2018-2019 TRANSPARENCY REPORT -...

2018-2019TRANSPARENCYREPORT

®

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

KEY STATISTICS

Entries

Judges

NOMINATIONS

Drama Series

Non-Drama Series and Programs

AWARD RECIPIENTS

JUDGING PROCESS

Ballot Return Rates

Nomination Challenges

Outstanding Digital Drama Series

Primetime Awards Entry

Special Class Special

Outstanding Daytime Promotional Announcement - Topical

Judging Irregularities

UPCOMING PLANS

3

4

4

4

5

5

6

7

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

11

12

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

3

INTRODUCTION1

In response to the findings of last year’s independent investigation into administration of the Daytime Emmy® Awards, NATAS committed to publishing an annual Transparency Report. The goal of this report is to provide greater insight into and context around the many actions taken by the administration team and National Awards Committee in their effort to adjudicate a fair competition.

Every challenge or substantive inquiry raised in the course of the 46th Annual Daytime Emmy® Awards competition was logged and is reflected in this report. In cases where the resulting actions required public disclosure — such as the disqualification of an announced nominee — the summaries identify the specific entries affected. In all other cases, the summaries anonymize the identities of the respective entries and claimants.

This is the first Transparency Report published by NATAS — or to our knowledge, by any similar awards competition — and we welcome community feedback on its content and format.

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

4

total entries were submitted into the contest. 2,514

ENTRIES

JUDGES

Approved unique judges

Unique participating judges for the final Blue Ribbon round

Unapprovedjudges

Unique panel assignments with most judges being placed on two and, in

some cases, three panels each.

1,243

2,054

75277

KEY STATISTICS2

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

5

with the following exceptions:

As is standard practice, the Awards Committee met via teleconference on March 18, 2019 to review the voting process with representatives of the accounting firm Lutz & Carr and NATAS Awards staff. Referred to as the “Nominations Cut-Off Call,” the purpose of the call is to establish the number of nominees and to break ties. Voting irregularities, if any, are raised by Lutz and Carr. The identities of entrants or judges are not disclosed during the discussion.

467nominees across

all categories

5nominees per

category

DRAMA SERIES

There was one tie for fifth place in the Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series category, resulting in six nominees.

With only four programs eligible, the Outstanding Drama Series and related Crafts categories could feature a maximum of four nominees.

The National Awards Committee determined that a category could feature only three nominees if only three submissions were received, or if the point-spread between third and fourth place was equivalent to 10% or more of the total judges in the category.

As such, the following eight categories had only three nominees each:

1. Outstanding Casting Director for a Drama Series 2. Outstanding Art Direction/Set Direction/Scenic

Design for a Drama Series 3. Outstanding Lighting Direction for a Drama

Series 4. Outstanding Technical Team for a Drama Series 5. Outstanding Multiple Camera Editing for a

Drama Series 6. Outstanding Live and Direct to Tape Sound

Mixing for a Drama Series 7. Outstanding Music Direction and Composition

for a Drama Series 8. Outstanding Hairstyling for a Drama Series

NOMINATIONS3

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

6

NON-DRAMA SERIES AND PROGRAMS

There were ten ties for fifth place in the non-drama categories, resulting in six nominees:

1. Outstanding Preschool Children’s Animated Series

2. Outstanding Culinary Program

3. Outstanding Travel and Adventure Program

4. Outstanding Special Class Series

5. Outstanding Promotional Announcement Topical*

6. Outstanding Performer in a Preschool Animated Program

7. Outstanding Casting for an Animated Series or Special

8. Outstanding Art Direction/Set Direction/Scenic Design

9. Outstanding Technical Team

10. Outstanding Original Song

*Other factors related to the Outstanding Promotional Announcement Topical category are discussed in Section V, Judging Process (Qualification Judgements).

The National Awards Committee determined that a category could feature four nominees if only four submissions were received, or as few as three of the four submissions if the point-spread between third and fourth place was equivalent to 10% or more of the total judges in the category. As a result:

1. Outstanding Morning Program had four nominees.

2. Outstanding Morning Program - Spanish had three nominees.

In one category, there was a five-way tie for fifth place, which would have extended the category beyond the maximum-allowed seven nominees. None of the five contenders had perfect scores of 10. Only one contender had a score of 9. This contender became the fifth nominee.

NOMINATIONS3

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

7

PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 0

Category A

0

2

Award RecipientOther Nominee

PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 4

Other Nominee 1

Category B

1

4


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 5

Other Nominee 3

Category C

3

5


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category D

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category E

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category F

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category G

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category H

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category I

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category J

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 1

Category K

1

2


1

Category JCategory I Category K

This year’s competition resulted in one Emmy® Award recipient in each of 95 categories.

There were six honorees chosen in the category of Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation. This category is determined by a live panel of judges who may award as many or as few honorees as they see fit in the fields of Storyboard, Production Design, Color, Background Design, Character Animation, and Character Design. There were also six honorees chosen last year.

There were ties for the highest cumulative score recorded in eleven categories. As per the competition rules, each tie was broken according to the relative numbers of first and second place votes in preferential scoring categories, or perfect (10 points) and near-perfect (9 points) scores in scored categories.

