My conclusion is that you put much more work and take it more seriously than the vast majority of the jurors in the contest ❤

I love your use of data, rather than conjecture or vibes. Sweeden's jury margin was high not because they were so much better than the other songs, but because they were one of the few songs the juries had a consensus about.

This year, by changing the system for qualifying completely, obviously there will be fewer ''jury'' songs in the final. Most of the televote points were spread across all the countries, while for juries there weren't many songs that fall on their side of voting. So obviously we see the jury songs placing higher. If the qualifying system wasn't changed, then there would be songs, that would have challenged Sweden ( Like Georgia, Latvia, Iceland utt..) and would have knocked some points off.

Your analysis is absolutely amazing, and btw I think this 50/50 system is perfect and I want juries back in semis.

This was the best thing about Eurovision I have watched recently. Thank you. Being a fan since 2007, it's really nice to see someone speaking some sense and not bashing blindly the ones they hate.

I love when post Eurovision each year i end up studying it like it’s a subject at uni 😂 Great video!!!

Such a professional, informative and well designed video! You have to be involved in Eurovision in the very near future! Amazing work! ❤

A really fascinating and balanced video. The editing and graphics are 👌. I'm a big fan of increasing points to the top 15, and your suggestion of point distribution is a good way of doing that while keeping the classic 1-12pts. Agree that 50/50 split should stay. Bigger juries would be ideal, but Sietsee Bakker has already said that EBU had considered it but (as you touch on) was too much of a burden on broadcasters. As far as I know, jurors just rank the songs without any fornal referende to the criteria. But maybe, to ensure they actually use it, they could give each criteria a score on each song, total them up, and rank them that way.

Brilliant brilliant video. I'm so impressed by your coherence, knowledge, well-balanced nature and really great production values. So I just watched your video again to see if there's anything I can add to the discussion. I just thought of another issue with expanding the number of juries. Participating in Eurovision is expensive as it is for each broadcaster, so expanding the number of juries would also mean making it more expensive overall and in an age where cost-cutting is key to everything post-pandemic, that might cause even a bigger strain on each broadcaster. My two favorite points that you made were: * Saying that the juries have to rank the songs no matter what they thought about them and that they have to produce a result no matter what. * Your suggestion to expand the points given to the top 15 is such an inspired out-of-the-box idea that I genuinely think you should try and suggest and promote somehow (maybe try contacting someone in the EBU?

1 idea I would throw into the mix for fixing the running order. Playing the recap in reverse order They did it in the Baltic Eurovisions of 2002 & 2003 In 2002 The country that sang 2nd and 8th finished equal third. In 2003 the winner came from a 'death spot', 4th, also Iceland (1st), Austria (2nd) and Ireland (3rd) finished in the top 11. 5 songs in the first half of both contests were performed in the first half as well (11th in both years too were from the first half), compared to only Sweden cracking the top 10 from an early running order, they sang 7th, in 2001. At the end of the recap, you could be reminded of the songs from earlier maybe there are some people, especially with how long the voting period now is, who wait until the recap to cast their votes. But the average Joe and Jo might wait especially if this is their first time hearing the songs. Could it work maybe? Was it more of an indication of the quality of songs, you could argue that, especially in 2002, the better songs were 1-12, not 13-24. You can also argue that it didn't make a dent, the top 2 in 02 were spot 23 and 20 out of 24, ironically enough the same position as the year prior with Estonia winning from 20th and Denmark coming 2nd performing last, 23rd. But that could be a simple idea to throw into the mix

Honestly I'm totally at peace with 50/50, this is imo the only good way to have good results and having much more diverse results than what is wanted ny the people ! The only change needs to be that it should way more jurors... Having only 5 jurors is not great but maybe 10, 15 or 20 jurors would be way more appropriate

People who complains about 00s looks like have didn't watch a contest from the end.of the 80s or early 90s, the contest was almost buried, it was in the 00s when it started to gain life again, and a big factor about that was thanks to the eastern and souther countries, who almost always send it the best candidatures of that year, meanwhile the west didn't care and almost send bland or trash. And when the west started to cry, the juries were reintroduced not only because musical reasons, it was more because a counterweight of the block voting (even i cans say that was the main reason, and that's don't have anything of musical, sorry) because, how the backwards easterns who they excluded until they became part of our system will win over the west in their own game? "Image of Eurovision was in decline that years" well, that was in the west, in the east it was one of the most followed show, now isn't so drastic byt the table have turned, the image of the show in the east has declined but looks like that doesn't care.

