Regional "Emmy Award Winners" are frauds and should go to prison.

As a festival organizer and an 'award winning documentary maker' I agree, some festivals (and thus their awards) have more status than others. But so do Universities and sport events. You can be a winner of the swim competition at your highschool. That is not the same as an Olympic winner. But you are still a winner.

An award often is a marketing tool for filmmakers to get attention for their (next) film. They can use some help because most of the time there is no marketing budget left after they finished their work.

Another question you can ask is whether films should be original.
The film 'Mossad' is a competitor in my little festival for best comedy feature, the director is a fan of 'the naked gun series'. The naked Gun series is a parody. Does that make the films fraudulent because the idea isn't original? I think not.


mossad.jpg
 
I have friends that have won (multiple) national Emmy’s, friends that have won regional’s and friends that have awards from the other “pay-to-play” contests. But the one thing most all them have in common, they’re good at what they do.

I also know plenty of people that don’t have any of these “accolades”, but are still great at their jobs.

Heck, who on here remembers when wining the NPPA quarterly clip contest meant something or being photographer of the year or station of the year? Do they even still do that and if so who cares, now?

Take personal pride in what you do and do it to the best of your ability every day and then strive for better the next time and everything else will take care of itself. It’s like when they start talking about points in racing. You go out and win every week and the points take care of themselves.
 
One deception I've seen around here, that I would actually consider fraud, is of people misrepresenting their client list and role of involvement in work. Perhaps this person contracted to be an extra camera operator on some shoot for another agency who was doing something for Nike. Ok, then they go and add "Nike" to their client list on their website. As well, they post work mostly produced by others as their own companies work - work they barely had a role in producing, putting it on their own portfolio representing their own production agency.

I know one person who wrangled a bunch of freelancers - about 10 of them - to form a new agency. These freelancers weren't staff, they were just on the list to call for freelance jobs that this new "agency" they were forming might get. Every clienbt that every freelancer had ever done anything for, to any extent - say, they did photos for AirBNB listings once or something - got put on this new "agency" website as a Client. So this 30 years old hustler who owns a Canon 5D Mark II and does solid but mediocre work has a flashy website with AirBNB, Facebook, Nike, Acura, World Vision, Mariott, Sonos, etc. on their list. Let's say one of the freelancers contracted for another production agency and was an assistant editor on a piece for the Hyatt? Boom, Hyatt is on the client list of this new "agency", along with the final edit of the Hyatt video on their portfolio. They filled the website with dozens of stuff like this and went to bid jobs for $40k price points, etc.

Unfortunately I've seen this sort of brand of behavior in varying extents more and more. Personally I'm far more concerned with this sort of deception (fraud?) than boasting of dubious awards.
 
I think overall the idea of someone within the industry getting hired over another person because they have an Emmy is a silly notion that probably rarely if ever happens. Anyone operating inside their industry that knows what they're doing is going to hire someone based on a trusted recommendation and/or their body of work.

If someone outside of the industry (the end client) hires someone over another person because they have an Emmy (regional, national, sports, etc.), then I would say good for that person for one, making something good enough to win an Emmy, and two, being smart enough to realize that an end client would recognize the name Emmy and possibly pick them over another person/company that doesn't have an Emmy.
 
There are definitely trophy mills out there, that are basically worthless. The idea is to send in some work or other, and a check, and then you "win" an award. No check, no award. Basically the same idea as a diploma mill. Back when we were hustling for clients, our marketing folks thought it'd be a good idea to have a whole lot of awards, so we sent in for some. I think there's even a thread here where we sent in to a bunch of them to see what was a trophy scam and what was an actual judged contest, but that was many years ago.

So yeah, I've "won" a bunch of things, like CINDYs and EMAs and OMNIs and a whole bunch of other things. They're meaningless.

There are two that I can say definitely aren't scams. The Tellys, and the Emmys. The Tellys, you actually have to be good enough to win. At least the top-tier Telly. They have two, I don't think it was "gold" and "silver" but that's close enough for discussion. I sent in my application and won a "silver", but wasn't viewed good enough to win a "gold". I think we did win a "gold" for either our Sound or Lighting DVD, I don't remember. But oh my word, do they market relentlessly to you, it's been at least a decade and I still get flyers a few times a year telling me that it's time to enter again. So to me, they're not a trophy mill, they're not fake, and there is some credibility to a Telly (at least as opposed to some of the others) but it's no Emmy. I think the Tellys are judged against a set standard of quality (i.e., if you score 90 points or more, you get a gold, if you score 80 points or more, you get a silver, or something like that). So there can be multiple "winners" in any given category. I may not be remembering this properly, but I think that's how it was.

