Eurovision song contest...what do you do to avoid it?

[SS4]

Should the BBC not stump up the EBU money then how much would they have to spend to fill 3.75 hours of TV on a Saturday night?

The BBC will never be able to show enough programming to cater to all the licence payers - I for one would like to see them stop spending money on Eastenders which, to me, is a screeching competition Fr Noel Furlong would be proud of.

Can't the exact amount be requested as an FOI?

 

[radamfi]

Can't the exact amount be requested as an FOI?

Apparently that information is excluded from the FOI Act. However

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...95282/attach/4/RFI20120570 final response.pdf

says it was £310,000 for the 2012 contest, which they claim is "extremely cost effective".

Please note that the information you have requested about the cost to the BBC to enter the Eurovision Song Contest is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by
the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature” 1. The BBC is not required by the Act to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that
supports and is closely associated with these creative activities; however, on this occasion we’re happy to provide the below information in response to your request.

The BBC paid £310,000 for the entry into the Eurovision Song Contest in 2012. It is worth noting that as other broadcasters contribute to the Eurovision Song Contest the BBC is able to deliver a massive, live spectacle for a small fraction of the overall cost. The contest provides BBC viewers with over seven hours of programming across BBC One and BBC Three, making it extremely cost effective for a prime time entertainment programme.

 

[furnessvale]

Apparently that information is excluded from the FOI Act. However

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...95282/attach/4/RFI20120570 final response.pdf

says it was £310,000 for the 2012 contest, which they claim is "extremely cost effective".

I don't believe that is the total cost for one second.

£310,000 was probably the appearance money for the "talent".

 

[radamfi]

I don't believe that is the total cost for one second.

£310,000 was probably the appearance money for the "talent".

Yes, that's the entrance fee. There would be costs in paying people at the venue and other admin costs but the main production costs would be incurred by the host broadcaster. Which is why Ireland were worried about being able to afford the hosting when they kept winning in the 90s and the BBC offered to co-host it in Belfast. I've just been reading Digital Spy and a few people have said that it is cheaper than making an episode of Casualty. So showing Eurovision means they can make one fewer episode.

 

[anme]

I don't believe that is the total cost for one second.

£310,000 was probably the appearance money for the "talent".

Why not?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't believe that is the total cost for one second.

£310,000 was probably the appearance money for the "talent".

"When the facts don't add up to my preconceived opinion, the facts are wrong."

 

[miami]

Australia is about 750 mi from Europe, and the shortest line between two points in Europe may well cross Austrailia (it's certainly with 100 miles, and a line from Israel to Europe passes over Austrailia)

There's always been the public vote, but it used to be mixed in with the jury one.

No, the public vote is relatively new (in the last 20 years or so).

P.S. Eurovision is probably the cheapest TV the BBC puts out on a Saturday night, pulling in far more viewers than Doctor Who, at half the price.

 

[anme]

Australia is about 750 mi from Europe, and the shortest line between two points in Europe may well cross Austrailia (it's certainly with 100 miles, and a line from Israel to Europe passes over Austrailia)

I think my map is broken.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think my map is broken.

I was thinking the very same thing.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

given that the earth is round, it's certainly possible to draw a (straight *) line from israel to europe that passes over australia. However, it won't be the shortest line you could draw between israel and europe.

(*) because it is round, no line drawn on the surface of the earth is actually straight. The saying "as the crow flies" expresses what we actually mean.

If I draw a line that is one cm in length, I think that qualifies as being straight

Therefore, your argument is invalid

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I honestly don't think it matters. And I'm sure the Eurovision organizers have received a healthy financial contribution from Australia's entry into the competition and the sale of broadcast rights over there, which will no doubt lower the cost to the British licence fee payer which you seem rather concerned about.

Does this confirm the fact that the New Zealand viewing public have far more taste than their Australian counterparts?

 

[anme]

If I draw a line that is one cm in length, I think that qualifies as being straight

Therefore, your argument is invalid

No, the earth is curved, so any line drawn on its surface is curved regardless of its length (assuming we ignore the fact that the surface has bumps in it which if they were *precisely* of the right shape would allow you to draw a straight line).

I deleted that post as other parts of it were wrong.