A comprehensive and thorough analysis, and some thoughtful suggestions! Love the way you bring data and graphics to support your presentation, and how you present opposing views in order to explain the challenges involved. It's obvious a lot of effort and skill went into this creation. Judging artistic performances can be inherently subjective, and the varying scores from the juries demonstrates how even 'qualified industry experts' view how competitors achieve those criteria with significant differences. You're not likely to come up with a perfect system, as there's always likely to be tastes and biases affecting the scores. Best you can hope for is one where the judging guidelines are clear and straightforward. Re performance order: - To be ''fair' to performers, could their rankings in the semi-finals determine the sequence they perform in the final? This would remove some of the 'luck' involved, where if they draw an early final performance their chances of doing well are diminished. The advantage would be those who qualified with and 'earned' the higher scores get the better spots near the end of the show. The obvious disadvantage is how such a pre-ranking could bias final votes to even more favor the later (better?) performers... (Which may not be a totally bad situation...?) Jury size increase could be encouraged, but total points kept the same for juries that are not larger than the minimum. It likely is difficult for smaller countries without a well-established music industry to recruit well-qualified jurors. Are the jurors paid? Maybe that would attract a more 'professional' jury...? Good job!

I really like the idea of the more randomised running order - but I think they should draw first quarter, second quarter etc.

Thank you so much for the analysis and the insight. Absolutely agree that we need juries (I would actually reinstate them in the semis, too - it's absolutely disgraceful that Malta went home with a total of 3 points after all the effort they put into their performance). Also agree that we probably need to pack these juries to account for all age brackets and different areas of expertise. I definitely do not want to go back to televote-only ESC - the whole format really hurt the overall credibility of the contest and encouraged more and more novelty acts to enter as a result with the actual song quality becoming an afterthought.

I noticed songs in the final from 1 to 6 struggle to get televoting

great video, fantastic research, thank you!

WOW! So happy to have found your channel! Always love to stumble across hidden gems like you, especially with this level of quality on the production. Outstanding!!!

A really good analysis; the problem is all the people stirring the pot and saying Finland should have won, are ignoring the need to have juries. You gave examples of the 2000s, but remember too the political and neighbourly voting which was rife. So the answer would seem to be your suggestion of augmenting the diversity of jury members. But would small countries like San Marino or Montenegro have enough people who qualify?

You've done an amazing job with this analysis, I agree with you on most points. Subscribed 😊

Thank you this interresting and informative video. Great research, and very well explaining everything clearly. I almost wished this could be hours long, your voice is so relaxing lol

This is probably the first video I've seen that made actual sense of it all, without seeming biased towards first or second place. I think the idea of having voting between jury and public done more similar might actually get the best results. Like having an option to rank every single song as a televoter means you understand what the jury is doing. I also love and adore the idea of more countries getting points at all (like indeed the top 15) as being in the middle of the pack currently can mean you just fall of the boat completely in terms of getting points. Like the 4 zero points from a few years ago. If everybody agrees almost unanimously that those songs were in the middle but not the bottom, giving a few more points across the board would mean they might have gotten at least SOME points, even if it didn't change the overall result. It might also reduce future voting gaps like this one. While that might not be possible through phone voting, I think I'd love an option for the public to also make score cards similar to the juries, even if it were only done as a 'trial run' of sorts during a semifinal, for example. All in all a lot of food for thought. Also a more randomised line up would be more fair to me. Even if it's just randomly sorting them into brackets and then being placed based on those or vice versa. I feel for the people that are not expected to win and get a bad placement for that. Even just running the reminder reel of performances back to front rather than front to back means you're less likely to be forgotten by overload twice in a row. It would be the smallest change but perhaps it could have a good impact. Thank for the analysis, it was a lot more clear than the voting itself to me. Also loved how unbiased it was, so that it's very open to people that are angry about the results and to the side that's just angry about the conspiracies/reaction to the results.

I would like to take a moment to thank the jurors who acknowledged the brilliance of Germany and Switzerland. Highly underrated acts. Norway too, but at least the public gave them the recognition they deserved

