DO
They also play out the Eurovision title themselves, need to keep the backup recording (from the jury performance) running in sync in case it's needed, deal with BBC Pres and produce graham's commentary. It's not just a case of cutting up an external feed and letting it run for three/four/five hours.
GE
thegeek
Founding member
And they need to cut to a local playlist of the Eurovision sting to cover up the sponsor logos at the end of the credits. (Speaking of which, there's probably a compliance person in there to make sure it's all legal for broadcast)
You also need to be in a facility which can deal with surround sound, to be able to insert Graham's commentary into the 5.1 mix - not all sound desks have the capability, and the ones that do tend to be attached to large galleries.
You also need to be in a facility which can deal with surround sound, to be able to insert Graham's commentary into the 5.1 mix - not all sound desks have the capability, and the ones that do tend to be attached to large galleries.
:-(
A former member
Can someone explain why the number of British nationals voting is pretty low compared to others nationals who live in the uk who do vote. There claim we like it but we don't vote?
NG
The requirements are pretty much identical to handling a high-profile major sporting event with on-site commentators but production back in the UK.
You need a sound team to mix the commentary, handle the communications between the UK and the site (including checking and switching to backups should they be required). You also need someone to handle the communications for the voting spokesperson. I'm sure the UK sound team would also have pre-recorded elements from Graham to give the phone numbers should commentary be lost. The sound facilities need to be 5.1 capable. It's unusual to find a decent 5.1 capable sound desk attached to a tiny control room...
You'll no doubt have a camera operator and lighting/vision person, and possibly a floor sound person, to handle the studio elements of the in-vision voting that is fed back to Ukraine to give the UK jury's 12 points.
There are 3 or 4 different feeds of the contest that rights holders are expected to pick up and have available in their local control room, and use should one of the feeds go down, plus a recording of the Friday jury dress rehearsal that must be played (and constantly kept in sync by a VT op).
The phone numbers and some other domestic graphics are added locally in the UK - so a graphics operator and graphics platform are needed.
For the BBC Four shows there also need to be facilities to handle the in-vision presentation (more comms, unilateral incoming feeds so more outside sources to line up etc.) from Scott and Mel in Kiev.
Add to that the production team need to handle two separate jury votes, co-ordinate all the practical requirements for the teams in both the UK and Kiev (transport, hotels, sorting the props for staging etc.) and then the requirement for the phone voting co-ordination and monitoring, and the editorial policy issues in broadcasting an event you have no direct control of, and the number of people isn't massively different to a regular show.
I'm sure you could build a smaller control room to do just what is required - but the reality is people don't build control rooms just to make the Eurovision Song contest, so you no doubt end up hiring what is available. There are smaller studio-less 'live galleries' available - but they probably end up being too small, and engineering a local camera (and lighting and studio sound) into them is likely to be more hassle than it is worth.
As can be seen from the Blue Peter behind the scenes filming, the BBC were at IMG Studios. Which specialise in sport production (big galleries, small studios) and are a very good fit for the Eurovision Song Contest. The other facility that would make sense is Timeline in Stratford (which BT Sport use)
When you are broadcasting a show that includes a public phone vote and that is watched by more than 8 million people (the show peaked at around 8.8m during the voting) you need to ensure you have all your ducks in a row...
noggin
Founding member
Why is there such a big gallery team located in the UK?
As far as I understand, they would only be displaying British relevant graphics (as well as blocking advertising), monitoring the televotes and controlling the spokesperson feed. Yet they have a full gallery team on board?
As far as I understand, they would only be displaying British relevant graphics (as well as blocking advertising), monitoring the televotes and controlling the spokesperson feed. Yet they have a full gallery team on board?
The requirements are pretty much identical to handling a high-profile major sporting event with on-site commentators but production back in the UK.
You need a sound team to mix the commentary, handle the communications between the UK and the site (including checking and switching to backups should they be required). You also need someone to handle the communications for the voting spokesperson. I'm sure the UK sound team would also have pre-recorded elements from Graham to give the phone numbers should commentary be lost. The sound facilities need to be 5.1 capable. It's unusual to find a decent 5.1 capable sound desk attached to a tiny control room...
You'll no doubt have a camera operator and lighting/vision person, and possibly a floor sound person, to handle the studio elements of the in-vision voting that is fed back to Ukraine to give the UK jury's 12 points.
