Are the juries informed about the televote results?

[A-lister]

Something that's been on my mind for a while, given that juries technically have more powers than televoters and sometimes the discrepancy is so big in the vote that one could think there's a purpose downvote of a public "favorite" they don't like.

It makes me wonder, are the juries being informed by the EBU about the results in televotes? More specifically, prior the vote in the final, do the juries know about the semi televote results?

 

[rasmuslights]

Something that's been on my mind for a while, given that juries technically have more powers than televoters and sometimes the discrepancy is so big in the vote that one could think there's a purpose downvote of a public "favorite" they don't like.

It makes me wonder, are the juries being informed by the EBU about the results in televotes? More specifically, prior the vote in the final, do the juries know about the semi televote results?

I have no proof for this but I really doubt it..

 

[A-lister]

I have no proof for this but I really doubt it..

I mean I hope not because it would be a total disgrace, but it's still an interesting discussion I think and something feels a bit shady with them (imo) so I wouldn't be totally surprised if they are informed...

 

[wtf]

They don't really have much power and even lack basic knowledge. Sometimes they rank the songs in the wrong order, reveal their favorites on social media, leak the performances etc. There is no way they know anything about the televote results.

 

[Brandt]

I think we would know if they were somehow informed about the insights of the voting. The whole point of voting is to keep everything secret until they are revealed in the finale. Even the delegations and broadcasters don't know about the results. So that's out of nowhere to inform juries on that.

 

[heke1988]

I don't think so. If yes, system needs to be fixed. But it would be very big scandal to EBU and whole ESC, if juries know semi-finals televote results.

 

[A-lister]

They don't really have much power and even lack basic knowledge. Sometimes they rank the songs in the wrong order, reveal their favorites on social media, leak the performances etc. There is no way they know anything about the televote results.

I mean they do have big power, but yeah I agree with the rest

Yeah probably (hopefully) you're right...

 

[soulm8]

They know the odds which is basically the same.

 

[WhoKnows]

I doubt it. That's too many people knowing a secret. It would be impossible to keep it from leaking to the public if 60-70 people know it, especially because it would be pretty much impossible to find out who leaked it.

 

[A-lister]

They know the odds which is basically the same.

I am not sure I would say that the odds are "basically the same" as the televotes and here's why:

1. Betting in general is very western oriented, and in particular big in the British isles, so it doesn't fully take into consideration a full European view on things.
2. The odds have a tendency of overvalue countries based on their recent years' successes.
3. The odds are trying, as good as they can I guess, to bet on the overall outcome so not just the televote results, but the combined with jury.
4. Fan hype also influence the odds, but what fans want and what the overall casual viewer will go for is not always the same.
5. There is some "cheating" in the betting odds by some delegations to boost the interest for their entries, not sure how common and the overall impact though.

With that said, odds have been fairly ok in predicting the general outcome, but now I'm specifically thinking about the televoting result.

 

[soulm8]

I am not sure I would say that the odds are "basically the same" as the televotes and here's why:

1. Betting in general is very western oriented, and in particular big in the British isles, so it doesn't fully take into consideration a full European view on things.
2. The odds have a tendency of overvalue countries based on their recent years' successes.
3. The odds are trying, as good as they can I guess, to bet on the overall outcome so not just the televote results, but the combined with jury.
4. Fan hype also influence the odds, but what fans want and what the overall casual viewer will go for is not always the same.
5. There is some "cheating" in the betting odds by some delegations to boost the interest for their entries, not sure how common and the overall impact though.

With that said, odds have been fairly ok in predicting the general outcome, but now I'm specifically thinking about the televoting result.

I get your point, but the fact is they know the favorites and if they want they can skip them in the voting.

 

[A-lister]

I get your point, but the fact is they know the favorites and if they want they can skip them in the voting.

That's true, but sometimes there are some shocking voting patterns...

I mean I am not saying that juries and televoters should be identical, then it makes no sense to have juries at all, more that there are some questionable (imo) "downvotes" by the juries which makes me wonder if they knew the results of the televotes upfront in order to orchestrate that.

 

[kruskica]

I'm pretty sure they do have in mind that some countries do usually better in televote (Poland, Russia, Ukraine) and some do really bad in televote (Malta, Australia) whatever they send, so they try to even it out. I don't think they actually know the full televote results.

