I do wonder why the EBU wanted it downsized though?
I think because there were more and more countries that wouldn't have had suitable venues (and enough accommodation available), or national broadcasters able to afford to host the contest (even with sponsorship)
There is also the issue that countries were threatening to drop out - as even entering the contest is pretty expensive (so if you can downsize and streamline the event - and reduce the amount of time countries need to be present) you make it more cost-effective to enter?
This is particularly relevant in the current economic situation.
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a 3D production of the ESC final yet, given how HD was adopted so early on. Although since the closure of BBC HD there isn't an obvious PSB outlet in the UK if it were available.
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a 3D production of the ESC final yet, given how HD was adopted so early on. Although since the closure of BBC HD there isn't an obvious PSB outlet in the UK if it were available.
I think the difference is that HD was a major development that lots of the PSBs in Europe knew, like 16:9 and digital production before it, was going to be a case of when not if (after seeing how it had been adopted in the US and Japan)
3D is very different. It's not been a major success in TV terms anywhere in the world AFAIK, and it is still very niche as a TV production format. In fact in some countries 3D services have been closing (or moving to more restricted transmission times).
I think you are probably more likely to see a 4K / Ultra HD Eurovision than a 3D one now.
The EBU must also be concerned at the fact that in recent years, a few stalwart countries have pulled out because they simply can't afford it (or justify it against their PSB commitments). Portugal being this year's notable example: they've entered almost every year since 1964, albeit without ever finishing in the Top 5. Austria have also pulled out a few times in recent years (although the most recent withdrawal was because they said the contest was being ruined by regulations, according to Wikipedia). Luxembourg haven't been tempted back to the party since 1993, despite RTL still being an active EBU member, a major broadcaster and Luxembourg being one of the most successful Eurovision countries, having won 5 times.
If the competition has got so big that even larger countries can't justify it, and a host broadcaster has to sell their rights to The World Cup (as NRK did in 2010) in order to put the contest on, then the EBU has to address the overall cost of the event. I am sure that SVT will be able to stage a spectacular show, despite any downsizing. They're constrained by tighter sponsorship rules than many European broadcasters and don't include commercial breaks in the middle of their programmes, so it may offer an insight into what a BBC Eurovision might look like, should we ever win again.
The EBU must also be concerned at the fact that in recent years, a few stalwart countries have pulled out because they simply can't afford it (or justify it against their PSB commitments). Portugal being this year's notable example: they've entered almost every year since 1964, albeit without ever finishing in the Top 5.
Didn't Portugal pull out because their financial crisis has triggered a privatisation of RTP ? I suspect they are flat broke, and probably can't afford the combined cost of sending a delegation and licensing the contest, and given the state of their economy sponsorship may have been hard to find.
Quote:
Austria have also pulled out a few times in recent years (although the most recent withdrawal was because they said the contest was being ruined by regulations, according to Wikipedia).
Yep - I think Austria have a love/hate relationship with the contest - due to their poor relative performance compared to their German-speaking neighbours Switzerland and Germany... Not a financial issue - more a national one!
Similar reasons to Italy dropping out for a number of years.
Quote:
Luxembourg haven't been tempted back to the party since 1993, despite RTL still being an active EBU member, a major broadcaster and Luxembourg being one of the most successful Eurovision countries, having won 5 times.
Not sure how RTL really works as its so big (it owned Channel 5 for a while didn't it?) Suspect they are more bottom-line driven than most PSBs - and I doubt it makes them much money. When they were a member of the much-smaller Eurovision club in the 80s it allowed them to compete on equal terms with the European big-players, when most of Europe watched.
Now that the contest is so huge (nearly 50 countries entering at its peak) that appeal must have waned. Being one of nearly-50 entrants is very different to being one of 19 (which seems to be the number of competing countries in the early 80s).
I think the other big issue in Luxembourg is that the broadcasting landscape has changed hugely. RTL in Luxembourg has changed significantly since the 80s (RTL relocated from Luxembourg to Brussels for instance), and is probably more of a local niche broadcaster now that multi-channel TV is so widespread?
RTL as a broadcasting empire is huge, but I'm not sure how big the Luxembourg operation is now.
