EUROVISION SONG CONTEST 2011: RANKING OR SUCCESSFUL PRESENTATION?

Dino Merlin of Bosnia & Herzegovina, sixth place
Source: www.eurovision.tv

Eurovision Song Contest IESC) 2011 has just been over, with songs of 43 participating countries from Europe and Asia. Each song battled for victory. That means for higher ranking, respectively a greater number of points given by other participating countries. But in fact, there is not relation the higher the ranking the greater the benefit of the participating countries.

Results and performance are two different things and the presentation is more important for the successful promotion of each participating country at Eurovision.

At the ESC the ranking has priority over all other aspects, including cultural, integration, promotional ... Media, fans, viewers, bookmakers were all focused on forecasts before and pools before the event. Another issue is that to Eurosong projections could be used and are used as in political elections, manipulation of public opinion - a kind of self-fulfillment prophecy.

A LIKABLE PERFORMANCE

A likable performance means a confident and precise performance of a song, in which the audience can understand the message, experience the feelings of the song writers, and sense the personality of the performer.

Indeed, there is difference in the individual tastes as well as in the national, the regional ones, etc. Normally, we like more known things, for example the songs from our neighboring countries, as well as the songs in English and in Anglo-Saxon style, since the latter is considered a modern classic and universal nowadays. But to seek universal liking by universal (Anglo-Saxon) style and universal (English) language actually means to search ranking and not the presentation and promotion of the own particular culture and worldview. We know that the world is increasingly getting globalised and unified, but Eurovision makes sense for the participating countries and nations if it does not act as a catalyst for this unification, and vice versa - if it helps to maintain and further the cultural diversity.

RANKING

The ranking of the ESC songs depends on many factors beyond how they are performed. For example, in addition to the above mentioned manipulation of the public opinion and different tastes and attitudes, sometimes the existence of a significant diaspora in many participating countries proves to be essential, while in the other cases it is the neighborhood voting, or the image of a country, respectively the existing prejudices.

I can single out at least four possible reasons for the excessive fixation on rankings and competition in ESC which I think is a fact:

• The human innate inclination to compete with the others;
• The competitiveness is imposed in the modern mass culture by the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture, to which it is inherent;
• Financial and political benefits a la Big Brother eg Big Money and Big Interests deliberately impose obsession with competition because this way they are able to impose mind control more easily;
• Obvious financial interests of a smaller calibre eg betting as at horse racing.

Lets forget for a while that participation in the Eurovision is a reward in itself, and focus on what can be gained directly from the higher ranking.

Under the current ESC rules, each of the participating countries can be a winner in two cases. Firstly, if its song is ranked amongst the first ten in the two semifinals, and so passes to the ESC final regardless of the placement. In this case the benefit is that the song is executed twice, and the second time it is to an even wider audience than the one of the semifinals, numbering over 120 million people.

Secondly, a country with the first song in the final ranking wins hosting the next ESC, eg a chance for even more powerful advertising and promotion, as well as influx of tourists during the festival days. Whether such a hosting will be profitable or not depends on the management of the host country/TV; there are plenty of jokes about how some countries do not want to win the first place because they can not afford a hosting or because they have reported direct financial losses from a previous household .

Outside the above two benefits, any other place in the rankings beyond the first does not bring any other profit but perhaps some national sports pride. By the way, some time ago there was a rule that the first ten countries automatically participated in the next year ESC final, skipping the semifinals, but that rule was dropped in 2008.

There is also a specific of the "big five" “subscription” to the ESC final; “big five”
are France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK. It is due to those countries' biggest financial deal in the ESC. Thus they loose a presentation in the semifinals, but at the same time have 1 / 25 chance of winning the first place and next household, and it is obviously much more than the chance of any other ESC country.

Some other countries are almost "subscribed" to the ESC final because of a large and mobilized diaspora in many of the other ESC countries, or since they are part of a numerous informal community of countries which exchange points to each other, such as the ex-Soviet republics, the ex-Yugoslav states and the Scandinavia countries.

It seems that there is no justice and objectiveness in ESC. And there could hardly be as the music, the culture are such subjective phenomena.

In conclusion, the Eurovision Song Contest has strong cultural and integrative aspects, along with huge advertising (and business) potential for each country, for the singers and for the participating TVs. The decision to voluntary withdraw from participation in that Eurasian and even world mega event, broadcast in Europe, Asia, Australia and possibly in other continents, is a chance for exceptional promotion. The voluntary withdrawal from it is tantamount to self-exclusion and voluntary loss of benefits.