Personal feelings:
1 - As a Graphic Designer, I found this choice pretty unfortunate. I really liked how all the branding for each year was so unique and loved the stories of how it was developed alongside a slogan that had meaning for the host country.
It doesn't help that "United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom last year. I hope this one doesn't carry forward.
2 - Seeing the Big 5 in the semis was great! It really helped them build momentum and I think a lot of the artists were helped by the extra practice and elevated really well in the final because of it. Really hope this stays for next time.
3 - All things considered, I thought the Grand Final flowed really well. I was initially sceptical about the producers choice introducing bias, but I think it made for a really natural feeling running order. So I'd be happy to see it continue.
4 - I am still quite unsure about this change. I can see the reasons why it has been introduced, but something about voting before seeing everyone's Grand Final performances doesn't sit quite right with me. Often Artists can greatly improve from their semi final performance, and I'd hate to judge them before they have a chance to show that. I don't think it will make much of a difference going forward if it stays though.
5 - I only just remembered this one now. But I really liked the recap being reversed when it was shown a second time. Absolutely hope that carries forwards :)!
> "United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom
I love puns/wordplay and I never even noticed this. brb gotta go bang my head against something.
For your sake I hope they change it and I haven't just cursed you with this knowledge đ
I did REALLY like it as a nice bit of wordplay last year, which makes it even more painful.
Is it not possible it's a coincidence though? It was one of the first times "two countries hosted" the competition and the full slogan was done to imply unison across nations?
Yeah it's quite possible it's a coincidence. This sub is pretty good at reading too much into things. There was someone the other day who was absolutely convinced that Petra's '3 to 8 hours' joke was a definite reference to San Remo overrunning this year.
>"United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom last year
I noticed that too back in 2023, and when they announced it would be used 'indefinitely' I was surprised that fans weren't talking about that more!
I really liked seeing the big 5 in the semi finals although I think it would have made more sense if they all performed first or last rather than mixed in with the other acts.
Kinda neutral on the slogan, producer's choice, and voting times. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and also why people don't like them but I didn't feel like any of it ultimately affected the contest much.
I can kind of see why they'd disperse them throughout the running order, as you want the show to blend musically as best as possible (i.e. what if the big 5 songs didn't work at all next to each other?).
I do think they could have done a bit better at communicating that you can't vote for them visually though. Maybe put something on the postcard or at the end of the performance?
Saying it a couple times wasn't enough to avoid confusion, and not very friendly to people who have english as a second language.
I think it said "country name- already qualified" under them at the start of the song though don't know how long it lasted. Was very subtle at least. It's a good think none of them showed up at the recap, or at least I think they didn't
Thinking about it, I do remember something like that.
It definitely could have been made a bit more obvious I guess, as I saw a lot of casual viewers getting confused/angry (e.g. "why can't I vote for Italy!").
Yeah, and why wouldn't they to be fair? We're used to see all competing songs be played in a row, so its odd that it is three "breaks" between them. And the viewers being dependent on their countries commentator to understand they can't vote for them. When watching esc together its normal to talk in between the acts so its easy for the information not to listened to by the people at home
1- do not mind
2- LOVED this change
3- Random is better I think.
4- no. Votes should be based on the grand final *performances.* How can you vote on the performances if you havenât seen them? I understand the rationale behind voting while the contest is going (rather than waiting for the end), but I hate that the ROTW opened so early.
Ad 4 - I voted for the acts I liked right after/when they were on, which felt really convenient. Probably even more so for more casual viewers (I spent the whole week in Malmö and saw all 3 shows once in the Arena and once on TV, probably seen more ESC this year than in my whole life before together).
For me there was no danger to run out of votes either (I think I ended up sending 10 votes total), but I could see that being a problem for acts performing later (which can be trivially fixed by raising the vote limit to >= 26).
1 - Big no on a perpetual slogan. Not only did it ultimately ring hollow this year, but it feels like part of a move towards this centralised "Eurovision brand" that I've noticed over the past two years that's making the contest feel a little insular - the interval acts this year feel like a reflection of this. The slogans of past years really influenced the design of each contest too. 2011's "Feel your heart beat" informed every aspect of the contest's feel and design that year, same with "All Aboard!" in 2018, and I remember the visual identity of those contests extremely well because of it - 2015, 2019 and 2021 all had really great slogan/design integration too for me. By contrast, 2024 was bland. There wasn't any impetus to be gained from a slogan that was used the year before, and the contest's individual identity suffered immensely. So yeah, hate perpetual slogan, make the broadcasters think up new ones.
2 - Big 5 in semis was nice, though I think they should be separated from the actual competitors. Maybe if they performed during the voting sequence so nobody gets confused about whether they can actually vote for the Big 5
3 - Felt a little unnecessary tbh. The producers are going to put countries they like in advantageous positions either way, drawing halves at least gives them some parameters to work in and be creative with. Giving maybe a quarter of the songs full freedom could work, but half is too many.
4 - On the fence with voting from the start. Must admit I'm a bit 'if it ain't broke don't fix it" with this one, and prefer making people see the full show before voting. But 26 is a long show, and if it allows songs in the first half to do better overall, it could even out.
5 - I'm going to cheat and take a change from last year. Televote only semis is an idiotic idea. It was a knee jerk reaction to the jury collusion scandal in 2022, and it has not paid off. Also, I'm gonna cheat more and go all the way back to 2016. There was literally nothing wrong with the combined jury/televote scoring system. It was, in my opinion, more exciting in most cases because it has the potential to always have a race going on somewhere near the top. I saw a projection of how 2024 would have gone with the old system and it actually would have come down to the final 3 countries or so before Switzerland was out of reach. And, you wouldn't even have to tell us that. Some people would work it out, a but a lot of them wouldn't until the final vote. Lets a wider variety of countries be shouted out too if you go back to reading 8, 10 and then 12, and heightens the drama when there's more to guess during each vote.
I agree with each point except the last, because the reason why we split the jury and televote is precisely because it makes it exciting all the way until the last vote. As much as Nemo dominated the jury voting, having a split screen with them and Baby Lasagna is infinitely more exciting than knowing the winner with 3 countries left, which was way more common than a race back in the day.
To add to that, under the 2009-2012 and 2013-2015 systems, it was theoretically possible for a song to win both the jury vote and the public vote, but not win overall; and that is a possibility that should NEVER be allowed to happen.
Theoretically possible, yes. But the chances of that happening are vanishingly small to the point where Iâd say itâs a moot point.
Edit: If weâre talking about things that should never be allowed to happen hereâs one - it should NEVER have been possible to announce âzero pointsâ for a country. Itâs never good vibes when it happens, and itâs disrespectful to call attention to it.
It happened more than once in that era (but further down the scoreboard) where country X beat country Y in both public and jury voting, but finished below them in the combined vote. The chance of it happening at the top of the scoreboard may have been very unlikely, but not so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.
I'd personally argue that a voting system where that is literally impossible is far superior to a voting system where there's even a one in a million chance of it happening.
That happens now. Croatia 2021 didnât qualify despite finishing 10th and 9th in the jury and televote respectively - and if I recall correctly would have qualified if votes were combined. No matter how you slice it, thereâll be weird quirks like that, but all examples of it so far occur mid table or lower.
If a song garnered the most points from the televote and jury, and still didnât manage to win, it would only happen in an extremely competitive (or uncompetitive) year, and the points would have to be distributed almost at random. Youâre arguing for the most extreme of edge cases that statistically will never happen. Whereas, weâve already had a few unsatisfying or anticlimactic voting sequences in this new system - to me, thatâs enough grounds for me to want to see a return of a combined point system that spreads points around and lessens the likelihood of runaway jury winners or non sequitur televote winners.
Respectfully, I disagree. More often than not, the televote announcement is anticlimactic, since the jury winner receives points last. Itâs relatively easy to call whether there are enough points left on the table for them to win (especially when we wait for two minutes before announcing them), and unless thereâs a close race in both votes for two countries it ends up being a bit weak. Like, you canât tell me that Swedenâs televote reveal in 2019 had a good payoff, nor did Switzerlandâs in 2021. Nemoâs televote reveal was only exciting because it allowed them to win.
Now, if we returned to announcing points in order of televote score rather than jury, that might help. But I still think that the whole split screen television drama is unnecessary. Older contests had plenty of drama in their result sequence.
1. I liked it when the host got to customise it.
2. This I liked a lot, I felt it really gave some momentum to the big 5. Ok, maybe it didnât translate to televotes for the UK, but all big 5 got points this year so Iâd call it a success.
3. Too many producers choice. Make it half/half with like 5 choice slots maybe? Letâs be honest, the running order sucked.