 

[DarloRich]

Eurovision song contest...what do you do to avoid it.

I don't own a television

 

[furnessvale]

"When the facts don't add up to my preconceived opinion, the facts are wrong."

So you really believe that the total costs to the BBC of the Eurovision song contest in that year were £310,000?

And YOU accuse other of being delusional.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you really believe that the total costs to the BBC of the Eurovision song contest in that year were £310,000?

And YOU accuse other of being delusional.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was otherwise? No. You just don't like the fact that your assumption was wrong.

 

[furnessvale]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was otherwise? No. You just don't like the fact that your assumption was wrong.

"Evidence" is hard to gather when the BBC refuse to disclose it (I wonder why?)

However, if you believe for a second that the full cost to the BBC of such a production, including wages and "talent" fees can be anywhere near £310,000.................

 

[TheKnightWho]

"Evidence" is hard to gather when the BBC refuse to disclose it (I wonder why?)

However, if you believe for a second that the full cost to the BBC of such a production, including wages and "talent" fees can be anywhere near £310,000.................

So in other words you have no evidence. The BBC were perfectly happy to disclose it, but you just reject it because it doesn't support your point of view. I'd advise you to look up the terms 'confirmation bias' and 'cognitive dissonance'.

To be honest, making things up to suit your own preconceptions seems to be something you're keen on going by things you've said on this forum. I'm really not surprised that you just reject things that you don't like.

And if you want a reason it's so cheap, look up 'economies of scale'. Working together collaboratively makes things cheaper for each individual member - it's the same reason why the EU produces more money than is put into it, but then again I'm sure you won't believe me

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

Australia were invited because Eurovision is extremely popular over there. I really don't see why you've taken umbrage to it.

It very much has a cult following over here. It's not on any of the big channels but on the special interest/International programming government channel SBS.

I honestly don't think it matters. And I'm sure the Eurovision organizers have received a healthy financial contribution from Australia's entry into the competition and the sale of broadcast rights over there, which will no doubt lower the cost to the British licence fee payer which you seem rather concerned about.

Intrestingly enough SBS have bought the rights to expand Eurovision in our part of the world:
http://www.sbs.com.au/programs/euro...-develop-eurovision-song-contest-concept-asia

 

[miami]

"Evidence" is hard to gather when the BBC refuse to disclose it (I wonder why?)

However, if you believe for a second that the full cost to the BBC of such a production, including wages and "talent" fees can be anywhere near £310,000.................

The BBC said it didn't have to answer, but it was going to anyway.

Assuming that £310k doesn't include the program budget (the question didn't ask about the program budget, and I'm sure that you wouldn't believe their answer even if they did give it), there's about a dozen people working on the program (they were named at the end), so say a rate of £500 per day over 8 days, plus hotels/food/plan expenses of about £1200 each and you're looking at under £70k. Add £20k tops for equipment. That's for the final and the two semifinals, and assuming 8 days on site - and some of them working will be in London.

The cost of "talent" - namely Norton and Bruce, but also that pair from the semis, will be hard to separate from their other shows, and certainly isn't an incremental cost. Ken Bruce will certainly be on under £200k, so even 1 week of his time would be £4k (and he was doing his show anyway). Graham Norton's contract is apparently on £4m for 3 years, or £25k a week.

Add that £120k budget to £310k membership cost and you're looking at 3 hours of BBC1 on a Saturday night for under £500k, or nearer £150k an hour - with 7-9 million viewers. Compare this with Doctor Who or Sherlock, which will cost well over £1m for a 45 minute program (typical 45 minute US shows cost $2-5m per episode).

These figures are most likely over-estimated in the eurovision case, and under-estimated with the dramas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for the Austrailia question, this map from gcmap.com shows a line from France to Cyprus passing 90 miles off Austrailia.

 

[furnessvale]

So in other words you have no evidence. The BBC were perfectly happy to disclose it, but you just reject it because it doesn't support your point of view. I'd advise you to look up the terms 'confirmation bias' and 'cognitive dissonance'.

To be honest, making things up to suit your own preconceptions seems to be something you're keen on going by things you've said on this forum. I'm really not surprised that you just reject things that you don't like.