 

[A-lister]

I'm pretty sure they do have in mind that some countries do usually better in televote (Poland, Russia, Ukraine) and some do really bad in televote (Malta, Australia) whatever they send, so they try to even it out. I don't think they actually know the full televote results.

Well, it's really crappy though if they downvote entries only because of the countries and upvote others because of the countries, I mean we can already see that they do that, but then they're not better than the diaspora voters... I mean if they are professionals they should be "country-blind", isn't that sorta the point?

 

[Sammy]

edited - didn't read the initial post closely enough...

 

[kruskica]

Well, it's really crappy though if they downvote entries only because of the countries and upvote others because of the countries, I mean we can already see that they do that, but then they're not better than the diaspora voters... I mean if they are professionals they should be "country-blind", isn't that sorta the point?

I see your point, but I think they do a fair job. I mean, Russia 2018 was 11th in televote in their semi, so it's easy to see that, if it was up to televote, Russia would qualify with almost anything. Also, if I recall correctly, Serhat was top 10 in the finals in televote just because of the meme. I love Serhat, but he didn't deserve that. Poland 2016 was 3rd in the final in televote just because of the diaspora. I like the song, but 3rd place? Juries know which songs are going to be high in televote but don't actually deserve that place, and if it wasn't for them, some countries would almost every year be top 10 no matter what they send, and some wouldn't even qualify. They are probably going to do the same thing with San Marino and Ukraine this year, cause they are really likely to be the televote magnets.

 

[midnightsun]

I do not know whether they know the televote results (I don’t think it’s impossible by the way) but I know that the juries of favourite countries (aka the bookies tops) did not give a lot, sometimes even zero, points to the opponents sometimes. So they are clearly influenced.

 

[A-lister]

I see your point, but I think they do a fair job. I mean, Russia 2018 was 11th in televote in their semi, so it's easy to see that, if it was up to televote, Russia would qualify with almost anything. Also, if I recall correctly, Serhat was top 10 in the finals in televote just because of the meme. I love Serhat, but he didn't deserve that. Poland 2016 was 3rd in the final in televote just because of the diaspora. I like the song, but 3rd place? Juries know which songs are going to be high in televote but don't actually deserve that place, and if it wasn't for them, some countries would almost every year be top 10 no matter what they send, and some wouldn't even qualify. They are probably going to do the same thing with San Marino and Ukraine this year, cause they are really likely to be the televote magnets.

I don't say they were always incorrect, but their job is not to block certain countries or "televote magnets" even, their block is to simply vote for the best entries and so what if it would happen to be a Ukrainian televote magnet some year (like this year for instance)? Should like the coolest entry of the year be downvoted because of that? Doesn't make sense really

But yeah, I agree about Russia 2018 and Poland 2016, those are I guess good examples of when juries made sense, but I have a problem if they're blindly going after certain countries though (regardless if they send good or bad stuff), then they really aren't better than those nationalistic diaspora that blindly vote for a country as well.

 

[Geborgenheit]

But yeah, I agree about Russia 2018 and Poland 2016, those are I guess good examples of when juries made sense, but I have a problem if they're blindly going after certain countries though (regardless if they send good or bad stuff), then they really aren't better than those nationalistic diaspora that blindly vote for a country as well.

Some juries are exactly as nationalistic as televoters, I can mention several countries right away.

I think juries are bad. A more fair system would be to divide countries in regions and divide/multiply points based on where the points are coming from. Let's say Sweden would have all points coming from Nordic countries divided by two, but those coming from other countries multiplied by two. Such a system would be more fair and without any dubious juries.

 

[A-lister]

Some juries are exactly as nationalistic as televoters, I can mention several countries right away.

I think juries are bad. A more fair system would be to divide countries in regions and divide/multiply points based on where the points are coming from. Let's say Sweden would have all points coming from Nordic countries divided by two, but those coming from other countries multiplied by two. Such a system would be more fair and without any dubious juries.

Yes they are indeed, I've been saying it from the get-go but people still believe they bring "impartial expertise"

Although, I must say I don't like your proposal. I think it's complex and it's also built upon stereotypes and cause division and instead of bringing us together.