A Problem with the envelope
On February 26th 2017, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences held its 89th award ceremony, celebrating the best films of 2016. The ceremony was a case study in preventing human error (or not depending on your perspective). It went swimmingly until the very last award for best picture.
Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty mounted the stage. They read aloud the nominees, then Warren Beatty opened the envelope that held the name of the winner. He looked a bit puzzled. He checked the inside of the envelope to make sure he wasn’t missing something and gave Faye Dunaway a quizzical look. Then he started to announce the award and stopped. With a bemused expression on his face, he looked inside the envelope again.
Mr Beatty passed the card to Faye Dunaway to see what she made of it. Thinking he was clowning about and not genuinely confused Ms Dunaway stated the winner.
“La La Land”
Two minutes later, halfway through the acceptance speeches, all hell broke loose. Stage managers and organisers crowded onto the stage. Faye Dunaway had read out the wrong card.
La La Land’s producer rectified the error.
I’m sorry, no, there has been a mistake, Moonlight, you guys won best picture.
Jordan Horowitz
What did you do Warren?
Jimmy Kimmel, the show’s host regained control of the situation and asked in mock outrage “What did you do Warren?”
It would be easy to blame Warren Beatty, after all, he was the first to see that he had the wrong card. He should never have shown it to Faye Dunaway.
What was he supposed to do? As he pointed out later, the show must go on.
Well, maybe this is a misprint… I shouldn’t foul up the show just because someone made a little error.
Warren Beatty
It wasn’t Beatty’s fault. Somebody had given him the wrong card.
The man handing out the results envelopes that evening was Brian Cullinan, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of the world’s largest firms of accountants. PwC is responsible for counting the votes for the awards. They pass the result to the announcer at the very last moment so that it remains a secret. Mr Cullian gave Warren Beatty the wrong card.
It was a public relations disaster for PWC.
Operator error
When something goes wrong the first task is to find out who messed up and blame them. Nobody was hurt in this disaster. In fact, some of us experienced a lovely dose of schadenfreude watching the beautiful people looking stupid.
Despite that, the rules are simple:
- Find the operator who made the error
- Remove the operator
By holding people accountable for poor performance you will solve the problem.
In this case, Brian Cullian definitely screwed up. It was a cut and dried case, nobody else was to blame.
System failure
Whilst diagnosing a fault as “human error” is easy, it is also lazy thinking. It doesn’t account for the system that the operator is working within. A better line of reasoning would be to ask what was wrong with the system? How did the (highly paid, well educated) operator make such a schoolboy error?
System failure #1 – The mobile phone.
The direct reason that Cullinan messed up was that he was distracted and playing on his mobile phone. Seconds before handing over the wrong envelope he had taken a picture of Emma Stone and posted it on Twitter. She had just received the award for best actress.
If ever there was evidence that you should “put your damn phone down”, this was it.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to play with your phone. We bought my mother her first smartphone last year for her 80th birthday. She has taken to it like a duck to water, she now rivals my teenage daughter for her phombie behaviour.
Mr Cullinan was having the time of his life. One of the world’s most beautiful women had walked straight past him and he took a quick snap. How many other men would have done the same? His behaviour was inevitable.
System failure #2 – The envelope and card
When Warren Beatty read the card in his hand it made him pause for thought. It looked like the card for the previous prize, but he wasn’t sure. Faye Dunaway didn’t have any doubts when she glanced at it and mistakenly read out the winner.
The card looked a little like this.
The piece of information that was given the most importance was “The Oscars”. That was the least useful thing on the card. I’m willing to bet my mortgage and yours, that the presenters knew that they were at the Oscars.
Next most prominent, in equal weight, was the name of the actress and film. Which was most important? In this case, the card was for the best actress. The film’s name was secondary.
Finally, the name of the award was tucked away at the bottom in the small print. Nobody reads the small print.
You can understand why Mr Beatty looked confused and why Ms Dunaway — in the heat of the moment — couldn’t help but shout out the name of the only film on the card.
Benjamin Bannister proposed an alternative design. My version is a little less artistic…
If the card had looked something like that, then the presenters would have been far more likely to pause. After all, a minute’s delay would have saved nearly everybody’s blushes.
That isn’t the end of the story. The envelope that contained the name of the prize was red with gold lettering. Gold on red, though very classy is not hugely legible. Apparently, they were couture envelopes.
Warren Beatty was days away from turning 80 when he was handed that envelope. I’m 51 and I can’t read a thing without my glasses on.
The whole design was a triumph of style over substance.
If information is presented ambiguously somebody will misunderstand it. It doesn’t matter if it is on an award card, a PowerPoint, or on the control panel of a nuclear power station. Clarity matters.
System failure #3 – Two envelopes
Ten minutes earlier, Leonardo DiCaprio had presented the award for best actress to Emma Stone. He had already opened the envelope and read the result. How on earth did the card find its way back into the hands of Warren Beatty?
It transpires that there were two identical sets of envelopes. Another partner at PWC — Martha Ruiz — had handed Leonardo DiCaprio one of the Best Actress envelopes earlier, leaving the other in Mr Cullian’s hands.
Why do they have two sets of envelopes? In an interview given before the awards Brian Cullian explained:
From a security perspective, we double up everything. That’s why there’s two of us. We have two briefcases, that are identical, and we have two entire sets of winning envelopes. Martha carries one of those briefcases, I carry the other. The security is obviously intense, because you know, we are literally holding a briefcase filled with secrets.
We go to the show separately with police escorts. I used to think it was for our security, it’s really for the briefcase. We take different routes to get there just because of the kinds of things that can happen in LA traffic. We want to make sure that no matter what happens, one of us gets there. We’ve never really had a problem with that.
Brian Cullian
They had two sets of envelopes as a safety measure.
By adding more controls, the operation became more complicated, introducing new ways that it could go wrong.
So who was to blame?
- Faye Dunaway for blurting out the answer without reading the card?
- Warren Beatty for handing, what he thought was the wrong card, to Ms Dunaway?
- Brian Cullian for giving the wrong card to Mr Beatty?
- The stage manager who didn’t insist that Mr Cullian put down his phone?
- The designer of the cards and envelopes?
- The risk manager who decided that there should be two sets of envelopes?
If any one of them had made a different decision the fiasco could have been avoided. Accidents rarely happen when one thing goes wrong. It is invariably a string of errors that causes a failure.
Never again?
After owning up to the mistake and apologising to all concerned PWC managed to keep the contract to run the secret ballot.
Vanity Fair detailed the extra measures they put in place with the aim of preventing human error and ensuring there were no further mishaps:
- Cullinan was banned from handing out further awards. — I can’t help but think he is the one man who will never make the same mistake again.
- As each envelope is handed out, both the presenters and a stage manager will check it is the right one. — Manual checking isn’t famous for its reliability.
- A third PWC partner will be backstage, with a third set of envelopes. — Presumably in case somebody gets confused?
On a more positive note… The Academy has changed the design of their envelopes to something far less ambiguous. You can see it here.
That envelope may well prevent future human errors. Unfortunately, it won’t make the Oscars nearly as enjoyable to watch…
If you enjoyed this post click here to receive the next
Listen to Tim Harford’s perspective of events
Image by Loren Javier
Leave a Reply