The Emmys, including the regional Emmys, aren't like that. You send in your work and it gets judged. Some works get nominated, others don't. And for any given category, there is one winner. So if you "win" a regional Emmy, you actually win something. You were, among all that was entered, considered the best.

I won a regional Emmy, probably 20 years ago. I sent in three spots I had produced, and received notification that I'd gotten nominated for some in writing and some others in producing. It included an invitation to the awards banquet(!) I didn't care, but my wife sure did, so we got dressed up and went down to ... I think it was San Diego or Los Angeles? Pacific Southwest Region. They had a whole night of it, they had announcements in the categories for the nominees, and then they'd say "and the Emmy goes to..." and announce the winner. And that was it -- there was a winner, and only one winner in a category. There were a lot of categories (a ton of local TV categories and news station categories and stuff). I was in TV commercials. And they called my name as a winner (I won one of my three nominations, for producing) and went up and gave my little acceptance speech like everybody else did, and they handed over a small Emmy statue and took a photo. It was a little over the top, but it was something to do.

I bring that up because no other award or trophy mill contest did anything like that. The Emmys, even the regional ones, made it kind of legit. Sure, it wasn't broadcast nationwide, and sure, once you thought about it a bit the whole thing was 98% for local news/local sports, and the trophy isn't as big as a national or primetime Emmy; FlightLine has one for our work on Red Bull Stratos and it's huge and it's on display in the office, but the Regional Emmy looks just like it, just smaller and with a square base instead of a big round base. It's definitely not as prestigious as a Primetime Emmy, but to say it's a "fraud" and that people should "go to prison" for saying you won something you actually won? Really?

Anyway, that was 20 years ago or more. I don't know what it's like now, if they still do all that or not; once I got one I was like "okay, been there, done that". It's in a box up in the attic somewhere, because I really don't care, and I think the NATAS has kind of disgraced themselves and ruined their reputation by some of their recent antics, so I don't even bother saying anything about it. Plus I really don't give a damn, I haven't been actively seeking clients for at least 10 years. Maybe they still do all the hooplah, or maybe they've degraded into an automatic trophy mill like the others, I don't know. Maybe it's really easy to win a cameraman trophy for a sports broadcast or something, and maybe they hand them out like candy now? I don't know. But 20 years ago I can say that it wasn't like that, at least in my experience.
 
filmguy123 said:
One deception I've seen around here, that I would actually consider fraud, is of people misrepresenting their client list and role of involvement in work...
Click to expand...
This happens all the time in entertainment and sports. There are a lot of writers and coaches who, at one time or other, worked on great staffs and they will use it to further their careers. I'll skip the defensive coordinators who worked for Bill Belichick but, back in the 1990's, Mike Holmgren's era Packers had Andy Reid, Steve Mariucci, Jon Gruden, Marty Mornhinweg and Mike Sherman. And these were future head coaches off the offensive side of the ball, not counting the assistants like Sherm Lewis who never got the top job or Dick Jauron and Ray Rhodes who became head coaches on/off defense. Now, some 20-25 years later, you can separate the wheat from the chaff but it was nigh impossible to do it back around 2,000.

Likewise, a show like Seinfeld had Larry David and Larry Charles. And a long, long list of other writers. And all scripts were rewritten by the two Larry's and Jerry himself (Jerry usually wrote with Larry David). Yet a bunch of Seinfeld alumni got multi-million dollar development deals off their resume. And, aside of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", most of those other projects fizzled. You'd think studio executives would know who the hot writers were but they didn't.

And the same rule extends to other top sitcoms like Cheers, Night Court, Married ... w/Children, the Simpsons, etc.

And it works in reverse too. One of the writers on "Webster" said (either to me personally or to the class room, I don't recall exactly) in 1994 that one couldn't get hired anywhere off that show, so one might as well keep polishing his spec script/s, while trying to make the writers room laugh. He implied that was because they just wanted to have good time on the job. In reality, that was the process of an in-house networking.
 
DLD said:
This happens all the time in entertainment and sports.
Click to expand...

