Podcasts > Planet Money > On the Oscars campaign trail

On the Oscars campaign trail

By NPR (podcasts@npr.org)

In this fascinating episode of Planet Money, Alexi Horowitz-Ghazi and Matt Bellamy, along with others, dive into the fiercely competitive underbelly of the Academy Awards campaigns. It begins with a retrospective on how Miramax, then led by Harvey Weinstein, revolutionized Oscar campaigning in the 1990s—turning the race for cinema's most coveted statues into an all-out war of publicity and strategic moves that centered on not just the art of film, but the art of winning.

With the entrance of streaming services like Netflix into the fray, supported by eclectic insights from Tony Angelotti, the podcast examines how these entertainment behemoths are reshaping what an Oscar campaign looks like in the modern age. Meanwhile, the recent rise of smaller studios achieving Oscar glory marks a shift toward greater diversity and internationalization within the Academy. This celebration of global cinema, highlighted by the unprecedented success of films like "Parasite," speaks to a potentially more inclusive and far-reaching future for the film industry's pinnacle awards.

Listen to the original

On the Oscars campaign trail

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Mar 9, 2024 episode of the Planet Money

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

On the Oscars campaign trail

1-Page Summary

The rise of aggressive Oscar campaigns in the 1990s

Throughout the 1990s, Oscar campaigns transformed into more aggressive endeavors, particularly propelled by Miramax, under the guidance of Harvey Weinstein. Miramax's approach shifted the dynamic of the race, emphasizing the art of winning. One standout tactic was Daniel Day-Lewis’s involvement with a Congressional testimony associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which worked in favor of Miramax's film "My Left Foot." This was part of a broader strategy where the company purchased indie and foreign films, campaigned for Oscar nominations to enhance their marketability, and re-released them to theaters. The result was a significant boost in ticket sales and additional profits from various ancillary markets. Miramax’s success set a precedent, leading other studios to escalate their own Oscar campaign strategies, changing the landscape of the Academy Awards race into a more competitive and costly affair.

Streaming services enter the Oscars race

Streaming giants, especially Netflix, have taken the Oscars by storm, indicating a major paradigm shift in how the entertainment industry approaches premier awards. For instance, Netflix's campaign for "Roma" was one of the most intensive ever, with a rumored budget overshadowing the film's production cost. Netflix tackled the Oscars' theatrical requirement by purchasing theaters, which streamlined the qualification process. Further solidifying their hold on visibility, Netflix secured numerous billboards in strategic locations to appeal directly to Oscar voters. "Roma's" success with 10 Oscar nominations and triumphant wins in crucial categories demonstrates that streaming platforms can deliver quality cinema, fundamentally altering audience viewing habits. Additionally, tech companies like Amazon and Apple are embracing the Oscars as a platform to enrich their branding and attract talent, underlining the value placed on the awards as a means to elevate their brand's association with artistic excellence and to entice more customers to their platforms.

