The importance of money in Eurovision

[Preuss]

Having followed this competition closely for a couple of years, I've always been curious how important money is in order to succeed? I know many entries have done well every year "without" money, but how important is for example money if you want to do consistently well? For example I've had the feeling that Czech Republic has invested more in their recent entries, and that they will invest more in Eurovision in the years to come - for example broadcasting the national final live this year

I would think that Sweden spends a lot of money every year on melfest and staging/show - and it really shows in their results. On the other hand, it feels to me like Italy doesn't really do much but showing up with quality entries every year and do well without giving me the impression of having put in nearly the same effort as the Swedes. This might be connected to the music genres they're sending, and that the Italian entries are not as "polishable" as Swedens perhaps but you get my point. (This is not to shade Italy in any way though, in this case I mean it as something positive)

 

[Himan]

Italy has this San Remo festival, I think there is a lot of money in that? The songs are a bit more unpolished in Italy. With that I agree, but this festival is a difficult selection process to go through. So that is probably the main thing. And it's very popular in Italy. For example there is the Dutch selection, which is hard to go through now too, but in another way. The UK puts a lot of money in it, but the national final is not really respectable right now, so very good songs don't show up and look what happens... Totally nothing.

So with money you can have a better selection process, but it doesn't have to be the key to success and luck always comes into play.

 

[Preuss]

Italy has this San Remo festival, I think there is a lot of money in that? The songs are a bit more unpolished in Italy. With that I agree, but this festival is a difficult selection process to go through. So that is probably the main thing. And it's very popular in Italy. For example there is the Dutch selection, which is hard to go through now too, but in another way. The UK puts a lot of money in it, but the national final is not really respectable right now, so very good songs don't show up and look what happens... Totally nothing.

So with money you can have a better selection process, but it doesn't have to be the key to success and luck always comes into play.

What do you mean with "luck"?

 

[BorisBubbles]

It matters enough. There are costs for props, transportation and accomodation, as well as the wages for all related delegates, choreographers, coaches, stage directors and visual effects people. Plus the participation fee itself, which is used to help fund the contest (so the host broadcaster doesn't accidentally bankrupt themselves).

No money means no staging. Which is why North Macedonia and Lithuania have persistent struggles with the studio-to-stage transition. They cannot afford it. Poorer nations, such as Moldova and Belarus are known to rely on private foreign (Russian) investments for their budget.

 

[Himan]

Yes, it matters, but poor countries can still do great and even win, without a lot of props or very cheap props and a good song or gimmick. I've seen Portugal winning, with Bulgaria second and Moldova third lately.

 

[BorisBubbles]

Amar Pelos Dois is more exception than rule though, but I will agree that the circumstances behind it were exceptional. 2017 was a very unconventional contest in general and they stood out as the most anti-ESC because of their stripped down simplicity.

Bulgaria and Moldova don't really follow this pattern though, despite their poverty and straight-forward staging. BNT went bankrupt after spending all their money on their return entries. Kristian was definitely a high cost entry - augmented reality and Sacha Jean-Baptiste both come with a hefty price tag. Moldova, like I said, are highly dependent on patronage - Sunstroke Project are ethnic Russians and established singers to boot. Moldova's lack of funds only factors in during their NF, which is a dump site for all of Europe's failed songwriters.

 

[MalagaToledo]

The importance of money in everything. Why do you think fifa and ioc give Qatar, China, Russia to be the hosts of Olympics or world Cup even though everyone complains about it.

 

[Preuss]

How much is the budgets of the broadcasters, and how much expensive would for example 10 000 euros for props or backgrounds be as I have no idea how much money is involved here.
[MENTION=16696]MalagaToledo[/MENTION]
Yes true, but here we're talking about a lot of money. Amounts of money I can't imagine the broadcasters ever spending But let's say that an expensive backdrop for a countrys act costs around 10 000 euros - surely every broadcaster somehow can afford it, no?

 

[AlekS]

Yes, it matters, but poor countries can still do great and even win, without a lot of props or very cheap props and a good song or gimmick. I've seen Portugal winning, with Bulgaria second and Moldova third lately.

Ukraine. The most poor country in Europe (back then) after the most severe phase of war with no money. The entry had just LED and lighting effects.
Well, we sent the biggest delegation in our history (60 people) and the whole thing was funded by commercial channel but in total they spent just 100k (!) for everything. From Day 1 till her arrival back in Kyiv.



Participation fee (UABC) - I've heard it's 380-400 000€ approx. but it varies every year.

Vidbir costs (STB) - 410 000€ (it was the 1st edition the tickets were free). It costs half less now + after 2016 approx. 10% are covered by ticket sales. I assume some money from ticket sales go to a Kyiv university which leases the venue to STB.

Jamala's participation - 100 000€ (half of that was funded by STB, sponsors funded the graphics & costumes).

 

[Neo]

I believe money doesn't count for much in Eurovision, except when jury members get bought off. (so should be got rid of).

The best songs rise to the top no matter what, and as we've seen, you don't need expensive song writers to get top songs either.

 

[Sammy]

Perhaps there‘s also the money that is earned with the contest that could be put into consideration (directly and indirectly, on a national basis and on ain international one,...)

 

[CaraMia]

I believe money doesn't count for much in Eurovision, except when jury members get bought off. (so should be got rid of).

The best songs rise to the top no matter what, and as we've seen, you don't need expensive song writers to get top songs either.

This is what I believe, too. Except for juries (either for being bought or for thinking that somehow they can't allow a poorer country to win because they think that next year they won't be able to give people a great show), money doesn't matter at all for you to have a good performance and to be loved by the people. I mean, you can have money to have props and LEDs and all that but have no taste. A good song, a good camera work (I don't think you have to pay extra for that) and taste (you can't buy taste) is all it takes to captivate people's votes.

 

[blue00eyes]

wrong topic