No Big 5?

[cassidian]

Change or just take away the big 5 completely? Give some countries with good songs a chance rather than have OAP's from the UK end up at the bottom of the table! San Marino 2013 was quite a good song (Crisalide) but not it's place was taken by countries that get through every year by habit, whether t he song be good or not (Greece...). Also,from the Big 5, who would actually get through to the final, eh? Italy definitely, Probably Germany and France at a push. I am from the UK, so this is not a bias remark, just a true statement, ABOLISH THE BIG 5. Or... Before the semi finals, the juries or someone (I don't know) could pick 5 acts, whether they be at random or the best, give some countries a chance eh?

 

[Gera11]

No Big 5 is really an utopia. As long as they fund the contest, they will have a superior seat.
I find this big5 rule quite discriminatory. It's like "who has money, has more rights". What happened with equal rights?

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Daft idea. Id like Russia to join us to make a Big 6, so long as they increase their contribution to our level.

 

[Impressive]

I am against the Top 5 rule, too. But the facts that you mean were quite personal like San Marino's situation or Greece's being overrated etc. I just expect something respectable. By the way, we already have a thread about that and discussed there.

 

[tuorem]

I don't see the link between San Marino's failure and the Big 5. Those countries don't stole any country's chances to qualify since they don't even compete in the semis and there can only be 20 finalists from them. Then if you judge the quality of the songs, it's up to anyone to disagree with you.

Besides, if you want the Big 5 to compete in the semis as well, there'll be even more competition and I'm not sure at all countries like San Marino would have better chances of qualifying. The fact is that yeah : in my opinion Greece, Finland, Georgia and Armenia qualified instead of better entries like San Marino, Israel, Bulgaria... But it's not related in any way to the Big 5.

By the way, how come people want the Big 5 thing to end this year? I mean, it's like I've read the same complaints on several threads recently.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

They always say "it's not fair" lol - they wouldnt have a contest if it wasnt for us so they should shut up and put up!

 

[Impressive]

They always say "it's not fair" lol - they wouldnt have a contest if it wasnt for us so they should shut up and put up!

It doesn't mean it is fair because of that though.

 

[Impressive]

I don't see the link between San Marino's failure and the Big 5. Those countries don't stole any country's chances to qualify since they don't even compete in the semis and there can only be 20 finalists from them. Then if you judge the quality of the songs, it's up to anyone to disagree with you.

The point s/he meant was that if there would no pre-qualifier, then qualifiers number from each semi could be more than 10 and that way San Marino could qualify to final because of that no placing from Big 5 at final.

Besides, if you want the Big 5 to compete in the semis as well, there'll be even more competition and I'm not sure at all countries like San Marino would have better chances of qualifying.

This is not like that though. France always takes bottom and hardly reach points. If France was in semis then they rarely could reach to final.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

It doesn't mean it is fair because of that though.

I passed no judgement on whether it was fair or not. I said it shouldnt be changed .

 

[LalehForWD]

Haha funny how you big5ers convince yourself being the generous funder of the contest and therefore honourable allowed to a shortcut. We, the other small countries should be grateful for being able to compete at all. Get real, when the ESC budget got public last year for Malmö, these arguments just fell flat - the total EBU contribution to ESC is peanuts. The big 5 rule is just a reward to the most powerful broadcasters in EBU. Away with it and reward good placings e.g. top5 (instead of big5) as was suggested in the other thread.

 

[penguinperson]

Haha funny how you big5ers convince yourself being the generous funder of the contest and therefore honourable allowed to a shortcut. We, the other small countries should be grateful for being able to compete at all. Get real, when the ESC budget got public last year for Malmö, these arguments just fell flat - the total EBU contribution to ESC is peanuts. The big 5 rule is just a reward to the most powerful broadcasters in EBU. Away with it and reward good placings e.g. top5 (instead of big5) as was suggested in the other thread.

As I said in the other thread the money involved rarely has an impact with the host broadcaster as they can set their budget to whatever they want. Yet there still needs to be an official body that needs to be paid for and obviously everyone pays towards that. As I said elsewhere, no advertiser will want the lucrative markets to have ratings collapses it is how broadcasting works. If the Big 5 countries did not exist with who they are now the advertisers would still want certain audiences where they could have a strong guaranted reach. This won't be through adverts in traditional terms but consuming social media. The Nordics would easily be included in this scenario.

It is not fair we all know this but broadcasters don't work on fairness they work on principles of making money. Comparisions do not work with sport as the desiable advertising countries still tune in or they have the money and depth to develop their sport to such a level. Even with Public Sevice Broadcasters ratings are king, they justify the money spent on shows they make or buy. As I said there is a more possible arguement against France on a downwards ratings trend and whether Italy's audience will grow large enough. These advertisers will pay the fees of many EBU wages involved with ESC, you don't bite the hand that feeds you and as horrible as it sounds they could not give a toss about a 100% audience for San Marino if they got that. It is the same the world over the youth audience for such shows those with the most expendible income will always dictate how the television program is made.