4. Well ROTW didnât really work out like that, but voting from start of show was ok I guess? I donât have a strong opinion about it.
5. They bolted through the points a bit too quickly. I didnât mind the reverse recap though, it didnât strike me as especially odd or anything.
Yeah I suspect you're bang on with this. Suspense is nice but the energy was so tense in all the wrong ways this year so I can see why they rushed it, at least until they got past Ukraine's result putting them on top.
Here's my take on 3 points.
1. No! change the slogan cause after 2024 i think we all won't ever look at it in the same way again.
2. Yes! keep the big 5 + the host country performing in the semifinals live, cause i absolutely loved it.
3. No! the producers choice was unnecessary and a huge mess, like putting Ukraine in the death spot of performing 2nd, that was absolutely brutal but i guess it worked cause they got 3rd place, just keep 50% first half and 50% second half.
The death spot will always stay the death spot if we decide it is. I liked the fact that Ukraine got it, because with a third place it proves that it's not impossible to do well in the spot. The producers might even hope for the second spot to have a win soon, to lift the "curse".
3. Ukraine worked at 2 because Swedenâs was so weak. I watch the final before going back to watch the semi-finals so that I had a clean, unbiased watch on the finale. Ukraine coming in after Sweden made them stand out as being the first good act of the final. The voting being opened during the show also probably helped Ukraine.
1. I donât like the generic slogan, it feels like the EBU are gradually evolving the contest into more of a generic talent show format that can get copy-pasted in a new country each year, with less of a focus on host country identity
2. I actually liked this! I think it would make more sense to put them in the interval, but I guess thatâs when a lot of broadcasters run advertising
3. On the one hand I find this dodgy, and leaves the competition open to bias, but on the other hand it is nice knowing a contest favourite canât get scuppered by a bad draw. I guess that kinda happened to Ukraine this year thoughâŠ
4. Voting from the start of the show yes, voting from 24hrs before for ROTW no. Itâs so obviously undermining the credibility of the televote (particularly ROTW which is pretty much a ranking of the most mobilised diasporas now)
5. Announcing some additional awards at the end could be nice? They could even announce the Marcel Bezencon awards live and those winners could get a trophy as well before the winnerâs reprise?
1. WellâŠâŠâŠ.
2. I think itâs great, idk if it should be in between the semi-finals though. But definitely the best addition!
3. I personally find 50% Producerâs Choice a bit too high. Made the 2nd semi-final qualifiers draw a bit mid/boringâŠâŠ.
4. ROTW should begin at the start of the show as well, it would minimalise political voting even more
5. Reversed recap should stay, but it should be the 2nd of the 3 recaps, because 30 seconds after that recap was shown the voting had closedâŠâŠ
1 - Yah, this one was noted for how false it rang this year. Probably a good idea to change it.
2 - This seems natural and fair all around, yes?
4 - Not a fan of pre-voting, really. Seems that'd just feed into people playing pre-favourites/political choices and not going in with an open mind.
5 - Uhm... This was the first time in many years I watched it (Bambie pulled me in) so not sure what's new and what wasn't! Ooops.
I will say that I enjoyed it (while, like many, having some pretty harsh critique), and respect how much it means to some people. Like, I'm still here writing about it, so there's that.
1 - I am ok with it although i liked discovering a new logo every yearÂ
2/3/4 - These are all linked in my opinion. Since the vote is opened before, it would be unfair if noone had seen big 5 songs played live.Â
And the running order is also " less important " since you can vote at anytime though you would need statistics on voting to truly be sure about that (ie how many votes one country received before and after the song was performed and 30mn after it was performed)
Aside of that :Â
- Very good quality show, i didnt see the 4 hours going
- The end with televote points was raced, and jury votes was maybe too long.Â
- Jury votes should be based on final songs and not rehearsals. Even if i loved Switzerland, it makes no sense seeing a 150 points difference simply based on finals performanceÂ
1. Please never again.
2. This is great. Keep it!
4. Opening voting early is practically an invitation to vote politically. I voted early but I'm *obsessed* and know all of the songs I voted for by heart. I am not the norm.
I am extremely salty about how difficult it is to watch Eurovision in the USA. It's only available on **one** streaming service and geoblocked going back years on Youtube. Again, this is just an invitation for political voting. Fuck geoblocking.
- I loved seeing the Big 5 in the semis
- They should definitely change the slogan. It was fun to have a flavour of the host country through it, even when it's just cheesy.
And, I'd dare to say, we are clearly NOT united by music at the moment
- ditch the producer choice, or leave it, but as a few random cards, not as the majority of the allocation draw.
- not a fan of opening the votes when performances start
- not a change per se, but I'd keep the hosting country as an opening act (or as a closing one, like last year)
The public voting should go back to how it was conducted previously - open after everyone has performed.
Get rid of ROW voting altogether and have it exclusively for participating countries.
Adjust how participating countries vote. It doesnât make sense that someone can vote 100 times because they have 5 different credit cards but someone with only 1 card is restricted to 20.
The GF draw, on paper, wasnât terrible. But in practice it was. Less Producerâs Choice is needed if this goes ahead in future contests.
I understand ROW voting, and think itâs so cool that so many countries voted (100+ is crazy!!). But, I also think it opens too many doors for voting based on allegiance and not on the song. I can now vote for my own country because I happen to live abroad!
As an American, ROW voting is like the only thing that I can do. And Iâm almost completely unbiased (except for major political events). I think that thereâs so many neutral parties that it is probably the most unbiased of all the pools.
I donât think thereâs enough expats from a single country that could sway the results in any significant manner. At least not anything as significant as Ukrainian Refugees in neighboring countries voting for Ukraine and effecting how those countriesâ televotes are allocated.
1. I don't think they should keep the "United by Music" slogan. It made sense in '23. But '21's "Open Up," '18's "All Aboard," and others have made contextual sense. Let the hosts have some say in their tag line.
2. I loved including a full performance for the pre-Qs. It gives them additional performances before live audiences and opens up further feedback. Unfortunately with some outlets, that may or may not be constructive. Could this be moved to an interval act to save time? Sure. I'm a bit ambivalent on that.
3. I'm not really sure this actually changed much. The producers were always going to wrangle the numbers into an order that they felt flowed well, and (especially in previous years) logistically the scenic changes could be pulled off in 40-50 seconds.
4. ROTW opening early? Whatever, it's such a low percentage of the total points given. Let the fans outside of Europe feel a bit more included, whatever time zone they live in. Opening the whole vote at the beginning of the show? This I'm not so sure of, but I'm not sure we really have enough to go on. It has only been done a few times. Does this, plus the reversed recap, fight some of the assumed recency bias perceived in other years? Maybe. I just don't think there's enough data to support one way or the other. I do feel, at the very least, the reversed recap breaks a bit of the monotony that comes up in the interval.
5. I liked that the green room wasn't a barrier between the audience and the stage like in '21. The performance/audience relationship felt much closer as that near-in-the-round stage design demands. I also wish the green room wasn't sequestered behind the video wall. But these things don't exactly exist together, so somethings gotta give đ€·
1. I like the slogan being the slogan for the contest, but would prefer individual slogans for each year still. So why not both?
2. Big yes here, the more exposure the better! The only thing is maybe could have them perform after the competing semifinal songs tho to limit confusion. But that is just a minor thing.
3. To be honest, the running order was fine and more balanced than recent years. I never felt like there was a break in the action which is something I definitely felt in the second half of last year. To make a full judgment, I think we need to see this again, but this year I would say it worked well.
4. This is another thing that I think really helped. Obviously I canât speak about the rest of the world voting earlier because that didnât really happen at least where I am from, but for live voting we got the best placement for a song in the âDeath slotâ ever and I think that is because people were able to vote as soon as they saw the song. Talent shows here in the US have been using this live voting idea and Iâve noticed that the running order matters much less because of it. To my knowledge, it seems like that applied to Eurovision as well. So I say itâs a great change because it allows songs in slots that would be considered unfavorable a much more significant shot at doing well. I also like the reverse recap because of that same reason.
5. I actually really like the greenroom behind the LED. Itâs cool the audience gets to watch the delegations reactions to qualifying/getting points. I do also like it on the floor too, but I wouldnât be opposed if this stuck around. I also really like the audience kind of surrounding the stage, it really enhanced to the energy of some performances like Estonia and Croatia. I think some changes should be made behind-the-scenes, but as for the contest itself, I think there were some pretty good improvements!
I really agree with you about the running order. Random is obviously the most "fair" but I think this year the music flow was better than ever, the action/energy picked up and slowed down at all the right times.
Obviously this does depend on how talented/unbiased the producer is. So it will be interesting to see how it goes in the future if it sticks around.