Award Recipient

Number of Perfect Scores for:

Other Nominee * each nominee had the same number of first place votes, so the tiebreak was decided by the second place votes

PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 0

Category A

0

2


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 4

Other Nominee 1

Category B

1

4


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 5

Other Nominee 3

Category C

3

5


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category D

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category E

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category F

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category G

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category H

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category I

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category J

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 1

Category K

1

2


1

Category A Category CCategory B Category D

PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 0

Category A

0

2


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 4

Other Nominee 1

Category B

1

4


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 5

Other Nominee 3

Category C

3

5


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category D

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category E

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category F

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category G

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category H

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 1

Other Nominee 0

Category I

01


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 3

Other Nominee 2

Category J

2

3


PARTICIPANT VOTES

Award Recipient 2

Other Nominee 1

Category K

1

2


1

Category E Category GCategory F Category H

* *

* *

AWARD RECIPIENTS4

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

8

This year’s contest featured a 69% overall return rate across the contest. Below highlights the return rates by category type and by genre.

Series/Program

Acting/Hosting

Drama Craft

Writing

Directing

Craft

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

79%

65%

75%

89%

57%

75%

Categories

By Category Type:

Series/Program 75%

Acting/Hosting 57%

Drama Craft 89%

Writing 75%

Directing 65%

Craft 79%

Children’s/Animation

Court

Culinary/Travel/Lifestyle/Educational

Digital Drama

Drama

Entertainment/Morning News

Game

Spanish

Special Class

Talk

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

70%

78%

68%

72%

76%

77%

73%

74%

100%

66%

Genres

By Genre


66%

Court 100%


74%

Digital Drama 73%

Drama 77%


76%

Game 72%

Spanish 68%

Special Class 78%

Talk 70%

1

Series/Program

Acting/Hosting

Drama Craft

Writing

Directing

Craft

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

79%

65%

75%

89%

57%

75%

Categories

By Category Type:

Series/Program 75%

Acting/Hosting 57%

Drama Craft 89%

Writing 75%

Directing 65%

Craft 79%


Court


Digital Drama

Drama


Game

Spanish

Special Class

Talk

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

70%

78%

68%

72%

76%

77%

73%

74%

100%

66%

Genres

By Genre


66%

Court 100%


74%

Digital Drama 73%

Drama 77%


76%

Game 72%

Spanish 68%

Special Class 78%

Talk 70%

1

By Category Type:

By Genre:

JUDGING PROCESS5

BALLOT RETURN RATES

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

9

JUDGING PROCESS5

OUTSTANDING DIGITAL DRAMA SERIES

The digital drama series “Love Daily” received a pre-nomination for Outstanding Digital Drama Series. Following the announcement, the Administration Team was notified that while the series originally streamed on the now-defunct Go90, the version submitted to the contest and viewed by the judges was edited from its original format by its new distributor, Hulu. These edits repurposed what had been previously two different episodes by combining them into a single episode broken up by vignettes.

The competition rules require that content be submitted in the originally-aired format. As such, the entry was disqualified. With eleven digital dramas pre-nominated due to a tie, the revocation did not necessitate the inclusion of an additional nominee to bring the group to ten.

The eligibility of another pre-nominated digital drama series was called into question because it was no longer available on its designated streaming platform at the time of judging. However, the rules only require that the program be available during the eligibility period (calendar year 2018) so the pre-nomination was reaffirmed.

PRIMETIME AWARDS ENTRY

An individual recognized with a nomination in a craft category chose to withdraw their nomination after informing the Administration Team that the series had also entered the Primetime Emmy® Awards this year. Entering multiple Emmy® competitions for the same content is against the rules of both Academies. The individual had not been aware of the Primetime series entry when submitting their Daytime entry. The sixth-place entrant was elevated to a nomination following the withdrawal.

SPECIAL CLASS SPECIAL

The nomination of a program in the Special Class Special category was challenged by another entrant in the category who argued that the nominated program was produced by and under the general branding of a previous nominee in the Special Class Series category.

Upon review, it was determined that the full program title and format was distinct from regular episodes in the related series. The program was of a different duration than regular episodes of the series, and originally aired in a timeslot other than the regularly-scheduled series. Program guide listings and promotional announcements for the program also identified it as a “special” and not as an episode of the series. Accordingly, the nomination was reaffirmed.

NOMINATION CHALLENGES

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

10

JUDGING PROCESS5

OUTSTANDING DAYTIME PROMOTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT - TOPICAL

A nominee in this year’s competition questioned the eligibility of three nominees in the Outstanding Promotional Announcement - Topical category. Each of these qualification concerns was reviewed individually by the National Awards Committee:

1. The eligibility of Nominee A was questioned as the promotion was intended to raise audience awareness of a public health issue rather than a specific episode of the entrant’s Daytime programming. The National Awards Committee determined that the provision in the rules allowing for promotion of “an event” was broad in its intent, and as such, the nominated promotion was eligible for the Daytime Emmy® Awards.

