new system for 2014 ??????

[LalehForWD]

Ambitious argumentation ;D
Perhaps you're right saying that the big 5 viewers would betray the contest in case of their contribution failed to qualify to the final. I don't know. As a Swede I only experienced it once. Viewers from other countries are much more hardened. As the show is broadcast by public service in Sweden, we never see any advertisements or sponsor activities (thankfully). When I looked for Eurovision 2013 figures, there's the 125 million SEK from SVT and EBU, 25 million SEK from Malmö City and Region Skåne and there's a mention of additional sponsor money. I haven't seen any actual figures how important sponsor and advertisements are, though. Telia broadcast their own TeliaTV during Eurovision, which could be worth something.

 

[Leydan]

Well as its pretty much been pointed out when a country doesn't make it too the final the viewing figures for final in that country drop drastically as well, and to take the status away, and for big 5 not too qualify then that would been a plummit in figures, and for countries like France and Italy where they barely reach 3-4 million for the final that could spell disaster, for broadcaster. Its certainly Plausible that if the status is taken away then the big 5 will work a lot harder to keep those figures up, because they will have to qualify. But anyway we know it won't be taken away any time soon because they provide a huge contribution of money more than the rest and hold a massive share of the viewing figures.

 

[LalehForWD]

I'm sorry, but I still can't see the advantage or necessity with this strange rule. I'm certain that casual viewers will not care at all though. It surprises me that so many advocates for "fair rules" while overlooking this one. I think the thread starter brought in some great ideas.

But anyway we know it won't be taken away any time soon because they provide a huge contribution of money more than the rest and hold a massive share of the viewing figures.

Well, the major contribution of money-argument isn't exactly true, is it? I wish we could see some transparency from EBU regarding ESC budget.

Anyway EBU isn't a democratic or even public institution so they can do pretty much whatever they see fit.

 

[penguinperson]

Ambitious argumentation ;D
Perhaps you're right saying that the big 5 viewers would betray the contest in case of their contribution failed to qualify to the final. I don't know. As a Swede I only experienced it once. Viewers from other countries are much more hardened. As the show is broadcast by public service in Sweden, we never see any advertisements or sponsor activities (thankfully). When I looked for Eurovision 2013 figures, there's the 125 million SEK from SVT and EBU, 25 million SEK from Malmö City and Region Skåne and there's a mention of additional sponsor money. I haven't seen any actual figures how important sponsor and advertisements are, though. Telia broadcast their own TeliaTV during Eurovision, which could be worth something.

Many countries do not have the advertising as you say but if you go on eurovision tv the sponsors are there and you engage in the media that way. The app they have introduced will be used in a similar way to target money groups advertisers want. In the past when adverts were more simplistic it would probably have been easier to for go such a rule these days when we have social media involved they can get to people in clever ways. The EBU websites, servers to count votes, cds, dvds and all related eurovision events aren't funded by the host so the income is highly important to the EBU. It will never be fair advertisers will always want new markets just look how corrupt the world cup is when it comes to exploiting markets. It is all about market reach and that will favor the west at this stage. Is it fair, no. Does it make broadcasting sense, yes.