What Do The Emmys Mean To Us

As over 7000 excited pioneers of 21st century television prepare to cram into LA's Nokia Theatre on Monday, Don Mischer has already promised us more 'tight races' than ever before. The producer of the 66th Emmy Awards told Variety 'We have some of the greatest television stars...great movie stars, even some rock stars that are going to be part of the programme'.

Incredibly, though two decades worth of ceremonies have taken place in my lifetime, I have barely even heard of this cultural phenomenon. The name Emmys has vaguely crossed my mind on occasion but other than that, I wasn't familiar with them in the slightest. This made me wonder, what have I missed? What does this event represent, not just to winners and nominees but to ordinary people? What on earth could have compelled more than 17million global viewers to tune in last year?

Taking a look back to 2013's show reveals a sparkling array of the most talented actors in television, not least one of my favourites, Neil Patrick-Harris who hosted the evening. With so many massive names on the guest list, its not surprising that the event is so prestigious but is this alone really enough to warrant the awards their biggest audience since 2005?

Television columnist Lisa de Moraes suspects a major contributing factor to the ratings last year was CBS's decision to schedule the broadcast directly after a national American football game between the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets. If true, did Kelly Kahl, who oversees scheduling (among other things) at CBS, decide the Emmys don't mean enough to the average viewer for them specifically to tune into the ceremony? Rather, it has to be on incidentally, drawing us in with recognisable faces and sparkling lights?

It is certainly the case that during the previous two years, Fox and ABC had far smaller audiences and that 2005's ceremony, which pulled in more than 18million viewers, was also shown on CBS. That year, the ceremony was preceded by American football as well which could further indicate that ordinary people don't 'turn on' the Emmys so much as they decide not to turn them off.

In which case, how big are the Emmys really? There's no denying that 17.6million viewers watching from beginning to end is impressive. It's also worth noting the 22.4million viewers who caught as little as six minutes of the broadcast. Could it be that more people have it on because it's there than because it's prestigious? If so, what does this tell us about what can be gained from the ceremony?

Well the actors certainly gain a lot from the night. Their had work is recognised by peers from across the industry. They experience at the very least an enjoyable evening with friends and a free show, at best, the ceremony can provide a defining moment in their careers and even a shiny new trophy to add to their collection. No one could dispute the significance of the occasion for everyone nominated and the thousands of others who fill the theatre each year and it is truly heartwarming to watch the reactions of those who receive an award.

Then there are the viewers. Millions of people around the world actively look forward to the Emmys each year. I considered myself a telly addict until I ventured onto some Emmy forums and discovered the full extent of fanaticism among the hardcore fanbase. Meanwhile, many more passive viewers watch with interest, taking from it what they wish simply because it happens to be on.

Finally, there are the advertisers. The potential reach of 40million is, of course, invaluable but, as people in the industry will tell us, advertising works best when presented to us subconsciously. That's why radio stations put so much effort into having a 'uniform sound' - that is to say, they want to broadcast audio which mostly sounds as similar as possible all day and all night. They want everything to be broadcast at a similar volume and the same types of sounds (perhaps sound effects for music stations or constant speech on talk radio). This is partly because it sounds better but mainly because once you've created that consistency, people are more likely to listen all day and crucially, many will hear the output without listening. The station provides a warm, familiar noise but any information will stay with the listener subconsciously.

Subliminal advertising on TV has been illegal in the US since 1958 but if the viewer is only half listening and hears the same adverts over and over again, it is likely that a heavily advertised brand will stay with them. The Emmys 2013 was broadcast on Sunday evening, meaning a significant number of those 40million viewers could have gone to bed, possibly dreamt about one or more of the brands woven into their subconscious and had that brand in their brain when in a store the next day. There are any number of similar possibilities but to an advertiser, 22million half-listening viewers is an incredible opportunity.

This isn't an attempt to dissuade people from watching the Emmys. I thoroughly enjoyed last year's ceremony. More than anything, I just find it interesting that ultimately the public, the TV networks and even the casts and crew members of TV shows are all pawns in a strategy being executed, deliberately or not, by advertisers in the name of capitalism. This isn't about 'fighting the establishment' or 'empowering the masses', its simply a fascinating process to watch.