Eurovision 2014: Confirmed Countries

[GRE]

I thought they already confirmed? Well maybe not officially then... no surprise though.

I still cross my fingers that Poland will surprise us all and comeback, and that Bulgaria and Serbia will re-think their withdrawals. I understand withdrawals with the current jury regime, but on the other hand we shouldn't give them what they want!

Broadcasters withdraw because they dont have enough money to support this project.

 

[A-lister]

Broadcasters withdraw because they dont have enough money to support this project.

Oh, that's why Greece and Moldova is entering but not countries like Poland?

Seriously, that's just an excuse, apparently if there's a will then broadcasters manage to solve it... however if there's not a will (for different reasons) then they won't. Polish broadcaster for instance is without a doubt richer than the Portuguese, Greek or Moldovan...

I can't believe people are even buying into the whole economical excuse when broadcasters with really struggling economy in generally economically struggling countries are entering ... I guess it's the easiest excuse to get away with... not everyone are as frank as TRT and blame their dissatisfaction with positions and juries (but I'm pretty sure lots of broadcasters are simply disappointed with their results and the direction the contest is taking, but it's easier to blame "economy").

 

[DanielLuis]

Seriously, not a single country is withdrawing because of the current format, besides Turkey. They're withdrawing for financial reasons.
And all the withdrawing countries, except for Cyprus and Croatia are reconsidering. And the reason some don't try hard is because popularity decreased, specially thanks to bad results because of the oh so fair 100% constant block and diaspora vote from pre 2008.
And Im pretty sure is the format was like that again many countries would withdraw.

 

[A-lister]

Seriously, not a single country is withdrawing because of the current format, besides Turkey. They're withdrawing for financial reasons.
And all the withdrawing countries, except for Cyprus and Croatia are reconsidering. And the reason some don't try hard is because popularity decreased, specially thanks to bad results because of the oh so fair 100% constant block and diaspora vote from pre 2008.
And Im pretty sure is the format was like that again many countries would withdraw.

Oh, I love how everyone have been at the meetings of each withdrawing countries' broadcaster regarding ESC

No system is perfect, but if juries are only put here so that western countries can get away with not putting as much effort as the rest, then it's kinda pointless

Anyways, I don't want to make it a discussion about the juries, but my point was that I simply don't buy the whole economical argument because if people look at it from a rational point of view they should also question why richer broadcasters withdraws while poorer stays... I mean c'mon

 

[GWTW1939]

The fact is a country even in financial trouble will participate if they truly want to. If they really wanted to be in ESC they will find a way, just look at Greece. Many of these recent withdrawn countries have had financial trouble for years yet managed to participate anyway.

Claiming financial troubles is just a convenient excuse for many who don't want to be seen as throwing a hissy fit over poor results. Its not surprising that those that have withdrawn this year are those who got the biggest burns from the jury most recently. Interest has also suffered in those countries as well.

 

[BGN]

In the case of Greece, there is also special support from the government. In the other countries, the public broadcasters are alone in this
Yes many countries withdrawed because of financial reasons, but there are also some specific details in every case
In Bulgaria for example BNT currently is seeking for sponsors and partnership with other producers. So, the money are not just an excuse. They are problem which really exist. Or else why they should blame the money if this is not the problem? I can see no reason for a broadcaster to hide the hypothetic real reasons for pulling out if it's about the results and the competition rules.
The example with Portugal and Bosnia is very good. They were out in 2013, but now they returned again and there are no major changes of the rules as well. Sometimes the budget cuts really come surprisingly and the broadcasters have to take drastic measures in order to have the opportunity to plan better their next budget. That's why such countries pulled out for a year and then returned.

 

[CC92]

Seriously, not a single country is withdrawing because of the current format, besides Turkey. They're withdrawing for financial reasons.
And all the withdrawing countries, except for Cyprus and Croatia are reconsidering. And the reason some don't try hard is because popularity decreased, specially thanks to bad results because of the oh so fair 100% constant block and diaspora vote from pre 2008.
And Im pretty sure is the format was like that again many countries would withdraw.