 

[LalehForWD]

As I said in the other thread the money involved rarely has an impact with the host broadcaster as they can set their budget to whatever they want. Yet there still needs to be an official body that needs to be paid for and obviously everyone pays towards that. As I said elsewhere, no advertiser will want the lucrative markets to have ratings collapses it is how broadcasting works. If the Big 5 countries did not exist with who they are now the advertisers would still want certain audiences where they could have a strong guaranted reach. This won't be through adverts in traditional terms but consuming social media. The Nordics would easily be included in this scenario.

It is not fair we all know this but broadcasters don't work on fairness they work on principles of making money. Comparisions do not work with sport as the desiable advertising countries still tune in or they have the money and depth to develop their sport to such a level. Even with Public Sevice Broadcasters ratings are king, they justify the money spent on shows they make or buy. As I said there is a more possible arguement against France on a downwards ratings trend and whether Italy's audience will grow large enough. These advertisers will pay the fees of many EBU wages involved with ESC, you don't bite the hand that feeds you and as horrible as it sounds they could not give a toss about a 100% audience for San Marino if they got that. It is the same the world over the youth audience for such shows those with the most expendible income will always dictate how the television program is made.

Yes, you argumented for maintaining big5 to guarantee a broad market reach for advertisements. Although I'm not entirely convinced, I understand what you're saying. Perhaps increasingly more important as ESC becomes more and more an online event. Regardless if you're right or not, it's not an easy argument to use for maintaining the big 5 rule BMO.

Regarding EBU contribution to ESC, I think it's only natural for EBU to put their resources in more obvious useful projects than a TV show. Technology research and cooperation projects for example. I assume EBU is discussing alternative ways of funding ESC and the efforts to cut the costs are obviously signs of that. To be frank, I can't see how the big 5 rule can survive if the reasons behind are revealed and budget discussed openly. I hope DR will be transparent with their production in this respect.

Furthermore I don't understand why you would want to defend the rule. Getting a free-ride to the final must feel somewhat shameful and impose an expectation of higher standards somehow, maximises the pressure to succeed. How embarrassing to end up among the lasts after that. Besides, it puts you as some kind of outsiders as well, not participating in the semis.

 

[penguinperson]

Yes, you argumented for maintaining big5 to guarantee a broad market reach for advertisements. Although I'm not entirely convinced, I understand what you're saying. Perhaps increasingly more important as ESC becomes more and more an online event. Regardless if you're right or not, it's not an easy argument to use for maintaining the big 5 rule BMO.

Regarding EBU contribution to ESC, I think it's only natural for EBU to put their resources in more obvious useful projects than a TV show. Technology research and cooperation projects for example. I assume EBU is discussing alternative ways of funding ESC and the efforts to cut the costs are obviously signs of that. To be frank, I can't see how the big 5 rule can survive if the reasons behind are revealed and budget discussed openly. I hope DR will be transparent with their production in this respect.

Furthermore I don't understand why you would want to defend the rule. Getting a free-ride to the final must feel somewhat shameful and impose an expectation of higher standards somehow, maximises the pressure to succeed. How embarrassing to end up among the lasts after that. Besides, it puts you as some kind of outsiders as well, not participating in the semis.

In an ideal world I wouldn't want any country in the final due monetary aspects whether it be due to ratings, advertising or EBU pay checks (bar the host of course) as competition. However it remains primarily a TV show not a competition of great importance away from its fanbase. It is becoming harder to maintain as an arguement I agree, with the world becoming a smaller place (to pardon the expression) and commercial ventures spreading. ESC I suppose would be easier to fund if every broadcaster was commercial rather than public, the mix makes it a tad harder with sponsorship.

I would like you know exactly where each participation fee actually goes in respect to the actual contest, that is very important but that is the fault of the EBU more than any single broadcaster. I am defending the rule in that the show could get near the cancellation ranges as the audience numbers could vanish and all funds the audience numbers grant of income whether it be from the host, participation, advertising the money would be dramatically reduceded. The show is already in decline in terms of viewership overall, all TV shows reach a peak and decline it is only natural. We know certain broadcaster could host ESC with ease over and over, yet that is not the case for the whole. This is why the EBU need to be open in costs and explain where the income is coming from and more importantly going.

The best way to combat funding would be a flat fee across the board which would lead to withdrawals from the other end of the spectrum. I also agree that it makes the Big countries whoever they are lazy and nearly always embarrasing as the costs are so low.

I also believe that the EBU should be far stricter with countries that fail to pay fees such as the example of Ukraine and Romania a year back rather than waiting from the guaranteed money from the Bigs.

Do I think the contest could survive without the Big 5? I think it depends on which ones when we look at them. Sweden and Russia are far more valuable imho than France and Italy in a broadcast sense. The other 3 would depend how low would they fall in terms of ratings when they are not in the final. The other three of those not in the final together could pose as more problematic in terms of advertising fees the EBU could demand. They could hardly then claimit to be Europe's biggest show as it would be far from it. Again we come back to the EBU not the broadcasters who need to show their hand.

 

[cassidian]

No, what I am saying is that if the Big 5 were in the semi finals (and if there was no political voting, hah!), in my opinion the UK and Spain would not get through due to their recent performances, and France might or might not get through. There would be 3 extra places in the final. The reason I used San Marino as an example is that since they are so small, new, and are not in any particular "voting bloc", those extra places might let a good underrated country have a place in the final! Can I add, Montenegro 2013 was a good act, I think they were overlooked for some of the same reasons!

