Possibly the most well-known example of this is in 1991 when Jethro Tull beats out Metallica’s “…And Justice for All” in the inaugural year of Best Metal Album. The Grammy committee then atoned for their blunder by awarding Metallica the award in the next three successive years.

Other notable examples of gross ineptitude include The Beatles’ “White Album” being beat out for Album of the Year by “The Girl from Impanema.” The Beatles lost again in 1965, when the Anita Kerr Quartet’s obscure “We Dig Mancini” demolished The Beatles’ “Help!” in the Best Performance By A Vocal Group category.

Queen never won a Grammy, and the Best New Artist category is often a literal kiss of death as groups like Taste of Honey, Christopher Cross, Arrested Development and a slew of others have won the award only to drop into obscurity forever.

“I tend to think that the TV spectacle detracts from the awards and glamorizes the latest trendy money makers,” said Eastern music professor Gary Jensen. “I may seem cynical, but I feel they recognize those that make the most money.”

Until awards shows are weeded out or Grammy voters change their policy or taste, the Grammys, although one of the biggest awards shows of the year, will remain one of the consistently biggest disappointments.