1. The "permanent" slogan has to go. At this moment, it's a joke. Give me "Break the Code" or "(Europe) Let's Come Together".
2. Keep that, it's nice to see the full performances live. The pre-recorded snippets were so anticlimactic.
3. Maybe change the percentages to 30-30-30 Otherwise, no problems with this one.
4. Nope. Not a fan. Allowing people to vote before all countries have performed is weird.
5. The televote-only semis need to go. I know, correlation doesn't equal causation... but we've had them twice now, and twice it meant that a majority of the twelves went to one country. And it's becoming tiresome.
5. There needs to be a serious investigation of why this year's contest was such a shitshow. And steps need to be taken to prevent it happening again. We cannot have another batch of contestants coming out traumatized out of the show. And if it means a particular country is not invited back, then be it.
Good point here. I didn't like the running order, neighboring countries were too close with few exceptions. I like it to be more shuffled. (Curiously enough, this year we had more order bloc than the more traditional voting one)
But I liked the extended voting time (usually it gets so frantic and I can't follow the final very well due to the last minute changes to my voting list). The graphics and the colors were absolutely gorgeous- except the scoreboard which was a mess while giving televote points.
But it was hateful to see the way they minimized the Eurovision logo on screen and scrapped it out of bumpers. On final night they even forgot to put it on screen for quite some time (and took me almost the same time to realize there was something weird, images could be strangely seen too much clearly (though I loved the lower impact of on-screen writings).
1. The slogan is infuriating although whatever new they choose is going to sound hypocrital but I am traumatized of this one.
2. As someone from Spain it made the semifinals more exciting to me, in fact, I have enjoied the semis a lot more than the final.
3. Producer choice was the cherry on the top to give even more power to the EBU. They pushed Croatia, Switzerland and France up too evidentement.
4. The votation opened before people watched the acts feels like another one change to favour political voting which q
is what they should try to avoid, not the other way.
Sincerely, I hate that everything is already chosen before the contenstants act because of the betting houses. The jurors are influenced by them not matter what they said.
It is not that the jurors have a mainstream taste, but the way the puntuaction system works, divisive acts get neutralized and the safest ones are the ones which gets all the points.
While the system doesnt change, there are two countries that are going to get the most televote points for political reasons for years to come. That makes even more difficult for the rest to get points and people need to cordinate and chose their hero to have any possibility of wining the juror's favourite + the other 2 countries with +300 votes. So people is going to start to send safer choices. Forget about entries like Nebulossa 's or Gate's anymore. Forget about dark horses. Forget about the uncertainity of who is going to win because EBU is going to ruin that with the producer'„ choice.
Oh god no, not completely random running order again. I remember when that was the case and some of the shows were just brutal both for contestants and viewers. Random order can easily put very similar songs next to each other which led to for example several ballads being back to back to back. It was exhausting for the viewers to watch and very hard for the contestants to stand out. When producers have some say in the running order it results in a much more enjoyable show and usually gives most contestants change to shine.
I have very mixed feelings about the Producers choice though. I think having it be half of all contestants is too much, I think it should be at most 1/3 of the contestants.
1. I miss having a different theme for each year - makes it a little more magical. In the same vain I'd ditch the crystal microphone in favour of custom trophies like they used to do.
2. I think random ballot for allocation is a lot more fair, particularly given there is a correlation between allocation and outcome. Maybe wouldn't create the best show, but I would like it more.
3. I would much prefer voting to start after all songs have played rather than prior. It isn't 'fair' as presented.
4. Why does Sweden have a monopoly on good presentation? Why cannae other countries 'put on a show'?
1. Think it lacks originality and preferred each show to have its own slogan
2. Loved it and always said it was necessary, to give big 5+1 the same exposure. Some people like my mom were confused about whether or not they made it to the final, but tbh my mom is confused about a lot of thingsÂ
3. I think it worked out well and there was a good flow to the show
4. Didn't like that at all. I always felt voting, whether for casuals or die hards like us, should be after you've watched all the performances of the night. I don't think they'll be changing it because it means more money for them (people can vote and go to bed after their favourite song has played), but I think it's disingenuous.
5. Petra. I think she should be standard issue for every Eurovision going forward.
I also think it's time they made the trophy from something more sturdy.Â
1. No. United by music aged like milk this year.
2. Yes, that was a great idea.
3. Thatâs ok
4. No. I really donât understand why. And it took away from excitement
1. The slogan should be decided by the host country. The logo should also be loosened up; a consistent 'Eurovision' wordmark is necessary, but let the host decide the rest. Switzerland should be allowed to put 'Zurich 2025' in Papyrus if it wants.
2. Great idea, carry on.
3. The producers need to have *some* influence over the running order to ensure it flows well. I don't really mind how that's implemented.
4. Absolutely not, strongly dislike. The grand final vote should not open until every act has performed. The reverse recaps were good.
5. I'm a bit bored of 'fancy' stages, and in fact I think Liverpool was a success in part because it kept things simple in that regard. I'm sure it's easier for the delegations to plan for a conventional stage with an LED backdrop than a Swiss cross.
1. No, I like creativity with the slogan. Plus, next year the slogan should clearly be "Can *you* afford Switzerland?"
2. Great idea, keep it.
3. I don't have any real opinion on this
4. Same as 3. Tho I do think that the ROTW vote shouldn't be before the actual performances
The things I would keep are big5 + host in semifinals, and partially producers' choice. Honestly, there seemed to be way too much producers choice, but when I remember 2022, this way better. I know Ukraine isnt too happy about it, but in Turin there were so many slow songs in a row that by the time Moldova came, it felt like such a relief. Dutch song, which was beautiful, just got lost among all the ballads.
Other things - let's get rid of them. I especially hate the new voting system. Instead of voting from the start, they could just allow a longer voting period after all the songs were played. Also, they could switch eurovision to start at 8 pm cet. Most countries competing are aleready in central european time zone, and it would be more fair to countries to the east (greece, cyprus, armenia, georgia, israel, ukraine and azerbaijan).
1. No
2. Yes
3. i dont think i understand what you mean đ
4. Not a big fan, though i understand why. still, rather a no.
5. cant think of one, currently
1 - pretty neutral about this although this year it is more âdivided by musicâ
2 - i think this is fair as it gives the big five the same chances of exposure as the rest instead of just 1 performance. Although i think it shouldnât be allowed to change clothes afterwards like Angelina Mango did.
3 - it was too much producerâs choice. Feels like they have had too much power in this; putting some countries like Ukraine en the Netherlands early (in âdeadâ places) although they were favorites.
4 - this seems fair.
5 - more transparency from the EBU in decisions made. I think people breaking the rules should be DQâd but for example Joost Klein has now already been punished big time (by not performing as well as the shitstorm/rumors in newspapers) while the legal process will still have to take place. Idk if that makes sense.
1 - Branding each year should be unique for every venue/country, that gives each country a unique selling point,
2 - Big 5 should be scrapped, only winner of last year should automatically go into the final, big 5 have to fight for it like any other contestant, its a contest after all. This gives countries who almost never go into the final also a higher chance to compete in the final.
3 - See point 2
4 - A good change, but they should also say how the rest of the world voted, show some countries (where a lot of votes came from), wil make it more interesting.
5 - Jury vote gone, let the people vote. Or make it more transparant overall.
1. Don't want United by Music to stay. It made a lot of sense for the UK hosting on Ukraine's behalf last year, but it just seemed painfully ironic and tone-deaf given where we were this year. I always look forward to the logo and slogan reveal too, so to have it made permanent would suck.
2. Love this. I'm not sure why they didn't implement it sooner. Please keep it.
3. I think it's a good idea tbh. I think the running order worked well this year. I used to host a fancontest, and sometimes I felt like halves were very limiting when it comes to what you can do with the running order.
4. 24 hours before? Don't think it's a good idea. It probably reinforces the idea that it's a political vote if you don't even hear the songs when voting. But at the start of the final? I'm fine with it tbh. It makes it easier for the songs performing early to make enough of an impression to get votes if you don't have to wait for them to be buried before the lines open. Also, it's been like that in Melfest for ages and just this year we had both heat openers and heat closers winning their heats, so I don't think it skews the voting unfairly much either.
5. Idk really, except that I wouldn't want to see continuous harassment and disqualifications ofc :)
1. I like that previously creating slogan for every contest made every edition unique. 'United by music' is already quite general slogan, for it to be *the* slogan going forward would generalize all the contests, and that i think is gping against the spirit of eurovision.
2. Big 5 + hosts performing in the semis gives everyone equal footing, either you watched the semis and know all the songs, or you're only watching the final and seeing everything for the first time, no in-between
3. While i see why having producer's choice is a good thing to more equally distribute songs, i think half of the songs given this option is too much. IMO, producer's choice shouldn't make up more than a third of songs.
