Works in progress: The Emmys Are Self-Sabotaging

 

Reina Sofia Museum, Madrid

     The Emmy Awards are Monday night. This critique is by Chicago teacher and writer Lane Lubell, who occasionally contributes to EGD, most recently in November, when he wrote on the oblique youth term 6-7 and Dictionary.com.

     Choose your favorite fruit. A granny-smith apple, a fuji apple, a Macintosh apple, a red grape, a honey crisp apple, or green grape? Personally, I love apples and grapes, but this list hardly reflects the variety of fruits on the market. No one would look at this list and say that the winner is the definitive king of the fruits because only apples and grapes are represented. This lack of variety reflects precisely what we have been given to choose from at this year’s Primetime Emmy awards.
     Over the years, Emmy nominees have become hyper-concentrated. In other words, a handful of shows are receiving an outsized proportion of nominations. The Academy is aware of this problem, and yet, they seem unable to resolve it, as admitting it exists threatens their ethos, and so, it was left to fester. Now, the Academy must either face reality or become complicit in their own demise.
     For the majority of the Emmys nearly 78-year history, handing out awards for television was a simple enough task: watch the shows live on-air and vote for best ones in a given category.
     Between the 40’s and early ‘70s, most shows on television had substantial viewership among Academy members. That makes sense. After all, there were only three channels. This pool meant that a heterogeneous voting body could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of most of the shows on television. Many would be devoted fans while others may have only seen an episode or two, but almost everyone in the industry would have been familiar with every series’ premise, genre, and look. This awareness was fundamental to the success of the Emmys. After all, how can you vote if you don’t watch all the shows?
     However, this math has changed dramatically over the last 54 years.
     Matters first became complicated around 1972 when HBO first went live. They introduced an entirely new class of shows on an entirely new kind of channel. These shows were not limited in content and rules; they could be edgier, more risqué. The Rubicon had been crossed.
     Soon after, television evolved again, with the introduction of cable networks. Major broadcasters like TBS, MTV, and more crashed into our living rooms and forever changed how we watch TV. Accordingly, cable networks experienced a boom. Suddenly, there were channels for kids (Nickelodeon, Disney, and Cartoon Network); channels for the academically inclined like Discovery, Science, and the History Channel (before they gave all their airtime to prehistoric ufological conspiracists); channels just for golf and college sports. Reality networks like E!, Bravo, and the hilariously misnomered Learning Channel (TLC) added the melodramatic squabbles of the elite into the lexicons of the commoner. Eventually, Comedy Central burst onto the scene with South Park and The Daily Show. Meanwhile, The Food Network and HGTV entertain the lackadaisical voyeur. More premium networks, like Showtime and AMC, soon joined the fray, while Turner Classic Movies fueled the Silents’ nostalgia.
     Gradually, voting became increasingly difficult. By the late aughts, there were hundreds of episodes premiering every day. Viewing every show would be impossible, even with the creation of TIVO.
     Voters’ jobs became even harder with the introduction of streaming. Suddenly, hundreds of new shows with seemingly endless budgets, began popping up. House of Cards, Stranger Things, Ted Lasso. Seemingly every tech company began touting a streaming arm, and were willing to dump billions of dollars into series unable to recoup their losses.
     Today, the Academy finds itself a frog in a boiling pot, wondering when the water became so hot.
     With viewership spread so thin across so many networks and streamers, it has become increasingly difficult for a show to gain sufficient momentum for an award without a robust For Your Consideration (FYC) campaign (i.e., ads and events promoting a show for awards), something many stations simply can’t afford, allowing for a very small number of shows to dominate the awards cycle while others get left behind.
     Moreover, with streamers folding or being absorbed over the last five years, the number of shows that receive those costly FYC has become increasingly slim. Instead, that money is consolidated into backing their subjectively strongest horse. After all, why should HBO campaigns for 15 shows when they know they can get The Pitt across the line?
     So, let’s take a look at some of the Emmy categories this year. How about Best Guest Actress in a Comedy? This is a category that should be extremely diverse because it only expects people to have watched one episode in order to have seen their entire Emmy-eligible performance. So let’s see what we have:

Jamie Lee Curtis — "The Bear"
Betty Gilpin — "Widow’s Bay"
Leslie Bibb — "Hacks"
Cherry Jones — "Hacks"
Laurie Metcalf — "Hacks"
Kaitlyn Olson — "Hacks"
Lauren Weedman — "Hacks"

     Yes, you read that right. Out of all of the guest performances on all of television, five out of seven best just happened to appear in the same ten-episode season. (Gilpin won.)
     This type of hyperfixation is not a one-off either. In the drama category, The Pitt managed to score 13 acting nominations (for a total of 25) for a show about… doctors realistically being doctors. Do their bedside manners really represent the best acting on all of television in every category?
     Look at the nominees yourself. The pattern will be obvious.
     By hyper-concentrating nominees, the Academy denigrates the majority of programming by denying those shows, which serve as the backbone of Hollywood, recognition and promotion. When even one actor receives an Emmy nomination, their entire series benefits. More awards mean more eyes on the show; the more eyes on their show, the more eyes on the show’s less famous actors, which leads to more work for said actors. The chain reaction directly contributes to the economic success of the entire industry.
     Moreover, this concentration results in fewer viewers of the Emmy broadcast. After all, people tune into the Emmys to root for their favorite shows. People won’t watch if they’ve never seen the nominees. If you haven’t seen one of six shows "Pluribus," "Hacks", "Beef," "The Pitt,", "Widow’s Bay," or "Shrinking”, then you might not see a single award go to a show you’ve seen. That's not a healthy way to run a primetime awards show.
     Luckily, all is not lost. There are a couple of ways the Academy can address these problems. The easiest thing they can do is limit FYC spending. This would theoretically allow less-campaigned shows the ability to gain traction with voters.
     More urgently though, the Academy can set limits on the number of actors or episodes nominated in the same category. This rule would give other shows a chance to shine, as there would be more open slots to fill.
     Additionally, the Emmys could adopt a Best Cast Ensemble award. Such a prize would mean that anyone deemed to have a significant role on a series could receive an award alongside their castmates. In turn, you can expect more varied nominations in the individual acting categories, as voters would be less concerned with whether or not actors from their favorite show will be nominated.
     The Academy will never be perfect. However, it is up to the Academy, not the studios and their tech-bro overlords, to create a more equitable and reflective lineup of nominees in the future. Let’s hope that they do.