An Emmy for Your Thoughts

Well, the smell of awards is in the air once again, as the nominees for the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards have been announced. So it seems wholly appropriate that while I watch the season one recap marathon of Mad Men (nominated for 16 Emmys, the most of any show this year and I am assuming the most ever for a basic cable show), I honor the subject by looking at this year's nominees for Outstanding Commercial.

But first, let me get to answering your question, "Wait, there's an Emmy for Outstanding Commercial?" Yes indeed. In fact, just about anything you can think of, there's an Emmy for it. Of the approximately 100-or-so categories, some of my favorites include "Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup For A Series, Miniseries, Movie Or A Special," "Outstanding Picture Editing Of Clip Packages For Talk, Performance, Award Or Reality Competition Programs," and "Outstanding Not-exclusively-made-for-television Variety, Music, Comedy Event Programs," for which there appears to be only one nominee.

According to their Awards Search Database, they have been giving the commercial Emmy regularly since 1997. However, it also mentions an award for "Best Commercial Campaign" given in 1957, to Ford, and an Emmy for "Best Commercial" in 1950 that went to, you guessed it, Lucky Strike. Last year's winner was the American Express commercial "Animals," the artsy little black-and-white piece featuring Ellen DeGeneres and a literal menagerie of office staffers. The previous year, the award was split between a Hallmark commercial in which an old man learns to read, and the FedEx commercial "Stick," which sort-of defies explanation if you haven't seen it.

Enough about that, let's get on to this year's nominees. The first is the Hallmark spot "Brother of the Bride," by Leo Burnett, which was also responsible for the previous Hallmark winner.



Mildly irreverent. Heart-touching. Boring. Moving on, we have the FedEx bit "Carrier Pigeons," by BBDO, which you might have guessed is also responsible for "Stick," as well as the 1997 winner, an ad for HBO featuring chimpanzees quoting famous movie lines. Enjoy.



The animal theme seems to persist among these, the crème de la crème of commercial spots. Next up is Travelers Insurance's ad inexplicably titled "Delivery," from the Fallon group out of Minneapolis, which had two previous wins in 2001 and 2003, both for PBS promos.



This might be considered the most cinematic of the nominees. Certainly they were going for something more than a joke. And yet I'm still not sure if I fully get the message - something about it seems incomplete. Also incomplete is the list of nominees thus far, so let's check out Coca-Cola's "It's Mine," brought to us by Wieden + Kennedy out of Portland, with two prior wins for Nike commercials in 2000 and 2002.



A nifty idea with a challenging and impressive execution, and even makes use of familiar animated characters as mascots ("spokestoons"?). Last and maybe or maybe not least, there is this Bud Light gem called "Swear Jar" by DDB's Chicago unit, which does not have a prior win (though their LA unit apparently won for an Ameriquest spot back in 2005). This one speaks for itself.



So a reviewer would typically pick apart a set of nominees and discuss what sets one or more of them apart, but Drink Moxie readers know that we prefer to consider what they all have in common. Well for one, these are all commercials that I don't recall seeing very often. I recall the FedEx and Coke commercials from the Super Bowl, and I think they showed shortened versions of them a few other times. The Travelers commercial I do remember seeing many times because they would show it during this year's tennis Grand Slam events. The Hallmark spot I don't remember ever seeing, and the Bud Light spot I don't think ever made it onto the air, though it did make a splash on the internet. I could be wrong about this, after all if it never aired, how is it nominated for a Primetime TV Emmy?

It makes some sense, after all these aren't ads for companies that really need to get their names out. These companies are more interested in maintaining their brand images than in getting customers. It's all right for them to spend big money on producing what is basically a (very) short film, and then even bigger money to put it in front of a big audience, just to give the audience a chuckle and to remind them that they are able and willing to spend that kind of money for a cheap laugh. It's more like a public service than an advertisement. Most people who see an ad like these would probably even admit to not paying attention to what the ad was for - but could not admit to never having heard of FedEx or Hallmark. If a company really wants to get its message out, telling them to "apply directly to the forehead" fifty times a day provides much more bang for the buck.

On the subject of creative content, with the previously mentioned exception of the Travelers commercial, these are all essentially structured as long riffs on a single gag. And like many good comedy bits, they take place within a familiar setting - the office (an increasingly popular setting for commercials), a wedding, a parade. The premise of each can be explained in a few words - and probably was, at a meeting with company executives around a boardroom table. From there, the spots are allowed to explore their own different hooks. The FedEx and Coke commercials rely on nifty special effects. Hallmark relies on a heartwarming ending. The Bud Light commercial relies on, well, profanity, but more importantly relies on the understanding that profanity in a commercial is exciting because it supposedly transgresses cultural norms. The humor here is really more in the bleeps than in the words themselves that are being censored.

But this is all academic, so let's get down to the real question of who will, or should, win. Unfortunately this question is also academic, because it all depends on what they are winning for. Are these being judged purely as mini film entertainment, with the understanding that the advertising message is entirely subconscious and should be treated as such? In that case, the Travelers commercial might be considered the one that sets itself apart the most, reaching the farthest artistically, and telling the more complete story. On the other hand, should the advertising message be taken into consideration? Should the winner actually be the one that does the best job of promoting the brand? In that case maybe the Travelers commercial is a little more questionable. Does a modern insurance company really want itself to be viewed as an old man with a giant umbrella? Does it really do a good job of promoting the brand - and if it does, then why did they choose to run it repeatedly during daytime sporting events instead of once at the Super Bowl? Maybe here the Hallmark commercial succeeds, by highlighting both the irreverent humor and the sappy emotion that have characterized the company for decades, using a relatively smart, sharply written narrative. Or maybe the Bud Light commercial, with its raunchy approach, does the best job of connecting the beer-drinking audience.

And while we're asking the academic questions, add this one: Does it really matter who wins this Emmy? Maybe it's something nice that these companies get to put on their mantle (still unclear to us at Drink Moxie whether the sponsor, the ad agency, or the production company gets the statuette). But is the prestige boost really worth anything, or is it simply bragging rights? Will the agency with the Emmy secure more big projects in the future, or will business simply continue as usual?

We'll just have to wait until September 21 to find out. In the meantime, it is my act of public service to remind you that Mad Men, season 2, premieres Sunday, July 27, at 10pm, on AMC. Check your local cable listings.

UPDATE: For those of you keeping score, the winner was Swear Jar. Guess everyone was wrong.

Tennis, anyone?

Hi readers. Due to many distractions we have not been able to keep up our normal project completion rate. I promise you that soon, we will get back to bringing you the most insightful, in-depth analysis of product-endorsement-based entertainment.

For now, enjoy this commercial that I was directed to recently via the internets. It features Roger Federer, the loser in last week's epic Wimbledon final against Rafael Nadal (but still probably a superior pitchman) along with everyone's new favorite Kiwi, Rhys Darby.



Yes this is clearly just filler, but not everything has to be analyzed in depth. Sometimes commercials are just fun.