Such an intresting video. Never thought about it this way. Thank you! :D

Great video, as a stat nerd, I always love to see data being used so extensively, that explains a lot about things exactly work. I think the gap was mostly the result of other jury-friendly songs being weak. Maybe in a world where Bianca, Zarra and Alessandra all had better staging and very strong jury show performances, Käärijä would have won by a few points. Just like in a 2021 world where Gjon's Tears didn't exist or does an awful jury show performance, Barbara would have probably defeated Maneskin, and we would have that debate 2 years earlier. That's not a thing that will happen every year, and unfortunately that happened the year with a runaway televote winner. That being said, I think jury criticism is not only about the result (even through many people are doing it with that intent), it seems that juries favor more and more either radio friendly songs and safe ballads with strong vocals (and that's logicial, radio friendly songs are moneymakers for musical industry and strong vocals are the easiest criteria to gasp) at the expense of more original and/or ethnic entries. And I guess that's part of why some people are irritated at them and call for more diversity in juries. Fully agree on finding a way to reward top 15 songs instead of top 10, many songs get killed because they got a lot of 11-15 placings, which is particularly sad when it happens to a song that also fell victim to a bad running order. Maybe that could be the way to give a bit more power to televote (I think it would feel more satisfying to give a little more power to paying voters without going to 75/25 because 2000s era songs being back would be awful for the contest), as the iconic 12 is only really needed for the visible part, which is the jury one. Maybe have jury vote being the way you and televote being something like 18-15-13-12 and so on until 15th. That's true that running order is even more important than anything about juries. And here I think a simple solution could be clear criteria (and maybe drawing thirds instead of halves ?), is it more important for the running order to not kill a favorite or should it favor the flow even at the expense of putting a favorite in dreaded number 2 slot ? Because there's been multiple times it felt producers were actively siding with or against one favorite (most notorious example to me is Norway 2018, won semifinal, was 3rd in betting odds, got a trash running order, but got unnoticed because it was clearly not a fan favorite), and other shows where it seemed they didn't cared that much about the flow, just not killing any favorite.

Superb video, brilliantly delivered with excellent visuals and an objective analysts. 👏

Hey, really well done video, the content was great and your insight was amazing. Good job on this!!

I think another solution would be to make the jury panels non-aligned to the countries. The problem is representation and you cannot really have it with 5 people, no matter how you count. And then the variety and broadness of various expertise that is needed to actually be able to judge the entries PROFESSIONALLY... the juries as they are now are bound to be flawed. Instead, I suggest leaving the population representation to the public vote - it is already mixed with regards to age, gender, ethnicities, regions, etc., and by nature of being popular vote reflects the national spirit and the country's musical preferences. And then get rid of national juries. The calls-in can then read the results from the public voting. Instead of national juries, make specialised panels to which the countries would delegate juries. A panel of singing/voice experts, a panel of composition/arrangement/music theory experts, a panel of lyricists/writers, a panel of music producers, a panel of media experts/show directors/choreography experts, or maybe even more (or fewer, it's just an idea at this point). Each country could then send jurors to each panel, and then would be able to actually pick people with expertise in this one particular field. The points given would need be adjusted to make up 50% (weighted or otherwise re-calculated). The professional points would be presented first (they can be made live as well, with the head of the jury or someone else presenting the results from a given panel), and the traditional calls-in with the countries would give the public votes from each country. Still dramatic, still 50/50 jury and public vote, but with less drama about 5 people having so much power as an entire nation.

I don't know if you're looking for ideas, but I'd love to hear about odds fluctuations and how good of a job the oddsmakers do (and how the hell they're so good!). Great content.

Loved the video analysis so I just subscribed 😁👍 I commented this on one of your previous videos, but this year’s Eurovision really showed it was just a battle between Sweden and Finland. I also think that Loreen’s prestige played a part in Kaarija getting his landslide televote score. Usually the televote and jury vote shows favour for multiple countries, but again, this year it was split between Sweden and Finland. I loved both, but I’m so happy Loreen won twice! And honestly, if Kaarija was able to sing even a little better he probably would have ranked higher in the jury 😆 (that’s mostly speculation on my part though). Love the video ❤

I usually don't watch any videos on Eurovision and "is it fixed" and so on, because most KZfaqrs have no clue about ESC, especially those from America, but your take and approach is superb. ALTHOUGH: You kinda miss the mark on the "100% televote" problem, because the biggest issue there is not the quality of songs which people like, but the fact that most countries don't even vote for songs, but for artists they know (from their neighboring country) or refuse to vote for some BECAUSE they don't want to vote for a country whatever they send (but we have that in the current system too). The other thing is the running order - what you propose is already implemented. First, the host country always draws the exact spot they'll perform in, and all the rest also draws, but not the exact spot like they used to, but instead they draw first or second half of the show. So the running order is NOT totally up to the production. If a favorite draws second half, they can't burry it at the beginning of the show.

This is a very thorough analysis.

Great video ( as usual ). 2 ideas for votes changes- split voting into 2 halves: one after the first 13 and one after the second 13: and you are allowed 10 votes per half- that might help with recency bias. 2 you can have one vote for each song and you give that song your vote if you like it after each song: if you like, a thumbs up. The more thumbs up a song gets the higher it’s ranking in your country.

