What can be done to boost the Eurovision winner (and entries) after the contest?

[A-lister]

So, another Eurovision is over and we're all looking forward to the next one, however just like most years, the winner (including other entries) disappears almost over the night and looking past the ESC fan bubble, it's like the contest never happened.

The last time Eurovision managed to produce an actual cross-over hit throughout Europe was with "Euphoria" back in 2012, and while some random entries managed to make some smaller impact on some markets, the general struggle for Eurovision (as it has been for most of the time) is to manage to produce any cross-over hits and to be a relevant force in music.

Now for some this isn't an issue, but for a contest of this magnitude I'd say it's actually a commercial flop. We can see that viewership is declining, even in markets where Eurovision was always a big thing. Now this could be due to different reasons, but I would argue that the fact that nothing lingers on after the contest is part of the reason. There is simply no lasting hype and there is nothing that keeps the contest alive and relevant with the general public. Still though, it's still too big of an event to be so irrelevant in the music world, what could EBU do here to boost the relevance?

In 2018 we ended up with a top. 3 that all could become hits, but it seems it won't be the case yet again. EBU had the "winner's tour" some years ago, what happened with that? It's like they gave up even on that idea. So what does the winner actually gain from winning except for 15 minutes of fame similar to some reality show winner?

I think there should come a package with winning, one way is for EBU to team up with some major record label which has all the necessary channels to promote an entry and simply sign a contract allowing this label to release the winner entry and promote it. Winning this should come with some sort of price other than just being labeled the winner.

Now, we know that some entries will never be picked up by commercial radio stations, and the aim shouldn't be to have a winner just for that purpose, however when we look back at the years there are so many lost opportunities and this year both "Toy" and "Fuego" could both become big summer hits in Europe while "Nobody But You" and "Mercy" both had potential to become radio hits, but without the boost, without the label politics, it's pretty hard even with the best song in the world. But the public is there, so how do you keep the fire going for some time?

So what are your suggestions? Could EBU do more here to boost the winner and naturally then boost the reputation and interest of Eurovision in general?

 

[Alaska49]

So, another Eurovision is over and we're all looking forward to the next one, however just like most years, the winner (including other entries) disappears almost over the night and looking past the ESC fan bubble, it's like the contest never happened.

and this is how i like it. it keeps the contest unique and doesn't seem to affect its success very much. total viewership isn't even declining lol.

/thread

 

[musicfan]

If it was more a song contest than a performance/staging one then the winning songs would last longer, but it isn't and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[QwaarJet]

I have no interest in the winner being "boosted" after the contest. I don't think having a chart hit will improve the reputation of the contest, and people will watch it regardless. Eurovision is something entirely different that doesn't need chart support. I don't want countries trying to create chart hits, because it would remove the unique sound of the contest. If I want to listen to chart music, I'll pull up the top 40 on spotify as my ears start to bleed.

 

[Ezio]

Most winners rise to national fame and I am not sure, if most of them actually would have sought more. I guess Salvador Sobral is very happy with his name recognition in Portugal and in the area of jazz and could not care less about Top 40.

Udo Jürgens was a beloved idol in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but outside the german speaking countries, no one cared about him a lot. Yet he sold millions of records and had tons of money.

Same with Nicole.

I guess Dima Bilan is huge in Russia, too.

I guess, Scandinavian winners with their pop tunes such as Alexander Rybak, Loreen, Emmelie de Forest and Mans Zelmerlöw were designed to become international superstars - and failed. So, the answer why they failed should be delivered by those who designed them to become superstars in the first place.

 

[A-lister]

and this is how i like it. it keeps the contest unique and doesn't seem to affect its success very much. total viewership isn't even declining lol.

I have no interest in the winner being "boosted" after the contest. I don't think having a chart hit will improve the reputation of the contest, and people will watch it regardless. Eurovision is something entirely different that doesn't need chart support. I don't want countries trying to create chart hits, because it would remove the unique sound of the contest. If I want to listen to chart music, I'll pull up the top 40 on spotify as my ears start to bleed.

