Two days after the Miss USA pageant aired in June 2012 on NBC, one of the losing contestants claimed in a Facebook post that the pageant's outcome had been "rigged." That allegation cast doubt on the integrity of the Miss Universe Organization that had sponsored the pageant, the organization's principal owners, which included future U.S President Donald Trump, and Ernst & Young, which had overseen the vote tabulation procedures for the event. Within hours, Trump responded harshly to the contestant's allegation, labeling it "absolutely ridiculous." He insisted there was no way the pageant's outcome could have been preordained given Ernst & Young's involvement. "It is impossible. You have Ernst & Young standing there tabulating everything!" Ernst & Young issued a press release reinforcing Trump's statement. "Ernst & Young's role in the Miss USA pageant is to independently tabulate the judges' votes and verify the results . . . [those] results remained under Ernst & Young's control until we presented them to the hosts during the live telecast."2 No doubt, the Big Four accounting firm's statement figured prominently in the $5 million legal judgment Trump won after suing the contestant who had questioned the integrity of the Miss USA pageant.

Three years later, Ernst & Young took a glancing blow to its reputation when Steve Harvey, the host of the 2015 Miss Universe pageant, misread the ballot, which listed the contest's winner and first runner-up. Apparently confused by the layout of the ballot, Harvey announced that Miss Columbia had won the pageant when the actual winner was Miss Philippines. After the breathless and ecstatic Miss Columbia had been crowned and was preparing to take her victory promenade down the runway of the Las Vegas theatre where the contest was held, the shocked host interrupted her celebration to reveal the enormous faux pas he had made. The "King of Comedy" was then forced to oversee the awkward exchange of the winner's crown and sash between the two emotionally-drained and shell-shocked contestants.

Questions
1. What type of professional service is the Academy Awards vote tabulation engagement? Which professional standards apply to such engagements?
2. Identify controls, in addition to those mentioned in this case, that PwC and the Academy could establish to enhance the integrity and apparent integrity of the Academy Awards selection process. Would these controls be cost-effective? In addition to the new controls you identified, what other changes could be made in the Academy Awards selection process to enhance its credibility?
3. PwC reportedly uses the Academy Awards engagement as a way to enhance its “brand.” Identify other branding activities used by the major accounting firms. Which of these activities do you believe are most effective? Identify branding activities used by other organizations that would not be appropriate for accounting firms to employ.
4. Following the 2017 Academy Awards ceremony, media reports revealed that the spouse of the Academy’s chief financial officer was a PwC partner. What ethical issues, if any, did that circumstance pose for PwC in its relationship with the Academy?