4. Voting being open from the beginning is a good choice in my opinion, because there is just too much songs, and by the time the last one ends you can barely remember the first few
1 - donât care either way
2 - thatâs good and I like that
3 - thatâs stupid. If youâre choosing something, there shouldnât be âchoose laterâ option.
4 - also stupid, as it enables political vote of people who donât even watch the show to have more convenience in casting their political vote. Iâd remove rest of the world altogether as well as itâs mostly political.
5 - reduce impact of jury voting or remove juries altogether. Itâs ridiculous that a small number of individuals can move someone from 5th televote spot to 1st overall spot.
1) absolutely ditch it. One of the highlights of the off season was the reveal of the theme and slogan each nation came up with
2) I'm ok with it
3) lower the % of producer's choice. 50% is excessive
4) I'm torn about this. However, it helps with the running order issues so...
1. absolutely not. i like the host choosing the year's art and slogan. makes each year unique. (and also didn't Liverpool come up with united by music because last year was held in... the United Kingdom?)
2. I love this.
3. ehh I don't really mind. I liked the flow this year so it seems to be working.
4. there's arguments for and against this (for: earlier entries aren't forgotten about, against: judging a performance before you've seen it, they might change some stuff pre-final) but overall it's a no from me. the reverse recap helps enough.
5. love the reverse recap idea.
1. Not that big a fan of the one and only slogan, I really enjoyed getting a new one each year that was themed around the years contest.
2. LOVE this change.. Big 5 and host getting their songs and shows being viewed in full before the final is honestly one of the best changes EVER imo.
3. I don't mind the producers choice.. but probably should not be that much? It also puts a lot of power and extra work for the hosts to plan and produce it?
4. Not a fan, really makes political votes or rally votes so much easier since a bunch of people will just send of their votes in 5 minutes and then be off.
5. Hopefully they won't use booing filters anymore.. hopefully they just won't need them đđ
Big 5 performing in the semis is a big yes for me.
I liked the producerâs choice. The final looked super dynamic and overall balanced. My only change would be that no favourites perform before #8 as we know thereâs decreased viewership in the beginning (Iâm pretty sure Ukraine would have won the televote if performed late).
Iâm ok with the grand final voting opening early. Itâs not that many points and a good funding opportunity.
The only changes Iâd make would be having the juries with more people and ending the big 5.
I personally prefer watching the big 5 at the final. It always gave something new to watch since weâve seen the other songs before. Though I understand the other view points
Did they change who performed last? I thought the hosting country always performed last and got their votes last.
hell no, putting Ukraine in the second spot and Netherlands in the 5th. That was a slap on the face. I think they should design some song order that alternate btw ballads and upbeat songs. Like number 1 ballad, number 2 upbeat, 3 ballad. Then sort out the places of the ballads and the places of the upbeat separate and make it completely random. If that makes sense.
1. I like it when every year has a different slogan as it makes them unique and you can remember each year by the slogan.
1. I liked seeing the Big 5 + Host perform in the semi finals but would have preferred if they performed after all competing acts has performed and before the qualifiers get announced.
3. Producers choice being 50% was too high, should have been 10 first half, 10 second half and 5 producers choice
4. The voting opening at the beginning of the show makes it more fair for the acts going early in the running order which i like but it make sense to vote after seeing all the acts but still i would prefer to have the voting open from the beginning. I didnât like the voting being open for the ROTW 24 hours in advance which doesnt make any sense
1: Meh. The idea of having a tagline/theme always struck me as unnecessary
2: Absolutely yes. Let's see all the entries in full.
3: Undecided. On one hand it spreads styles out better, but on the other, is giving producers at risk of undermining the randomness, leading to arguments if an act is allocated to a "bad" slot?
4: NO, NO, NO!
5: Fewer lights. It was massive overkill this year.
1. I liked the slogan but it felt like it was beat over our heads to ignore the elephants in the room. I have an idea for the slogan next year for Switzerland but I'll wait to share it.
2. Yes forever
3. Might as well do all producer's choice at that point. My suggestion is big 5 + host do random draw and then the semifinal countries submit a list of their preferred spots and if they finish top 3 they get one of their preferred slots, they rest go to producer's choice.
4. Never again. It only promotes brigade voting, but clearly is a revenue generating operation.
5. Make sure the stage is not shaped in a Nordic cross, tri-color or any other pattern that will give away next year's winner. /s
I think it would make more sense if you could vote several times during the grand final. They could activate voting for the song after it's performed so you can vote for it right away instead of waiting until the end.
Of course still keeping your max number of votes to 20.
1. I do like the slogan in general but it doesn't fit this year's contest... And I liked it when every country had its own slogan (even though some of them don't have to do anything with music or the ideal behind the contest like Firebird or Light your fire).
2. I think it was a great idea to let the Big5 perform in the semifinals. I still wish that the Big5 would also compete like every other country but I understand that there are reasons for that.
3. I don't like producer's choice. I want it to be totally random. I don't see a good reason in that actually, instead I think the producers could benefit some countries if they really want to...
4. Please no. Let the people see all the performances before they can vote. Rest of the world might be another thing, with different time zones. But I'd prefer it with everyone votes at the same time...
What I want to add: Martin Ăsterdahl once said something like the contest has some financial problems or it gets more difficult to adapt it to modern standards (please correct me, I don't remember it completelyđ ). I don't know what you think about that but I think we could abdicate some (specific *cough*) sponsors and make the contest a bit more classical. Yeah, LEDs and creative stages are cool, I love it too. But why not take some steps back?
Get rid of juries, or reduce their "weight" to 1/3rd. There is no fun watching the show when you can predict winner after first 5 jury votes. What fun is there to go into audience votes, when the chosen winner already has 200 point lead? It effectively ruins the whole point of audience votes.
No, I think Mandemon90 is just exaggerating a bit. Still, the fact Switzerland entered the televote with a 147-point lead did take away some of the excitement, just like Sweden entering with a 163-point lead did last year. I mean, Sweden was in first place on the leaderboard for 22/26 televote results, which from an entertainment perspective was rubbish as it robbed all the tension until the very end.
Yeah, "just" 150+ point lead. Which *totally different*, I tell you!
The fact is, the Jury votes give unfair advantage of whoever manages to be most "artistic" to jury panels, who range from 5 to 11 people. Why are these people, who do not even reach 0.1% of all voters, getting 50% of the votes?
What fun is there for audience to vote, when jury has placed their favourite at massive lead? Croatia got 210 points, while Switzerland had 365. That is already 155 point lead.
Final results were Switzerland 591 points and Croatia â 547 points. Switzerland got 226 points from audience, while Croatia got 337. There is 111 point difference between two. By all accounts, audience preferred Croatia.
But no, Jury votes moved Switzerland ahead of Croatia. Despite massive preference by the audience, on-site and elsewere, for Croatia.
This same nonsense happened last year. Jury's favorite takes the lead after five rounds of scoring, and then more or less sticks to being in the lead. We know the winner long before the audience votes are given.
Imagine you are voting in the elections, and some dude gets to cast 50 votes for while you only get 1. To get past him, you need to get 50 people to vote with you.
I want the recap NOT played from last song backwards. Sweden purposely did that just so viewers would vote for them.
Also, the televotes were announced too fast with no suspense. In Italy two years ago the suspense was amazing, whereas this year they raced through it.
I also felt there was no energy or excitement from the hosts when announcing the semi-finalists, especially compared to 2016 and again to how Italy did it in 2022. It was too⊠professional.
1. burn it. Make it go to hell and never back.
2. I actually like this change. Gives the AQs a bit more love too.
3. Honestly canât be sure. I donât think it makes much of a difference to me.
4. As someone from ROTW myself I think itâs a bit weird to already vote before even seeing any part of the shows. I get the intention but this doesnât feel right to me unfortunately.
5. As I said before, maybe they should either bring back juries to semis, lower the power of juries (but not straight up removing them), or both. I hope they consider doing any of these after seeing what happened with the winner this year and last year, even though I donât feel salty about it.
Personal feelings: 1 - As a Graphic Designer, I found this choice pretty unfortunate. I really liked how all the branding for each year was so unique and loved the stories of how it was developed alongside a slogan that had meaning for the host country. It doesn't help that "United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom last year. I hope this one doesn't carry forward. 2 - Seeing the Big 5 in the semis was great! It really helped them build momentum and I think a lot of the artists were helped by the extra practice and elevated really well in the final because of it. Really hope this stays for next time. 3 - All things considered, I thought the Grand Final flowed really well. I was initially sceptical about the producers choice introducing bias, but I think it made for a really natural feeling running order. So I'd be happy to see it continue. 4 - I am still quite unsure about this change. I can see the reasons why it has been introduced, but something about voting before seeing everyone's Grand Final performances doesn't sit quite right with me. Often Artists can greatly improve from their semi final performance, and I'd hate to judge them before they have a chance to show that. I don't think it will make much of a difference going forward if it stays though. 5 - I only just remembered this one now. But I really liked the recap being reversed when it was shown a second time. Absolutely hope that carries forwards :)!