The one thing that always gets me angry is when jury detractors criticize the 50%/50% system because they find it "undemocratic". - Firstly, I remind you that this is a SONG contest, so it only makes sense that music experts have a say in the final results. The debate should be about the necessity of improving the jury system and how to do it (number of the juries, their criteria, diverse backgrounds, etc), not about getting rid of them, pretending like that wouldn't have a bad effect on the contest, as appointed in the video (the 2000's couldn't be a better example). - Secondly, the televoting system is not even "democratic". The cost of sms and calls changes in every country. I'm from Spain, each text message costs 1'09€ and each call over 2€. But there are countries where you can vote 10 times for the same prize. Besides that, each person can vote up to 20 times. What is democratic about all of this?

I love the video! Thanks! I did not know about the channel! 💙 subscribed!

Damn, this is a good video. I think that people, including me, are getting kindaaa tired of seeing the ‚same kind of songs‘ being put high by the jury. Sweden with a radio-friendly pop song, Italian with a (imo) standard Italian ballad, and other countries of course. For me and my friends it is not fun to see how more creative songs are not getting rewarded that much. I won‘t say, especially after the video, that the points for Sweden are undeserved. It is just... boring to watch. That was my problem and of a larger pool of people I know of this year‘s contest. Also, Sweden gets so many points every year. Ukraine gets many televote points because of the war. It is predictable. Seeing a country getting 12 points which is not expected but deserving makes the watching experience better. Finland did won once, it was fun and out of the box and would, was he the winner, make for a more entertaining Eurovision. Even though I am team Spain and not Finland

great video!

Meanwhile, Alexander Rybak, Lena, Emmelie de Forest, Conchita Wurst and Salvador Sobral are having a party.

Very well edited video, good job.

Loving your video

No matter what anyone says LT United will always be iconic.

It is important to remember that around the previous cases of the televote favourite not winning there was a lot less outrage. People propose a different split (most say 60:40, 2:1, or 75:25) because they're fine with the juries nudging towards a more radio-friendly song when two songs are similarly liked, but they don't want it to be possible for the televote to be completely useless like it was now.

I love your idea of points , i think songs 11th onwords still counts and should have power

Thank god for the juries saving the contest from becoming a joke this year.

Interesting and indepth video, think it covers alot of the 'issues' people have had over this years results. And as a fellow stats nerd I always enjoy looking at the breakdown of all the results and whatnot. As for my opinion, I feel alot of people out there will complain about the current system and want to get it changed. Only to then complain about that system when it eventually gives them a result that they are equally unhappy with. Take 2022 as an example, alot of people seemed very angry with Ukraine running away with the televote based on a 'sympathy' vote (I wasn't one of them for the record). Should we give the televote even more power then they have now, then something similar could be even more easier to occur. So for me I am very much of the impression that the 50/50 split is the best one. Something I have seen floated around elsewhere but not mentioned here. Is that the removal of the juries in the Semi's, may have actually given them a bit more power come the final. Potential big jury scorers could have been eliminated by not getting the public vote in the Semi=Final (take Azerbaijan and Switzerland in 2022 as an example). With them gone there are less countries competing for the top jury marks, whilst on the other hand, you could argue there are more countries competing for those top televote marks, as a televote favourite would not have been eliminated by the jury (an example of this could have been Estonia in 2017). I do also feel that a 'problem' we now have is that alot of the younger Eurovision audience are just not old enough to remember or even know about the dark days of 00's Eurovision, when block voting was at its peak. And I think that is also possibly contributing to the big cry for more power to the televote. As for making the juries better, I definitely would like to see them increased to 10, and see no reason why that can't be done. If they are getting such power I do feel 5 people is not enough. But there does need to be more variety in age and demographic. I can remember one year the Spanish jury was made up entirely of ex ESC and NF performers from the last few years. Which goes against both the age and background rules. I also really detest the producer decided running order as I feel it automatically favours the favourites and kinda prevents maybe some of those surprising televote results which you don't see coming. I would personally prefer them to draw quarters, so 1st Quarter (1-6/7), 2nd Quarter (7/8-13), 3rd Quarter (14-19/20) and 4th Quarter (20/21-26). That way it makes it a bit fairer and lessens the impact of being places earlier on in the chose section you pick. Anyways, sorry for the lengthy post, but you made some great points that I had to comment back on. Looking forward to more videos in the future, I have just subscribed. 👍

Sometimes, maybe we should remind us of that the Eurovision Song Contest is a song competition. To me that is a good barr for keeping the quality as high as the competition deserves. To have both jury and televotes is a good blend.

My idea: if there's two winners; one for the jury vote, one for the public vote; whoever does better with the other system gets to host the grand final, the other hosts the two semi finals, while also having a much bigger gap between the two so that the contestants get ready to go to another country (at least a week of time difference). So, in this case, Sweden would host the GF, Finland would host the two SFs.

People need to remember that a 75-25 system with 7 songs is VERY different than a 75-25 system with 26 songs. And the reality is that televoters already get consistently more "real" power in the sense that televote favourites tend to get a greater % of points than jury favourites do.

