Malmö is hosting ESC 2013

[A-lister]

The member fees is of course an issue. And I want them to be kept low. But that does not keep me from seing the problem with the way over the top spendings for the shows in particularly Moscow and Baku.
Since I havent seen the EBU's total budget and spendings I dont know exactly where the "extra money" goes, but I am NOT just assuming it's going into the pockets of some corrupt rich people....

The member fees issue is as far as I see it the only actual issue here. So what if Moscow and Baku spend alot of their own money on this? Should all countries be forced to hold cheap shows from now on? As long as no broadcaster is forced to spend millions of millions then it's really up to the broadcasters to decide, I honestly don't see the issue here since no one is forced to spend alot if they don't really want to.

Well, so do you have an explanation of where that money goes then? I mean if they in the meantime lower the production costs but still rises the fees...

Corruption is everywhere, I know we in the protected Scandinavian lands are unwilling to admit it because we have a culture of assuming only the good and best of all, but I can see no other explanation than the ones in control want to add some extra money into their pockets.

I mean you can compare it with a company making less profit but the CEO's still rises their own salaries and bonuses.

 

[LalehForWD]

Setting a budget of 125 million SEK ("not a penny more") is a great decision. You can always discuss the actual amount, but the principle to hold on to budget and adapt the production to it, is just basic management. I don't understand where you got the EBU fee into the picture as is hardly relevant to the budget discussion (and not mentioned in the SvD-article).

 

[A-lister]

^
Because part of that fee goes into the production of ESC, so if the production costs gets lowered but the fee rises then where does that extra money go then?

 

[LalehForWD]

I think the EBU part was a fixed amount of 11 million SEK (if I remember right) and the amount is part of the 125 millions. Malmö stad contribute (I guess you know better how much exactly) with money but most important free service of many small different things. The amount 125 million was also set before Loreen won in Baku so they were well prepared.

 

[A-lister]

^
Still though, one cannot get around the fact that the EBU fee does contribute to a part of the ESC production and it does give a bitter taste in mouth when they rise the fee but the costs for producing ESC gets lowered, especially considering all the countries dropping out.

Again, I see no issue in the other thing, because as I wrote it's not as if broadcaster's are forced to spend a certain amount on ESC, they are kinda free to choose if they want to over-spend or under-spend basically... but the fee however is a "forced" cost for the competing broadcasters, so this is the actual issue here imo.

 

[LalehForWD]

If I understood it right (this was statements from early June) EBU and SVT agreed on sticking to a defined budget and the size was set to 125 million SEK. If SVT gets more than 11 million SEK from EBU, they can simply lower their share of the cost. Somehow (here it becomes fishy) the hosting city was allowed to sugar the budget in different ways and Malmö apparently was extra sweet in this respect. I guess SVT could spend a greater share of the 125 millions on the actual show compared to Friends arena.

It seems EBU sets a fixed sum to help the hosting country. Do you really think the size of the fee will affect the hosting country in any way?

 

[A-lister]

^
11 million is not "nothing", especially if the host would be a broadcaster which is more poor like in smaller countries or some poorer countries.

All I'm saying is that it feels weird to rise the fees and in the meantime lower the costs. I mean they are having so much pride in the "we'll have a cheaper ESC this year" but to me it really doesn't come across well when we have countries dropping out because of the high fee.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

It's fitting with the financial constraints in every walk of life . We did the Olympics as cheap as possible and it was under budget, and it was a most wonderful Olympics. Much better, though I say it myself, than China's immense spending. Cheap doesnt mean nasty. It's the spirit that matters.
Compare say cheap Oslo to expensive Baku (new arena and everything). Dont think many people doubt which was best and which had the magic touch.

You Swedes worry too much about how this is going to pan out . At the end of the day, you're on show for a total of about 9/10 hours, there's only so much that can go wrong, and being Scandinavians, Im quite sure that nothing will go wrong. It will be a great Eurovision - Eurovision's basically going home when it's going to Sweden. And the fact that there's a few less participants is good too, quality not quantity!

 

[A-lister]

^
As far as stages go I prefer Baku to Oslo though.

Although I see what you mean, but my concern was not really to be on budget and that less costs directly means a worse production (although I don't see how less costs directly means it'll be better though either... it all comes down to the producers and the visionary), but rather that fees are being risen while the costs go down... which makes one wonder where the money ends up eventually?

I totally disagree with you about the amount of entrants. I agree that there should be quality over quantity of course (don't we all?), but when it comes to ESC that's really not controlled by the amount of entries though, so it's all hit- or -miss... 2012, 2008 and 2009 were the best ESC years for me, and they all had 40+ entrants... I can get that theory when it comes to national selections where a jury chooses the entrants amongst many, but when it comes to ESC is not the same thing.

Early 00's ESC editions had less entrants than now, and they were dreadful in quality!

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

The stages have practically zero effect on the overall feeling. Like I said, Oslo did fantastic, despite the fact that the stage wasnt 'amazing' like Russia's. It's things like cross-Europe interval that make it a good feel, I hope that with the theme "We Are One" we will have something along those lines this year.
Costs are rising. Sweden's much more expensive than Azerbaijan. In order for Eurovision to generate the same amount of profit, the income must rise and expense go down.