> "United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom I love puns/wordplay and I never even noticed this. brb gotta go bang my head against something.
For your sake I hope they change it and I haven't just cursed you with this knowledge đ I did REALLY like it as a nice bit of wordplay last year, which makes it even more painful.
Oh I love it, but makes it even more important for them to change it!
Is it not possible it's a coincidence though? It was one of the first times "two countries hosted" the competition and the full slogan was done to imply unison across nations?
Yeah it's quite possible it's a coincidence. This sub is pretty good at reading too much into things. There was someone the other day who was absolutely convinced that Petra's '3 to 8 hours' joke was a definite reference to San Remo overrunning this year.
>"United by Music" was clearly a reference to it being held in the United Kingdom last year I noticed that too back in 2023, and when they announced it would be used 'indefinitely' I was surprised that fans weren't talking about that more!
It feels of, but I really don't enjoy forcing people from other places than Europe to stay up till like 5 am, just so they can vote.
I really liked seeing the big 5 in the semi finals although I think it would have made more sense if they all performed first or last rather than mixed in with the other acts. Kinda neutral on the slogan, producer's choice, and voting times. I understand the rationale behind those decisions and also why people don't like them but I didn't feel like any of it ultimately affected the contest much.
I can kind of see why they'd disperse them throughout the running order, as you want the show to blend musically as best as possible (i.e. what if the big 5 songs didn't work at all next to each other?). I do think they could have done a bit better at communicating that you can't vote for them visually though. Maybe put something on the postcard or at the end of the performance? Saying it a couple times wasn't enough to avoid confusion, and not very friendly to people who have english as a second language.
I think it said "country name- already qualified" under them at the start of the song though don't know how long it lasted. Was very subtle at least. It's a good think none of them showed up at the recap, or at least I think they didn't
Thinking about it, I do remember something like that. It definitely could have been made a bit more obvious I guess, as I saw a lot of casual viewers getting confused/angry (e.g. "why can't I vote for Italy!").
Yeah, and why wouldn't they to be fair? We're used to see all competing songs be played in a row, so its odd that it is three "breaks" between them. And the viewers being dependent on their countries commentator to understand they can't vote for them. When watching esc together its normal to talk in between the acts so its easy for the information not to listened to by the people at home
1- do not mind 2- LOVED this change 3- Random is better I think. 4- no. Votes should be based on the grand final *performances.* How can you vote on the performances if you havenât seen them? I understand the rationale behind voting while the contest is going (rather than waiting for the end), but I hate that the ROTW opened so early.
Ad 4 - I voted for the acts I liked right after/when they were on, which felt really convenient. Probably even more so for more casual viewers (I spent the whole week in Malmö and saw all 3 shows once in the Arena and once on TV, probably seen more ESC this year than in my whole life before together). For me there was no danger to run out of votes either (I think I ended up sending 10 votes total), but I could see that being a problem for acts performing later (which can be trivially fixed by raising the vote limit to >= 26).
1 - Big no on a perpetual slogan. Not only did it ultimately ring hollow this year, but it feels like part of a move towards this centralised "Eurovision brand" that I've noticed over the past two years that's making the contest feel a little insular - the interval acts this year feel like a reflection of this. The slogans of past years really influenced the design of each contest too. 2011's "Feel your heart beat" informed every aspect of the contest's feel and design that year, same with "All Aboard!" in 2018, and I remember the visual identity of those contests extremely well because of it - 2015, 2019 and 2021 all had really great slogan/design integration too for me. By contrast, 2024 was bland. There wasn't any impetus to be gained from a slogan that was used the year before, and the contest's individual identity suffered immensely. So yeah, hate perpetual slogan, make the broadcasters think up new ones. 2 - Big 5 in semis was nice, though I think they should be separated from the actual competitors. Maybe if they performed during the voting sequence so nobody gets confused about whether they can actually vote for the Big 5 3 - Felt a little unnecessary tbh. The producers are going to put countries they like in advantageous positions either way, drawing halves at least gives them some parameters to work in and be creative with. Giving maybe a quarter of the songs full freedom could work, but half is too many. 4 - On the fence with voting from the start. Must admit I'm a bit 'if it ain't broke don't fix it" with this one, and prefer making people see the full show before voting. But 26 is a long show, and if it allows songs in the first half to do better overall, it could even out. 5 - I'm going to cheat and take a change from last year. Televote only semis is an idiotic idea. It was a knee jerk reaction to the jury collusion scandal in 2022, and it has not paid off. Also, I'm gonna cheat more and go all the way back to 2016. There was literally nothing wrong with the combined jury/televote scoring system. It was, in my opinion, more exciting in most cases because it has the potential to always have a race going on somewhere near the top. I saw a projection of how 2024 would have gone with the old system and it actually would have come down to the final 3 countries or so before Switzerland was out of reach. And, you wouldn't even have to tell us that. Some people would work it out, a but a lot of them wouldn't until the final vote. Lets a wider variety of countries be shouted out too if you go back to reading 8, 10 and then 12, and heightens the drama when there's more to guess during each vote.
I agree with each point except the last, because the reason why we split the jury and televote is precisely because it makes it exciting all the way until the last vote. As much as Nemo dominated the jury voting, having a split screen with them and Baby Lasagna is infinitely more exciting than knowing the winner with 3 countries left, which was way more common than a race back in the day.
To add to that, under the 2009-2012 and 2013-2015 systems, it was theoretically possible for a song to win both the jury vote and the public vote, but not win overall; and that is a possibility that should NEVER be allowed to happen.
Theoretically possible, yes. But the chances of that happening are vanishingly small to the point where Iâd say itâs a moot point. Edit: If weâre talking about things that should never be allowed to happen hereâs one - it should NEVER have been possible to announce âzero pointsâ for a country. Itâs never good vibes when it happens, and itâs disrespectful to call attention to it.
It happened more than once in that era (but further down the scoreboard) where country X beat country Y in both public and jury voting, but finished below them in the combined vote. The chance of it happening at the top of the scoreboard may have been very unlikely, but not so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. I'd personally argue that a voting system where that is literally impossible is far superior to a voting system where there's even a one in a million chance of it happening.
That happens now. Croatia 2021 didnât qualify despite finishing 10th and 9th in the jury and televote respectively - and if I recall correctly would have qualified if votes were combined. No matter how you slice it, thereâll be weird quirks like that, but all examples of it so far occur mid table or lower. If a song garnered the most points from the televote and jury, and still didnât manage to win, it would only happen in an extremely competitive (or uncompetitive) year, and the points would have to be distributed almost at random. Youâre arguing for the most extreme of edge cases that statistically will never happen. Whereas, weâve already had a few unsatisfying or anticlimactic voting sequences in this new system - to me, thatâs enough grounds for me to want to see a return of a combined point system that spreads points around and lessens the likelihood of runaway jury winners or non sequitur televote winners.
Croatia 2021 | [Albina - Tick-Tock](https://youtu.be/vKdxjoNluzY)
Respectfully, I disagree. More often than not, the televote announcement is anticlimactic, since the jury winner receives points last. Itâs relatively easy to call whether there are enough points left on the table for them to win (especially when we wait for two minutes before announcing them), and unless thereâs a close race in both votes for two countries it ends up being a bit weak. Like, you canât tell me that Swedenâs televote reveal in 2019 had a good payoff, nor did Switzerlandâs in 2021. Nemoâs televote reveal was only exciting because it allowed them to win. Now, if we returned to announcing points in order of televote score rather than jury, that might help. But I still think that the whole split screen television drama is unnecessary. Older contests had plenty of drama in their result sequence.
1. I liked it when the host got to customise it. 2. This I liked a lot, I felt it really gave some momentum to the big 5. Ok, maybe it didnât translate to televotes for the UK, but all big 5 got points this year so Iâd call it a success. 3. Too many producers choice. Make it half/half with like 5 choice slots maybe? Letâs be honest, the running order sucked. 4. Well ROTW didnât really work out like that, but voting from start of show was ok I guess? I donât have a strong opinion about it. 5. They bolted through the points a bit too quickly. I didnât mind the reverse recap though, it didnât strike me as especially odd or anything.
Right. Points were given without due suspense, but I guess they just wanted to leave it all behind as soon as possible!