I'm always surprised at the almost automatic response some ESC fans give when you mention the word "hit", as if it's an ugly word or something

Of course it's not a bad thing for Eurovision and it's relevance and credibility if it would manage to produce a hit every now and then, quite the contrary it would show that it's a force to be reckon with. I think people completely misses the point here tbh, I didn't write that Eurovision should cater to the current "top. 40-norm" nor that it should change itself, in fact I believe that Eurovision is such a big show that it SHOULD be able to produce hits on its own terms simply due to the fact of how many people it reaches and the viral potential it has in this digital day and age of Youtube and streamings. If people find it a "no-issue" that the biggest music show on earth with around 200mln viewers is unable to produce any hits, that's up to you, but to me it almost comes across as an odd conservative elitist view where we as a fan bubble aren't willing to let Eurovision be exposed to more people and give the songs a chance afterwards, as some some kind of feeling of "ownership"

The point however with the thread is not if we believe Eurovision should produce hits, rather what can be done to boost entries after the contest. Of course not all entries will be picked up by radio programmers and DJ's around Europe and that's fine (Eurovision should be all for musical diversity and not pushing a certain type of songs), but for instance this year (as mentioned) the whole top. 3 has so much potential to reach beyond but it needs record label politics to manage to do so. I can't see the harm if some songs from Eurovision (in particular the winner, if it has the potential to) to become hits. Like in what way could it possibly harm Eurovision? Now it's being looked down at as a hopeless contest by many established acts for instance and it does little to boost careers of newcomers, is this really a good thing? Can someone explain in what way it would harm the contest if for instance "Toy" would become a summer hit in Europe this year? It would show that Eurovision isn't a hopeless platform afterall and I'm sure it would lead to even more interest (both from music professionals and the public) in the upcoming year if they'd see that you can actually reach some success entering Eurovision and if more people gets exposed to it.

[MENTION=12489]Alaska49[/MENTION] I don't have the total numbers, but you have to remember that Russia was back again so it probably brought up the total, but in some key markets where Eurovision was a big thing it looses ground and this isn't a good sign.

 

[Alaska49]

even if eurovision is losing viewers in some countries that seems to be more related to the channel itself than to the contest anyhow. it's definitely the case in sweden lol. they are ruining melfest, eurovision goes down with it.

also obviously there is no harm if some entries organically become hits. it's when that becomes a goal and things are done to achieve that goal that the harm ensues. i would even say it would harm the contest's viewership in the long run.

 

[Stiven]

Well before I post my reply I'm just going to post the obvious TOY never had a wide European hit potential if it did it would have been a chart success by now, But instead it's sold less than Amar Pelos Dois (which had pretty good sales for a song of that genre). The same goes for Fuego.
Back to topic as someone who has relatives and friends who are professional musicians here are some of the things that could be done:
1) Get more music professionals and record companies on board- I'm actually quite surprised how much record companies have a tendency to avoid Eurovision, personally I think that the EBU should collaborate more with them which would attract more professionals to the contest.
2) Actually do something to fix the televoting- I'm pretty surprised fans rarely bring this up, but in many countries televoters represent less than 1% of the viewers which leads to the televoting results not representing the country music taste and it leads to it being vulnerable to diaspora voting a good example of this is my own country in our entire Eurovision history the only time our televoting resembled our music taste was in 1998 all other times it was a competition between our various minorities. My suggestion is expand the ways of someone can vote like for example a free app, itunes sales, spotify charts etc.
3) Better PR- This is pretty self explanatory.
4) Ironing out the jurries- While I do believe that they helped the contest there are some things that need to be ironed out like for example their size is too small their composition often times lacks proper professionals and a lack of transparency.

 

[Chorizo]

I'm always surprised at the almost automatic response some ESC fans give when you mention the word "hit", as if it's an ugly word or something

Of course it's not a bad thing for Eurovision and it's relevance and credibility if it would manage to produce a hit every now and then, quite the contrary it would show that it's a force to be reckon with. I think people completely misses the point here tbh, I didn't write that Eurovision should cater to the current "top. 40-norm" nor that it should change itself, in fact I believe that Eurovision is such a big show that it SHOULD be able to produce hits on its own terms simply due to the fact of how many people it reaches and the viral potential it has in this digital day and age of Youtube and streamings. If people find it a "no-issue" that the biggest music show on earth with around 200mln viewers is unable to produce any hits, that's up to you, but to me it almost comes across as an odd conservative elitist view where we as a fan bubble aren't willing to let Eurovision be exposed to more people and give the songs a chance afterwards, as some some kind of feeling of "ownership"