Yeah I hear you. And while it always rubs me a little wrong, it is what it is, I think it crosses the line for me when it stops being an over inflated personal resume. It's one thing to say "I worked on a project for Nike" as a freelancer if you've only run b-camera. But it's another thing if, lets say DLD you personally hired me to come run sound on your personal company's shoot for Nike, where Nike was your client. On a project where you wrote, directed, edited, and hired a team of production crew to direct.

And then two years later I decided to stop being a freelancer and try and start my own production company. Went to your website, ripped the final video and posted it on my new LLC website. Put a Nike logo on my clients list, and then did this to a number of other people and represented my new LLC as having been the production company to make these films. And then went on to contact a bunch of other freelancers and said "hey I'll have work for you - who is every big name you've ever done work for for someone else, even if a trivial part?". Thus creating a new entity branded to be a trusted company that's worked with all these big names, when in reality it was one guy who talked to a bunch of disconnected people, put their pics on the website as "the team" (distinct from staff), and made the whole thing out to appear as something it's not.

Anyway, I've seen this sort of thing not once but a few times, though this one example here was the most egregious. No idea how common THAT sort of thing is, have you seen much of this?
 
That's, depending on the exact phrasing, fraud. Most reasonable businesses refrain from it.

But there are flight-by-night operations too. 'tis the nature of the beast.
 
OK, here's a statement that might be considered fraudulent with regard to staff writing (and I am using an example of a friend of a friend who is credited with an episode on "Seinfeld"). "I have written an XYZ episode for a particular show". What would be true is that a writer, as was the case with a friend-of-friend, submitted a draft to the executive producer, which was his obligation to the show. The draft itself was subsequently heavily rewritten to the point that not a single word written by the staff writer in question was anywhere to be seen until late in the episode. Yet, by the WGA rules, the writer has the sole credit and the EX-P's have none. And, very few people outside those working on that particular program would know exactly who did what - a writer may have pitched the story line, it was then adjusted by the EX-P's, then he was given a chance to do a draft, which he submitted and never saw again until the actual episode was shown on TV.

Here's another example from a different show (and this was the norm for the setup-punchline type sitcoms) - there's a writer's room with 10-12 people. A very simple story idea is brought up by a staff member. "Ted gets hiccups on the air". "Sam's hitting on a lesbian". "Joey is asked to pose for a hunting magazine with a rifle". Some pitches are accepted, some are barely considered. On an accepted pitch, the story line is then further exploited by the staff. "Ted gets hiccups and asks Mary for a glass of water that Mary is too slow to hand to him. Ted then thinks that Mary hates him". Then the staff writers begin to come up with lines of dialog and punchlines. "Ted : you wouldn't give me a cup of water if I were stranded in a desert" - Murray : "Ted, I would if you stopped pretending to be Moses". And so on and so forth. Finally, after several hours, there are enough lines of dialog and jokes to base a draft on. The assignment is then given to the writer who came up with the story line idea ... except that writer came up with none of the jokes.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's definitely not as prestigious as a Primetime Emmy, but to say it's a "fraud" and that people should "go to prison" for saying you won something you actually won? Really?
Click to expand...
Like I'd said, I have no problem with people going to the awards, enjoying the ceremony, winning them, etc. I just have a problem with them intentionally fooling clients into thinking they are prestigious primetime Emmy's, when they are not. If one puts "Emmy Award Winner" on their website, they could just as easily put "Regional Emmy Award Winner," as that way it is not so misleading about what they've won.

It's like if I made up my own ceremony in my basement, invited a few friends over, and called it the "Eric Coughlin Academy Awards." Then at this ceremony I won a few "Eric Coughlin Academy Awards" and then put on my website, "Academy Award Winner." That would be fraud.

I think the distinction of "Regional" is necessary to avoid misleading clients, as many clients are not aware that there are regional and primetime Emmy's.


That said, there is a $500 entry fee to the "Eric Coughlin Academy Awards," so now is a great time for early bird sign up before the rates go up $200 in February.
 
The NATAS sends a letter when you win, saying that you're entitled to say you're an Emmy(r) award winner, and saying that you're entitled to use the official images of the statues for up to one year after winning.

It is what it is. It most definitely isn't "fraud" if you're the actual winner. Real fraud is when someone claims something that is flat out untrue. Like, if you worked one day as a gofer on a film that went on to win the Oscar for best picture, and you went around claiming you're an Oscar winner. That's fraud.