Love it stu ❤️

Most high profile music contests use a jury only, and the audience prize is extra...if we want Eurovision to be a respected competition (unlike the 100% televise days) we need to embrace juries over dismissing them

Great video! I think you're on to something with the idea of changing how the public votes. The jury scores are based on the jurors ranking the songs. Why not just have the public rank the songs and then assign scores using the same method the jury scores are calculated? This prevents people using all 20 votes for one song or spreading them out to only a few select songs and not others, and would be more reflective of how people feel about each song (and this feels like how I see a lot of fans and journalists talk about the scores anyways as if the final scores indicate what was most liked and the song at the bottom is somehow problematic and disliked becaused it is at the bottom or that songs in the semifinals that don't get any points are somehow not loved by any viewers even though, based on reading and listening to fans that definitely isn't the case and the songs and artists with zero points or on the low end of the scoreboard do still have those who enjoy them). Which is why I also like the expanding the points system idea you mentioned so that points outside the top 10 also get some points. That's actually not an unusual way to do things. Because of my involvement in music in my local city here in the US, I have served as a judge on a panel for some of my city's music festival contests. While each has their own unique system, one thing they all have in common is the just ranking the performances by participates. Since it's just a ranking system for my part, I was just able to express how I felt they did based on the notes I take about each of the conditions I was supposed to be judging on. Afterwards my rankings were then tabulated with the other judges by an organizer secretary and scores determined (again each music contest has different scoring systems; for example one of the oldest in my city uses a ranking of I, II, III, IV, and V scores and more than one person can get these scores. All participants with a I score get a medal, all participants with a II score get a ribbon, and so on so that each participant leaves with an item that's representative of their score [the contest is for children and teens and was started in the 1920s to promote music in our schools; every school also competes with their school bands and receive similar scores, but only the ranking of I earns prize money]; another contest is kinda similar to Eurovision in that the rankings are then turned into points, except that the point system is different with 1-100 points assigned and another mixes the two systems where by 1-25 is a IV, 26-50 is III, 51-75 is II, and 76-100 is I; and then another contest we have is a judge's panel ranking them as well as a device that supposedly determines the volume of the sound of the applause by the crowd and so the rankings and the volume number are somehow calculated together to determine a winner though honestly I'm still confused about how that all works and considering that every participant gets some sort of prize, from a small sum of money to donated items from local businesses, it's not really important who wins).

ok but like I genuinely love this video

Good work. I hate juries because most did not follow criteria and also did not vote independently from other jurors in many countries. If they keep juries each juror should show score on each of 4 criteria and in a few words explain the reason for top choices. Limit televote for a song to 3 or 5 should be a must. 20 votes for one entry is not fair to others and gives wrong results.

This is spot on! Re: the jury vote, if they were to release the show after, this may help people to see why votes can be different. I've heard performers admit they did better in one the other. It may not change a lot of minds, but could add a layer of transparency.

Amazing video and analysis! EBU is missing a talent. Keep up the good work bro!

oh god, i get a lot pf pleasure, watching your video. perfect production, interesting content, handsome guy - that's a set for great video!

Thanks for making a high quality video with an even more high quality explanation! Answering the question about how to solve the problem of the running order, why not drawing them in not 2 but in 4 or 6 parts? They would have the chance to make a “light” show without having the opportunity to benefit the most popular ones. Do you think this could work?

I prefer how Junior Eurovision does televote: Anyone around the world can vote, with 3-5 countries getting your vote. I personally don’t like how Eurovision does it where each country gives points (and now Rest of the World) like the jury does.

For me the problem on what happened this year was that it's a televote semi only. No explanation needed, bring back juries in semi!

wow what a great video! really appreciate your use of data, and historical context to give the results more color -- the section about "what % weighting would've been needed for the public vote winners to win overall" was such a simple and effective demonstration 😄 also shoutout to your super polished graphics and presentation; can tell that a fair bit of work went into it

Good video❤

16:40 Hey I love Sameach 😂 You earned a new follower tho.

You’ve said it all in a perfect way. So now I don’t have to make my video! Just an small add. In 2006 the quite ridicolous song We Are The Winners got 6th place, while the beautiful song Alvedansen got 14th.