Quote:
If the competition has got so big that even larger countries can't justify it, and a host broadcaster has to sell their rights to The World Cup (as NRK did in 2010) in order to put the contest on, then the EBU has to address the overall cost of the event. I am sure that SVT will be able to stage a spectacular show, despite any downsizing. They're constrained by tighter sponsorship rules than many European broadcasters and don't include commercial breaks in the middle of their programmes, so it may offer an insight into what a BBC Eurovision might look like, should we ever win again.
Yes - though SVT are still including commercial break opts within the show for all the commercial broadcasters who are taking the show.
Having said that - both SVT and NRK have slightly looser sponsorship rules than the BBC. They both allow programmes to be sponsored (with stings before and after) unlike the BBC. The final of SVT's Melodifestivalen has a number of sponsors, as did some (all?) of NRK's London 2012 Olympics coverage (with stings popping up all over the place)
It's also clear that SVT and/or the EBU have decided that Moscow, Baku and Düsseldorf had taken the contest to the limits of "big stage, big screen, tiny performer" coverage. It's notable that they never include Oslo in this list. I know I mention it frequently - but I think Norway really did an interesting job in rebooting the coverage a bit - and I think it was a pity that Germany tried to take it back to the OTTness of Moscow (though I felt 2011 left me feeling a bit flat). And don't get me wrong - I loved Moscow, and think it was amazing. I just think that it couldn't be topped - and hasn't been - in scale. But I think I actually preferred Norway's actual show - hosts, interval acts and also the more varied staging.
I've seen reports that SVT think that Loreen's staging last year, which didn't use the LED backdrop, was covered almost totally without audience wides and was much more close and intimate, provided a direction for them to go in in making the show less about the LED-screen wide shot (though with the number of Barcos they have I suspect we'll still see quite a lot!).
They do seem to be very keen on 'connecting' the artist to the audience in the arena and at home - with personal postcards, and by, the sounds of it, tighter coverage. I've been avoiding the rehearsal clips this year to allow me to watch the event as a whole in sequence - so it will be interesting to see how a smaller venue (with a partially standing audience) - feels.
I have seen some of the Petra Mede stuff on the SVT site. I think people are going to 'get' her and her humour - well us Brits will I think. I get the feeling SVT are putting a LOT of effort into the production of the wider contest - and not just the coverage of the song performances.
I think we can be guaranteed that whatever SVT do - it will be very well done, to a very high quality, and well thought through. And possibly quite wry.
Last edited by noggin on 11 May 2013 12:15am - 3 times in total
Would trawl the European PSB's live streaming sites.
SVT and NRK both have 720p stuff on their iPlayer equivalents - and not all of it is geo-blocked. In fact I watched the semifinals on SVT.se last year.
It's disappointing the semi-finals won't be in HD in the BBC because of BBC Two HD. Is there a way to watch the show in HD live?
The Eurovision semi-finals weren't broadcast in HD last year on the BBC either - even though BBC HD was still running then. Instead something from BBC Two was broadcast instead.
I think the semi-finals have only been broadcast once, in 2011, in HD on the BBC - even though the contest (final and semi-finals) have been available in HD since 2007 (and the BBC have broadcast the final in HD since then)
Annoyingly, 2011, the one year the BBC broadcast the semi-finals in HD is the only year that the EBU produced a Blu-ray as well as a DVD...
Wish we'd pull out, as it would save the humilation every year!
Very high rating humiliation though - so the Beeb are unlikely to...
Quote:
Plus its getting too political.
Except it isn't political is it? Bloc voting isn't political - it's just a result of cultural similarities between countries, where artists within the bloc (and genres for that matter) are popular across borders.
Or is it "political" when we vote for Ireland and they vote for us because our musical tastes are similar?
The numbers of Blocs has probably increased (at one point it was really the Nordics and countries which shared languages) but since Yugoslavia split into a number of countries the Balkans have been a bloc (after all they WERE one country - you could expect them to like each others entries) and since the Soviet Union split and their countries entered something similar has happened there... That's not politics - it's familiarity and common taste playing a part.
Quote:
(Opens can of worms)
Not really a can of worms - more repeating a cliche that doesn't really stand up after scrutiny.