The Final Running Order

In no other year has the running order been so controversial in the contest. Many years before this I can remember running upstairs after any semi-final to see the press conference to see what slots are drawn. However according to the EBU there was no need for me to do this as "the running order has no statistical impact on the outcome of the contest". TM EBU.

This years running order will of course be controversial but here it is:

1. France
2. Lithuania
3. Moldova
4. Finland
5. Spain
6. Belgium
7. Estonia
8. Belarus
9. Malta
10. Russia
11. Germany
12. Armenia
13. Netherlands
14. Romania
15. UK
16. Sweden
17. Hungary
18. Denmark
19. Iceland
20. Azerbaijan
21. Greece
22. Ukraine
23. Italy
24. Norway
25. Georgia
26. Ireland

It is of coursesurprising that SVT, who drew up this running order to be approved by the EBU, didn't place Denmark last. Though it is clear that Sweden do not really want to host the contest again, I think they would be very happy to deliver a win for Denmark. At this point I think it is fairly clear that Denmark is the favourite and I do expect the Danes to win the contest for the third time. The only question left in my opinion is will they be able to break 360 points and become the best Eurovision winner of all time.

Ireland should also be really pleased with being able to close the contest.

More analysis of the draw to follow in the morning.

Semi-Final Draw, Finland First Semi-Final and A Theme

I was going to write up a post on today's semi-final draw but ESCInsight has pretty much said everything I was going to say. So I strongly recommend that as a piece. From an Irish prespective I'm prett happy the the draw and think that we have a reasonable hope of making it through to the final, though how we will get on in their remains to be seen.

Elsewhere in Finland Mikarl Saari and Diandra both made it to the final of UMK. I like Mikael's song but I am not a huge fan of Diandra's.

Finally the theme of Eurovision "We Are One" was revealed today. Personally I do like it and feel that this is probably something the contest should be attempting to promote at this point of European history.

Running Order Shock Reaction

There has been quite a lot of mixed reaction to today's announcement by the EBU about the running order being decided by the producers. So naturally I would like to add something to the debate:

Those who may have seen Ewan Spence's recent discussion about how Eurovision is very different from reality TV may have noticed that he concluded that the contest probably better reflects real life. It is fair and unbiased, unlike reality TV shows. The contest is organised so as to minimise the variables which may affect the outcome of the contest. Ewan also notes the importance of using random selections where certain elements of the contest may affect its outcome. I wonder did he understand what was around the bend.While some very influential Eurovision fans have stated that this represents a logical shift to make the contest more exciting, there has been widespread criticism of today's decision throughout the fan community. This is very understandable and should not simply be dismissed as ludicrous by those who welcome today's announcement.

Personally I cannot find a logical reason to oppose this. The running order draw has its limitations but on the other hand the running order can prove highly influential not just at Eurovision, but in many TV music competitions. The most obvious place where it is to be found is in Melodifestivalen, which despite its similarities to the Eurovision Song Contest can be considered a much more producer controlled show. There have been attempts to use the running order to the advantage of certain contestants.

However Eurovision is a very different scene. While in shows like the X-Factor contestants are bound by a legal contract to pretty much obey the show producers, Eurovision is simply not like that. Many contestants are supported by massive delegations who can ensure that every contestant is fairly treated. Like any major Eurovision decision the outcome of the rule change is likely to be difficult to understand until it is seen in practice. One major thought that pops into my head though is will the running order always be accepted? Is there any chance that a country might disagree with the producers? Maybe.

I strongly suspect that there is little reason to worry about this. This system has been seen at JESC since 2003. It could do a lot of good. However for many fans and this includes me, this move represents a change in the contest that hands power over to the producers of the show. This is not a trend that I can strongly support as it does mean a move towards a contest that resembles reality TV. You can call me a Tea Party Eurovision fan but that's just me. However for the moment I will accept Siste Bakker's point that there is little reason to suggest that the producers will be baised, unlike X-Factor, they have no stake in who the ultimate winner is.