2. The airtime of the promoted program in Nominee B was questioned. The Administration Team requested from the network documentation of the airtimes for each episode of the season. The network had chosen to broadcast half of the program’s first-run episodes in Daytime hours and half of the episodes in Primetime hours. Under each Academy’s rules, this permits the entrant to choose the competition in which they want to be considered. They did not enter the Primetime competition. Further, all series episodes debuted in Daytime hours on a streaming service in advance of the traditional broadcast premiere. The program was determined to be eligible for the Daytime Emmy® Awards and the nomination stood.

3. The eligibility of Nominee C was also questioned regarding airtime. The series itself was eligible for the Daytime Emmy® Awards. However, the submitted entry specifically promoted a Primetime airing of the program. Based on this fact, the National Awards Committee determined the entry to be ineligible and withdrew the nomination. Had the promotion directed viewers to a Daytime airing of the program, a streaming platform distribution, or simply the series as a whole, the entry would have remained eligible.

The category originally featured an additional nominee due to a tie. As such, five nominees remained following the disqualification, and the addition of a new nominee was not necessary.

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

11

JUDGING PROCESS5

During the Nominations Cut-Off Call, and prior to the disclosure of nominated entries, Lutz & Carr informed the National Awards Committee of any significant questions regarding the integrity of judging in any category, by any individual(s). At no time were NATAS Staff or members of the National Awards Committee informed of the identities of any of the relevant judges or affected entries.

1. In Category A, one judge gave a perfect score to one entrant and a score of zero for all other entrants. The National Awards Committee voted to disqualify this judge’s ballot. The disqualification changed the identity of the fifth nominee in the category but did not change the ultimate award recipient.

2. In Category B, one of the judges gave perfect scores to all of the entrants from one specific network, and gave the lowest possible score to all other entrants. The accountants determined an affiliation existed between the judge and the network, and the National Awards Committee voted to disqualify the judge’s ballot. The disqualification changed the identity of the fifth nominee in the category but did not change the ultimate award recipient.

3. In Category C, one of the judges gave a perfect score to one entrant and extremely low scores to all other entrants. While an affiliation was not determined conclusively between the judge and the highly-scored entrant, the pattern was a notable outlier in the category. The National Awards Committee voted to disqualify this judge’s ballot. The disqualification changed the identity of the fifth nominee in the category but did not change the ultimate award recipient.

4. In Category D, two of eight judges gave perfect scores to the entrants from a single network, and the minimum scores to all other entrants. The accountants were able to determine a shared affiliation between the two judges and the network. The National Awards Committee voted to disqualify both of these judges’ ballots. This resulted in a substantial change to the nominations, with three of the nominees differing. However, it did not change the ultimate award recipient.

5. During judging, the Administration Team was approached with an allegation that a judge was gathering login information from other individuals and conducting judging on their behalf. Internet Protocol (IP) address logs were gathered by the judging system vendor and shared with Lutz & Carr.

The reported judges were determined to have substantive differences in their ballots and to have submitted them from different devices, networks, and locations. As such, there was no evidence to substantiate this claim. Each of judges remained active with their scores counted.

JUDGING IRREGULARITIES

DA

YT

IM

E

EM

MY

S

20

18

-2

01

9T

RA

NS

PA

RE

NC

Y

RE

PO

RT

12

The 2018-2019 Daytime Emmy® Awards competition featured unprecedented levels of entries, judges, participation, and categories. The Administration Team is extremely proud of the integrity and fairness achieved in all parts of the process, and is grateful to all those in the Daytime community whose candor helped guide the way.

The 2019-2020 cycle will have a renewed focus on expanding the judging pool. We look forward to working with the Television Academy to recruit experienced and qualified judges from the nearly 40,000 professionals who are members of one or both Academies. Through this effort, as well as outreach to unions and other industry organizations, NATAS hopes to increase the overall number and diversity of qualified judges as well as the overall percentage of ballot returns. In particular, there will be a focus on recruiting additional judges for the technical craft and Spanish language categories.

Last year’s record-breaking entry levels resulted in a Blue Ribbon round in which several categories included more than fifty entries to be reviewed. This year, through staffing and schedule adjustments, the Administration Team intends to identify earlier in the entry period which categories require a second round of judging. This will alleviate the demand on judges’ time by reducing the number of categories containing a burdensome amount of material requiring viewing.

The Administration Team has met with Yangaroo, the technology firm responsible for the submission and judging platforms, to discuss several technological issues that may have affected judging. Chief among these concerns is increasing compatibility on non-Chrome browsers and on tablets/mobile devices. Yangaroo is dedicated to continuing to improve the user experience for all NATAS contests. Yangaroo has also been working on improving the ability to track progress throughout the entire judging period, providing real-time predictive insight as to whether additional judges need to be recruited for certain categories.

NATAS remains committed to administering a best-in-class competition that fairly and transparently recognizes excellence in our industry. We welcome any and all feedback, criticism, and suggestions at [email protected].

UPCOMING PLANS6

Date post:	13-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

2018-2019 TRANSPARENCY REPORT -...

Documents