Why is it the same to vote in the HFPA?

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association is dead. Long live the Golden Globes.

That, at least, is the message from Dick Clark Productions and Todd Boehley’s private equity firm Elridge, which have acquired all of the “assets, rights and property” of the Golden Globes in a deal announced Monday that will result in what the press release refers to. as the “decline of the HFPA and its membership.”

But while this settlementto use the unusual term included in the press release, will result in the dissolution of the 80-year-old HFPA, it won’t change who votes for the Golden Globes. It will only change who makes money from them.

The 95 current members of the HFPA, which has come under fire in recent years for its lack of diversity and ethical lapses, have been offered five-year deals to be employees of the new for-profit organization it will run. the Golden Globes, with an annual salary of $75,000 for Globes-related activities. (If they don’t want to be part of that organization, they can accept purchases of $225,000.)

Another 215 international journalists, many from the FIPRESCI (International Federation of Film Critics) organization, are not members of the HFPA but were recruited earlier this year to give the Globes a larger and more credible voting body. Those journalists are also eligible to vote at the 81st Golden Globes, which will take place next January, though they won’t get paid if they do and won’t receive a purchase if they don’t.

And if you’re wondering what FIPRESCI members earn that will give the Globes credibility for free, you wouldn’t be the first.

The press release announcing the takeover of the Golden Globes by Todd Boehly’s Dick Clark Productions and Eldridge Industries made no mention of who would vote after the big sale. But a representative for the Globes confirmed that they would be current voters, the same people who voted earlier this year and many who had been voting when the industry finally decided it no longer wanted to support the HFPA.

The fact that the show retains the same voters has been glossed over in much of the coverage of the changes, but it’s a focal point of a shakeup that seems focused on finances, not the actual awards process. .

And it’s a shakeup that leaves many questions unanswered. In 2021, for example, in a bid to win back studios, networks and talent, the HFPA announced a series of reforms, including a strengthened Code of Conduct that prohibited members from accepting free travel and gifts from companies whose movies and shows television stations are covering (and voting). But with the organization disbanded, it remains to be seen whether the for-profit Globes will hold its employees to the same code of conduct.

TheWrap posed that question to a Globes representative but has not heard back.

And when you add the fact that for-profits aren’t subject to the same financial disclosure requirements as non-profits, it appears that the new “non-HFPA” Globes will indeed rely significantly on non-profit participation. former HFPA members, just with less financial transparency and more nebulous guidelines.

It could be argued that those voters have actually made good decisions in recent years, but that’s not the point if this comes across as a big Globes reboot.

Is the move to this new for-profit venture good enough to win back the trust of an entertainment industry that was no longer sure it wanted to play the Globes game? Depends, I suppose, on how important that brand is to studios and network marketers, and how much they want a name-recognition early January awards show that serves as a launching pad for the home stretch of voting for the Oscar nomination.

It’s also worth noting that business firms that want to make a profit aren’t known for keeping people on staff who don’t do much, so while voters may have those five-year deals at $75,000 per year, they won’t. it’s hard to find people. that they expect Boehly to cut the original members as soon as he can. Even that line in the press release, “the liquidation of the HFPA and your membership” (my italics), suggests that your time is limited.

Meanwhile, Dick Clark Productions and its partners “will be pursuing Golden Globes business opportunities across the board,” according to the press release, and hope that next January’s show can move the needle in the right direction.

Then what? A gradual move towards a Globes not dependent on what’s left of the HFPA? If so, what will take its place? Other DCP award shows use audience voting (the American Music Awards), professionals (the Academy of Country Music Awards), and sales, airplay, streaming, and social data (the Billboard Music Awards) to choose to the winners. But popularity contests won’t work as a precursor to the Oscars, and all movie professionals already vote in their own awards shows.

The New Globes, which when it comes to the voting process may not be so new after all, teeters on a dangerous edge and raises a big question for the entertainment industry: In this post-COVID era where shows awards show in general have lost much of their audience, how desperate are you to have a Golden Globes show again? And at what price?

Journalist and author Mark Harris, for years an astute observer of awards season, tweeted Monday: “I can’t imagine anyone who opposes the ethics and lack of transparency of the former Globes wanting to get anywhere near this centipede waste.” human. ”