Smaller studios finding recent Oscar success

Smaller, independent studios are finding renewed success at the Oscars, a phenomenon partially credited to the increasing diversity and internationalization of Academy members. Facing criticism for its uniform membership, the Academy greatly expanded its ranks with members who are more diverse and encompass broader international perspectives. This shift has altered voting trends, favoring independent films and foreign cinema. The international contingent now represents approximately a quarter of the Academy, advocating for a more global appreciation of film artistry. This trend reached a new apex when "Parasite," a South Korean film, won Best Picture in 2020, the first non-English language film to do so, showcasing the Academy's progressive inclinations and acknowledgment of international cinema.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Miramax, led by Harvey Weinstein, revolutionized Oscar campaigns in the 1990s by aggressively promoting their films through strategic tactics like re-releasing, lobbying, and leveraging talent involvement. Their approach aimed to enhance the marketability of indie and foreign films, leading to increased ticket sales and profits. This shift set a precedent for studios to intensify their own campaign strategies, making the Academy Awards race more competitive and costly. Miramax's influence reshaped the dynamics of Oscar campaigning, emphasizing the importance of strategic promotion and lobbying efforts in securing nominations and wins.
  • Netflix purchased theaters to meet the Oscars' theatrical requirement by ensuring their films had a limited theatrical release before being available on their streaming platform. This move allowed Netflix to qualify for Oscar consideration, as the Academy traditionally requires films to have a theatrical run to be eligible for certain categories. By owning theaters, Netflix could control the distribution of their films and comply with the Academy's rules while still primarily being a streaming service. This strategy helped Netflix navigate the traditional requirements of the Oscars while also disrupting the traditional theatrical distribution model in the industry.
  • The Academy's increased diversity and internationalization have led to a broader range of perspectives among its members, influencing voting trends to favor independent films and foreign cinema. This shift reflects a more inclusive approach to recognizing diverse storytelling and artistic achievements from around the world. The expanded membership, with a significant international contingent, has brought a more global perspective to the Academy's decision-making process. This trend has created opportunities for smaller studios and international filmmakers to receive recognition and success at the Oscars.

Counterarguments

  • While Miramax's tactics in the 1990s were indeed aggressive, it could be argued that they were simply capitalizing on the existing framework of the Oscars, which always had an element of campaigning and promotion.
  • The strategy of purchasing indie and foreign films for Oscar campaigns might have brought more attention to these films, but it could also be seen as a form of market manipulation that doesn't necessarily reflect the artistic merit of the films.
  • Netflix's campaign for "Roma" and the strategies employed by streaming services could be criticized for potentially overshadowing smaller films with less financial backing, thus perpetuating a different kind of inequality in the awards race.
  • The purchase of theaters by Netflix to meet Oscar qualifications might be viewed as a loophole exploitation that undermines the spirit of the theatrical release requirement.
  • The involvement of big tech companies in the Oscars could be seen as a commercialization of the awards, where the focus shifts from artistic achievement to brand enhancement and market competition.
  • While the Academy's diversification is a positive step, it could be argued that the Oscars still do not fully represent the diversity of the global film community, and that more progress is needed.
  • The success of international films like "Parasite" at the Oscars could be seen as tokenism or a trend rather than a sustained commitment to recognizing a diverse range of cinematic works.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
On the Oscars campaign trail

The rise of aggressive Oscar campaigns in the 1990s

The Oscar campaigns of the 1990s underwent a transformation towards being more aggressive and competitively communicated, a shift driven by Miramax and co-founder Harvey Weinstein's pioneering tactics.

How Miramax and Harvey Weinstein pioneered aggressive tactics

Tony Angelotti, who experienced the evolution of Oscar campaigns firsthand, watched as they grew in intensity from the 1980s into the more aggressive 1990s. It was during this time that Bob and Harvey Weinstein at Miramax distinguished themselves by adopting innovative approaches to the Oscar race.

By the early '90s, Harvey Weinstein was notably implementing aggressive campaign tactics and stunts to draw attention. An example of such a tactic was having Daniel Day-Lewis, star of "My Left Foot," testify in Congress about the Americans with Disabilities Act, which garnered headlines and curried favor with Academy voters.

Matt Bellamy, an entertainment journalist, remarked on how Miramax transformed Oscar campaigning into a highly competitive endeavor, with a sharp focus on winning.

Miramax's strategy to use Oscar wins to boost indie film profits

Miramax's business strategy relied on buying and distributing indie and foreign films that struggled at the box office initially. The strategy was to then launch aggressive campaigns for Oscar nominations to increase the films' marketability and drive ticket sales, defying the conventional wisdom of the era.

