Ratings matter. They just do. Even in an era where everyone says linear television is dying and we're all buried in our phones, the industry stops and holds its breath to see how many people watched the Oscars every single year. It is the heartbeat of the "prestige" economy. If the numbers crater, the ads get cheaper, the budgets for indies shrink, and the whole idea of a "unified cultural moment" starts to feel like a myth from the 1990s.
Actually, the 90s were a totally different planet. In 1998, when Titanic swept the night, 55 million people tuned in. Fifty-five million. That’s nearly the population of Italy watching a three-hour award show. Honestly, we’re never seeing those numbers again. But that doesn't mean the current metrics are a failure; they’re just shifting into a shape that’s harder to track but arguably more aggressive in terms of reach.
The Rollercoaster of Modern Viewership
To understand the current state of the Academy Awards, you have to look at the 2021 disaster. It was the "Pandemic Oscars." No real venue, just Union Station in LA, a lot of masks, and a weirdly somber vibe. The ratings plummeted to an all-time low of roughly 10.4 million viewers. People were genuinely asking if the show was dead. Like, actually deceased.
But then, something shifted. By 2024, the 96th Academy Awards saw a significant rebound, pulling in about 19.5 million viewers according to Nielsen. Why? Because of movies people actually saw. Oppenheimer and Barbie (the "Barbenheimer" phenomenon) did more for the Academy’s relevance than any marketing campaign ever could. When the "biggest" movies are also the "best" movies, people show up to the party.
It’s a simple equation, really. If the average person hasn't heard of the Best Picture nominees, they aren't going to sit through three hours of thank-you notes. They just won't.
What Nielsen Misses (And What the Academy Craves)
Nielsen is the old guard. It counts people sitting in front of a glass box in their living rooms. But if you’re trying to figure out how many people watched the Oscars in 2025 or 2026, you have to look at the "Social 50" and fragmented streaming data.
Disney (which owns ABC) has started leaning heavily into the "Multi-Platform" metric. This includes people watching on Hulu+ Live TV, YouTube TV, and even the viral clips that dominate TikTok the next morning. If 20 million watch the live broadcast, but 500 million watch a clip of a host’s monologue or a controversial win on X (formerly Twitter) within six hours, how do we define "watching"? The Academy is desperately trying to convince advertisers that the viral "impressions" are just as valuable as the live eyeballs.
✨ Don't miss: Temuera Morrison as Boba Fett: Why Fans Are Still Divided Over the Daimyo of Tatooine
It’s a tough sell. Advertisers want the live block. They want you stuck during the commercial break.
The "Oppenheimer" Effect vs. The Indie Slump
There is a direct correlation between box office revenue and Oscar ratings. Look at the data from the last decade. Years where blockbusters like Top Gun: Maverick or Avatar: The Way of Water are nominated see a double-digit percentage bump in viewership.
When the ceremony focuses on movies that only play in three theaters in New York and LA, the rest of the country tunes out. It sounds harsh. It’s kinda elitist to say, but it’s the truth. The Academy has spent the last five years trying to balance this. They added the "Fan Favorite" award (which was a bit of a cringe-worthy disaster) and then pivoted to just making sure the show moves faster.
Why the 7:00 PM Start Time Changed Everything
One of the smartest things the Academy did recently was moving the start time up by an hour. For years, the show ended at midnight on the East Coast. That’s insane. Nobody with a job wants to stay up until 12:30 AM to see who won Best Picture.
By shifting the broadcast earlier, they retained millions of "bedtime" viewers who usually would have missed the final, most important half-hour. This minor scheduling tweak accounted for a nearly 5% lift in "all-the-way-through" viewership. It turns out, if you want people to watch your show, you shouldn't make it a test of physical endurance.
The Global Reach Beyond the US
We often get bogged down in domestic Nielsen ratings, but the Oscars are a global export. We’re talking about a broadcast that hits over 200 territories. In places like India, South Korea, and the UK, the Oscars are still viewed as the "World Cup" of cinema.