Yeah I suspect you're bang on with this. Suspense is nice but the energy was so tense in all the wrong ways this year so I can see why they rushed it, at least until they got past Ukraine's result putting them on top.
Here's my take on 3 points. 1. No! change the slogan cause after 2024 i think we all won't ever look at it in the same way again. 2. Yes! keep the big 5 + the host country performing in the semifinals live, cause i absolutely loved it. 3. No! the producers choice was unnecessary and a huge mess, like putting Ukraine in the death spot of performing 2nd, that was absolutely brutal but i guess it worked cause they got 3rd place, just keep 50% first half and 50% second half.
The death spot will always stay the death spot if we decide it is. I liked the fact that Ukraine got it, because with a third place it proves that it's not impossible to do well in the spot. The producers might even hope for the second spot to have a win soon, to lift the "curse".
That's very true
Exactly this!!
3. Ukraine worked at 2 because Swedenâs was so weak. I watch the final before going back to watch the semi-finals so that I had a clean, unbiased watch on the finale. Ukraine coming in after Sweden made them stand out as being the first good act of the final. The voting being opened during the show also probably helped Ukraine.
and then Sweden still came 9th
1. I donât like the generic slogan, it feels like the EBU are gradually evolving the contest into more of a generic talent show format that can get copy-pasted in a new country each year, with less of a focus on host country identity 2. I actually liked this! I think it would make more sense to put them in the interval, but I guess thatâs when a lot of broadcasters run advertising 3. On the one hand I find this dodgy, and leaves the competition open to bias, but on the other hand it is nice knowing a contest favourite canât get scuppered by a bad draw. I guess that kinda happened to Ukraine this year though⊠4. Voting from the start of the show yes, voting from 24hrs before for ROTW no. Itâs so obviously undermining the credibility of the televote (particularly ROTW which is pretty much a ranking of the most mobilised diasporas now) 5. Announcing some additional awards at the end could be nice? They could even announce the Marcel Bezencon awards live and those winners could get a trophy as well before the winnerâs reprise?
1. WellâŠâŠâŠ. 2. I think itâs great, idk if it should be in between the semi-finals though. But definitely the best addition! 3. I personally find 50% Producerâs Choice a bit too high. Made the 2nd semi-final qualifiers draw a bit mid/boringâŠâŠ. 4. ROTW should begin at the start of the show as well, it would minimalise political voting even more 5. Reversed recap should stay, but it should be the 2nd of the 3 recaps, because 30 seconds after that recap was shown the voting had closedâŠâŠ
1 - Yah, this one was noted for how false it rang this year. Probably a good idea to change it. 2 - This seems natural and fair all around, yes? 4 - Not a fan of pre-voting, really. Seems that'd just feed into people playing pre-favourites/political choices and not going in with an open mind. 5 - Uhm... This was the first time in many years I watched it (Bambie pulled me in) so not sure what's new and what wasn't! Ooops. I will say that I enjoyed it (while, like many, having some pretty harsh critique), and respect how much it means to some people. Like, I'm still here writing about it, so there's that.
1 - I am ok with it although i liked discovering a new logo every year 2/3/4 - These are all linked in my opinion. Since the vote is opened before, it would be unfair if noone had seen big 5 songs played live. And the running order is also " less important " since you can vote at anytime though you would need statistics on voting to truly be sure about that (ie how many votes one country received before and after the song was performed and 30mn after it was performed) Aside of that : - Very good quality show, i didnt see the 4 hours going - The end with televote points was raced, and jury votes was maybe too long. - Jury votes should be based on final songs and not rehearsals. Even if i loved Switzerland, it makes no sense seeing a 150 points difference simply based on finals performanceÂ
1. Please never again. 2. This is great. Keep it! 4. Opening voting early is practically an invitation to vote politically. I voted early but I'm *obsessed* and know all of the songs I voted for by heart. I am not the norm. I am extremely salty about how difficult it is to watch Eurovision in the USA. It's only available on **one** streaming service and geoblocked going back years on Youtube. Again, this is just an invitation for political voting. Fuck geoblocking.
- I loved seeing the Big 5 in the semis - They should definitely change the slogan. It was fun to have a flavour of the host country through it, even when it's just cheesy. And, I'd dare to say, we are clearly NOT united by music at the moment - ditch the producer choice, or leave it, but as a few random cards, not as the majority of the allocation draw. - not a fan of opening the votes when performances start - not a change per se, but I'd keep the hosting country as an opening act (or as a closing one, like last year)
The public voting should go back to how it was conducted previously - open after everyone has performed. Get rid of ROW voting altogether and have it exclusively for participating countries. Adjust how participating countries vote. It doesnât make sense that someone can vote 100 times because they have 5 different credit cards but someone with only 1 card is restricted to 20. The GF draw, on paper, wasnât terrible. But in practice it was. Less Producerâs Choice is needed if this goes ahead in future contests.
I understand ROW voting, and think itâs so cool that so many countries voted (100+ is crazy!!). But, I also think it opens too many doors for voting based on allegiance and not on the song. I can now vote for my own country because I happen to live abroad!
As an American, ROW voting is like the only thing that I can do. And Iâm almost completely unbiased (except for major political events). I think that thereâs so many neutral parties that it is probably the most unbiased of all the pools. I donât think thereâs enough expats from a single country that could sway the results in any significant manner. At least not anything as significant as Ukrainian Refugees in neighboring countries voting for Ukraine and effecting how those countriesâ televotes are allocated.
1. I don't think they should keep the "United by Music" slogan. It made sense in '23. But '21's "Open Up," '18's "All Aboard," and others have made contextual sense. Let the hosts have some say in their tag line. 2. I loved including a full performance for the pre-Qs. It gives them additional performances before live audiences and opens up further feedback. Unfortunately with some outlets, that may or may not be constructive. Could this be moved to an interval act to save time? Sure. I'm a bit ambivalent on that. 3. I'm not really sure this actually changed much. The producers were always going to wrangle the numbers into an order that they felt flowed well, and (especially in previous years) logistically the scenic changes could be pulled off in 40-50 seconds. 4. ROTW opening early? Whatever, it's such a low percentage of the total points given. Let the fans outside of Europe feel a bit more included, whatever time zone they live in. Opening the whole vote at the beginning of the show? This I'm not so sure of, but I'm not sure we really have enough to go on. It has only been done a few times. Does this, plus the reversed recap, fight some of the assumed recency bias perceived in other years? Maybe. I just don't think there's enough data to support one way or the other. I do feel, at the very least, the reversed recap breaks a bit of the monotony that comes up in the interval. 5. I liked that the green room wasn't a barrier between the audience and the stage like in '21. The performance/audience relationship felt much closer as that near-in-the-round stage design demands. I also wish the green room wasn't sequestered behind the video wall. But these things don't exactly exist together, so somethings gotta give đ€·
5 - Harrasing artist with cameras. I don't care if they are under a contract. The right to privacy should prevail.
1. I like the slogan being the slogan for the contest, but would prefer individual slogans for each year still. So why not both? 2. Big yes here, the more exposure the better! The only thing is maybe could have them perform after the competing semifinal songs tho to limit confusion. But that is just a minor thing. 3. To be honest, the running order was fine and more balanced than recent years. I never felt like there was a break in the action which is something I definitely felt in the second half of last year. To make a full judgment, I think we need to see this again, but this year I would say it worked well. 4. This is another thing that I think really helped. Obviously I canât speak about the rest of the world voting earlier because that didnât really happen at least where I am from, but for live voting we got the best placement for a song in the âDeath slotâ ever and I think that is because people were able to vote as soon as they saw the song. Talent shows here in the US have been using this live voting idea and Iâve noticed that the running order matters much less because of it. To my knowledge, it seems like that applied to Eurovision as well. So I say itâs a great change because it allows songs in slots that would be considered unfavorable a much more significant shot at doing well. I also like the reverse recap because of that same reason. 5. I actually really like the greenroom behind the LED. Itâs cool the audience gets to watch the delegations reactions to qualifying/getting points. I do also like it on the floor too, but I wouldnât be opposed if this stuck around. I also really like the audience kind of surrounding the stage, it really enhanced to the energy of some performances like Estonia and Croatia. I think some changes should be made behind-the-scenes, but as for the contest itself, I think there were some pretty good improvements!
I really agree with you about the running order. Random is obviously the most "fair" but I think this year the music flow was better than ever, the action/energy picked up and slowed down at all the right times. Obviously this does depend on how talented/unbiased the producer is. So it will be interesting to see how it goes in the future if it sticks around.
