new system for 2014 ??????

[malta]

Im new to the forum but I have watched Eurovision proper for a few years
I think a new system should be put into place about the big 5
I reckon the top 5 from the previous year should be the big 5 for the next Eurovision
because this would stop the big 5 etc Britain putting stupid acts in which come in the bottom five
because they would have to put better acts in to get into the top 5 to make sure they don't have to enter through the semi final
this would also give the smaller who give it a go a better chance etc az
this is just my opinion but I reckon it could work

 

[Venage]

Good idea as long as the new Big 5 are able to pay the amount of the Big 5 currently in charge. Some of the current Big 5 countries will most likely withdraw then if they don't qualify but it also has the advantage that the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy don't have to pay the largest share every year.

 

[Quent91]

Don't touch to the sacred glorious Big 5

 

[Venage]

Well the Big 5 accuse others of unfair bloc voting so to be fair we should abolish the Big 5 rule as well as long the other contestants are prepared to pay a bit more for Eurovision.

 

[No Name]

In my ideal ESC, pre-qualified for the up-coming year should be limited to top-3/maximum top-5. That way there'll be a much tenser race in reaching one of the 3 or 5 golden tickets and even with run-away winners the voting will still be exciting for the countries placed lower down the scoreboard. The big-5 should compete on equal terms with the rest of the countries in semi-finals, and tbh, I think it'd be healthy for especially UK and Spain who'd hopefully start taking the contest seriously again. Also, I've always failed to see the big attraction of being pre-qualified every year without actually having earned it...fighting for qualification, knowing that you may or may not make it, and then actually make it, is a much bigger reward than just being in the final every year because you have a big wallet. As a bonus you even get to perform your song twice, meaning that the semi-qualifiers usually have an advantage over the pre-qualifiers (except for the viewers who only tune in for the final of course).

This is all wishful thinking though, and I guess it could never be put into action without the big-5 voluntarily declining their pre-qualified spots in the final, but it's allowed to dream.

 

[Venage]

In my ideal ESC, pre-qualified for the up-coming year should be limited to top-3/maximum top-5. That way there'll be a much tenser race in reaching one of the 3 or 5 golden tickets and even with run-away winners the voting will still be exciting for the countries placed lower down the scoreboard. The big-5 should compete on equal terms with the rest of the countries in semi-finals, and tbh, I think it'd be healthy for especially UK and Spain who'd hopefully start taking the contest seriously again. Also, I've always failed to see the big attraction of being pre-qualified every year without actually having earned it...fighting for qualification, knowing that you may or may not make it, and then actually make it, is a much bigger reward than just being in the final every year because you have a big wallet. As a bonus you even get to perform your song twice, meaning that the semi-qualifiers usually have an advantage over the pre-qualifiers (except for the viewers who only tune in for the final of course).

This is all wishful thinking though, and I guess it could never be put into action without the big-5 voluntarily declining their pre-qualified spots in the final, but it's allowed to dream.

The Big 5 don't care whether they earn the place or not. It's only about the viewing figures. Without a contestant nobody would watch the Eurovision. The semi-finals without German participation were watched by about 200.000 people in comparison to 8 million people for the grand final. As long as enough people watch Eurovision our broadcaster couldn't care less about the song but when nobody is watching Eurovision due to the lack of a participant in the grand final, why should our broadcaster pay huge fees for the contest anyway?

 

[gstt]

Same here, a final without a French entry wouldn't' attract many viewers (probably drop way below 1 million). I don't see our entries getting more respect in semi so the contest will be taken even less seriously.

But if the big5 system was to be dropped i wouldn't seed anyone in final except the host and put all the rest in semifinal.

 

[KingOfKaroke]

If the big 5 rule was dropped I think all of them would withdraw. I can understand why this rule is looked on unfavorably by many other countries. It certainly doesn't help that they frequently send entries that are appalling. If all of us big 5 sent really strong entries every year that might help relive some of the pressure. The question is, does the funding exist without the big 5, that is the reason why we have the privilege of pre-qualification. I don't know anything about EBU's budget but the loss of the 5 major broadcasters would have some sort of impact, no? I did read last year that the BBC paid some £10 million to the EBU each year in fee's (I assume membership).

And without the big 5 the Euro element of eurovision becomes even more diluted.

While some people think it might give the countries (looking at you BBC) a kick they need and actually improve their chances in the final I'm not that optimistic. I think they'll just quit. Believe me, I am not happy with the big 5's disrespect to the contest they show (e.g BBC's commentary, selection process's, quality of songs etc) but dropping them out of it is not the way forward.

