Domination in America, Starting from being a Boxing Champion-Chapter 677 - 490: Link and Harvey’s Win-Win Strategy

But against all odds, she won the award.

Stars in the entertainment industry kept their unfavorable comments to themselves, fearing repercussions from Link, who was backing Jennifer Lawrence.

But the media didn't care who Link was.

Before the award ceremony even concluded, nearly all media outlets expressed skepticism over Jennifer Lawrence's win over Meryl, with even more noise than the controversy surrounding Gwyneth Paltrow's win in 1999; the buzz was even more intense.

The media's critical concerns centered on four points:

First, did Jennifer deserve the award?

"Los Angeles Times" launched a poll on its official website, where 78% of netizens supported Meryl for the award, and only 19% were in favor of Jennifer Lawrence, with the rest maintaining a neutral stance.

Before the ceremony, those in support of Jennifer winning the award were at 35%, only 8% less than Meryl.

Secondly, why did the Academy decide to give the award to Jennifer Lawrence?

After the award ceremony ended, Nielsen officially released viewership data, showing that the average ratings for this year's Oscars reached 13.5 million viewers, up by 2.8 million from last year.

During Jennifer Lawrence's award moment, the ratings peaked at 22 million—the highest of the night.

"Hollywood Reporter" questioned whether the Academy deviated from its norms and decided to give the Best Actress award to Jennifer Lawrence in an attempt to create a sensation and revitalize the slumping ratings, whereas giving the award to Meryl—a choice everyone could anticipate—would not boost the ratings.

If the Academy awarded Jennifer Lawrence because of the ratings, that would be extremely unfair to Meryl Streep and it could also tarnish the century-old reputation of the Oscars.

Third, how much influence does Oscar campaigning have on the judging process?

It was understood that each year, every film nominated for the Oscars would spend at least several hundred thousand US Dollars on campaigning for various awards, with some even spending millions.

The aim is to place the Oscar label on their film, so with the Oscars' golden sticker, whether it's the domestic or overseas box office market, the DVD market, or the broadcast rights for cable television, the returns would be substantial.

According to a CNBC website report, from 2000 to 2010, the average box office income growth for Best Picture Oscar winners after getting nominated was 22.2%, about 20.3 million US Dollars.

After winning the award, the average box office income would further increase by 15.3%, about 14 million US Dollars.

Taking "The King's Speech," the big winner of the 2011 Oscars, as an example, its box office revenue increased by 42% after being nominated for Best Picture, and after winning, it continued to grow by 16%, totaling profits exceeding eighty million US Dollars.

The high return on investment is the reason why film studios are willing to pay for campaigning.

During this year's Oscars, Lionsgate Films reportedly invested several million US Dollars in campaigning for various awards, and rumors suggested it could be as much as ten million US Dollars, with most of it aimed at public relations for the Best Actress award.

Mainstream media, represented by "New York Times," believed Jennifer Lawrence's win was a complete result of Lionsgate, or rather, Link, spending money on the campaign.

Fourth, was the entire selection process fair and impartial, free from external interference?

Following the award ceremony, many media outlets published articles questioning whether Link had bought votes, and there might be illegal activities like bribery and fraud, prompting calls for a police investigation.

In response to these allegations, Lionsgate's President Steven Biggs stated in a media interview that nothing of the sort had occurred and assured that the campaigning was entirely by the book, with absolutely no violations, and he was ready to face all the scrutiny and investigations.

The third-party institution in charge of counting the Oscar ballots, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, insisted that all tabulation was done in accordance with the rules. They would count the votes from the judges and then reveal the results to the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Oscars organizers, ensuring a fair and impartial process without external influence.