Why Oscar Campaign Costs Keep Rising as the Academy Tightens Lobbying Rules

The Academy bars studios from directly lobbying Academy voters. The rule is clear: 'Contacting Academy members directly and in a manner outside of the scope of these rules to promote a film or achievement for Academy Award consideration is expressly forbidden.' Yet studios spend tens of millions each year promoting films for Oscar consideration anyway.

They do it through a narrow but expensive set of permitted activities. Trade publication advertising, industry screenings, digital campaigns and carefully controlled member contact are all allowed. As Academy rules have tightened in recent years—prompted by campaigns like Andrea Riseborough's grassroots push in 2023 that the Academy investigated—studios have had to spend more to reach voters through these approved channels.

What Studios Can and Cannot Do

The Academy permits studios to advertise in trade publications like The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, to host screenings for Academy members, and to distribute promotional materials. They can contact voters by email or through Academy-verified phone numbers. Studios can also provide promotional gifts, though with strict caps. The rules explicitly prohibit private phone calls to voters' personal numbers, unsolicited contact outside Academy channels, and gifts exceeding value limits.

Screeners—copies of films sent to voters—must be watermarked and streamed rather than downloaded to prevent unauthorized sharing. Studios must stop distributing screeners 48 hours before voting closes, preventing last-minute saturation. Studios also cannot name competing films or performers in their campaigns, after years of Academy members singling out rivals in their own endorsements.

These boundaries shape what campaigns look like. Studios cannot hold exclusive screenings for a select group of voters or promise anything in return for votes. They cannot organize what appears to be grassroots support if it is coordinated from inside the studio. The Academy's Board of Governors reviews alleged rule violations and can penalize offenders.

The Riseborough Investigation and Tighter Rules

Andrea Riseborough's 2023 nomination for 'To Leslie' triggered an Academy investigation into whether her campaign violated lobbying rules. Multiple celebrities posted nearly identical messages like 'a small film with a giant heart' on social media, suggesting coordinated rather than organic support. Industry insiders said her manager Jason Weinberg 'mobilized an army' of clients and others to promote the film. Supporter Frances Fisher also named the other Best Actress nominees—Viola Davis, Cate Blanchett, Michelle Yeoh and Danielle Deadwyler—in social media posts urging support for Riseborough, risking the kind of discipline the Academy reserves for members who single out the competition by name.

The Academy's investigation did not conclude that Riseborough herself had violated any rules; in announcing the review, the Academy said it was meant 'to ensure that no guidelines were violated, and to inform us whether changes to the guidelines may be needed in a new era of social media and digital communication.' The episode nonetheless exposed how coordinated social media campaigns and direct member outreach outside official channels can test the boundaries of the rules, even when initiated by celebrities rather than the studio itself.

The Arithmetic of Permitted Spending

Within these boundaries, campaign costs have climbed. Netflix spent $40 million promoting 'Roma' in 2019. A typical Best Picture winning campaign costs around $10 million; films seeking multiple nominations can spend up to $30 million. The industry overall spends between $100 million and $500 million annually on Oscar campaigns.

A full-page advertisement in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter running for one week costs $25,000 to $40,000. Digital screener distribution to all Academy voters costs $200,000 to $800,000. Advertising accounts for roughly 53 percent of total campaign spending, screeners for 12 percent, and other costs—including publicist fees, event production and talent-related expenses—for the remaining 35 percent.

The front-loaded phase of getting nominated accounts for roughly 56 percent of total spending; the final phase of winning awards accounts for 44 percent. Studios concentrate screener spending early, when Academy members are deciding whom to nominate, then shift resources to talent-related costs and media placements during the final voting period when members choose winners.

Why Costs Keep Rising Despite Rule Tightness

As Academy rules have narrowed what studios can do, the cost of approved activities has risen. Each rule change closes off a cheaper tactic and forces studios toward more expensive alternatives. Direct member contact once involved personal relationships and casual advocacy; now it requires carefully managed email lists and Academy-verified contact information, often handled by specialized consultants at higher cost.

Trade publication advertising—the largest category of spending—has become more important as other channels have been restricted. Studios now compete for prominent placement in the same handful of publications that reach Academy voters. Competition for the same space drives up advertising costs. Meanwhile, the requirement to host elaborate industry screenings with Q&A sessions, moderators and panel discussions, approved by the Academy, replaces cheaper informal tactics.

The Andrea Riseborough case also raised the cost of grassroots campaigns. What previously could be an informal network of celebrity boosters now carries legal and reputational risk. Studios are more likely to handle campaigns in-house through formal, documented processes that come with higher overhead. Specialized awards consultants and publicists now charge premium fees because campaigns are more complex and regulated.

The Academy's Continuing Adjustments

The Academy continues to refine its rules. For the 2026 Oscars, public communications — including social media posts, reposts, shares and comments — may no longer disparage the techniques used in or subject matter of any motion picture, with violators subject to penalties. Oscar-qualifying film festivals can now access approved mailing houses to share programming information with Academy members—a new channel that was previously unavailable.

These rules aim to permit robust campaigning while preventing the direct lobbying and member coordination that has drawn Academy scrutiny. The effect is an expensive, highly structured system where studios spend freely on permitted tactics but cannot deploy the cheaper, more direct methods that once dominated campaigns. For studios, the trade-off is clear: follow the rules and spend heavily on advertising and events, or risk investigations, penalties and campaign bans.