 

[malta]

ya I see where your coming from

 

[toinou03]

Exactly, no final would mean instant withdrawal, because we couldn't handle less than a million viewers for financial reasons... And I don't believe there are more than 100 000 persons watching the semi finals indeed...

 

[Quent91]

And I don't believe there are more than 100 000 persons watching the semi finals indeed...

Yeah, France Ô is the cheesiest and most boring TV channel in France. I never watch it; the only time I did was for the 2nd semi-final this year because RTBF was broadcasting it 1 hour later It must be their best TV audience ever

 

[toinou03]

Yeah, France Ô is the cheesiest and most boring TV channel in France. I never watch it; the only time I did was for the 2nd semi-final this year because RTBF was broadcasting it 1 hour later It must be their best TV audience ever

I wouldn't say they are cheesy. After all, it's the channel which unites all the public channels of all the overseas territories... But the way they use it is really pointless. Plus it's full of Latin America telenovelas and such stupid things we really don't see the interest. That's why they don't publish the viewing figures of France ô ! But it's interesting to see they put it from France 4... That means France Télé has really Zero interest in these semi-finals ! And Eurovision has zero connection with French overseas territories !
At least, they should get rid of France Ô and put sections of France 3 in each overseas territory. That would be more logical...

End of the off-topic ! 3

 

[LalehForWD]

I think the concept of a crucial financial contribution to Eurovision Song Contest by the big 5 is a misunderstanding. Isn't it more like a reward for these countries for being the major contributors to EBU as a whole. Is it likely these countries will quit EBU just because they withdraw from ESC? Italy didn't. Since the budget for ESC in Malmö is more or less public, it's easy to see what the total EBU contribution to ESC means in reality. I remember I was rather surprised how little it really was when it was news in June-July 2012. It's peanuts in this respect and was substantially less than what was contributed by Malmö city alone. I don't know if the size of the EBU contribution is depending of the actual need of a broadcaster though. I think the budget of SVT is about 4 milliards SEK, so the hole in the coffin isn't that great this year despite ESC hosting (total budget 125 million SEK).

No one wants any of the big 5 to leave the contest, but if they participate only if they got a freeride into the final, it's pretty hard to be sympathetic.

 

[gstt]

We'd need a complete breakdown of the budget and I'm not sure the 125 million SEK include everything (broadcasting costs etc.).
Portugal reportedly saved 310000 euros by not entering this year. It has to be substantially more for the big5.

 

[cassio]

We'd need a complete breakdown of the budget and I'm not sure the 125 million SEK include everything (broadcasting costs etc.).
Portugal reportedly saved 310000 euros by not entering this year. It has to be substantially more for the big5.

Portugal: They still pay contribution to EBU no one pay to ESC .... ESC is a music concept which is part of Eurovision (broadcast between several countries) ESC and the trademark Eurovision is owned by EBU.

Every country pay for their own expenses in participating in ESC this means they pay for approx. 30 persons hotel for 14 days + rent for a bus ..... + plane tickets + extra prob on stage like fireworks / confetti + ..... and ofcourse the cost for a national final

so 310.000 euros is not a unrealistic figue

 

[gstt]

There are definitely participation fees, you can see on page 1 here : http://www.svt.se/melodifestivalen/article150813.svt/BINARY/ESC_2012_Rules_ENG_FINAL.pdf

 

[LalehForWD]

There are definitely participation fees, you can see on page 1 here : http://www.svt.se/melodifestivalen/article150813.svt/BINARY/ESC_2012_Rules_ENG_FINAL.pdf

There's the EBU contribution amount to Baku specified on top on first page.
"Amount of the total Contribution to be financed by the Participating Broadcasters "
5,720,000 CHF => ~4,5 million euro

I'm almost entirely certain the contribution to Malmö 2013 was much less, which indicates some sort of progressive calculation. SUcks I can't find the figures again.

It's missing from the 2013 edition of the same document:
2013 EUROVISION SONG CONTEST RULES. It says "public version" though.

We'd need a complete breakdown of the budget and I'm not sure the 125 million SEK include everything (broadcasting costs etc.).
Portugal reportedly saved 310000 euros by not entering this year. It has to be substantially more for the big5.

A budget of 125 million SEK will probably be very difficult to beat with retained ambition. Much of the needed infrastructure and material was already present and lots of experience and methods could be taken directly from Melodifestivalen and SVT itself.