In countries such as Serbia the contest was extremely popular before the morons jury got their finger in the pie, then suddenly the interest hit rock bottom.
100% block and diaspora vote, sure, exactly why this year's Top-2 placed 23rd and 20th/DNQ the previous year. :roll:

 

[A-lister]

In countries such as Serbia the contest was extremely popular before the morons jury got their finger in the pie, then suddenly the interest hit rock bottom.
100% block and diaspora vote, sure, exactly why this year's Top-2 placed 23rd and 20th/DNQ the previous year. :roll:

Exactly! It's like people aren't even willing to see the elephant in the room here. How come popularity can just drop like that all out of sudden? How come poorer broadcasters make it work, while some richer don't want to stay? But yeah, we can all pretend it's just an economical issue...

 

[ParadiseES]

In countries such as Serbia the contest was extremely popular before the morons jury got their finger in the pie, then suddenly the interest hit rock bottom.

Out of the last five years with the 50-50 system, Serbia has got benefits from the juries twice (2011 and 2012), they got damaged by the juries twice as well (2009, 2010) and last year they would not have qualified according to any of them.

So why their interest would decrease just because of the juries? Why they would withdraw because of this?

Guys, we're living a financial crisis, especially in certain countries (in case you don't know) and the cost of ESC has rocket in the last years (too much and in a unecessary way if you ask me). Countries are forced to make cuts and public broadcaster are going first, unfortunately. All of us would like everyone to take part, but we must understand that maybe some countries have more important stuff to face.
And also, not all of them have the same interest in ESC. If I'm not wrong, Greece usually gives ESC one of the highest ratings (or even the highest one), so obviously because of the success and the major ease to make money with ESC, they will try harder to protect it from the cuts, more than Bulgaria or Croatia.
But in the end it's a matter of money. The money they have to pay and the money they can get.

Best example are Portugal and Bosnia Herzegovina. They are back one year later with the same voting system.

Another thing is the stupid Turkey's moaning....

 

[A-lister]

And also, not all of them have the same interest in ESC. If I'm not wrong, Greece usually gives ESC one of the highest ratings (or even the highest one), so obviously because of the success and the major ease to make money with ESC, they will try harder to protect it from the cuts, more than Bulgaria or Croatia.

And how is that Greece will try harder to stay (although worse economy)? Why are ratings higher? Any coincidence that Bulgaria and Croatia that have been screwed over by juries are dropping out while Greece (who if we stick to the economical argument should have already withdrawn by now) are still in? Would Greece stay if they wouldn't have continued ending up top. 10 or would they do a "Turkey" and leave right away moaning? You honestly think they'd stay in their economical shape if they would have been treated like Bulgaria and Croatia in ESC? I highly doubt it!

 

[CC92]

In countries such as Serbia the contest was extremely popular before the morons jury got their finger in the pie, then suddenly the interest hit rock bottom.

Out of the last five years with the 50-50 system, Serbia has got benefits from the juries twice (2011 and 2012), they got damaged by the juries twice as well (2009, 2010) and last year they would not have qualified according to any of them.

So why their interest would decrease just because of the juries? Why they would withdraw because of this?

2009, 2010... those of course were the years when everything started to go down the drain. The 2011 entry was from what I could grasp so unpopular that the 'jury' support probably made the situation even worse. 2012 got exactly the same result with or without 'jury'.

No one here saith jury votings is the only reason for withdrawal in all cases. Nevertheless song selections and chances of success naturally have an impact on the popularity among viewers. This is what broadcasters need to take into consideration when deciding whether participation fees pay off for them or not. Sure the economic crisis is a big extra obstacle.

 

[ParadiseES]

And how is that Greece will try harder to stay (although worse economy)? Why are ratings higher? Any coincidence that Bulgaria and Croatia that have been screwed over by juries are dropping out while Greece (who if we stick to the economical argument should have already withdrawn by now) are still in? Would Greece stay if they wouldn't have continued ending up top. 10 or would they do a "Turkey" and leave right away moaning? You honestly think they'd stay in their economical shape if they would have been treated like Bulgaria and Croatia in ESC? I highly doubt it!

