Because the Oscar ceremony isn't long enough, the Academy has announced it will double the number of best picture nominees in this year's crop. On its face, increasing the pool of nominees from five to 10 would appear to give heady blockbusters—Dark Knight, Wall-E, etc.—a better chance of winning the nomination. But will it, really? The same Academy members vote for the eventual winner as vote for the nominees.

And if there's one thing Hollywood has taught us, it's that when decisions don't make sense on artistic grounds, they're usually made on business ones. Juicing the best picture pool is Hollywood's version of a stimulus package.

First there's the number of people who watch the Oscars themselves. The Academy's thinking: The more blockbuster films that are nominated, the more people will watch. In 1997, when the $600 million-grossing Titanic was nominated, a record 57 million people watched. Last year, 36.3 million watched, the year before that 32 million. The more people who watch, the more money the networks and the Academy makes. In 2009, ABC dropped the rate to somewhere between $1.4 million and $1.7 million, down at least 100 grand from the year prior because of the recession and 2008's record-low ratings. Having twice the number of nominees means twice the likelihood that a Titanic-size blockbuster makes it to the red carpet. It won't translate into twice the ratings, but it should be a boon.

There's also the box office totals themselves. Earlier this year The Big Money calculated the worth of a best picture nomination at the box office and came up with $6,663,508. That's the average revenue increase for a best picture nominee compared with its snubbed competitors. (This number, to be sure, is an approximation—2008's best picture nomination was only worth $2.7 million and only when you ignored Benjamin Button.) Best picture nominees simply make more money. So the more best picture nominees, the more films moviegoers think they're supposed to see to stay hip with the cultural conversation. And that means more revenue for the studios. (And if the new 10-film rule results in the inclusion of more summer blockbusters, DVD sales—which have been slacking—will spike. See Crash's figures as proof.)

And this doesn't mention the cottage industry of publications, ad agencies, and consultants who fuel the race for the Oscar. With twice the slots open we'll have twice the "For Your Consideration Campaigns"-rumored to cost tens of millions of dollars. Dying Los Angeles media outlets are ready—many of these campaigns bring in big ad dollars come January. (For example, full-page ads cost $72,000 in Variety.)

Come to think of it, the only person not making any money out of this deal is you, the humble audience. The only way to voice your dissent is to not watch the Oscars. That'll really screw with their heads.