The Big 5 in the Semi finals

[Tylor]

I don't mind the big five at all, however I do feel that it's even negative to be in the big five because they get way less exposure.

 

[gustav]

Is the Executive Supervisor even on this forum??

 

[DanielLuis]

Well saying something should happen is different to saying it has to happen. Everyone's entitled to their view and it shouldnt be put out that another view is wrong because you dont agree with it. Take me - I totally understand why people think all should go into the semis, Im just against it happening because it is unfair.

I don't get this. I think the big 5 are not a bad idea because supposedly they do pay the most for the contest so they do deserve to be on the final automatically. Plus, if they flopped on the semis and the viewing figures in the final would lower, it would hurt eurovision's final viewing figures a lot.

But it's not really unfair if the big 5 participate on the semi-finals. How can every country starting on the same level, on the same field, be called unfair?

Still, I think the compromise should be the big 5 on the final, but performing between the recaps on the semi-finals.

 

[Sean]

It doesn't matter about us being in the final as our media absolutely slates our performance when we do badly anyway (as if we didn't qualify) so there's still pressure on us to send good songs...

I think it'd be nice if we could get more exposure in the semi-finals sure but only if it wouldn't confuse people or be too much in the way/too much for one night. Sometimes it's not needed though and it'd depend on how many people actually see the semis

 

[Luki]

Equal rights and stuff... Having big 5 and host as interval act would be weird. We should take it back to the 90s qualification system.

 

[gustav]

A further disadvatage from not competing in the semifinals is that the viewers could be more reluctant to vote for those entries, as they may not agree with the preferential treatment of the Big 5.

 

[lucian-crusher]

I think it would be ok for them to take part as an Interval Act, but nothing more. It's to risky for not to qualify. They pay a lot of money and the viewing figures atre low. Imagine how the viewing figures would be without in the Final?

 

[Salmon]

Seeing as the big 5 practically make the competition possible through their financial contribution, I don't think it'd be fair for them not to be guaranteed a place in the final.

Not anymore. It might have been like that in the past, when the Big 5 probably made large contribution to the EBU, but nowadays I am sure the EBU has already enough money (think of several not-so-cheap productions or organization of ESC in general). This institution does not depend on the money by the Big 5 anymore as several new members have joined it (e.g. the entire eastern bloc). I don't however have any official numbers about the monetary contribution

I think it would be ok for them to take part as an Interval Act, but nothing more. It's to risky for not to qualify. They pay a lot of money and the viewing figures atre low. Imagine how the viewing figures would be without in the Final?

They could always withdraw Additionally, with France partaking in the semis, it might be that the viewing figures of the finals decline, but the ones of the semis would surely rise.

 

[doctormalisimo]

Do the Big 5 pay more per capita than other nations, or just more because they have the biggest populations?

 

[Salmon]

Do the Big 5 pay more per capita than other nations, or just more because they have the biggest populations?

Good question, Sir. I believe the answer to that could also be important.

 

[WhoKnows]

The big 5 should absolutely NOT compete in the semi finals. However, as I have said elsewhere, we should perform as the interval acts in whichever semi we vote in (and the host country should perform in both semis).

LMAO.

Why not allot the "big 5" five slots in the top ten each year too. That way it's really "fair."

It's hilariously hypocritical how much fuss everyone is making about the Azerbaijan/Armenia feud, or the vote buying, or any other issues that the East might be pulling. Because of course we don't want any unfair disadvantage for any country. But then we give so much unfair advantage to some Western countries, and these same people don't mind. We just make it 'official' and call it 'big 5' and all is dandy? How do they justify it? Well, it's all money, you see. When it's the money that affords Azerbaijan or Russia to score high versus the like of San Marino, then it's UNFAIR. When it's the money that affords Germany and UK the advantage against 40 other countries, then it's just common sense.

But, hey, at least with the 'big 5' in place, it makes the 'big 5' happy. Wrong. They're unhappy still. Not enough of an advantage, you see. They need even more advantage to really have a chance to compete. If only UK had been performed once before at one of the Semis, they'd really set the scoreboard on fire in the final. So now, not going through the Semi is a disadvantage? According to them, yes. If so, surely they will be happy to give up their 'big 5' status and enjoy the advantage that San Marino, Macedonia and Belarus enjoy - competing in the semi. I don't think the rest of the countries will complain much. But wait, still, the 'big 5' don't actually want to compete in the semis. Huh? But isn't it better to have competed, because it gives you more exposure? Not quite. They realize by not having to compete in the semi, they have the advantage. But the advantage is not enough. They need more of it. They simply cannot compete with the Polands and the Icelands of this world. Give them an advantage that allows them to automatically qualify. Give them another advantage to showcase their songs in the semi. THAT will be enough. For now.

 

[Brequetter]

Spain 47 millions
Italy 60 M
Uk 60M
France 75M (more or less)
Germany 85M (more or less)

If several of this countries dont qualify to final, aundience will be much lower in the final,so... Less sponsors,marketing and money moreover apart from big 5 only Poland and Russia are really important cause Turckey left our contest so I think that is good to eurovision big 5 been looked after by EBU

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

LMAO.

Why not allot the "big 5" five slots in the top ten each year too. That way it's really "fair."