There are 3 or 4 different feeds of the contest that rights holders are expected to pick up and have available in their local control room, and use should one of the feeds go down, plus a recording of the Friday jury dress rehearsal that must be played (and constantly kept in sync by a VT op).
The phone numbers and some other domestic graphics are added locally in the UK - so a graphics operator and graphics platform are needed.
For the BBC Four shows there also need to be facilities to handle the in-vision presentation (more comms, unilateral incoming feeds so more outside sources to line up etc.) from Scott and Mel in Kiev.
Add to that the production team need to handle two separate jury votes, co-ordinate all the practical requirements for the teams in both the UK and Kiev (transport, hotels, sorting the props for staging etc.) and then the requirement for the phone voting co-ordination and monitoring, and the editorial policy issues in broadcasting an event you have no direct control of, and the number of people isn't massively different to a regular show.
I'm sure you could build a smaller control room to do just what is required - but the reality is people don't build control rooms just to make the Eurovision Song contest, so you no doubt end up hiring what is available. There are smaller studio-less 'live galleries' available - but they probably end up being too small, and engineering a local camera (and lighting and studio sound) into them is likely to be more hassle than it is worth.
As can be seen from the Blue Peter behind the scenes filming, the BBC were at IMG Studios. Which specialise in sport production (big galleries, small studios) and are a very good fit for the Eurovision Song Contest. The other facility that would make sense is Timeline in Stratford (which BT Sport use)
When you are broadcasting a show that includes a public phone vote and that is watched by more than 8 million people (the show peaked at around 8.8m during the voting) you need to ensure you have all your ducks in a row...
Last edited by noggin on 20 May 2017 10:47am
HC
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
Can someone explain why the number of British nationals voting is pretty low compared to others nationals who live in the uk who do vote. There claim we like it but we don't vote?
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
NG
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
I think the point being made is that non-Brits living in the UK vote more, pro rata, than Brits in the UK? (The OP wasn't comparing Brits voting in the UK, with - say - Swedes in Sweden voting)
I'd always put it down to being able to vote for your own country - Poles living in the UK can - and presumably do - vote patriotically for Poland, just as I'm sure British ex-Pats in Australia vote for the UK!
noggin
Founding member
Can someone explain why the number of British nationals voting is pretty low compared to others nationals who live in the uk who do vote. There claim we like it but we don't vote?
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
I think the point being made is that non-Brits living in the UK vote more, pro rata, than Brits in the UK? (The OP wasn't comparing Brits voting in the UK, with - say - Swedes in Sweden voting)
I'd always put it down to being able to vote for your own country - Poles living in the UK can - and presumably do - vote patriotically for Poland, just as I'm sure British ex-Pats in Australia vote for the UK!
NG
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
App voting is also a major difference. The UK version of the app votes via dialling the mobile phone shortcode. AIUI the app in other countries uses IP voting - which could be zero cost. (AIUI there are good governance reasons why the BBC only allow phone voting.)
noggin
Founding member
Can someone explain why the number of British nationals voting is pretty low compared to others nationals who live in the uk who do vote. There claim we like it but we don't vote?
The UK only vote via a phone line.
Presumably the other countries add both telephone and text voting in to the final figures.
App voting is also a major difference. The UK version of the app votes via dialling the mobile phone shortcode. AIUI the app in other countries uses IP voting - which could be zero cost. (AIUI there are good governance reasons why the BBC only allow phone voting.)
:-(
A former member
Yes. I don't mind people living elsewhere voting for the own country but when forgien nationals are making more of an effort to vote it just makes me wonder why the UK public aren't as engage? What are the numbers? Are there even released?
GM
The public are engaged. It's the BBC that won't allow viewers to vote by text. Instead they allow mobile viewer to call the shortcode, which on some networks don't even work or when they do they are limited to the amount of calls they can make.
Yes. I don't mind people living elsewhere voting for the own country but when forgien nationals are making more of an effort to vote it just makes me wonder why the UK public aren't as engage? What are the numbers? Are there even released?
The public are engaged. It's the BBC that won't allow viewers to vote by text. Instead they allow mobile viewer to call the shortcode, which on some networks don't even work or when they do they are limited to the amount of calls they can make.