Nah, 40 countries + is ridiculous. There's just something about 40+ that makes it too big and makes me fed-up - too much of the same.

 

[A-lister]

The stages have practically zero effect on the overall feeling. Like I said, Oslo did fantastic, despite the fact that the stage wasnt 'amazing' like Russia's. It's things like cross-Europe interval that make it a good feel, I hope that with the theme "We Are One" we will have something along those lines this year.
Costs are rising. Sweden's much more expensive than Azerbaijan. In order for Eurovision to generate the same amount of profit, the income must rise and expense go down.

Nah, 40 countries + is ridiculous. There's just something about 40+ that makes it too big and makes me fed-up - too much of the same.

So you agree that broadcasters should pay more and get less then?

How is it ridiculous? I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I want all European states to take part in this, and as I wrote it's not the amount that controls the quality when it comes to ESC... former ESC had less entrants but were dreadful in their quality.

Too much of the same? Are you even a fan I wonder? Because reading your comments it comes across as you just find it all dreadful more or less...

And anyways I don't agree, the diversity of entries now is much wider than for instance during the 80's...

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

I dont see anything wrong with it, it's what happens when there's difficult financial circumstances and Eurovision's being hosted in an expensive country. Eurovision's not there for music, it's a brand that's there for business and it must make profit.

Because it makes it too big, and that decreases the quality of the contest. I am remembering the likes of 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010 when I was obsessed with Eurovision and it was a smaller contest. Perhaps it was because I was younger then I dunno, but now I only love Eurovision, and that makes me sad. And I believe that the main reason for me loosing interest in it is that it's too big.
Also the countries that have withdrawn this year also happen to be some of the ones that ***** up the voting so I shant be missing them!

Of course Im still a fan, that was a bit of a silly comment. The reason I love Eurovision is why I want to make it better.

 

[A-lister]

I dont see anything wrong with it, it's what happens when there's difficult financial circumstances and Eurovision's being hosted in an expensive country. Eurovision's not there for music, it's a brand that's there for business and it must make profit.

Because it makes it too big, and that decreases the quality of the contest. I am remembering the likes of 2003, 2005, 2006, 2010 when I was obsessed with Eurovision and it was a smaller contest. Perhaps it was because I was younger then I dunno, but now I only love Eurovision, and that makes me sad. And I believe that the main reason for me loosing interest in it is that it's too big.
Also the countries that have withdrawn this year also happen to be some of the ones that ***** up the voting so I shant be missing them!

Of course Im still a fan, that was a bit of a silly comment. The reason I love Eurovision is why I want to make it better.

Well, I think it's questionable to rise the fees and in the meantime lower the production costs, atleast to me that smells a bit fishy and I truly wonder where those extra money are headed?

I totally disagree that more entrants decreases the quality of songs, there's no logic in that really... it all comes down to the songs and not the amount of songs imo. As I said, early 00's ESC were dreadful in their qualities, while for instance some of the previous years were of a much higher standard although having many more contestants.

Well, Bosnia & Turkey yes... Slovakia & Portugal no... so that makes it 50/50.

I know you're a fan, but sometimes you seem to simply dislike it all...

 

[Tjipptjopp]

Well, I think it's questionable to rise the fees and in the meantime lower the production costs, atleast to me that smells a bit fishy and I truly wonder where those extra money are headed?

I thought it was very expensive to host the contest, since I often hear countries are afraid to win because of the big cost. Would these changes just make it not as bad economically to host it?

 

[A-lister]

I thought it was very expensive to host the contest, since I often hear countries are afraid to win because of the big cost. Would these changes just make it not as bad economically to host it?

What do you mean?

And countries/broadcasts are not forced to spend too much on this, it's their own choice and I think it should be so.

 

[Tjipptjopp]

What do you mean?

And countries/broadcasts are not forced to spend too much on this, it's their own choice and I think it should be so.

Haven't you heard the comments that when a country has won and is hosting, that they don't try their best to win again because they can't afford another win? I'm not saying it is like that, so I am asking. You seem to have some information about this so I want to know.

 

[A-lister]

Haven't you heard the comments that when a country has won and is hosting, that they don't try their best to win again because they can't afford another win? I'm not saying it is like that, so I am asking. You seem to have some information about this so I want to know.

Well, it's because it's not cheap to host it, however countries (or broadcasters really) are not forced to spend all these millions on it... that's totally up to them... so I guess the pressure comes from impressing the viewers and try to "top" the previous edition.

 

[Tjipptjopp]

Well, it's because it's not cheap to host it, however countries (or broadcasters really) are not forced to spend all these millions on it... that's totally up to them... so I guess the pressure comes from impressing the viewers and try to "top" the previous edition.

Hmm, I guess I was confused about your initial guess that some officials are "stealing" the extra fee money and wondered if you were being serious, or just pissed at SVT/EBU in general?

 

[A-lister]

Hmm, I guess I was confused about your initial guess that some officials are "stealing" the extra fee money and wondered if you were being serious, or just pissed at SVT/EBU in general?

No I was being serious. Some of the EBU fees are meant to be spent on ESC (or atleast could be used for it), so it is indeed odd if they rise the fee but spend less on the show... which makes one wonder where the money goes then?

And yeah I'm pissed at them aswell