Television’s Emmys: Honors or Also-Rans?

Postponed twice last year by events related to the Sept. 11 attacks, the 53rd annual Emmy Awards finally went on in early November with a telecast that most critics felt captured the right tone--only to draw its lowest rating in more than a decade, overshadowed by competition from the seventh and deciding game of the World Series.

Yet while last year’s tumult was clearly extraordinary, the roller-coaster ride that the television industry’s premier awards experienced last fall seemed to underscore the supporting role the winged statuette has long played in Hollywood as a sort of Rodney Dangerfield among the industry’s major honors.

That’s because in an entertainment business increasingly devoted to the bottom line, the Emmys simply don’t provide the obvious financial benefits associated with other award shows--specifically, the Oscars, which recognize the best in film; the Grammys, honoring music; and the Tonys, devoted to theater.

Those who work on television shows certainly covet the respect denoted by the Emmys, which will be handed out tonight at Shrine Auditorium. Among network executives, however, the award seems to generate less enthusiasm--indicative of a time when ratings are harder than ever to come by and the imprimatur of quality is no assurance of success.

“It means absolutely nothing to their business,” one former network executive said. “The attitude is, ‘That doesn’t translate into viewers, so who cares?’ ”

By contrast, nominations for Oscars reliably boost a film’s box office earnings, as well as video and DVD rentals. Performing on the Grammy telecast can lead to more CDs flying off shelves. Tonys can be the difference between Broadway plays and musicals extending their runs or closing.

Film executives cite a clear correlation between Oscars and income. “It’s stunning to see the pattern replicate itself year after year,” said Mark Gill, president of Miramax Films in Los Angeles. For lower-budgeted films in particular, he noted, “an Oscar nomination means at least 100% increase in box office results, and maybe 150%. It’s a massive difference.”

In television--where, with the exception of pay cable, viewers can sample a product for free and just as quickly be gone--the value of such recognition is more muddled. “An Oscar can be translated into X millions of dollars more at the box office,” said Herbert Schlosser, a former president of NBC. With the Emmy, “that kind of direct effect doesn’t exist.”

In certain instances, an Emmy has helped elevate a program’s ratings or bought a struggling show additional time. NBC famously parlayed Emmys for “Hill Street Blues” and “Cheers” into promotion for those programs in the 1980s, leading to long and profitable runs. More recently, pay channel Home Box Office has used the honors heaped on “Sex and the City,” “The Sopranos” and “Six Feet Under” as an inducement for viewers to subscribe--successfully wooing Emmy voters with lavish ad campaigns and videotape mailings to herald its lesser-seen programs.

Historically, however, the awards have a tendency to recognize TV shows that are already popular and have relatively little to gain beyond adding to their prestige. NBC’s “The West Wing,” for example, already a ratings powerhouse, has been named best drama the last two seasons.

Network officials also have come to resent HBO’s prominence at the Emmys and other awards. While most executives were reluctant to publicly downplay the awards, one derisively referred to the Emmys as “the CableACE Awards”--alluding to a now-defunct award that exclusively honored cable fare, initiated before cable programs became eligible for Emmy consideration in 1988.

Ambivalence about the exposure afforded HBO may also be a factor as negotiations on a new television agreement for the Emmys drag on without resolution.

Under the existing contract, the Emmys rotate among the four major networks--ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox--and pay the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, the nonprofit group that presents the awards, about $3 million a year. The host network shoulders roughly an additional $4 million in production costs.

That fee makes the Emmy the poor kid on the block compared with the $50 million and $25 million, respectively, paid to organizers of the Oscars and Grammys, who produce their own telecasts. The TV academy hopes to secure a major increase. But with the networks complaining about rising costs, executives are reluctant to spend much more for the rights.

The Emmys face other issues that may contribute to their second-class status, among them a “been there, done that” mentality. The same programs are often nominated repeatedly. A case in point is NBC’s “Law & Order,” which tied a record this year with its 11th consecutive nomination for outstanding drama series.

“The same movie doesn’t win two years in a row,” said producer Steven Bochco, who has won Emmys for “Hill Street Blues,” “L.A. Law” and “NYPD Blue.” “There is a kind of sameness to it ... that makes it more of a yawn.”

NBC’s “Frasier,” for example, was named best comedy five consecutive years during the 1990s. Candice Bergen and John Larroquette--after winning repeatedly for “Murphy Brown” and “Night Court,” respectively--eventually withdrew their names to give others a chance.

Although the TV academy has more than 11,000 members, critics say that in the past, it has done a poor job of involving younger members, leading to stodginess and predictability in its choices.

At a board meeting a few years ago, former President Jim Chabin sought to demonstrate the need to broaden the membership, insiders recall, by rattling off a who’s who of young producers behind such shows as “Felicity,” “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Dawson’s Creek”--none of whom, it turned out, belonged to the academy. (Recognizing new technologies, membership is now open to anyone who is or has been “actively engaged in activities related to the production or distribution of audiovisual works for national exhibition by means of telecommunications,” according to the group’s bylaws.)

Emmy organizers say they have worked to address such concerns and are particularly excited about this year’s nominations, which saw an unusual number of newcomers break through, from cable network FX’s gritty police show “The Shield” to Fox’s serialized drama “24” and the star of its comedy “The Bernie Mac Show”--new blood, they say, that has heightened interest in the ceremony, to be hosted by NBC late-night talk show host Conan O’Brien.

Despite an array of competing awards, TV academy Chairman Bryce Zabel said, “the Emmy continues to hold up as the gold standard of excellence in television”--as coveted, he contends, as any honor except the Oscar.

As for the repetition factor, Richard Frank, a former president of the TV academy and Walt Disney Studios, said television deserves more respect given the challenge posed by annually producing 22 episodes or more of a prime-time series.

“When you release an album or a movie, you’re done with that album or movie,” he said. “In television, if you’re successful, you have to do it every week for the next seven years.”

Industry veterans also point to somewhat intangible benefits associated with Emmy notice. Garnering awards for a show “puts a little polish on it when you go out to sell [the reruns] into syndication,” Frank said, and inspires networks to provide the show with additional promotion, which can help generate interest among viewers.

“It remains the single most prestigious recognition on the part of our peers that exists,” said Peter Roth, president of Warner Bros. Television, which produces “The West Wing,” “ER” and “Friends.”

Moreover, despite the cynicism surrounding the almost weekly deluge of televised awards--from MTV to the Screen Actors Guild honors--those in the production community appear less blase about the Emmy than do those who employ them.

Producer J.J. Abrams--a nominee for writing ABC’s sleek spy drama “Alias”--was particularly pleased to see his crew rewarded, with the show garnering 11 nominations in all.

“I’ve never been nominated for anything,” he said. “I was thrilled. I was shocked in a way only good can come of it. I’m grateful for the recognition these people are getting.... It’s going to be a fun thing for my wife and I to go. I’ve never been to the Emmys.”

Abrams’ father, Gerry, has also been an Emmy nominee, most recently as a producer of the TNT miniseries “Nuremberg.” He maintains that the Emmys are no less important than other major awards but simply operate in a different financial framework--unlike feature films, say, where an Oscar leads to a higher salary on the next project.

“Winning an Emmy improves your pedigree but not necessarily your very next paycheck,” the elder Abrams said. “But that’s just the way TV works.... People get rich in TV from doing a large body of work over a long period of time.”

The six stars of “Friends,” for example, have thus far claimed just one Emmy among them during the show’s eight-year run--a supporting award for Lisa Kudrow, who plays Phoebe. They are nevertheless among the highest-paid performers on television, earning $1 million each per episode.