Running Order: Winners, Losers and Everything In Between

So this morning we had a slightly delayed draw for the running order having previously been sorted into their semi-finals in January. However while the first draw is useful now that we know all the songs, today's draw allows for much deeper analysis. Before we begin our analysis is based on our running order research.

In the final the only important story was the UK getting the first slot. This is broadly not a good thing but if there was a lot of up tempo songs after it it might have a fair shot at the top 10. Italy won't be over happy with their draw given that they are serious contenders. Like last year though we really can't judge the final without knowing all the songs so we move to the semi-finals.

So in semi-final 1 we have..

1. Montenegro - Really no one seems to have a clue how this will do but it is in a slot that rarely gathers enough to qualify.
2. Iceland - Not a good draw for Jonsi and Greta. Second is not as bad a place as in the final. 
3. Greece - recent history suggests that third is one of the worst places to be draw, maybe Greece will change this.
4. Latvia
5. Albania 
6. Romania - a surprisingly good position mathematically, and being sandwiched between two very different songs will help.
7. Switzerland
8. Belgium 
9. Finland - Logical wildcard choice, but not helped by having Belgium just before.
10. Israel
11. San Marino 
12. Cyprus - 12 is a great placing, statistically the third highest average score in a semi-final.
13. Denmark - Nicely sandwiched between Cyprus and Russia.
14. Russia
15. Hungary
16. Austria 
17. Moldova
18. Ireland - Great placing for Ireland, the average score for the last placed song in a semi-final since 2008 was around 105 points. Being after Moldova also should help Ireland's chances.

Semi Final 2

1. Serbia - Not a great draw for them, as there are many other Balkan ballads in this semi-final.
2. FYR Macedonia
3. Netherlands - Bad draw for them really.
4. Malta 
5. Belarus 
6. Portugal 
7. Ukraine - Wildcard, nice enough slot.
8. Bulgaria
9. Slovenia
10. Croatia
11. Sweden - I don't think the running order will impact this song.
12. Georgia
13. Turkey
14. Estonia
15. Slovakia
16. Norway - Well positioned overall and nicely between a rock song and piano ballad. Great draw for them
17. Bosnia and Herzegovia
18. Lithuania - Not sure if this is a strong closer. Might be the second song not to qualify from last place.
19. 
    

A Pretty Good Draw For Ireland

Today the semi-final draw took place in Baku. In my view this draw is not overly important in the grand scheme of things. Therefore I won't go on and on. You can see the results here.

Overall this has been a relatively good draw for Ireland. We are in the second half of the smaller semi. However we are missing some of our key supporters such as UK, Sweden, Norway, Malta. On the other hand we do have countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Latvia and The Netherlands on our side.

In semi-final 1 Romania, Russia, Denmark, Greece and to a lesser extent Israel, would all have very good prospects of reaching the Final. However it is notable that while many countries have some of their closest neighbours in with them as you look at the draw for longer you see that there will be quite a lot of points floating around without any real place to go.

In semi-final 2 There are quite a lot of countries with a history of qualifying and I think this could like last year's intense first semi-final. The high number of Balkan countries could lead to some very interesting results and I think that despite what people think by the time jury votes are taken into account we will see very surprising results from semi 2. Ukraine, Sweden, Turkey and Georgia should comfortably make it over the line.

Our 100th Post

As Italy confirms it will be in Baku we mark our 100th post after about seven months online.

We'd like to use this opportunity to thank everyone for supporting us through these months and look forward to important months ahead.

I include a photo of the editors desk in the head office of The Best Eurovision Blog for your enjoyment.

I'd like to say that everything there is to do with the blog but only the computer in the right hand is. (Oh and there's a copy of The History of the Eurovision Song Contest in locker.)
Anyone else want to share the photo of where they write a blog from?