It's hilariously hypocritical how much fuss everyone is making about the Azerbaijan/Armenia feud, or the vote buying, or any other issues that the East might be pulling. Because of course we don't want any unfair disadvantage for any country. But then we give so much unfair advantage to some Western countries, and these same people don't mind. We just make it 'official' and call it 'big 5' and all is dandy? How do they justify it? Well, it's all money, you see. When it's the money that affords Azerbaijan or Russia to score high versus the like of San Marino, then it's UNFAIR. When it's the money that affords Germany and UK the advantage against 40 other countries, then it's just common sense.

But, hey, at least with the 'big 5' in place, it makes the 'big 5' happy. Wrong. They're unhappy still. Not enough of an advantage, you see. They need even more advantage to really have a chance to compete. If only UK had been performed once before at one of the Semis, they'd really set the scoreboard on fire in the final. So now, not going through the Semi is a disadvantage? According to them, yes. If so, surely they will be happy to give up their 'big 5' status and enjoy the advantage that San Marino, Macedonia and Belarus enjoy - competing in the semi. I don't think the rest of the countries will complain much. But wait, still, the 'big 5' don't actually want to compete in the semis. Huh? But isn't it better to have competed, because it gives you more exposure? Not quite. They realize by not having to compete in the semi, they have the advantage. But the advantage is not enough. They need more of it. They simply cannot compete with the Polands and the Icelands of this world. Give them an advantage that allows them to automatically qualify. Give them another advantage to showcase their songs in the semi. THAT will be enough. For now.

Cray cray response!

 

[WhoKnows]

Spain 47 millions
Italy 60 M
Uk 60M
France 75M (more or less)
Germany 85M (more or less)

If several of this countries dont qualify to final, aundience will be much lower in the final,so... Less sponsors,marketing and money moreover apart from big 5 only Poland and Russia are really important cause Turckey left our contest so I think that is good to eurovision big 5 been looked after by EBU

20K to Maltese jury
20K to San Marinese jury
20K to Cypriot jury
20K to Moldovan jury
20K to their own jury to vote down Armenia

That's 100K right there. If Azerbaijan is not allowed to bribe juries, they will be much lower in the final, but also the economies of San Marino, Malta, Cyprus and Moldova will suffer. They won't be able to support Eurovision there and will have to withdraw.

Therefore, allow Azerbaijan to bribe any juries they want. It's good for the contest.

 

[LalehForWD]

Do the Big 5 pay more per capita than other nations, or just more because they have the biggest populations?

How I have searched docs and Googled to find any figures. There seem to be no reliable sources of the EBU economy - maybe someone is sitting on info here? Strangely enough time after time I hear Christer Björkman repeating the mantra big 5 deserves si and so because they ... (yes they do what?), so the big 5 rule has our solid support but no one cares to explain why really. Taking it all in, to me it is likely the big 5 pretty much run the EBU and finance the heavy part of the various EBU projects. One thing is clear though: SVT and the Scanian regional institutions financed 95% of Eurovision Malmö as the budget was published in public 2012 and later updated as it progressed. So at least in this case and this year the big 5 freeride wasn't justified.

It would be very interesting to see the DR budget for Eurovision 2014 and the EBU contribution.

 

[Brequetter]

20K to Maltese jury
20K to San Marinese jury
20K to Cypriot jury
20K to Moldovan jury
20K to their own jury to vote down Armenia

That's 100K right there. If Azerbaijan is not allowed to bribe juries, they will be much lower in the final, but also the economies of San Marino, Malta, Cyprus and Moldova will suffer. They won't be able to support Eurovision there and will have to withdraw.

Therefore, allow Azerbaijan to bribe any juries they want. It's good for the contest.

it isnt the same, I havent spoken about illegalities I spoke about a change of rules cause I consider that big5 hasnt got any adventage over the rest of participants currently because to show our perfomance only in the final is not an adventage is a disventage

 

[WhoKnows]

it isnt the same, I havent spoken about illegalities I spoke about a change of rules cause I consider that big5 hasnt got any adventage over the rest of participants currently because to show our perfomance only in the final is not an adventage is a disventage

What Azerbaijan may or may not be doing is only an illegality because EBU says it is. In all honesty, it's no worse than the system of "big 5". The difference is, the "big 5" has been announced as the official rule, vote bribing hasn't. Going through to the final every year without having to qualify along with the rest of the countries is no more honest than buying votes.

If you think you're at a disadvantage, you're welcome to give up your "big" status, and get in on all the advantage that the rest of the countries get. But it sounds like you want your cake and eat it too.

 

[Brequetter]

Excuse me for my English cause I am not able to explain as i would liked do it xd,
I have to recognize that i dont know how many cost our entry (big5) each year but I know that Eurovision is watched in countries like Argentina or Puerto Rico thanking to TVE International wich can be considered as a opened door toward Iberic-American (great popullation+ spain) and this others TV channel cant do it like DR because dannish influency area is smaller than influency area of Uk or France,for this reason I THINK (not confirm) that is not the same Denmark ( for example) pull out Eurovision or Spain doenst participate because TVE is much stronger ( number of viewer) than DR.

Maybe Eurovision can go on existing without 1 or 2 member of big5 but if Italy,France or Germany dont participate Bye,bye eurovision

 

[FilipFromSweden]

I think the big 5 should keep paying money to the hosts so that this can keep being such a big event.

The countries would really benefit of performing in semi-finals, but they should not be forced to.

 

[BGN]

I think the BIG 5 themselves will want to compete in the semi-finals and this will happen sooner rather than later. It's just that after the semis most people already have their favourites and it's very hard for big 5 to compete against that natural obstacle of their pre-qualification for the final. And being directly in the finals means also that they have less rehearsals on stage, less time to adjust the things.