Emmy Countdown: Changing TV Models Put a Price on Prestige

Arrested Development

For years, the popular response to the Emmys from network executives was that they were nice – an ego stroke to the talent, but inconsequential to the bottom line. Sure, there was that period in the ‘80s when NBC parlayed awards for shows like “Hill Street Blues” into audience boosts, but that had more to do with “The Cosby Show” helping lift all boats than people responding to awards.

Few execs were as outspoken as Don Ohlmeyer while he ran NBC in the 1990s, but he was hardly alone in dismissing praise from critics – whose tastes tend to provide some overlap with awards – as being almost utterly (or in his unique phrasing, udder-ly) useless.

Today, however, there’s a perceived value on prestige, one that HBO was obviously early to exploit, but which others have piled on as well. And that, as much as anything, has helped produce the embarrassment of riches the TV industry currently enjoys, as well as the concerted awards push from new players, including Showtime, AMC, FX and — beyond the traditional TV sphere — Netflix.

As HBO long ago realized, the promotional value of awards doesn’t just mollify and attract talent (although there’s that, too) but creates a patina of quality around the entire service. You don’t need to be a “Veep” aficionado or have watched “The Normal Heart” to recognize the pay service puts on high-class fare, which helps justify that monthly subscription fee.

Of course, if you’re not watching any of those shows, HBO will be hard-pressed to sustain your patronage for long. But the subscription model is built in part on creating an overall perception of worth that, in some respects, can be bigger than a single show or a lone viewing commitment.

The formula is slightly skewed for basic cable networks, but there’s a value there, too – if only because all the attention on “Mad Men” becomes a focal point for the media. So when AMC got into a skirmish with one of its carriers a few years ago, the “Carriage Dispute Threatens ‘Mad Men’” headlines were a lot easier to understand and digest than “U-Verse Customers Might be Deprived Network Formerly Known as American Movie Classics.”

Broadcasters still like to make the case that awards don’t necessarily translate into ratings, and like to cite the relatively puny numbers for a show like “Girls,” whose media heat is certainly vastly disproportionate to its tune-in levels. And they chafe, as practically everyone in TV has, at Netflix’s unwillingness to release viewing numbers, employing a “Trust us, it’s a hit” mentality that, like Jedi Mind Tricks, tend to work best on the weak-willed.

Still, as amorphous as the precise benefits might be, and as hard as they are to quantify, plenty of services have come to the conclusion they do exist. As proof, look no further than “Arrested Development,” a series that had won Emmys and been yanked because of low ratings when I broached this subject four years ago. Since then, Netflix has found the means and motivation to revive it.

So while it’s easy to dismiss award-season festivities as inflated and overblown, the old argument that taking home one of those winged statuettes is strictly ceremonial? In a pay-to-view world, it simply doesn’t fly.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 5

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Ideation20 says:

    You all really need to watch True Detective, or John Oliver or even Bill maher with a few Geico Spots or a nice Oaoa John’s commercial…..it’s hard to be a prestige brand with 16 minutes of commercials unless you are the NFL and then you stretch about 34 minutes into 3 hours and 17 minutes.
    I like Netflix it’s a Cable company that uses the cable company broadband and produces about an hour a week on average…..
    Good luck to every show ….it’s an honor just to be in TV oh huh I mean nominalized.

  2. Jacques Strappe says:

    While arguably acting is acting, comparing cable shows to broadcast shows isn’t an apples to apples comparison. Throw in premium cable channels like HBO and the comparison to the broadcast network fare is even more stretched. This is why I believe there should two separate awards for each category of Emmy Award, one for broadcast network programming and one for everyone else (cable and streaming)

    • JohnHarrington says:

      Ridiculous. That’s like saying action films should have its own category of Oscars. Quality is quality. Quality should not have to do with ratings. Take away awards for quality programming but with low ratings and you have no motivation for any network to do quality adult shows.

      • David says:

        The broadcasters are appealing to a wide spectrum, which doesn’t always translate to quality. (I can’t imagine the endless network memos that end up tinkering But-I’m sure they’re reaping the financial rewards of this strategy. Can’t have your cake and eat it too-2 separate Emmys-that’s laughable.

More TV News from Variety