TV itself has never been stronger.
It’s diverse. It’s powerful. It’s funny. It shows the depth of our achievements and highlights our worst tragedies. We can celebrate any genre and be inspired and amazed by performance after performance. And there is truly too much to watch.
But the Emmy Awards are broken. They’ve alienated most of America and people outside of most zip codes east of 90210 haven’t figured it out.
Oh, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and Los Angeles Times enjoy the Emmy Awards. After all, it’s the shows they advocate for that seem to be doing a lot of winning these days. But for almost every household in America, the TV awards show they once held dear and loved has been turned into an evening of celebrating shows that they don’t watch, haven’t seen, and haven’t even heard of.
“It’s just not television,” one viewer wrote on Twitter during the Emmys. And millions agree. The Emmys have lost over half their audience. In two years. Even with Game of Thrones fans tuning in. (Imagine if it wasn’t on TV this year!). The Emmys are at risk of becoming an afterthought. And that’s unfortunate.
It’s not too late. People are still looking for a reason to watch the show. But after years of it not being “Must-See TV” for most of the country, there’s precious little time to save the Emmys.
So how do we reconcile the need to include more voices and not turn everyone away? To embrace streaming and shows with smaller audiences while still making an awards show relevant?
With the addition of just 3 more awards–and a few extra tips–I can fix the Emmys. I have a tourniquet (Yes, young folks–it’s a real word. Look it up). I can stop the bleeding and help even increase audiences again.
In the age of participation medals and everyone wins something, I can make the show a bit more inclusive while still keeping the very quality that persnickety folks will insist on.
Here’s my simple solution:
TWO NEW AWARDS: Outstanding Achievement in Network Television Drama and Outstanding Achievement in Network Television Comedy
Oh, yes. The folks at Variety, Los Angeles Times and Hollywood Reporter will be screaming from their out-of-touch towers here that this is the mistake the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had to reverse when they announced a “popular film” category. The difference is the film academy (which also had the right intention) still nominates a heck of a lot of movies ordinary people watch. The TV academy (minus Game of Thrones, which ended this year) does not.
And if 30% of the audience for the Emmys disappears again next year–which is likely if they don’t do anything–audience will fall to less than 5 million viewers. Let that sink in. The show will likely be down to less than 3 million viewers by 2021. It’s already ignored by most Americans–when will members of the media decide to simply ignore the Emmys as well? So, ignore the Hollywood TV critics who will scream “don’t add categories for network TV” because most of these critics are hypocrites who can’t seem to find a single TV show that the hundreds of millions of TV viewers in America actually watch. The point about being a critic is you serve the people. TV critics in Los Angeles stopped doing that a decade ago. They serve themselves and write to an audience of fellow critics.
In 1999, ironically in the Los Angeles Times, producer Stephen Simon wrote about the great film critics Siskel and Ebert, opining that most TV and movie critics write to each other and not the public. “Siskel and Ebert were the only critics truly answerable to the public…these critics were in touch…and now are gone.” Ebert used to talk about how the number one thing a critic should do is remember that they are writing for the people. TV critics in many cities are only writing for the elite. They come dangerously close to malpractice by simply not writing about the shows people watch in favor of publishing article after article about shows that are simply proven by Nielsen to have almost no viewers. And these TV critics are influencing what is perceived to be the best of TV.
The trick to keeping ordinary people watching the Emmys? Let them recognize some of the shows ordinary people watch. First of all, some of them are good. Don’t want to knock out the other shows? Fine. Create new categories. After all, 25 million Americans said goodbye to Big Bang Theory. Ten million a week watch Grey’s Anatomy (at least within 7 days). From Empire to This is Us (which does get Emmy nominations, just not wins), from Grey’s Anatomy to God Friended Me, from Young Sheldon to The Connors (and yes, the now-spurned Modern Family, which critics love to say isn’t funny anymore but average TV fans–the hundreds of millions who actually watch TV–will laugh at more than anything nominated in the Best Comedy category last week. Because they watch it. And laugh with it. 22 Times. A year.), there are good shows and particularly good episodes of TV. The problem is, many snooty TV critics have decided not to watch this television. Well, let the fans have two categories here. (Actors and actresses will still have to fight the entire Academy to get into the acting nominations–only “Best” Drama and Best Comedy category will be separate).