Before the video comes out: I think the main issue with Eurovision and the imbalance between jury and Tele votes has been there for years. 2022 people said was due to the Tele votes and now people are anrgy about the Jury votes this year. We need both of them together and the imbalance is just yearly, either it's the Televotes or it's the jury votes that sway the winner. I think this year wasn't too bad, the winner got 1st in jury and 2nd in Tele which is better than some winners in the last decade. Also Eurovision will always remain political and it's a shame that it has to be that way, but political voting will happen and that's why Greece and Cyprus vote for eachother in the juries. The TV vote is mostly a Mish mash of people wanting something that's typical eurovision craziness along with great vocals. Whilst the jury has different criteria such as vocals, staging and look for different things to us normal people that's why votes are mostly different for the placement as shown by 2023.

to me, it's not about the "how", but about the "why". songs like Spain 2023 or France 2022 could still do well if either jurors or televoters appreciate them more. the only issues I find here are the subjectivities of both the jurors and the televoters. *the current 50/50 system should always remain; only the composition and the voting method by the juries should be adjusted. my idea is to reimplement the rule of jury composition last used in 1996 (one year before the first ever televoting in 1997): each country's panel consisted of sixteen people, required to be split evenly based on gender (men and women), background (public and music professionals) and age (under 30 and over 30); this is different from the current composition implemented since 2009 (only five people in the panel instead of sixteen). *with the sixteen-people panel, there will also be another possibility to spilt the panel into two: "professional" panel and "demoscopic" panel (remember Sanremo? or Benidorm Fest?), making it look like it is 50/50 but it is actually 75/25 (25% professional panel, 25% demoscopic panel, 50% televote). the combined ranking from the professional and the demoscopic forms one overall "panel" ranking, which covers 50% of the voting and is still announced by each country's spokesperson. *about the voting method by the juries, each member of the panel should vote secretly (different from the current method that all the jury members gather together in one room), and then the votes of each member are collected and tallied by the non-voting jury chairperson to determine the points to be awarded. in any cases where at least two songs in the top ten receive the same number of votes, a show of hands by all members of the jury panel is used to determine the final placement.

9:08 Bulgarian jury did Portugal dirty, voting "strategically."

Great video! I think we definitely need juries (based on 2000s at least.....🙃) and 50/50 system is fair. But I think the big outrage this year is not just because of juries as a whole, but mostly because the juries always somehow vote in favour of a particular country - Sweden (and sometimes in smaller portions Malta and some others). Sweden has been lower than 3rd place only 2 times since 2012!!!!! (and those 2 times they managed to get 9th and 17th place with the juries) and that means Sweden was not lower than 3rd place 9 times in 11 years! - 3RD PLACE! 3rd place 9 years in a spam of 11 years when 37-43 countries participate is a bit... odd. Let's take their televote places in those years, nothing would be weird except they only finished 2 times higher w televote than juries in those 11 years (in 2016 and 2021). Even Euphoria in 2012 barely took 1st with televote, Loreen was better than Russian grannies by like 10 points in televote. Not only that but the televote often disagrees with juries when it comes to Sweden, especially putting them much lower in 2013, 2017, 2018!!, 2019. They still got respectable televote scores in other years, mostly around 3rd-5th place (still much less than jury points they've been given). And why is this important? Well because juries are always somewhere between 150 and 200 people, while there are millions and million of televoters every year. Is it possible that for mostly mainstream pop music 200 juries are right and not millions and millions of televoters? So how is it that the juries (almost) always place Swedish songs so incredibly high? (Most of those songs are pure mainstream pop) And this is exactly why I think the outrage happened this year, even with the locals watching. They've seen the incredible score for Sweden given by juries (and locals who follow year by year Eurovision already know how Sweden does really really well with the juries) and in the end no matter how much the Finland's televote score was gonna be it was never enough for it to win. (technically we know how much of a televote score would be enough but it's purely incredible how much of a high score he even got - not counting Ukraine last year!). Now, the juries might even not be biased towards Sweden (or maybe they are, they always see Sweden as 'a safe option to vote for' because they send polished pop music), but I've watched a couple of video people explaining data from the jury background this year, there was over 50% of POP JURY PROFESSIONALS voting, and the number of pop songs this year was much less, around 35%. Why and how is that fair? Also. There's a big debate, on which basis the difference between Queen Of Kings and Tattoo is almost 300 points? In my opinion, there should be some jury difference, Tattoo has a better and more interesting performance, Loreen is much experienced singer etc, but in the end they are both good pop songs. How is the difference almost 300 points? That difference just doesn't make any sense. I'm totally up for jury reform: -bigger number of juries by country (10-20) -all of them are watching and doing their thing by being separate (without anyone pressuring other, or influencing) -more variety in juries backgrounds, we need rock professionals, classical professionals, rap professionals, professors in musical academies... Music is not only mainstream pop music. And we've seen the variety recently in Eurovision as well -they need to be 100% objective, without taking their personal preference of a music genre into count. We're all people and we love different things, but what makes you a jury and not a televoter is that your votes need to be OBJECTIVE. -the criteria should enlarge somehow the song, the music, and care less about the performance. The performance is important, but only to compliment the song, not the other way around. I know this is a TV show and we all want incredible performances for every song, but it is still Eurovision SONG Contest. Sorry for this comment being so big I just had to get off my chest a few things, love watching your videos!!

