Q&A: The Oscars are moving to YouTube. What does that mean for the future of awards shows?

January 21, 2026
illustration of several Oscars awards trophies being packed into a cardboard box that says ‘Youtube’

(Illustration by Tobias Wilbur, University Communications)

The 2029 Academy Awards may end with a call to like and subscribe.

The 101st Academy Awards – or Oscars – will be streamed on YouTube, ending a decades-long run on the broadcast network ABC. The new contract will last five years and comes amidst declining viewership for the Oscars and awards shows in general.

To get a sense of what this means for YouTube, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the future of streaming, UVA Today talked to Anthony Palomba, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business.

Q. Why would the academy decide to move the Oscars to YouTube?

Anthony Palomba

Anthony Palomba is an assistant professor at the Darden School of Business and an expert on the business of streaming. (Photo by Matt Riley, University Communications)

A. The academy’s decision to stream the Oscars on YouTube is best understood as a strategic move centered on reach, relevance and risk management. Linear TV ratings for awards shows have been structurally declining due to cord-cutting and fragmented attention, so the academy can’t continue to rely on an aging, loyal broadcast audience.

YouTube provides direct access to under-35 viewers, particularly Gen Z. Of course, this is a tough audience to advertise to, as it is largely smarter about brands it engages with.

It also dramatically expands global access, allowing the Oscars to reach international audiences without renegotiating dozens of local broadcast agreements. Finally, there is a clear cultural relevance play: absence from dominant digital platforms signals stagnation, while presence signals adaptation.

This move is not about abandoning television; it is about ensuring the Oscars against long-term irrelevance.

Q. What’s in this for YouTube?

A. There is a halo effect here, at least one that revolves around pop culture, along with incentives to pursue legitimacy, cultural authority and monetization.

Since the decline of MTV, there really hasn’t been a source that has systematically organized trends and pop culture. This provides YouTube perhaps a cultural anchor and bridge toward connecting intergenerationally with different segments.

This can help legitimize the platform for older viewers and perhaps expand the perception for younger viewers beyond being a source for user-generated content. I also believe, frankly, that more and more artists from Hollywood are going to use YouTube for creating their own TV series and movies.

Q. Does this expand viewership for the Oscars?

A. Yes, potentially. While this can expand the potential viewership and perhaps total addressable market for viewership, is this still relevant for consumers? If not, can it be made relevant again? It is estimated that the event in 2029 on YouTube will be accessible to over 2 billion people.

There could be more total eyeballs, but it’s the very same people who watch this who engage in viewing scores of viral clips, selective engagement and second-screen viewing (e.g., on a phone while a TV show is going on). So, will there be less concentrated attention? Probably.

Discovery and Innovation: Daily research. Life-changing results.
Discovery and Innovation: Daily research. Life-changing results.

However, YouTube is optimized to aggregate attention over time across the live broadcast, on-demand replays, and the circulation of viral clips across social media. I think viral moments will be planned better, and speeches will likely be shortened as a result.

Q. Is this a further sign that streaming is how people want to consume content?

A. Yes. Audiences have grown accustomed to accessing content anywhere and at any time. What is more pressing in the case of the Oscars, however, is not simply distribution, but format. A traditional two- to three-hour linear awards show does not make financial and attention-based sense in a fragmented media environment.

Streaming enables the ceremony to be modularized and monetized more flexibly through advertising and product placement rather than relying on a single, uninterrupted broadcast. Moreover, these can be customized based on user profile, which is something that linear TV simply cannot offer. This means that, potentially, consumers could make live purchases during the initial broadcast, or, at the very least, experience customized advertisement experiences.

Viewership and advertising data can help studios and distributors better understand which films, talent or moments generate attention lift, informing where marketing dollars should be allocated following the Oscars and for future releases.

Q. Is this a sign that viewers are fed up with awards shows, making this an example of a show getting bumped to the minor leagues?

A. I recognize that this move may send some signals throughout Hollywood. There’s a clear identity crisis here, as award nominations no longer inform consumer decision-making. Consumers increasingly look toward micro-influencers, friends, family, or those who are perceived to understand consumers to dominate attention and inform decision-making.

There was a time when entertainment options were limited, and critics and awards served as efficient filters for audiences. That world no longer exists. While this may lead to less centralization, it could lead to better discovery, selection and overall experiences with the movies themselves. This might also mean the Oscars appeal to more people.

Media Contacts

Alice Berry

University News Associate Office of University Communications

The Latest From Arts & Culture