🔗 Read more: Why Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Actors Still Define the Modern Spy Thriller
- South Korea: Post-Parasite, viewership surged and stayed relatively high.
- India: The RRR "Naatu Naatu" performance brought in millions of concurrent streamers who had never cared about the Academy before.
- The Digital Shift: In many international markets, the show isn't even on "TV." It’s on proprietary streaming apps where the data is notoriously opaque.
If you add up every legal stream and broadcast worldwide, the number of people who "watched" the Oscars in some capacity likely exceeds 100 million. But again, "total reach" doesn't pay the bills the same way a 15.0 domestic rating does.
Behind the Scenes: What Advertisers See
Why does everyone care about how many people watched the Oscars so much? Because a 30-second ad spot during the telecast costs roughly $1.8 million to $2.2 million.
If the ratings drop, ABC has to give "make-goods"—basically free ad space later in the year to compensate for the lack of promised eyeballs. It’s a financial nightmare. This is why you see the producers trying every trick in the book, from live musical performances by pop stars who weren't even in movies to "social media influencers" on the red carpet. They are hunting for the 18-34 demographic.
That demographic doesn't own TVs. They watch on laptops. They watch via their parents’ cable login on an iPad. The industry is currently in a "measurement crisis" because we are using 20th-century tools to measure 21st-century consumption habits.
The Misconception of "Woke" vs. "Boring"
You’ll see a lot of pundits claiming the ratings are down because the show is "too political." While some "cord-cutters" might cite that as a reason, the data actually suggests a simpler culprit: The lack of star power.
When the biggest stars in the world—the Brad Pitts, the Margot Robbies, the Ryan Goslings—are in the room and nominated, people watch. When the nominations are filled with newcomers, the casual viewer doesn't feel an emotional investment. It’s not necessarily about the "politics" of the ceremony; it’s about the "celebrity" of the ceremony. People want to see icons.
💡 You might also like: The Entire History of You: What Most People Get Wrong About the Grain
How to Track Oscar Impact in the Future
If you’re trying to gauge the health of the Oscars, don't just wait for the Nielsen press release on Monday morning. That’s only half the story.
Instead, look at the Monday Morning Tail. This is the metric that tracks how much "search interest" and "video views" the winners generate in the 24 hours following the show. A "successful" Oscars is now measured by its ability to dominate the conversation for a full work week. If the winners (like Everything Everywhere All At Once) see a 500% spike in streaming views the next day, the Oscars did their job. They functioned as a massive, global marketing machine.
Practical Insights for the Modern Viewer
If you’re a data nerd or a cinephile trying to stay ahead of the curve, keep these three things in mind regarding the future of the broadcast:
- Check the "Lead-In": If the year has a $1 billion movie in the Best Picture race, expect the ratings to be up by at least 15%.
- Watch the Platforms: The transition to a full live-stream on a platform like Disney+ or Netflix (following the SAG Awards' lead) is inevitable. When that happens, the way we define "viewership" will change overnight as we move from "average viewers" to "total hours watched."
- The "Clip" Economy: The Academy is leaning into "snackable" content. Even if the live show numbers look stagnant, the "engagement" metrics are often hitting record highs because of the way the show is sliced and diced for social media.
The Oscars aren't dying; they're evolving into a digital-first event that happens to have a very expensive TV commercial attached to it. The "death of cinema" has been predicted every year since the 1950s. It hasn't happened yet, and as long as humans love stories (and seeing beautiful people in expensive clothes), the ratings will find a way to stabilize.
To truly understand the impact of the ceremony, look beyond the raw numbers. Follow the "box office bump" that follows the telecast. When a small film like CODA or Moonlight sees a massive surge in viewers after the win, that is the real power of the Academy. It turns art into a global commodity. That's a metric no Nielsen box can fully capture.
Next time the headlines scream about "record lows," check the context. Are they comparing today to the Titanic year? If so, they’re comparing apples to a long-extinct species of orange. The Oscars are still the biggest non-sporting event on television, and in a fractured media landscape, that makes them more valuable than ever.