I was just looking at the winners for last year and I have to say, there wasn't much that I liked. When an awards show names Nickleback the band of the year they're certainly not basing it all on talent. That being said, Nickleback certainly sold a lot of records last year, so what do I know?

I think the Polaris prize offered a much stronger group of nominees and by giving the award to Final Fantasy, a guy who named his band after a video game, they're certainly not just basing the award on who's coolest, but rather on talent.

I believe that in the entertainment industry talent is for sure a big part of it, but sad to say image always comes out on top. Even though Pamela Anderson is a great entertainer, she also has the image, and the Juno Awards were very smart to have her as the host last year in 2006 knowing they would get a lot more viewers.
As far as people winning...of course the people who look cool are bound to win, they may not have nearly as much talent, but that never seems to matter. How many bands and singers have changed their appearance for the public, way too many to name. So that goes to show that no matter how hard you try, people are first going to judge you on what you look like, and not necessarily what comes out of your mouth.

These awards are populist - they never take chances. And it's largely based on sales, and whoever people think are 'cool'. Who's picking the winners? It's all mainstream. And don't forget the curse of the 'New Group of the Year'....