The point however with the thread is not if we believe Eurovision should produce hits, rather what can be done to boost entries after the contest. Of course not all entries will be picked up by radio programmers and DJ's around Europe and that's fine (Eurovision should be all for musical diversity and not pushing a certain type of songs), but for instance this year (as mentioned) the whole top. 3 has so much potential to reach beyond but it needs record label politics to manage to do so. I can't see the harm if some songs from Eurovision (in particular the winner, if it has the potential to) to become hits. Like in what way could it possibly harm Eurovision? Now it's being looked down at as a hopeless contest by many established acts for instance and it does little to boost careers of newcomers, is this really a good thing? Can someone explain in what way it would harm the contest if for instance "Toy" would become a summer hit in Europe this year? It would show that Eurovision isn't a hopeless platform afterall and I'm sure it would lead to even more interest (both from music professionals and the public) in the upcoming year if they'd see that you can actually reach some success entering Eurovision and if more people gets exposed to it.

[MENTION=12489]Alaska49[/MENTION] I don't have the total numbers, but you have to remember that Russia was back again so it probably brought up the total, but in some key markets where Eurovision was a big thing it looses ground and this isn't a good sign.

Toy doesn't even have the potential to be a hit. The audience just voted for it, because it was "fun" and crazy and the jury supported it because of MeToo. Most people don't want to listen to chicken clucking on the radio in real life. Other winners also flopped because they didn't win with a song that people actually want to listen to in real life. Who wants to listen to dated snoozefest jazz in real life? A tiny minority. The list goes on and on.

 

[LalehForWD]

Fuego is doing quite well in the charts and so do Toy and Lie to me (looking at Spotify). Remember just a couple of years ago, Eurovision songs wasn't even close to the charts except for a couple of weeks in Sweden and perhaps Norway and then only if they were upbeat pop. Involving the music industry is indeed the way to go to make Eurovision a career step for the artists and not the ultimate kiss of death.

 

[Alaska49]

eurovision is not even a kiss of death for anyone what is this insanity. even the occasional Actually Famous Outside Home act usually benefits from it, il volo being a recent example. the only country that has this attitude is the uk where they don't send famous people (or worse, people who already were famous and are now forgotten) and then blame the contest when the act doesn't get famous.

anyway getting record labels involved is, to me anathema to the spirit of the contest. i already hate their influence on the jury vote as it is. keep them away from us. also televoting is a problem of each individual channel, etc.

 

[LalehForWD]

eurovision is not even a kiss of death for anyone what is this insanity. even the occasional Actually Famous Outside Home act usually benefits from it, il volo being a recent example. the only country that has this attitude is the uk where they don't send famous people (or worse, people who already were famous and are now forgotten) and then blame the contest when the act doesn't get famous.

anyway getting record labels involved is, to me anathema to the spirit of the contest. i already hate their influence on the jury vote as it is. keep them away from us. also televoting is a problem of each individual channel, etc.

It is very real in Sweden too. There's no chance in hell pop artists like Sabina Ddumba, Ji Nilsson, Marlene, Adele Kosman, Erik Hassle ... (whatever cred artist you fancy) would ever enter Melodifestivalen. They'd rather work at McDonald’s. If we change into another genre there would be even less chance we'll see Opeth, Soen etc or Jazz: Lisa Ekdahl, Viktoria Tolstoy, Rebecka Törnqvist. As I see it, the key is to establish credibilty and professionalism which you have in the record labels. It's very much a matter of changing attitudes. I mean, it can't be news for you that Eurovision is considered to be the ultimate camp fest for gays, nerds and grandmothers.

edit:
I guess what is fundamental here is to realise the artists are professionals, they may do it out of passion, but ultimately it's their work and as such, they would want to and deserve the best tools they can get. Again, the labels are the ones with resources and competence. There are broadcasters who produce their songs in-house without any involvement of the music industry, for example, the BBC. This means temporary involvement, limited budget, inexperienced staff and probably a lot of trial and error way of doing things. And next year it all start over fresh from the beginning. The labels offer continuity for the artists which I guess is the thread topic.