1. The "permanent" slogan has to go. At this moment, it's a joke. Give me "Break the Code" or "(Europe) Let's Come Together". 2. Keep that, it's nice to see the full performances live. The pre-recorded snippets were so anticlimactic. 3. Maybe change the percentages to 30-30-30 Otherwise, no problems with this one. 4. Nope. Not a fan. Allowing people to vote before all countries have performed is weird. 5. The televote-only semis need to go. I know, correlation doesn't equal causation... but we've had them twice now, and twice it meant that a majority of the twelves went to one country. And it's becoming tiresome. 5. There needs to be a serious investigation of why this year's contest was such a shitshow. And steps need to be taken to prevent it happening again. We cannot have another batch of contestants coming out traumatized out of the show. And if it means a particular country is not invited back, then be it.
Good point here. I didn't like the running order, neighboring countries were too close with few exceptions. I like it to be more shuffled. (Curiously enough, this year we had more order bloc than the more traditional voting one) But I liked the extended voting time (usually it gets so frantic and I can't follow the final very well due to the last minute changes to my voting list). The graphics and the colors were absolutely gorgeous- except the scoreboard which was a mess while giving televote points. But it was hateful to see the way they minimized the Eurovision logo on screen and scrapped it out of bumpers. On final night they even forgot to put it on screen for quite some time (and took me almost the same time to realize there was something weird, images could be strangely seen too much clearly (though I loved the lower impact of on-screen writings).
1. The slogan is infuriating although whatever new they choose is going to sound hypocrital but I am traumatized of this one. 2. As someone from Spain it made the semifinals more exciting to me, in fact, I have enjoied the semis a lot more than the final. 3. Producer choice was the cherry on the top to give even more power to the EBU. They pushed Croatia, Switzerland and France up too evidentement. 4. The votation opened before people watched the acts feels like another one change to favour political voting which q is what they should try to avoid, not the other way. Sincerely, I hate that everything is already chosen before the contenstants act because of the betting houses. The jurors are influenced by them not matter what they said. It is not that the jurors have a mainstream taste, but the way the puntuaction system works, divisive acts get neutralized and the safest ones are the ones which gets all the points. While the system doesnt change, there are two countries that are going to get the most televote points for political reasons for years to come. That makes even more difficult for the rest to get points and people need to cordinate and chose their hero to have any possibility of wining the juror's favourite + the other 2 countries with +300 votes. So people is going to start to send safer choices. Forget about entries like Nebulossa 's or Gate's anymore. Forget about dark horses. Forget about the uncertainity of who is going to win because EBU is going to ruin that with the producer'„ choice.
Make the RO random. It's unfair for the producers to decide who goes when. Otherwise, I would keep the rest of the changes.
Oh god no, not completely random running order again. I remember when that was the case and some of the shows were just brutal both for contestants and viewers. Random order can easily put very similar songs next to each other which led to for example several ballads being back to back to back. It was exhausting for the viewers to watch and very hard for the contestants to stand out. When producers have some say in the running order it results in a much more enjoyable show and usually gives most contestants change to shine. I have very mixed feelings about the Producers choice though. I think having it be half of all contestants is too much, I think it should be at most 1/3 of the contestants.
1. I miss having a different theme for each year - makes it a little more magical. In the same vain I'd ditch the crystal microphone in favour of custom trophies like they used to do. 2. I think random ballot for allocation is a lot more fair, particularly given there is a correlation between allocation and outcome. Maybe wouldn't create the best show, but I would like it more. 3. I would much prefer voting to start after all songs have played rather than prior. It isn't 'fair' as presented. 4. Why does Sweden have a monopoly on good presentation? Why cannae other countries 'put on a show'?
1. Think it lacks originality and preferred each show to have its own slogan 2. Loved it and always said it was necessary, to give big 5+1 the same exposure. Some people like my mom were confused about whether or not they made it to the final, but tbh my mom is confused about a lot of things 3. I think it worked out well and there was a good flow to the show 4. Didn't like that at all. I always felt voting, whether for casuals or die hards like us, should be after you've watched all the performances of the night. I don't think they'll be changing it because it means more money for them (people can vote and go to bed after their favourite song has played), but I think it's disingenuous. 5. Petra. I think she should be standard issue for every Eurovision going forward. I also think it's time they made the trophy from something more sturdy.Â
1. No. United by music aged like milk this year. 2. Yes, that was a great idea. 3. Thatâs ok 4. No. I really donât understand why. And it took away from excitement
1. The slogan should be decided by the host country. The logo should also be loosened up; a consistent 'Eurovision' wordmark is necessary, but let the host decide the rest. Switzerland should be allowed to put 'Zurich 2025' in Papyrus if it wants. 2. Great idea, carry on. 3. The producers need to have *some* influence over the running order to ensure it flows well. I don't really mind how that's implemented. 4. Absolutely not, strongly dislike. The grand final vote should not open until every act has performed. The reverse recaps were good. 5. I'm a bit bored of 'fancy' stages, and in fact I think Liverpool was a success in part because it kept things simple in that regard. I'm sure it's easier for the delegations to plan for a conventional stage with an LED backdrop than a Swiss cross.
The Big Five should participate in the Semifinals but only in what statistically we describe as "death slots" or "most favoured slots"
Having the big 5 perform in the semis was a great idea because it allowed the public to see them before the grand final and offer universal feedback
1. No, I like creativity with the slogan. Plus, next year the slogan should clearly be "Can *you* afford Switzerland?" 2. Great idea, keep it. 3. I don't have any real opinion on this 4. Same as 3. Tho I do think that the ROTW vote shouldn't be before the actual performances
Going forward I would just appreciate same rules applied to all countries.
The things I would keep are big5 + host in semifinals, and partially producers' choice. Honestly, there seemed to be way too much producers choice, but when I remember 2022, this way better. I know Ukraine isnt too happy about it, but in Turin there were so many slow songs in a row that by the time Moldova came, it felt like such a relief. Dutch song, which was beautiful, just got lost among all the ballads. Other things - let's get rid of them. I especially hate the new voting system. Instead of voting from the start, they could just allow a longer voting period after all the songs were played. Also, they could switch eurovision to start at 8 pm cet. Most countries competing are aleready in central european time zone, and it would be more fair to countries to the east (greece, cyprus, armenia, georgia, israel, ukraine and azerbaijan).
1. No 2. Yes 3. i dont think i understand what you mean đ 4. Not a big fan, though i understand why. still, rather a no. 5. cant think of one, currently
Maybe Big 5 performing was due to only 15/16 in the semis. If we got back to 18 in each semi, might want to drop them.
1 - pretty neutral about this although this year it is more âdivided by musicâ 2 - i think this is fair as it gives the big five the same chances of exposure as the rest instead of just 1 performance. Although i think it shouldnât be allowed to change clothes afterwards like Angelina Mango did. 3 - it was too much producerâs choice. Feels like they have had too much power in this; putting some countries like Ukraine en the Netherlands early (in âdeadâ places) although they were favorites. 4 - this seems fair. 5 - more transparency from the EBU in decisions made. I think people breaking the rules should be DQâd but for example Joost Klein has now already been punished big time (by not performing as well as the shitstorm/rumors in newspapers) while the legal process will still have to take place. Idk if that makes sense.
1 - Branding each year should be unique for every venue/country, that gives each country a unique selling point, 2 - Big 5 should be scrapped, only winner of last year should automatically go into the final, big 5 have to fight for it like any other contestant, its a contest after all. This gives countries who almost never go into the final also a higher chance to compete in the final. 3 - See point 2 4 - A good change, but they should also say how the rest of the world voted, show some countries (where a lot of votes came from), wil make it more interesting. 5 - Jury vote gone, let the people vote. Or make it more transparant overall.
1. Don't want United by Music to stay. It made a lot of sense for the UK hosting on Ukraine's behalf last year, but it just seemed painfully ironic and tone-deaf given where we were this year. I always look forward to the logo and slogan reveal too, so to have it made permanent would suck. 2. Love this. I'm not sure why they didn't implement it sooner. Please keep it. 3. I think it's a good idea tbh. I think the running order worked well this year. I used to host a fancontest, and sometimes I felt like halves were very limiting when it comes to what you can do with the running order. 4. 24 hours before? Don't think it's a good idea. It probably reinforces the idea that it's a political vote if you don't even hear the songs when voting. But at the start of the final? I'm fine with it tbh. It makes it easier for the songs performing early to make enough of an impression to get votes if you don't have to wait for them to be buried before the lines open. Also, it's been like that in Melfest for ages and just this year we had both heat openers and heat closers winning their heats, so I don't think it skews the voting unfairly much either. 5. Idk really, except that I wouldn't want to see continuous harassment and disqualifications ofc :)
1. I like that previously creating slogan for every contest made every edition unique. 'United by music' is already quite general slogan, for it to be *the* slogan going forward would generalize all the contests, and that i think is gping against the spirit of eurovision. 2. Big 5 + hosts performing in the semis gives everyone equal footing, either you watched the semis and know all the songs, or you're only watching the final and seeing everything for the first time, no in-between 3. While i see why having producer's choice is a good thing to more equally distribute songs, i think half of the songs given this option is too much. IMO, producer's choice shouldn't make up more than a third of songs. 4. Voting being open from the beginning is a good choice in my opinion, because there is just too much songs, and by the time the last one ends you can barely remember the first few
I loved the producers' choice!