Okay so it happened again so here’s an interesting change yes give the public more power I’m not sure how much I’ll have to work it out but no change to the jury we still go through county by county and they award 12, 10 and 8-7 points. The public score at least half of the songs with 15 points to the favourite from each county 13 points to the second favourite and 11-1 for the rest or something like that the publics favourite would get more points from each county and they would also be awarding points to half of the entries in every final (this would not need to be implemented in the semi finals as it is already 100% public vote). I’d be welcome to here what people think of my suggestion. Also they could look at adding 5 fans on each jury maybe get some ogae members or people who have bought tickets in the past 5 years or so being contacted and asked if they’d like to be on their national jury same rules apply once they have served they can’t take that seat for 3 years or maybe 5 years for “fan jury” members. All in all 5 jury members would be music industry professionals hand picked by the broadcaster and 5 would be fans of the contest who are members of official fan groups or people who have attended any one of the 9 shows in Eurovision over the past 5 years any esc fan in Europe from a participating country has the chance to be called upon. I’m not sure how people feel about that but it may be a good way to save Eurovision and give true fans more power it is inevitable that jury’s favour would win sometimes but if jury’s are made up 50% of fans then the jury favour may also just be the fan favourite even if other casual viewers disagree. Either way tattoo or the code from this year would not have won if the public didn’t vote for them let’s look at 2018 when the two jury favourites were Austria and Sweden who came 13th and 23rd respectively with the public. Those two songs could have won if the public ranked them higher (like top 5). The reverse happened the year later with Norway they could have won if the jury’s put them Higher but no one complains match about that people didn’t think Norway would win so it hurt less with cha cha cha and rim Tim taga Tim they were close very close but still did worse with the jury’s than their overall placing both came second and with the jury’s finished 4 and 3rd respectively so when you look at the overall result the jury’s were still overruled but just not as much as fans would of liked. So anyway that’s my detailed analysis what I think needs to change or what I’d like rather and why I think people will react the way they do. My favourite this year was Norway and they came last so I’m not gunna cry we have a good winner this year and they deserved it and I’ll stop talking now sorry 😂

if they will remove jury voting will the future results be weird..

You know, I often wondered when this fandom‘s obsessive hate towards Sweden began since I’ve been part of this since 2016, and I wonder if that was rooted in the 2015 results were Sweden was the jury winner that won the contest, overall, but it didn’t win the Televote.

Brilliant and fair analysis 👍 Some observations: 2017 isnt perhaps a direct comparator because the public overwhelmingly agreed with to the jury. Sweden’s music industry spreads far and wide, which, along with Loreens reputation this year, may give them a ‘leg up’ in terms of jury score. To be fair, Sweden did much better in the televote this year, so 👏 to them. I agree juries have upped the quality, however not only televoters vastly out number them, they also pay for the privilege of voting. However, i agree with you that the solution is to make the juries (slightly) bigger and more diverse 😉👍

Excellent information and incredible research to get all that data. I take on board all the suggestions on possible changes. However let's not lose sight of the fact that the best song won. All this toxic vibes towards Sweden is rather pathetic and juvenile. Here in the Uk, three songs charted in the top 10. Norway, Sweden and the UK. After a couple of weeks only Sweden remained in the top 10. The other two dropped out of the top 50. Furthermore Loreen charted the highest at 2. So certainly in the UK, the public definitely preferred Sweden. To add evidence of this I did a sample in my office. Out of 25 people 18 thought Sweden was the best and 5 preferred Finland. 2 people thought Eurovision is a joke and liked neither. Cream always rises to the top so irrespective of the voting structure, invariably the best song wins.

The 2000s bit i litterally used in my discussions. Im like fine with 1 finland. Not 30 of em

I think another consideration is about how televotes are cast. Currently there is a financial barrier to casting votes. And in many countries, the votes aren't the cheapest. This can be the difference between a watch party of 10 casting 10 votes together and a watch party of 3 voting 20 times each.

This video was an outstanding analysis, you must have put significant effort into creating this video! My idea is what if the Eurovision song contest had two winners? One televote winner and one Jury winner? What do you think of that idea?

Bro, the 17:24 where the guy from Azerbaijan sings is national music that is secured by UNESCO, and if you just do research a bit you can see that most people think that it got less than what it deserved. The same applies for different countries as well, the "ridiculous" songs you mentioned are what makes Eurovision that epic. Finland in 2006, Ukraine in 2007, Russia in 2012 and 2016. The rest of your comments I mostly agree, this was the one that disagreed most. Otherwise, every year a ballad should have won because of pure voice and maybe a good minimalist staging.

as long juries have lot of power, Sweden will always get top 5 places, they can even send crap song, they will be top 5.