And if you want a reason it's so cheap, look up 'economies of scale'. Working together collaboratively makes things cheaper for each individual member - it's the same reason why the EU produces more money than is put into it, but then again I'm sure you won't believe me

On that we can agree.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As for the Austrailia question, this map from gcmap.com shows a line from France to Cyprus passing 90 miles off Austrailia.

When I last flew from London to Rome I remember seeing small villages in the Swiss Alps but never once those areas of Indonesia.

 

[Tetchytyke]

"Evidence" is hard to gather when the BBC refuse to disclose it (I wonder why?)

The same reason why Sky will tell you to do one if you start asking commercially confidential information.

However, if you believe for a second that the full cost to the BBC of such a production, including wages and "talent" fees can be anywhere near
£310,000.................

They asked for the entrance fee, and were told the fee, which is £310,000.

Most of the production cost is borne by the host broadcaster, and most of the production staff for the BBC remained in London. Talent fees are more difficult to pin down, but bear in mind most of them are paid on retainer rather than per episode.

You're probably looking at about £500,000 for the week, in which you get four hours primetime entertainment on Saturday as well as four hours of entertainment during the week.

By comparison, a single episode of Casualty costs around £700,000.

 

[backontrack]

And in perhaps possibly the biggest shock of the evening, Paul 'will-make-a-post-to-complain-about-a-slight-misspelling' Sidorczuk has made a glaring error in the title - unless of course we now are part of the Furopean union!

Even now there still isn't a question mark in the thread title, but a full stop!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even now there still isn't a question mark in the thread title, but a full stop!

Not only in the thread title, but also in the body text of the posting, but both of those two matters are now amended.

 

[TheKnightWho]

On that we can agree.

Hardly convincing us that your opinions are based in much reality then.

 

[miami]

When I last flew from London to Rome I remember seeing small villages in the Swiss Alps but never once those areas of Indonesia.

Neither London, nor Rome, are in France or Cyprus.

 

[anme]

Neither London, nor Rome, are in France or Cyprus.

We could debate whether New Caledonia is in France. It is ruled by France. I believe it sends MPs to the French parliament and it has even voted against independence from France. But "part" of France... Politically to some degree, geographically certainly not.

But to stay on topic, let's not stray too far from the fact that there seems to be no logical reason why Australia should not have been invited to take part in the Eurovision song contest.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We could debate whether New Caledonia is in France. It is ruled by France. I believe it sends MPs to the French parliament and it has even voted against independence from France. But "part" of France... Politically to some degree, geographically certainly not.

But to stay on topic, let's not stray too far from the fact that there seems to be no logical reason why Australia should not have been invited to take part in the Eurovision song contest.

Why have no countries from the North and South American continents ever been invited to participate, staying with the matter of Australia?

When you say "in France" you normally refer to the geographical borders of that country and using your mention of New Caledonia, I would also say the same would apply to Britain, which would discount the South Shetland Isles and the Falkland Islands being said to be "in Britain"

 

[radamfi]

Why have no countries from the North and South American continents ever been invited to participate, staying with the matter of Australia?

When you say "in France" you normally refer to the geographical borders of that country and using your mention of New Caledonia, I would also say the same would apply to Britain, which would discount the South Shetland Isles and the Falkland Islands being said to be "in Britain"

Eurovision is very popular in Australia, which is why they were invited to compete last year as a one-off for the 60th year. I don't believe Eurovision has much of a following in any other area outside of Europe.

France has five "overseas departments" which are officially just as much as part of France as Paris. The part of France in Europe is known as "Metropolitan France". New Caledonia is more autonomous, but probably less autonomous than the Falkland Islands. There is also a part of the Netherlands that is in the Carribean after the break-up of the Netherlands Antilles.

 

[SS4]

I don't see the need to consider the départements sur la mer of France.

Anyone who wants in should be able to join with the caveat that the competition should always be hosted in Europe. If Australians want to get up at 5am that's their choice.

Honestly, I believe there are bigger fish for the ESC to fry:

• the bloc voting system of both public and jury voting
• the new voting system is a step forward but it's
• Politics (don't try and tell me Ukraine's song was not political)
• The genericness of all the songs these days