Croatia qualified thanks to juries in 2009. In 2010 and 2011, they didn't hit the top-10 in any voting (even Femminem got better result in the jury vote). Nina would've qualified in 2012 with the jury vote. Last year was the only time the juries kicked them out, but they were also in the edge for the televoters anyway. So Croatia can't say they've been robbed by the juries. At all.

Bulgaria could consider itself robbed (or sort of) this year. They were also damaged in 2012, but the margin was very small. On the other hand, Poli Genova got some jury support in 2011, but didn't qualify because she wasn't high enough with the televoters. The rest of the years, Bulgaria's results have been quite poor in general. We can say that televoters benefited more Bulgaria, but not that there is a general boycott from the evil juries to this country.

About, some other withdrawn countries, Poland has got poor results almost every year in a similar way with televoting and juries. Slovakia is a similar case and they'd even qualified in 2011 according to the jury vote. Slovenia (possible withdrawal) always gets bad results and the only good results they have is thanks to the jury. Cyprus has had similar results in televoting and jury and even Ivi Adamou got more supports from the juries.

So again, why should they withdraw because of the juries? There is no sense about it.

And about the interest in Greece, there can be many factors. Good results and doing a good job during the last 10 years are the main reasons. They usually send well known names to ESC. Bigger tradition too.
So despite the big expense, Eurovision is probably quite profitable in Greece. That's probably the same reason why some western countries with bad results (for example, Spain) are still in.
It looks that's not the case of other countries. With any voting system.

 

[ParadiseES]

2009, 2010... those of course were the years when everything started to go down the drain. The 2011 entry was from what I could grasp so unpopular that the 'jury' support probably made the situation even worse. 2012 got exactly the same result with or without 'jury'.

You should remember that 2007 was the year when Serbia won and 2008 when they hosted the contest. Certainly the ratings had to drop the next year since that Marko whatever couldn't achieve the same thing as a winner or a contest in their country.
And before that, Serbia (&Montenegro) only had two entries, two top entries. They only had another top entry once, in 2012.
It's normal that the interest is much lower when you don't have such strong entries.

 

[DanielLuis]

Croatia qualified thanks to juries in 2009. In 2010 and 2011, they didn't hit the top-10 in any voting (even Femminem got better result in the jury vote). Nina would've qualified in 2012 with the jury vote. Last year was the only time the juries kicked them out, but they were also in the edge for the televoters anyway. So Croatia can't say they've been robbed by the juries. At all.

Bulgaria could consider itself robbed (or sort of) this year. They were also damaged in 2012, but the margin was very small. On the other hand, Poli Genova got some jury support in 2011, but didn't qualify because she wasn't high enough with the televoters. The rest of the years, Bulgaria's results have been quite poor in general. We can say that televoters benefited more Bulgaria, but not that there is a general boycott from the evil juries to this country.

About, some other withdrawn countries, Poland has got poor results almost every year in a similar way with televoting and juries. Slovakia is a similar case and they'd even qualified in 2011 according to the jury vote. Slovenia (possible withdrawal) always gets bad results and the only good results they have is thanks to the jury. Cyprus has had similar results in televoting and jury and even Ivi Adamou got more supports from the juries.

So again, why should they withdraw because of the juries? There is no sense about it.

And about the interest in Greece, there can be many factors. Good results and doing a good job during the last 10 years are the main reasons. They usually send well known names to ESC. Bigger tradition too.
So despite the big expense, Eurovision is probably quite profitable in Greece. That's probably the same reason why some western countries with bad results (for example, Spain) are still in.
It looks that's not the case of other countries. With any voting system.

It doesn't matter if you give those examples. The others always ignore it. They will conveniently quote only the part of your comment where the example is not present.

 

[A-lister]

It doesn't matter if you give those examples. The others always ignore it. They will conveniently quote only the part of your comment where the example is not present.