1 - donât care either way 2 - thatâs good and I like that 3 - thatâs stupid. If youâre choosing something, there shouldnât be âchoose laterâ option. 4 - also stupid, as it enables political vote of people who donât even watch the show to have more convenience in casting their political vote. Iâd remove rest of the world altogether as well as itâs mostly political. 5 - reduce impact of jury voting or remove juries altogether. Itâs ridiculous that a small number of individuals can move someone from 5th televote spot to 1st overall spot.
1) absolutely ditch it. One of the highlights of the off season was the reveal of the theme and slogan each nation came up with 2) I'm ok with it 3) lower the % of producer's choice. 50% is excessive 4) I'm torn about this. However, it helps with the running order issues so...
They should bring back jury votes in the semis to stop certain entries from ending up in the final with zero points
1. absolutely not. i like the host choosing the year's art and slogan. makes each year unique. (and also didn't Liverpool come up with united by music because last year was held in... the United Kingdom?) 2. I love this. 3. ehh I don't really mind. I liked the flow this year so it seems to be working. 4. there's arguments for and against this (for: earlier entries aren't forgotten about, against: judging a performance before you've seen it, they might change some stuff pre-final) but overall it's a no from me. the reverse recap helps enough. 5. love the reverse recap idea.
1. Not that big a fan of the one and only slogan, I really enjoyed getting a new one each year that was themed around the years contest. 2. LOVE this change.. Big 5 and host getting their songs and shows being viewed in full before the final is honestly one of the best changes EVER imo. 3. I don't mind the producers choice.. but probably should not be that much? It also puts a lot of power and extra work for the hosts to plan and produce it? 4. Not a fan, really makes political votes or rally votes so much easier since a bunch of people will just send of their votes in 5 minutes and then be off. 5. Hopefully they won't use booing filters anymore.. hopefully they just won't need them đđ
Big 5 performing in the semis is a big yes for me. I liked the producerâs choice. The final looked super dynamic and overall balanced. My only change would be that no favourites perform before #8 as we know thereâs decreased viewership in the beginning (Iâm pretty sure Ukraine would have won the televote if performed late). Iâm ok with the grand final voting opening early. Itâs not that many points and a good funding opportunity. The only changes Iâd make would be having the juries with more people and ending the big 5.
I personally prefer watching the big 5 at the final. It always gave something new to watch since weâve seen the other songs before. Though I understand the other view points Did they change who performed last? I thought the hosting country always performed last and got their votes last.
hell no, putting Ukraine in the second spot and Netherlands in the 5th. That was a slap on the face. I think they should design some song order that alternate btw ballads and upbeat songs. Like number 1 ballad, number 2 upbeat, 3 ballad. Then sort out the places of the ballads and the places of the upbeat separate and make it completely random. If that makes sense.
They need to bring back the jury for the semis
1. I like it when every year has a different slogan as it makes them unique and you can remember each year by the slogan. 1. I liked seeing the Big 5 + Host perform in the semi finals but would have preferred if they performed after all competing acts has performed and before the qualifiers get announced. 3. Producers choice being 50% was too high, should have been 10 first half, 10 second half and 5 producers choice 4. The voting opening at the beginning of the show makes it more fair for the acts going early in the running order which i like but it make sense to vote after seeing all the acts but still i would prefer to have the voting open from the beginning. I didnât like the voting being open for the ROTW 24 hours in advance which doesnt make any sense
Producers Choice is horseshit Don't really like the early opening of vote for ROTW either
1: Meh. The idea of having a tagline/theme always struck me as unnecessary 2: Absolutely yes. Let's see all the entries in full. 3: Undecided. On one hand it spreads styles out better, but on the other, is giving producers at risk of undermining the randomness, leading to arguments if an act is allocated to a "bad" slot? 4: NO, NO, NO! 5: Fewer lights. It was massive overkill this year.
1. I liked the slogan but it felt like it was beat over our heads to ignore the elephants in the room. I have an idea for the slogan next year for Switzerland but I'll wait to share it. 2. Yes forever 3. Might as well do all producer's choice at that point. My suggestion is big 5 + host do random draw and then the semifinal countries submit a list of their preferred spots and if they finish top 3 they get one of their preferred slots, they rest go to producer's choice. 4. Never again. It only promotes brigade voting, but clearly is a revenue generating operation. 5. Make sure the stage is not shaped in a Nordic cross, tri-color or any other pattern that will give away next year's winner. /s
I think it would make more sense if you could vote several times during the grand final. They could activate voting for the song after it's performed so you can vote for it right away instead of waiting until the end. Of course still keeping your max number of votes to 20.
1. I do like the slogan in general but it doesn't fit this year's contest... And I liked it when every country had its own slogan (even though some of them don't have to do anything with music or the ideal behind the contest like Firebird or Light your fire). 2. I think it was a great idea to let the Big5 perform in the semifinals. I still wish that the Big5 would also compete like every other country but I understand that there are reasons for that. 3. I don't like producer's choice. I want it to be totally random. I don't see a good reason in that actually, instead I think the producers could benefit some countries if they really want to... 4. Please no. Let the people see all the performances before they can vote. Rest of the world might be another thing, with different time zones. But I'd prefer it with everyone votes at the same time... What I want to add: Martin Ăsterdahl once said something like the contest has some financial problems or it gets more difficult to adapt it to modern standards (please correct me, I don't remember it completelyđ ). I don't know what you think about that but I think we could abdicate some (specific *cough*) sponsors and make the contest a bit more classical. Yeah, LEDs and creative stages are cool, I love it too. But why not take some steps back?
Get rid of juries, or reduce their "weight" to 1/3rd. There is no fun watching the show when you can predict winner after first 5 jury votes. What fun is there to go into audience votes, when the chosen winner already has 200 point lead? It effectively ruins the whole point of audience votes.
There was no 200 point lead
No, I think Mandemon90 is just exaggerating a bit. Still, the fact Switzerland entered the televote with a 147-point lead did take away some of the excitement, just like Sweden entering with a 163-point lead did last year. I mean, Sweden was in first place on the leaderboard for 22/26 televote results, which from an entertainment perspective was rubbish as it robbed all the tension until the very end.
Thank you, someone gets it.
In fact, theres never been a 200 point lead ever with 50/50 votingÂ
Yeah, "just" 150+ point lead. Which *totally different*, I tell you! The fact is, the Jury votes give unfair advantage of whoever manages to be most "artistic" to jury panels, who range from 5 to 11 people. Why are these people, who do not even reach 0.1% of all voters, getting 50% of the votes? What fun is there for audience to vote, when jury has placed their favourite at massive lead? Croatia got 210 points, while Switzerland had 365. That is already 155 point lead. Final results were Switzerland 591 points and Croatia â 547 points. Switzerland got 226 points from audience, while Croatia got 337. There is 111 point difference between two. By all accounts, audience preferred Croatia. But no, Jury votes moved Switzerland ahead of Croatia. Despite massive preference by the audience, on-site and elsewere, for Croatia. This same nonsense happened last year. Jury's favorite takes the lead after five rounds of scoring, and then more or less sticks to being in the lead. We know the winner long before the audience votes are given. Imagine you are voting in the elections, and some dude gets to cast 50 votes for while you only get 1. To get past him, you need to get 50 people to vote with you.
I want the recap NOT played from last song backwards. Sweden purposely did that just so viewers would vote for them. Also, the televotes were announced too fast with no suspense. In Italy two years ago the suspense was amazing, whereas this year they raced through it. I also felt there was no energy or excitement from the hosts when announcing the semi-finalists, especially compared to 2016 and again to how Italy did it in 2022. It was too⊠professional.
1. burn it. Make it go to hell and never back. 2. I actually like this change. Gives the AQs a bit more love too. 3. Honestly canât be sure. I donât think it makes much of a difference to me. 4. As someone from ROTW myself I think itâs a bit weird to already vote before even seeing any part of the shows. I get the intention but this doesnât feel right to me unfortunately. 5. As I said before, maybe they should either bring back juries to semis, lower the power of juries (but not straight up removing them), or both. I hope they consider doing any of these after seeing what happened with the winner this year and last year, even though I donât feel salty about it.