If you win a regional Emmy, it has your name engraved on it, and you're the only one authorized to say you were the winner.

If you don't like it, that's okay, but to call for people to be arrested, imprisoned, and "shamed" for telling people what they legitimately did and are specifically authorized by the institution to do... I think it's fair to say I disagree with you on that point.

Should we be imprisoning people with doctorate of education degrees for calling themselves "doctor" when they are not, in fact, physicians? I think most folks with non-medical doctorates don't generally advertise themselves with the title "Doctor", but unless they're trying to treat patients without a medical license they're not committing any crime.
 
Barry_Green said:
The NATAS sends a letter when you win, saying that you're entitled to say you're an Emmy(r) award winner, and saying that you're entitled to use the official images of the statues for up to one year after winning.
Click to expand...
Well yes, it is good for the Emmy's business to encourage this fraud and deception so of course they would say that. That doesn't make it right. Just like if the "Eric Coughlin Academy Awards" sends out a letter saying you can call yourself an "Academy Award Winner" if you win an "Eric Coughlin Academy Award," do that mean it's okay to call yourself an "Academy Award Winner" then?

I don't see why it is so difficult for people in their marketing to simply put the word "Regional" in with their listing of "Emmy Award Winning." I feel like that is the best and clearest solution to avoid misleading clients rather than letting clients falsely think you won a big nationwide award. I'd imagine many who list "Emmy Award Winning" on their website and in their marketing are aware of how they are intentionally misleading clients, but choose to do so regardless.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone identifying anything they legitimately did, as exactly what it is. If someone wants to put "Regional" on there, they're certainly free to. What I have a problem with is calling for the imprisonment, national shaming, and cancellation of someone, for doing what they're entitled to do. That's just bull**** as far as I'm concerned, it's a national disgrace, and those who participate in it can and will burn in hell. But that's just my opinion on today's culture, and why I never have or never will participate in so-called "social" media.

As far as I know, Oscar winners can call themselves Academy Award winners, even if their particular Oscar was in an obscure field or a Student category, for example. And those who earn doctorate degrees are entitled to use the honorific term "doctor", whether they're a physician or not (while most with doctorate decrees choose not to decorate themselves with such a title, generally unless they're a PhD).

Once upon a time there was a concept called "caveat emptor". I'd prefer that approach over self-appointed police trying to intimidate and bully people into only speaking or saying words that they themselves approve of, whether they believe it's for the "common good" or not. Caveat Emptor.

If you think this is such an issue, why not write to the NATAS and ask them to adjust their policy on what terminology the winners of the various levels are allowed to use when describing their accomplishments? The NATAS has requirements on the use of their trademarked terms, and on who can claim to be an Emmy winner and who gets a statue and who can use the images of their statues or awards in their advertising. If the NATAS agrees with you, then you'll get exactly what you want, without having to destroy the livelihoods of honest people who are proud of what they've accomplished and have the actual awards to show it. If the NATAS agrees that Regional Emmy winners are misleading people by claiming to be Emmy winners, then they will do something about it.
 
Last edited:
And let me clarify: I have no problem with your stance or opinions on this issue, I understand what you're saying.

The thing I have a problem with is your proposed remedy. I think there are civil ways to deal with it, and there are scorched earth nuclear options, and I think starting out at scorched earth is extremely unwarranted and civility would be more welcome.
 
Barry_Green said:
And let me clarify: I have no problem with your stance or opinions on this issue, I understand what you're saying.

The thing I have a problem with is your proposed remedy. I think there are civil ways to deal with it, and there are scorched earth nuclear options, and I think starting out at scorched earth is extremely unwarranted and civility would be more welcome.
Click to expand...

This. I agree the practice can be deceptive and misleading, especially if and when its propagated by agencies that do so to profit from such.

Sometimes it can seem that using extreme language will make a point better or more clearly and powerfully than a measured approach, however, often the inverse is the case as such an approach can come across unreasonable and out of balance.

The reality is, words like "fraud" have a specifically reserved meaning, and it dilutes the word fraud of its meaning and power when we create an overly expansive definition of it. Second, your proposed remedies here are, in actuality, more intense than how most real world cases of actual fraud would in fact be prosecuted.

By all means, continue to share your feelings and hold your view on this being a misleading and deceptive practice. I agree with you on many things, I think many here do. I'd encourage you to use more measured and precise language so that others can hear the validity within your points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top