The pro- jury camp twist it just as much... this is like a political debate... everyone is right depending on how they use numbers and results (statistics) to their advantage and how they interpret it all in the end. So I won't even try to convince anyone they're wrong, because they're not really wrong, they just see it differently and it's not as if Paradise totally disagreed either (he did point out Greek's success in the contest for instance as a legit reason for them staying rather than economical arguments, which is sorta my point aswell).

Anyways, we could discuss this further in another thread.

 

[BGN]

Bulgaria could consider itself robbed (or sort of) this year. They were also damaged in 2012, but the margin was very small. On the other hand, Poli Genova got some jury support in 2011, but didn't qualify because she wasn't high enough with the televoters.

Bulgaria was 14th with televote and 12th in the jury ranking with neither of them being high enough for qualification (I mean top 10 and above). So let's accept that in 2012 and 2013 we sent jury-unfriendly songs with very ethnic touch both in music and vocals. But in 2011 we sent a very "westernized" pop-rock song with extremely good vocal and visual performance, with much energy on it. Where was the jury in that particular case to save this song, to rate properly the whole performance which is presumed to be jury-friendly by all criteria? Because 12th in the semi might be high for Bulgaria's overall performance with juries, but it's far, far, far....really too far to be said that the jury has helped Bulgaria in that case. "Na inat" as song and stage performance was a song for top 5 in every jury ranking even if the televote was not too good. But afterall if the jury had placed the song where it belongs in their ranking, Bulgaria would have qualified for sure no matter the televote.

 

[ParadiseES]

Bulgaria was 14th with televote and 12th in the jury ranking with neither of them being high enough for qualification (I mean top 10 and above). So let's accept that in 2012 and 2013 we sent jury-unfriendly songs with very ethnic touch both in music and vocals. But in 2011 we sent a very "westernized" pop-rock song with extremely good vocal and visual performance, with much energy on it. Where was the jury in that particular case to save this song, to rate properly the whole performance which is presumed to be jury-friendly by all criteria? Because 12th in the semi might be high for Bulgaria's overall performance with juries, but it's far, far, far....really too far to be said that the jury has helped Bulgaria in that case.

Sorry, for some reason I thought Bulgaria 2011 was in jury top-10 in the semi. Anyway, juries supported her more than the televoters and her fail it's not juries' fault.

And some others supposed "jury-friendly" songs were not saved (or at least not enough): San Marino & Israel 2013, Netherlands 2010, Ireland 2009, Sweden 2010...

 

[BGN]

I think it's quite the opposite. The jury clearly understimated this song and 12th was really too low for such quality in song, stage performance, choreografy. Am I wrong, or this was the overall idea with the juries - to have professionals there which has to put aside their personal preferences and to rank the songs according certian criteria? For the rest (emotional, block, emigrant and so on voting) we have televote. How it's possible to be said that it's not a jury fault in a case, where the song was out of their top 10 and just 5 points from qualifying? Let's say again - we are talking about song which must have been prefered by the music professionals, because it fulfilled all possible criteria which could be applied to a song and performance. That there are even other well-performed songs, which were placed not high enough with juries is certainly not something that speaks well for their work.

 

[A-lister]

Sorry, for some reason I thought Bulgaria 2011 was in jury top-10 in the semi. Anyway, juries supported her more than the televoters and her fail it's not juries' fault.

How can anyone call 12th in semi "support"?

If it were up to juries alone, Bulgaria wouldn't have qualified regardless... and don't even let me start on 2012-2013 where the juries are solely responsible for Bulgaria not making it!

Juries have the power to make or break a country as much as televoters have, support would have been within the top. 10 and not outside of it.

 

[GRE]

And how is that Greece will try harder to stay (although worse economy)? Why are ratings higher? Any coincidence that Bulgaria and Croatia that have been screwed over by juries are dropping out while Greece (who if we stick to the economical argument should have already withdrawn by now) are still in? Would Greece stay if they wouldn't have continued ending up top. 10 or would they do a "Turkey" and leave right away moaning? You honestly think they'd stay in their economical shape if they would have been treated like Bulgaria and Croatia in ESC? I highly doubt it!

We have a top-10 overall,because of televoting,not juries
5 years in a row (2009-2013),and we haven't been in top10 of Juries yet.