Academy Awards played a strategic role at Miramax; the company leveraged the prestige that came from win ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The rise of aggressive Oscar campaigns in the 1990s

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Harvey Weinstein and Miramax employed aggressive Oscar campaign tactics such as staging stunts to draw attention. For example, they had Daniel Day-Lewis testify in Congress about the Americans with Disabilities Act to generate headlines and appeal to Academy voters. These tactics were part of a broader strategy to increase the marketability and profitability of indie and foreign films through award recognition.
  • Miramax strategically used Oscar wins to increase the marketability and profitability of indie and foreign films. Winning Oscars generated prestige and buzz, leading to wider theatrical releases and increased ticket sales. The attention from awards also boosted revenue from various distribution channels like television, international sales, and home entertainment formats. This approach defied traditional industry norms and helped indie films reach broader audiences and generate more revenue.
  • The conventional wisdom of the era in the film industry suggested that indie and foreign films, which typically struggled at the box office, were not viable candidates for major awards like the Oscars. Miramax challenged this belief by aggressively campaigning for Oscar nominations for these films, aiming to boost their marketability and profitability through the prestige associated with award recognition. This strategy defied the prevailing notion that only big-budget, mainstream films could succeed commercially and critically in the industry. Miramax's approach demonstrated that strategic Oscar campaigns could effectively elevate the visibility and success of smaller, independent productions.
  • The attention from winning awards like Oscars could boost revenue streams beyond ticket sales, including increased earnings from television broadcasts, airplane screenings, international distribution, and sales in ancillary markets like VHS and DVDs. These additional revenue ch ...

Counterarguments

  • The aggressive tactics used by Miramax and Harvey Weinstein may have overshadowed the artistic merit of films, potentially leading to awards being given for reasons other than cinematic excellence.
  • The focus on aggressive campaigning could have contributed to an unhealthy industry culture where spending on marketing trumps the quality of the film itself.
  • The strategy of using Oscar wins to boost indie film profits might have inadvertently created a barrier for truly independent filmmakers who lacked the resources for such campaigns.
  • The arms race in Oscar campaigns initiated by Miramax's tactics could be seen as contributing to a less level playing field, where only films with significant backing could compete effectively.
  • The transformation of Oscar campaigns into highly competitive endeavors may have detracted from the original spirit of the awards, which was to honor artistic achievement without regard to commercial success.
  • The emulation of Miramax's strategies by other studios could have led to a homogenization of campaign tactics ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
On the Oscars campaign trail

Streaming services enter the Oscars race

Streaming companies are emerging as major contenders in the Oscars race, representing a tidal shift in the entertainment industry.

Netflix makes a huge Oscars campaign push

Netflix has made a particularly strong campaign effort, especially for Alfonso Cuaron’s "Roma."

Buying theaters and billboards to qualify and promote Roma

For "Roma," Netflix conducted one of the most extensive and visible Oscars campaigns in history, estimated at $30-40 million, which surpassed the film's production budget. Due to the Oscars' requirements for films to be shown theatrically in New York and Los Angeles, Netflix purchased its own theaters to simplify the qualification process for its releases. In addition to owning movie theaters, Netflix also notably bought out most of the billboards along the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles to ensure visibility among Academy voters. "Roma" ultimately received 10 Oscar nominations and won for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Director, signaling that subscribers could access high-caliber cinema without going to traditional theaters.

Tech companies using Oscars to build branding and draw talent

Tech companies like Amazon and Apple are also investing heavily in ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Streaming services enter the Oscars race

