Golden Globes Return From the Brink, But at What Cost?
The Golden Globes are back on television, but a growing chorus of industry observers question whether the awards show has traded one set of ethical problems for another. Less than five years ago, the ceremony was on the verge of collapse following a Los Angeles Times investigation that revealed self-dealing and a lack of diversity within the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA). Networks pulled coverage, studios cut ties, and even Tom Cruise famously returned his three Golden Globe awards in protest.
Now, under the ownership of Penske Media Eldridge, led by Jay Penske and Todd Boehly, the Globes have secured a five-year broadcast deal with CBS and announced their latest nominations. However, scrutiny remains, with critics alleging that the awards show has become even more overtly commercialized, prioritizing profit over integrity.
The HFPA attempted a rehabilitation by expanding its voting pool to 300 members, including Black voters, after years of criticism for its all-white membership. Fifty original members were initially “grandfathered” in and offered a $75,000 annual salary, a practice the Globes later terminated, citing concerns about perceived bias. “It’s hard not to be skeptical of such principled reasoning in light of more recent events,” one industry consultant noted.
The introduction of a new category for podcasts in May has become a focal point of the controversy. The initial shortlist of 25, selected by audio analytics company Luminate – also owned by Penske Media – included prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Theo Von, and Candace Owens. Notably absent was “New Heights,” the popular podcast hosted by NFL players Jason Kelce and Travis Kelce (engaged to singer Taylor Swift), sparking speculation that the category was intended, in part, to attract high-profile attendees like Swift.
But the true motivation quickly became apparent: revenue. According to The Ankler, Penske-owned Variety offered nominated podcasts lucrative marketing partnerships, including a $25,000 package to become a “Podcasting FYC Fest supporting partner” and a $75,000 deal for the “Variety Creative Impact Award in Podcasting.” This prompted concerns that popularity – and financial resources – were key criteria for eligibility. “It’s just a money grab,” a veteran awards consultant stated, adding, “Everybody used to knock the Globes, but they were just goofy… This is next level.”
The commercialization extended beyond podcasting. Reports surfaced that Penske offered three pairs of Golden Globes tickets for $70,000 each through its luxury lifestyle magazine, Robb Report, before quietly removing the offer after media coverage. This blatant attempt to monetize access has fueled accusations of widespread corruption.
Despite the ongoing controversies, the Golden Globes continue to hold sway as a marketing platform for films, particularly those seeking wider distribution. The January ceremony drew 9.3 million viewers, a figure considered respectable in today’s fragmented media landscape. Studios leverage Globe wins to promote their films’ expansion into more theaters, believing that an award can drive ticket sales – as evidenced by the increased viewership of the Brazilian political drama “I’m Still Here” after its lead actress, Fernanda Torres, won a Globe.
However, the addition of new categories, such as the podcast award and the 2022 “cinematic and box office achievement” award, has also been criticized for diluting the focus on film and television. As Maya Angelou famously said, “If someone shows you who they are, believe them.” The Golden Globes may be here to stay, but it’s time to stop pretending they’ve fundamentally changed.
