Rotten potatoes

TARA BRADYon the economics of an Oscar win

AND THE WINNER of Best Picture is . . . Harvey Weinstein!

They didn't call his name last Sunday, but the camera did cut to the robust movie mogul for the benefit of anyone who didn't realise that The Artistis Weinstein's latest Oscar baby.

Since the 1990s, Weinstein has played Fairy Godfather to dozens of award hopefuls. A brilliant promoter, he invented the modern Oscar campaign. He spent $15 million propelling Shakespeare in Loveto statuette glory. He even managed to score gold with the godawful English Patientfor another $15 million.

Rival studios were appalled, of course. Harvey’s campaigns were gauche, they said. Giving Bulgari earrings and watches to Academy members was unfair. Putting posters all over LA was vulgar.

So the next year they all became gauche and unfair and vulgar; they just weren’t as good at it as the master.

When Michelle Williams appeared in Vanity Fairbefore Christmas with what looked like a revealing personal interview, she was merely following a template that Harvey cooked up for Kate Winslet, who appeared in Vanity Fairshortly before her win for Ze Reader, with a revealing personal interview. (Weinstein, you'll recall, worked so hard for Winslet's victory that Oscarologists were astounded that he didn't arrive in a frock to pick the thing up for himself.)

Hollywood’s most creative accountants tell us that the average Oscar campaign costs $15 million. Over at Box Office Quant they tell us that winning Best Picture between 1999 and 2009 translates into an average box-office boost of $13,980,757.

A Best Actor gong, for the same period, was worth $1,106,227. Best Actress brought in $2,331,765. And, in tribute to how screwy the Best Supporting Actress category has become, it’s the only award that works to pull down your box office take, to the tune of $1,151,791 each year.

Economist Randy Nelson is more conservative in his estimates of $4.8 million for a Best Picture nomination and $12.7 million for a win. Other economists suggest that in recent years a nomination boosts box office but that a win has no significant effect on the take.

Gerda Gemser, the author of 2010 paper Why Some Awards Are More Effective Signals of Quality Than Others: A Study of Movie Awards, is more sceptical still. Break down the figures, she concluded, and any boost in revenues is likely to be simply due to exposure rather than any sort of credible signal.

Sure enough, following last weekend's win, The Artistheld firm at ninth place in the US chart, dipping only 50 per cent between Sunday and Monday when even the No 1 movie, Act of Valor, took a 67.3 per cent dive. By Tuesday, The Artistmade gains of 13 per cent toward a total of $401,098. Wow. Average out the two Tuesdays before ($355,703) and voilà! That's an Oscar gain of 45 grand. Don't spend it all in one place, Harvey.

Are we missing something? How can these numbers add up? They don’t. And they’re not the only ones in play. We’re not seeing the $97,000 losers’ goody bags, this year featuring an African Safari worth £30,000 and a Tiffany crystal-studded cat collar. We’re not seeing the advertising revenues from the 71.4 million viewers who watched all or part of the Academy Awards last weekend.

What price prestige? That ought to cover it.