The UMK 2020 is a tricky smelly case because they let open the phone lines even 10 minutes more after the jury votes concluded.

Could you explain the 75/25 split in more detail? I'm struggling to understand how the Finnish system works :(

Excellent explanation. But, are you forgetting that the countries have a draw to determine which half are they going to perform? And the host country gets the running order position before?. Also, giving points to 15 countries is unlikely. No matter how many countries would receive points, there will always be big differences of scores and angry people. In addition to that, I gotta say that people still think performing in second half is better, but these last editions have had winners in the first half. Winners positions of last 10 editions: 18 - 11 - 10 - 21 - 11 - 22 - 12 - 24 - 12 - 9. So, first half wins 6 by 4. Also, televoters shouldn't vote so many times for the same song, it would be nice for televoters to vote as juries, that is, from 12 to 1 as if they were a country.

They should just pull from their pool of previous Eurovision representatives for a larger jury. Nobody is more qualified to judge eurovision entries than someone who literally participated themselves. Also helps that they usually arent old farts and have a background in music as well.

Honestly, I feel like the people who want there to be no juries at all are just blinded by the nostalgia of how excellent Lordi's 06 performance was, and how commentators mocked it at the time thinking it could never win, and the devloped this mentality of Jurors being a "them vs us" tribalism. Meanwhile, they forget about the fact that for many years people saw Eurovision as a complete joke, and that the song was less important than the spectacle, like you said. And I'd argue that its reputation has practically never recovered from that, as people still see it as this chance to laugh at how weird Europe can be. Not to mention, sometimes politics got way too involved. The fact that for the longest time people voted (and some still do) for countries that are allies rather than based on performances was always an issue, and sometimes politics just bleeds into it (Jemini's performance in 2003 ended up like ass, yes, but I doubt it would end up a nul votes performance if it wasn't for the fact Britain supported the war in Iraq). The only real solution is to ensure Jurors are of the best quality and address some of the little details like you said.

ummm, some of us want no change whatsoever!

27:55 i do not beleve that this would be able to happen. The songs are set in an order bc of retention. If all the “good” songs were first, people would get tired of only hearing “bad” songs when it was closer to the end. And vice versa.

Funny watching this after Umk 2024 where the winner was dead last in the juries 😅

Most of examples from 2000s didn't do any good in that system either. Jury system right now sucks

P.S.: Blaming the jury for the bad placements of songs that did very poorly with televote, is the most stupid and ridiculous thing an eurofan can say.

I want whatever gives my fav a better result lmfao

You're missing the point - i dont think it's unreasonable to question juries composed mostly of pop music and tv people - voting overwelmingly for a ruddy pop song produced by a very influencial country in the pop industry by a record breaking jury vote. To use Sobral as an example - Portugal isn't Sweden and its results over the years have varied.

We need to keep the juries they appreciate real music and voice , ballad songs , small or western or early running order , I wouldn't mind if we go 2015 system where every song is voted , but not tele and jury combined , we need to add more juries per country

People are just mad as always. Give it a few more years and they’ll be mad about something else -_-

They should make it so you can only give 5 votes per song and that you have to give all your 20 votes so people dont just give their 5 votes to their fav and not the rest. This would incentivice people to actually rank their favorite songs in order instead of just giving all your votes to your favorite.

How about 1 point for the song that comes 26th and 26 for the one that comes first for juries and televote seperately?

Congratulations slander Sylvia Night will find out where you live Stuart shes crazy

17:48 this is called Mugham and Azerbaijan musical culture ornament just like Flamenco belongs Spain. Please respect Azerbaijan

How much get paid€€€€?

A lot of it, I think, is that Loreen was polarising. A lot of people love her, a lot of people can't stand her. Duncan Lawrence and Salvador Sobral were well-liked by the public. Even if they were helped by the jury vote, their victories had few critics. Because Loreen has so many detractors, her victory rankled many people.

It’s really simple (on paper at least). Keep it at 50/50 and improve the jury diversity. That 60/40 nonsense defeats the purpose of juries and merely bandages the issues with the current jury selection. Removing them completely is a no. But please for the lord’s sake, stop rewarding generic ballads like Bridges.

I'm boycotting all Loreal items😊 and an abba but not a sill, only the band.

Still very devastated that Käärijä didn't win. But he is pretty much the most loved Eurovison act/personality ever in entire Eurovision history and he landslided the public votes in both, UMK and ESC. That's a win alone to me and everyone who voted for him. It's better to landslide the public voting than jury voting if you have to choose between those two 😊💚