 

[A-lister]

Toy doesn't even have the potential to be a hit. The audience just voted for it, because it was "fun" and crazy and the jury supported it because of MeToo. Most people don't want to listen to chicken clucking on the radio in real life. Other winners also flopped because they didn't win with a song that people actually want to listen to in real life. Who wants to listen to dated snoozefest jazz in real life? A tiny minority. The list goes on and on.

Toy for sure has hit potential, Gangnam Style anyone? There are many quirky party songs out there that became big hits, and in particular in the summer season (for some reason), so I completely disagree with that statement. If I just look at Sweden, it's the first Eurovision winner (apart from Måns in 2015) since DK'13 that some radios even picked up.

I didn't say that all winners would become hits, Salvador is a good example, I'm just pointing out that there are many lost opportunities in ESC and EBU seems to be indifferent about this.

 

[A-lister]

eurovision is not even a kiss of death for anyone what is this insanity. even the occasional Actually Famous Outside Home act usually benefits from it, il volo being a recent example. the only country that has this attitude is the uk where they don't send famous people (or worse, people who already were famous and are now forgotten) and then blame the contest when the act doesn't get famous.

anyway getting record labels involved is, to me anathema to the spirit of the contest. i already hate their influence on the jury vote as it is. keep them away from us. also televoting is a problem of each individual channel, etc.

You know very well that Eurovision is laughed at by the music industry and many people who are either having a career or want one don't enter it and that is the case in many countries, so there's no point in denying it.

Well, my point was not that the record labels would have any influence what so ever on the contest itself, rather that EBU would have a contract with a label to promote the winner afterwards (or some of the entries), because established international labels simply have all the resources needed here and while I understand your concern, I think there is much money to be made in Eurovision and I think Eurovision is big enough to convince most labels that a contract pushing the winner single (just an example) would be profitable for the label without even have to change a single thing about Eurovision itself. The label/s would simply be involved AFTER the contest, not in connection to the contest itself.

 

[Chorizo]

Toy for sure has hit potential, Gangnam Style anyone? There are many quirky party songs out there that became big hits, and in particular in the summer season (for some reason), so I completely disagree with that statement. If I just look at Sweden, it's the first Eurovision winner (apart from Måns in 2015) since DK'13 that some radios even picked up.

I didn't say that all winners would become hits, Salvador is a good example, I'm just pointing out that there are many lost opportunities in ESC and EBU seems to be indifferent about this.

A good winner would be a song that people actually consider good music. How many people apart from some fanboys in the bubble would honestly call this year's winner good music? Toy just isn't what people normally consider quality music. That's what makes this winner so tragic. Eurovision is meant to be a song contest and not a circus.

There should be different criteria for the juries focusing on the song itself and the quality of the music. The juries should be instructed to vote against circus acts and to support quality songs instead. That's the way to go if the winner should be able to be a hit, which would indeed be desirable. If an entry just wins because of virtue signaling or being funny, nobody will care about it after the show is over. If the juries voted against circus acts, the quality of the contest would improve.

 

[A-lister]

A good winner would be a song that people actually consider good music. How many people apart from some fanboys in the bubble would honestly call this year's winner good music? Toy just isn't what people normally consider quality music. That's what makes this winner so tragic. Eurovision is meant to be a song contest and not a circus.

There should be different criteria for the juries focusing on the song itself and the quality of the music. The juries should be instructed to vote against circus acts and to support quality songs instead. That's the way to go if the winner should be able to be a hit, which would indeed be desirable. If an entry just wins because of virtue signaling or being funny, nobody will care about it after the show is over. If the juries voted against circus acts, the quality of the contest would improve.

*yawn* someone is a downer... and clearly didn't get the point of the thread either

This is not a thread about whether one likes the winner or not, it's not to discuss what one considers "quality" music or not, you can find other threads to discuss your dislike or like for certain entries, this thread is about what can be done to boost entries (in particular the winner) after ESC. I don't know in what bubble you live in, but in the "real world", a song like Toy has everything to become a big hit... maybe you lived under a rock or something, but there are hits out there that are far more "circus" as you call it than this song

Taste differs though, but people in the real world (not just "the bubble" as you refer to) like to be entertained and they like some fun in their lives, maybe you're not one of them and your're of course entitled to your taste, but then again this thread is not about your taste and definition of "quality", it's about something completely different.