So why fight the battle? If you’re a snobbish critic, you can decide the “Network” categories are for the masses. The lowest of the low art. You can chuckle and laugh and be glad you are too sophisticated to watch the incredible acting of Kerry Washington and Joe Morton in a fascinating scene by Shonda Rhimes in a show like Scandal. But you know what–the audience won’t care. The millions of people who watch shows like Grey’s Anatomy or shows that had breakout moments about gender (Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder) or sexuality (Glee) that were always treated as the ugly stepsister at the ball–they will see them recognized for being good at being the best of entertaining America and having some deeply moving moments that resonated and made audiences laugh, cry, and cringe more than the ones critics seem to find from shows that seem to play solely on critics’ screens.
DOESN’T IT DILUTE THE EMMYS?
No. Not at all. Right now these shows are also shows Americans are watching. Reward inclusion. Reward cable and streaming. Reward networks. Reward all the diverse ways that Americans sit down and watch TV, knowing that even this will change in the era of web-series and even new formats that are emerging. It’s okay. But don’t alienate the majority of viewers in America by saying what they watch isn’t good enough. The Film Academy doesn’t do this. Ask any film professor in America–there are always even more obscure films to nominate that are better each year that don’t get nominated.
CASE IN POINT: Last year’s New York Times’ “best films of 2018” featured four of the top five films of the year that ended up not being nominated for any academy awards. But these films are obscure and most Americans didn’t watch them. The problem is TV is recognizing the obscure shows too much and nominating them at the expense of the shows that the masses watch. The Film Academy knows they need to hit a balance between popular and culturally significant.
The Emmys have swung wildly to shows that are brave, courageous, and innovative, but in the process have deemed what 95% of Americans watch to be inferior. Film doesn’t do this. Continue to nominate and reward all of these new innovative TV shows. But also create a reason for “regular” TV fans to tune in. Because right now those creative, innovative shows are often seen by almost no one. Example: Killing Eve is more popular than many of the Emmy shows nominated for Best Comedy or Drama this year. Yet it was seen by about 400,000 people each week. Total. We should embrace it for being brilliant while realizing your neighbors don’t have it on and most of the country has no clue what it’s about. But they all know Sandra Oh from Grey’s Anatomy. The Emmys should make us all want to go find Killing Eve. But they shouldn’t tell us that everything else we watch isn’t good television. That’s the misguided message of the TV Academy.
WHAT ABOUT CABLE SHOWS?
Cable shows are a tough call. Maybe you lump them in with networks. I’m open for a debate there. Maybe the new categories are “Outstanding Network and Ad-Supported Cable Drama” and “Outstanding Network and Ad-Supported Cable Comedy.” I say let HBO and Showtime slug it out with Amazon and Netflix because they use a similar all-you-can-pay model for television that lets them spend as much money on TV series that take more risks and show unedited content. Group cable shows on FX and AMC with the broadcast networks and PBS. Everyone wins! There are more spots for all shows to be nominated for Best Comedy or Best Drama since there will be a “Best Comedy on Network/Cable” and “Best Comedy on Streaming/Paid Cable” and “Best Drama on Network/Cable” and “Best Drama on Streaming/Paid Cable.” So many nominees! So many shows happily attending the awards. More importantly, a reason for fans of so many TV shows to tune in!
BUT WHAT’S THE REALLY BEST SHOW: NEW “PROGRAM OF THE YEAR” AWARD
Do it Grammy-style. Have ONE “Program of the Year.” See, the Grammys do an “song of the year” and an “album of the year” and a “record of the year.” Let’s borrow from them. Recognize all the current winners, the two new categories (Best network drama, best streaming drama, best network comedy, best streaming comedy). After all of the “best” awards of the night… after a final commercial break (for our advertising friends and partners) we do a “PROGRAM OF THE YEAR” that is simply the best overall show according to the academy.