Anyway to celebrate we include links to our most popular posts:
Why Ireland needs Jedward for Eurovision!?
A book review of ESCInsights Junior Eurovision Book.
Review of the Cypriot National Final

.....and the post I am most proud of
The importance of the running order at Eurovision: A research paper.

Running Order Research Paper

Today we take a break from Eurovision song reviews and present a short research paper. This is the first research paper we have produced here at The Best Eurovision Blog. It is short – because I don’t have the time to research heavily on the contest. And I don’t think the average reader really wants to read a thesis. I know there are some who would just love if I did this but you can go and do your own research. This research is not meant to be especially academic; however it is from that place in the world of Fandom that is somewhere between over knowledgeable fan and academic.

Introduction

The focus of this piece is to discuss the results of research carried out by me on the importance of the running order in The Eurovision Song Contest 2006-2011. This piece is split into two parts; the first part discusses the importance and trends in the running order in contests that have less than 20 songs, specifically the importance of the running order in relation to the Semi-Finals 2008-2011. 2008 saw the introduction of a new smaller style of semi-final which no longer takes from the main show itself.

The second part will discuss the recent running order trends in the finals 2006-2011 and the semi-finals 2006 and 2007. These are larger than the other shows and contain 22 songs and up. Given that the EBU reference group has rejected the idea that voting from the start of the show influences the vote that possibility has been disregarded here too.

Unfortunately there is not enough data in existence to actually look at how much the jury voting may affect the results.

Fan Theory

Four slots, above all others are studied strongly by fans. These are the first, second, second last and last slots. It is considered that a song in the second (or death slot) will not do as well as it might in other slots. Many fans point out that no song that sung from the second slot has ever won the competition. In a piece of analysis of the running order by ESCToday in 2009, they believed that the first slot was a poor position to be drawn in and suggested that this in some way was similar to the second slot.

The last slots have often been said to have the opposite effect. The second last slot is often seen as being the strongest slot to be in. Many countries have won the contest from the second last slot. Similarly the last slot is seen to have similar behaviour patterns to the second last slot.

Overall the general consensus is that the later in the running order you are drawn the greater chance you have of winning. This is a logical argument, given that a song performed later in the running order should be fresher in the voters mind. I also remember when I was not a fan per se but I was watching Eurovision, I’d start and decide say, that the fifth song was the best. But then would come song twelve, which would overtake song five and this would be repeated a few times more as the evening progressed. If this is the routine then the songs performing later should have a better chance.

Results I

In order to assess the success of songs in a particular slot the first and last ten songs in both semi-final one and two of each Eurovision Song Contest 2008-2011 were averaged out. This gave us a total of 8 contests to look at. Fans generally accept that the importance of running order does differ in the Semi-Finals; however no one has developed ideas about how this occurs.

We begin by looking at the average results of the first 10 slots

Fig 1 shows the average points awarded to songs performed in slots 1-10 (2008-2011)

As we can see from the graph there is no clear pattern emerging. While the average score is trending upwards there is no real explanation as to why there would be such a difference between songs singing in slots beside each other. The most notable aspect is that the second slot is above the first slot and is sixth out of ten in terms of average score. However when we look at the standard deviation an interesting trend emerges.

Fig 2 shows the standard deviation for the averages above.

For those who do not understand deviation: This shows the average amount the data is from the average. The lower the deviation, the more consistent the results from that slot are in the contest.

Interestingly the three highest scoring slots are 6, 9 and 10 however they also have the lowest deviation which means that they are strong slots. So when the awkward moment occurs at the draw in March that a country has to select a slot in the first part of the semi-final, these are the numbers to go for.

The other point that the results show is that the number two death slot does not exist. In fact it shows that while the slot is not a bad one its score is on average below the average number of points needed to qualify (62 points). However the high deviation would suggest that the results there are very volatile. Only slots 4, 6, 9 and 10 have an average greater than 62 points.

Results II

Part two looks at the average scores for the final 10 ten songs in a semi-final (Smart Maths types out there might point out that there is an overlap with results I here. I understand but this is the easiest way of presenting the results.) The results are shown here in fig 3.