 

[QwaarJet]

I have no strong feelings either way, but the Big 5 often do terribly in the final, so it seems their places are somewhat wasted. If their places weren't guaranteed, more people would watch the semis, but a lot less would watch the final. As for anyone else coming in, that will never happen, and it certainly shouldn't be bloody Russia.

Basically, I don't mind it as is, although I wouldn't be unhappy if the big 5 was gone.

 

[tuorem]

The point s/he meant was that if there would no pre-qualifier, then qualifiers number from each semi could be more than 10 and that way San Marino could qualify to final because of that no placing from Big 5 at final.

Then s/he was talking about a specific example that can't apply elsewhere, San Marino reached the 11th place this year, that doesn't mean this country would have better chances to qualify or reach that place again if there were 5 more countries in the semis and if two more qualifiers were allowed.

To me this just sounds like a clumsy argument to get over the fact San Marino - or any country that was on the edge of qualifying - failed. If there are semis, it's also because not everyone can get into the final, so at some point, one has to decide on a qualification threshold... and it happens to be between the 10th and the 11th places. Simple as that. Otherwise, let's make a 40-countries final...

I don't think that the Big 5 rule is fair either, I just don't see the point of criticizing it that way. To me, it's not only about the amount of money those 5 give to the EBU, but I guess they also represent the "former Europe" where the contest started.

This is not like that though. France always takes bottom and hardly reach points. If France was in semis then they rarely could reach to final.

Again, that doesn't mean that without France in the final, other countries that never or rarely qualify would have better chances to do so. And if some of the Big 5 (France, the UK, Spain) happen to be so unsuccessful, I don't think it's only a matter of quality songs.

 

[Farahim]

Daft idea. Id like Russia to join us to make a Big 6, so long as they increase their contribution to our level.

why russia? why not replace uk?

 

[LalehForWD]

OK a recap of funding Malmö 2013

125 million SEK (110+15?) from SVT and EBU (TV production)
25 million SEK from Malmö City and Region Skåne (local arrangements, Euro club, security etc)
? advertisements and sponsors

The production had an advantage of reusing material and skills from Melodifestivalen, thus were probably able to lower the costs extensively.

Total cost ~150 million SEK? => €17 million

Model
Assume a minimal needed funding for ESC of
€25 million

If ESC funded by equal yearly fees and 50 participants
€500 000 / participant and year

Viable?
Should bigger countries pay more than smaller? OR Should everything be paid by the winner as it is today?

 

[penguinperson]

I suppose it is all dependant on the broadcaster (or ones with nutty governments behind them). I suppose the largest problem would remain with equal fees etc that the incomes of broadcasters will never be the same across Europe. Broadcasters such as BBC NDR SVT can easily eat up the budget for the show without batting a eyelid. Some broadcasters yet no recent host would struggle to meet such costs to host on their own so that is when the larger payers prove their worth whether Big 5 or not. They also perhaps do not have the broadcasting knowledge hence why in the past UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Denmark (from the top of my head) have shared skills or produced aspects of the show.

500,000 each would be way out the budget of many broadcasters considering Bosnia's and Moldova's participation fees are around 20,000 euro. Then we have smaller countries where labels pay fees and no way would that amount be viable for labels in terms of returns that could be made. I would go as far to suggest such fees would favor the big payers more as they could afford such a fee year in year out easily.

 

[LalehForWD]

Yes, what happens when San Marino wins?

hmm ... participation fees

So, we have EBU membership fee and ESC participation fee - I found this:

The status of the ‘Big 5’ is not only based on their contributions to the European Broadcasting Union, though. They also share a larger part of the costs for the organisation of the Eurovision Song Contest itself. To put this into perspective, here are some figures obtained from the BBC and RTÉ, as both broadcasters are subject to freedom of information legislation in their respective countries. In 2009, RTÉ’s participation fee was €55,000. In the same year, the BBC paid a total of £279,805 to take part in the Moscow contest. In May of 2009, £1 bought approximately €1.14, so it would mean that the BBC paid around €318,977- some 5.8 times more. In Oslo the BBC paid £283,190 (approximately €333,165 using the rate of £1 = €0,85 on Friday 28th May 2010), with RTÉ’s fee costing €63,000. For those who are interested, the BBC’s participation fee in Belgrade was £221,000. The participation fee costs have increased to match the budgets set by the organisers, and also to reflect the mount likely to be recovered in sponsorship, which is now lower due to the financial crisis.
source

It's a bit difficult to follow, though. As I understand the ESC participation fee is progressive and the size seem to be adjusted according to an estimated need of the host. What I don't understand where the fees come in to the budget. These contributions have not been mentioned in the Swedish articles about ESC Malmö. I assumed the EBU contribution came from EBU membership fees, but is it instead the participation fees? Anyway, the principle with progressive fees may be rather dangerous for the big 5 in case for example San Marino wins. Then you have to pay for the whole chabarang in participation fee!