It could be a show that just won an award in one of the “best” categories. It could be any genre–any medium. Imagine the anticipation itself going into the last award. Would Handmaid’s Tale have won this award in 2018? Game of Thrones, Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, or Sunday’s big winner Fleabag in 2019? Another darkhorse? (Could RuPaul’s Drag Race have shocked everyone by winning program of the year?) There are so many culturally important shows in any given year that it would be truly fun to see what members would vote on if they had one vote for program of the year. Let’s make the Emmys fun again. The last award of the night could really be fantastic TV in itself.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD: HAVE A HOST
Hostless? That’s so 2017. Audiences never disliked hosts. They disliked partisanship. For years they had hosts at many awards shows that skewed political, alienating swaths of their viewing audience. (Stars themselves did nothing to help this by trying to one-up their rhetoric as well). I personally think they should just pay Ellen five million dollars or so and sign her. Every year. Ellen is comforting and witty and nicely bridges the gap between boring moments of a show but can create spontaneous hilarity, and then you’re in award show heaven. Audiences like that.
Bring back comforting hosts who love TV and aren’t there to politicize the show. Their job isn’t to turn off most of the … you know, TV audience. Does that mean censoring yourself? No. Make fun of the President with a light-hearted jab. But make fun of CNN’s obsession with Trump too. Then back to the awards. The Emmys aren’t for the actors. They’re for the fans. People who pay a couple hundred dollars a month to Comcast, Verizon, DirectTV, Netflix, etc. to watch television. Because they like it. Celebrate television. We’ve never thought hosts were a bad idea. We thought uninspired hosts were a stupid idea because they drove so many people away and distracted us from loving television.
TELEVISION AS CULTURE: RE-DEFINING WHAT IT MEANS
I spent most of today arguing with my editor about how many episodes a show should have to be a show. But it’s not about a minimum number of episodes. I have a feeling this will be what the academy decides to move to as a solution. But it’s not a better fix for the Emmys. The Emmys need a radical fix to keep viewers.
I love television. I want Americans to embrace the genre like I do. I want teenagers to say “What are the Emmys? I think I’ll watch that.” Can you imagine if Katy Keene or Batwoman or Nancy Drew was nominated for best show in a network TV category next year? (First of all, the show would have to be darn good. But things like that could happen.) Then teens might find the Emmys! This will never happen if the Academy doesn’t change the Emmys or just tinker with the show in a minor way.
The Emmys are broken. They’ve been wheeled in to the ER and are in critical condition because creatively wonderful shows are being nominated, but audiences don’t watch those shows. They embraced inclusion years ago by surprisingly accepting streaming into the family without argument and without reservation. But when they did so, they created popular-show-discrimination. Now they need to save the broadcast network patients that represent the TV most Americans still watch and love. These are the viewers that make the Emmys possible. Every type of TV is important.
Television viewers haven’t seen a network drama win since 2004. That’s 15 years. True, This is Us was actually favored to win a few years ago but The Handmaid’s Tale won (deservedly) and was fantastic. This is an example of two very different shows doing very different things for very different audiences. If the academy can’t figure out a way to create an awards show to recognize both of these shows–there probably shouldn’t be an awards show on television anymore.
Many years ago, the silly NBC show Heroes had the tagline “Save the cheerleader, save the world.” For the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, they should call in the troops and call the board for an emergency meeting. Implement my suggestions. It’s not save the cheerleader, it’s Save the Traditional TV Shows, Save the Emmys. If you want there to be an Emmy Awards, embrace the very TV people are still watching while showing them the wealth of new shows on new media. If you do this, you can still have a meaningful awards ceremony that helps TV grow and keep an awards show that is otherwise headed towards extinction. Help the audience evolve. Don’t continue to alienate it.
But you need to act. Now.