Fig 3 shows the average scores of the last 10 slots

Please note: This graph has to be read right to left i.e. 2 refers to the second last song. 5 refers to the fifth last song.

The most important trend here is the last two slots. Here the graph rises steeply towards the end. This is a trend that emphasises the importance of being drawn in the last two slots. On average these score over 100 points each, with the last slot scoring 4 points more than second last. The number of songs that have won from singing last is also quite remarkable such as Greece in 2008 and 2011 and Turkey in 2010. Only one song has failed to qualify from this slot (Netherlands, 2009). Six slots score more than 62 points; they are the last two, the sixth, seventh and eighth last and the tenth last slot.

Though I have not published the Deviation of the scores, the results are notably more consistent than those in the first half.

Results III

We now turn our attention to the third section to looking at the opening of the longer show (Semi-Finals 2006 and 2007, Finals 2006-2011). This gives 8 longer shows to look at. 

Fig 4 shows the average scores of the first 10 slots in a long show (>20 songs)

This once again shows very little. However it show confirm the number 2 death slot theory, but notice that slot 4 is slightly lower than slot two; however slot 2 also has a much lower deviation to slot 4 (32.5/56.7) - meaning slot 2 has a more consistent low score. Slot 7 does appear to be the strongest however it has a very high deviation compared to the other high placed slots like the first slot. Despite being one of the hardest slots to get out of in the semi-final first does appear to be a strong place in the longer show.

Results IV

Finally we consider the importance of the last ten slots in the longer show or final. These results are summarised on the chart below. 

Fig 5 shows the average scores of the final 10 places in a longer show.

Please note: This graph has to be read right to left i.e. 2 refers to the second last song.

There is clear advantages in the running order can be seen in this graph. In the first ten songs the average did not go above 90 except in one slot. Here only two songs average below 90 points. While there may seem to be advantages to singing from the position of eighth last, when the standard deviation is considered slots 5^th-8^th last are strong enough to reach for a serious position from. Second last is also a very good slot. However this graph, overall, would not suggest that there is a perfect slot. Instead comparing fig 4 with fig 5 would point to an overall trend that the later you sing in the final the better.

Conclusion

Overall we have discussed the ideas around the running order and have highlighted the importance of the running order. However in reality the data would suggest that there is no perfect slot to sing in to win. It takes a good song with a great singer for Europe to fall in love with it. We have proven that where you generally appear in the running order in the final can impact on your scores. The “number two death slot” may exist in the final but in the semi-final this is not visible.

Personally speaking I think the running order ultimately did affected the outcome of last year’s contest, as most strong songs were placed in the first half of the final which we have proven is not as successful as the first. I also believe with the advent of the semi-finals people are more likely to follow a song they voted for in the semi-final in the final and this has diluted the real sting in the running order that existed before the semi-finals were introduced. But there is a clear problem when the winning song has not sung in the first half of the contest since 2004.

Unfortunately there is not enough data in existence to actually look at how much the jury voting may affect the impact of the running order on results. However in 2009 and 2011 three out of the top five placed songs came from the first half of the show. It is logical that, given that the juries should have listened to songs in advance of the contest then the running order should be irrelevant to them.

Future Trends

My guess is that in the future as the juries continue it should allow songs to score better in the first half. However given that public support will be needed to win overall then the winner will generally come from the latter half of the show. I think as time passes and we can assess jury impact on the semi-final in this regard then the running order will become less important in the semi-final but the last two slots will retain their strength.

We hope that you have enjoyed our short research paper. It does take quiet a lot of patience to get the  maths behind this right and then takes time to type up. If we have the time we hope to do another piece on neighbourly voting between Ireland and the UK. The speed at which that happens overall will depend on how it is received so if you liked it share it with other Eurovision fans. Rules on reproduction of pieces on website can be found in the Contact Us! section. Comments, as always, are welcomed.