Are Academy campaigns cost-effective? You bet, says O'Neil. "This year, we're seeing the most dramatic example of a movie cashing in on its Oscar profile," he says, pointing to The King's Speech. "This period costume drama, initially projected to take in about $30 million globally, will, with help from its 12 Oscar nominations, probably cross the $200 million mark."
The Weinstein Co. is behind Speech, which most handicappers predict will beat out The Social Network and True Grit for best-picture honors at the Academy Awards on Feb. 27.
As with cries for transparency in campaign financing, calls for Oscar-campaign reform largely go unanswered.
For good reasons.
One is the Oscar Bump in short-term box office. The other is the Million Dollar Baby delivering the long-term revenue.
Think of the Bump as the Slumdog Millionaire effect: By the time Oscar nominations were announced in January 2009, that Danny Boyle movie had grossed $44 million. Ten nominations and eight Oscar wins (including best picture) helped boost its domestic earnings to $141 million and global box office to $377 million.
While that sounds like a lot of money, the Bump represents only a fraction of the kernels in the popcorn bucket of a movie's total income. What drives Oscar campaigns is the Million Dollar Baby, those dollars delivered after a movie has left the big screen.
Revenue from theaters accounts for just 13 percent of the money made by a film's producers, according to IBISWorld, a market-research firm. (On average, 50 cents of each ticket dollar goes to the producer; the theater owner gets the rest.)
"More than 48 percent of the money a producer pockets comes from downloads, on demand, Netflix, and streaming," says Agata Kaczanowska, IBISWorld's entertainment-industry analyst.