 

[Stiven]

Toy for sure has hit potential, Gangnam Style anyone? There are many quirky party songs out there that became big hits, and in particular in the summer season (for some reason), so I completely disagree with that statement. If I just look at Sweden, it's the first Eurovision winner (apart from Måns in 2015) since DK'13 that some radios even picked up.

I didn't say that all winners would become hits, Salvador is a good example, I'm just pointing out that there are many lost opportunities in ESC and EBU seems to be indifferent about this.

So if TOY had such big hit potential why did it do so much worse than Amar Pelos Dois at the charts?
And keep in mind in 2017 the viewership was lower and it's not like Amar Pelos Dois had the major backing of a label.

 

[A-lister]

So if TOY had such big hit potential why did it do so much worse than Amar Pelos Dois at the charts?
And keep in mind in 2017 the viewership was lower and it's not like Amar Pelos Dois had the major backing of a label.

Charts where? In Sweden, which is like a test market for ESC entrants due to being one of the countries that is most into ESC and also more accepting of the songs than in many other markets, Toy did much better than Salvador.

I know Sweden is not the only country of course, don't get me wrong, but there is a reason Toy was picked up by at least two major radio channels, charted in the top. 5 and was streamed in top. 3 (without any push by a major record label let's just add). Now imagine what the song could have done if it was properly pushed and had the record label machinery behind it. I'm not talking worldwide hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could turn out to be one of the summer hits in Europe this year, but it won't because it simply doesn't have the machinery behind it and that is simply the point I was trying to make in the thread that EBU does little to nothing for the ESC entries and the winner in particular.

No one mentioned this, but what happened to the "winner's tour" that they introduced in the mid 00's some time? It's like they gave up on that as well.

 

[Stiven]

Charts where? In Sweden, which is like a test market for ESC entrants due to being one of the countries that is most into ESC and also more accepting of the songs than in many other markets, Toy did much better than Salvador.

Pretty much everywhere else:

And especially outside the ESC bubble.

I know Sweden is not the only country of course, don't get me wrong, but there is a reason Toy was picked up by at least two major radio channels, charted in the top. 5 and was streamed in top. 3 (without any push by a major record label let's just add). Now imagine what the song could have done if it was properly pushed and had the record label machinery behind it. I'm not talking worldwide hit, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could turn out to be one of the summer hits in Europe this year, but it won't because it simply doesn't have the machinery behind it and that is simply the point I was trying to make in the thread that EBU does little to nothing for the ESC entries and the winner in particular.

So again why did Amar Pelos Dois did much better in other charts despite the lower viewership and a lack of machinery behind it.
Because even if it did have record labels pushing I highly doubt that TOY would have became a hit, for example "Believe" was highly pushed here but it still floped big time.
The thing is TOY is a quite polarizing song a lot of people hate it which makes it unsuitable for a lot of radios for example I haven't heard once on our radios and our radios are pretty ESC friendly. Another major issue is that it sounds exactly like a Eurovision Joke entry I know it has story behind it, but just like Gabanni and Gorilla last year all that fades away once she starts making chicken noises, also the whole #MeToo and Fat Acceptance thing doesn't really help. And the weird thing is I actually like TOY but everybody outside the ESC bubble I know either has a mixed feeling about it or outright hates it.

No one mentioned this, but what happened to the "winner's tour" that they introduced in the mid 00's some time? It's like they gave up on that as well.

They stopped doing it when it became obvious that it didn't really help for example "Believe" and "Molitva" both had big tours yet they didn't do so well outside their their home markets while "Fairytale" and "Satelite" either didn't have them or had very little ones yet both of them were big crossover succes stories.

 

[Alaska49]

[MENTION=10594]LalehForWD[/MENTION] i understand and agree that a change of attitude towards eurovision is necessary, but working towards making it more suitable to charts is absolutely not the way to do it. i cannot believe i am saying this and i hate myself for it, but the salvador sobral route of actively going against whatever is hip'n'happening likely is an easier, more fruitful approach. eurovision is more likely to be recognized as a show that reveals diamonds in the rough than as a show that is a desirable platform for big sales.