British The Telegraph article Eurovision: how to fix the problem (mentioned in another thread), states BBC spent £300000 on "Eurovision", which must mean what BBC payed Engelbert to participate, the songwriters fee, his studio time, the video and of course travelling and living in Baku. Clearly low budget effort and I guess not so much extravaganza there.

----------------------------------------------------------------
edit:
Just to add some figures I found (source Expressen):
Malmö city contribution 18,1 million SEK
Region Skåne contribution 7,7 million SEK
--------------------------------------------
Which gives additional 25 million SEK for security, transports, Euro-club etc

The sponsors Schwarzkopf and Telia is contributing as well.

 

[Leydan]

I don't get why we're even discussing it being taken away. The Big five hold a lot of power with how much they pay. If the EBU are like "right we're taking it away" All of the big five, even Italy i'm sure would be like "right ok, good look hosting a show, we're withdrawing then" Then without all those valuable pennies the country hosting that year would be left humiliated when they can't put on show let alone a half decent one. Then the following year, the EBU be like "we're sorry, we will bring it back" I'm sure the national broadcasters who host in each of the big countries would throw a huge fit and raise hell over it. Even this simple thing might give them the incentive to try harder.

And i most certainly do not agree that countries who are in the top 5 one year should be the big 5 the following year. The same countries will have secure positions every year because of how well they do (e.g. Azerbaijan). We had this sort of thing before where the top 10 auto qualified for the following year, I cant remember why it was abolished but i'm sure a reason was because the same countries were always in the top 10, Like Greece, Ukraine etc.

 

[LalehForWD]

Well, the budget for Eurovision 2013 was discussed in detail by the Swedish press last summer. Stockholm business spokesmen and others felt betrayed due to Malmö City won the bidding game. The budget seemed to have been prepared long time in advance, given the likely win of Loreen. My guess Malmö was the only realistic alternative to keep the budget and it was pretty clear from the start. My memory of the figures is that EBU contribution was peanuts and this fact surprised me a lot. So, the next question is naturally:
What is the big deal with the big 5?

Finding info about EBU in general and the big 5 solution in particular isn't easy. My impression is that the solution is a reward to Germany in particular and the other major contributors to EBU as a whole. Their decision and their right of course, but it stinks BMO.

 

[penguinperson]

I would say it is more to do with ratings and reach than the direct costs of funding the contest. Italy and France's direct qualification could be considered more contentious of the lot.

Overall
2013 54.6 million 38.3% BIG 5= 25.88 million
2012 63.9 million 37% BIG 5 = 27.78million
S1 19.4
S2 19.6
2011 70 million BIG 5 = 33.79 million
2010 69 million 39% BIG 4 = 30.09 million
2009 73 million 43.1% BIG 3 (no spain) = 20.83 million

France
2013 2.740.000 (13.9%)
2012: 3.98m 23%
2011: 4.9m 26.7%
2010: 3.9
2009 5.7m

Germany
2013 8.21m (34%)
2012 - 8.29m (36.6%)
2011 - 13.93m (host) 49.3%
2010 - 14.69m
2009 - 7.33m

Italy
2013 1.878.000 (9.17%)
2012: 1.410.000 (7.51%)
2011: 1.291.000 (6.43%)


Spain
2013 5,369,000 33.1%
2012 6,542,000 43.5%
2011 4,172,000 28,9%
2010 5,700,000

UK
2013 7.70m (35.3%), * peak: 9.28m (48.4%) at 22:55 +536,000 iPlayer 7.83 official
2012 -7.6m (36.2%) peak: 9.6m (52.9%) 23:00
2011 - 9.5m (40%) * 5-min peak: 12.9m (64%)
2010 - 5.8m (26%)
2009 - 7.8m (35%) * peak: 9.8m (52%)

There is no way any advertisers will approve of a TV show pissing off essentially the majority market share. Whether we like it or not they are the ones that fund the website with their sponsorships included on promos and the credits just so they can have that audience reach. UKs reach is the highest with 20 million and Germany second with around 16 million. They are the ones advertisers want to sell to. Relegate them rightly or wrongly the add space is worth a whole lot less. So perhaps and audience of around half of the overall figures which have been in decline, not going to happen. That is how TV shows work. They provide most to the EBU but they get more out of it than Eurovision so that isn't the prociding issue. It is simply how ratings are constructed to keep the show alive and brand worth more.