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • To qualify for the Oscars, films typically need to have a theatrical release in specific locations like New York and Los Angeles. This requirement ensures that movies have a traditional cinematic run before being considered for the prestigious awards. It is a way to maintain the connection between the Oscars and the traditional theatrical experience, even as streaming services become more prominent in the industry. Meeting this criterion allows films to be eligible for various categories at the Oscars, including Best Picture and others.
  • Netflix purchased theaters to meet the Oscars' requirement for films to be shown theatrically in specific locations like New York and Los Angeles. By owning theaters, Netflix could ensure that its films, like "Roma," could be screened in these locations, making them eligible for consideration in prestigious awards like the Oscars. This move allowed Netflix to navigate the traditional theatrical release requirements while also promoting its films to a wider audience through the theatrical experience. The strategy of owning theaters helped Netflix streamline the qualification process for its releases and increase visibility among industry professionals and audiences.
  • Netflix buying out billboards along the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles was part of their extensive Oscars campaign for the film "Roma." By purchasing most of the billboards in this prominent location, Netflix aimed to ensure high visibility for the movie among Academy voters and the general public. This strategic move was intended to create buzz and draw attention to "Roma," ultimately contributing to its success during the awards season. The Sunset Strip is a famous area in Los Angeles known for its concentration of entertainment-related businesses, making it a prime location for advertising in the industry.
  • Winning Oscars for tech companies like Amazon and Apple is significant as it helps enhance their brands and attract talent. These awards associate their streaming services with high-quality, award-winning content, aiming to boost subscriptions and viewership. By leveraging the prestige of ...

Counterarguments

  • Streaming companies' heavy investment in Oscar campaigns may raise concerns about the commercialization of the awards and whether it skews the playing field away from smaller productions with less financial backing.
  • The practice of purchasing theaters to qualify for the Oscars could be criticized as a loophole that undermines the spirit of the theatrical release requirement.
  • The effectiveness of billboard advertising in influencing Academy voters is debatable, as it may not necessarily translate into votes for nominations or wins.
  • The focus on winning Oscars could be seen as prioritizing industry recognition over audience satisfaction or storytelling innovation.
  • There is a potential criticism that tech companies' involvement in the film industry might lead to a homogenization of content, as they may favor projects that are more likely to win awards rather than take creative risks.
  • The strategy of using Oscars to build branding might be criticized for potentially overshadowing the artistic and cultural value o ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
On the Oscars campaign trail

Smaller studios finding recent Oscar success

More diverse, international Academy members

Independent film studios like A24 and Neon have recently found success at the Oscars, which can be attributed to the changing demographics of the Academy members. After facing criticism for a lack of diversity in 2015, the Academy has invited several thousand new members. These new recruits are not only younger but also come from more diverse and international backgrounds.

The influx of new Academy members from outside the traditional Hollywood circle has shifted the voting pattern in favor of smaller, independent movies and foreign films. Now, about a quarter of the Academy's members are based outside the United States, marking a significant transformation.

This increased international presence wi ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Smaller studios finding recent Oscar success

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • In 2015, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences faced criticism for the lack of diversity among its members and nominees. This criticism highlighted the predominantly white and male composition of the Academy, leading to calls for increased representation of women and people of color in the organization. The hashtag #OscarsSoWhite gained traction on social media, drawing attention to the lack of diversity in the nominations and winners of the prestigious awards. The controversy prompted the Academy to take steps to address diversity issues within its membership and selection processes.
  • The traditional Hollywood circle typically refers to the established network of industry professionals, including filmmakers, actors, producers, and executives, who have historically dominated the American film industry. This circle has traditionally been centered around major studios and key players in Hollywood, often associated with mainstream, big-budget productions. The term implies a certain level of exclusivity and influence within the industry, shaping trends, decision-making, and recognition in events like the Oscars. The influx of new Academy members from diverse and international backgrounds has disrupted this traditional circle by introducing fresh p ...

Counterarguments

  • While the Academy has diversified, it's possible that the success of studios like A24 and Neon is also due to the quality and originality of their films, rather than solely the changing demographics of the Academy members.
  • The invitation of new members may have been a step towards diversity, but it could be argued that the Academy's voting patterns are influenced by broader cultural shifts and trends in the film industry, not just the demographics of its members.
  • The argument that new members are responsible for the shift in voting patterns might overlook the contributions of long-standing members who have also evolved in their tastes and preferences.
  • The increase in international members and the success of foreign language films could be part of a global trend towards cross-cultural exchange and appreciation, rather than a direct result of the Academy's membership changes.
  • The success of "Parasite" and other foreign language films at the Oscars could be seen as a reflection of their universal themes and storytelling excellence, which resonate with audiences and critics alike ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA