<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Eurovision Research Network &#187; Commentary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/category/commentary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net</link>
	<description>an association of academics, broadcasters, journalists, and other individuals and organisations with an interest in sharing ideas, dialogue, and resources around the Eurovision Song Contest - online since 2009</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:14:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/2.0.4" -->
	<itunes:summary>an association of academics, broadcasters, journalists, and other individuals and organisations with an interest in sharing ideas, dialogue, and resources around the Eurovision Song Contest - online since 2009</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Eurovision Research Network</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/itunes_default.jpg" />
	<itunes:subtitle>an association of academics, broadcasters, journalists, and other individuals and organisations with an interest in sharing ideas, dialogue, and resources around the Eurovision Song Contest - online since 2009</itunes:subtitle>
	
		<item>
		<title>Commentary on release of Eurovision televote and jury vote details by EBU</title>
		<link>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/28/commentary-on-release-of-eurovision-televote-and-jury-vote-details-by-ebu/</link>
		<comments>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/28/commentary-on-release-of-eurovision-televote-and-jury-vote-details-by-ebu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Kavanagh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oslo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[televoting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/?p=275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The EBU has just released jury vote and televote details for the recent Eurovision Song Contest final and two semi finals, which throw up some interesting findings. These details can be now viewed on the official Eurovision webpage. In this post, I will tease out some of the more interesting trends emerging from a comparison [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The EBU has just released jury vote and televote details for the recent Eurovision Song Contest final and two semi finals, which throw up some interesting findings. These <a href="http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=18893&amp;_t=EBU+reveals+split+voting+outcome%2C+surprising+results"   >details can be now viewed</a> on the official Eurovision webpage. In this post, I will tease out some of the more interesting trends emerging from a comparison of the televote and jury vote patterns.<span id="more-275"></span></p>
<p>The 50-50 televote and jury vote system was used for the second year in a row for the final this year, but was introduced for the first time for the two semi-finals &#8211; previously in 2008 and 2009 the ten qualifiers from the semi finals were allocated on the basis of which countries took the top nine places in the televote with a &#8220;jury wild card&#8221; (i.e. best of remaining countries based on the jury votes) taking the tenth qualifying berth.</p>
<p>For the second year in a row, the country that won the Eurovision Final, Germany, also won the televote and the jury vote, with Germany&#8217;s Lena albeit winning the jury vote by a very narrow margin over Belgium&#8217;s Tom Dice (and his guitar!); Germany winning 187 points in the jury vote just ahead of Belgium&#8217;s 185.  However there were differences between the actual, jury and televote in terms of what countries won in the semi finals. In Semi Final 1 the actual winners, Belgium, also won the jury vote but finished well behind Greece, and also behind Iceland, in the televote. In Semi Final 2 the actual winners, Turkey, failed to win either the televote (won by Azerbaijan&#8217;s Sofia) and the jury vote (won by Georgia&#8217;s Sofia); Turkey finishing 2nd in both of these.</p>
<p>While some Eastern European countries are obviously benefitting from televoting, the geographical divide between East and West in terms of jury votes and televotes was not as obvious as in the 2009 final (as shown by <a href="http://adriankavanagh.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/eurovision09televotevjury.jpg"   >this map for the 2009 contest</a>).</p>
<p>A number of Western European countries, including Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Norway, did significantly better in the televote in 2010 than they did in the jury, as opposed to the 2009 where most Western countries (apart from Norway, Sweden and Spain) did better in the jury vote element of the voting. Germany, Denmark, France and Spain all finished up winning more points in the televote than they won in the jury vote; by contrast Eastern European states such as Georgia, Cyprus, Ukraine, Albania, Bosnia, Moldova and Belarus all ended up winning more votes in the jury vote than in the televote. In 2009 France&#8217;s entry would have earned 164 points from the jury and only 54  points from the televote but the pattern was reversed this year for their more uptempo entry from Jessy Matador, polling well (151 points, placing 8th) in the televote but poorly (34 points, placing 22nd) in the jury vote.  The main conclusion seems to be that differences between jury votes and televotes seem to have more to do with the type of song rather than geography; ballads consistently poll stronger in the jury vote while up-tempo entries are better favoured in the televote. This could also suggest that a greater degree of unpredicatability has become evident in Eurovision voting patterns this year, over and above the changes arising from the changed voting system; alternately it might suggest that the juries&#8217; voting patterns could potentially have been even more geographical than those of the televoters in this year&#8217;s contest.</p>
<p>One interesting aspect is that some countries &#8211; mainly the countries that were winning the most points anyway, with the exception of Georgia - tended to win more points in their combined, final, points than they would have won if their total number of televote and jury votes had been simply averaged out; e.g. Turkey won 170 points in the final, 22 more points than they would have won based on an average of the number of televtotes (177) and jury votes (119) that they won. Gemany&#8217;s combined, final, points tally (246) was actually higher than both the number of televotes (243) and  jury votes (187) won by Lena in the final. It seems as if the stronger countries in a competition are tending to get a &#8220;points bonus&#8221;, along the lines of the &#8220;seat bonus&#8221; won by political parties in different electoral systems, by the <a href="http://www.eurovision.tv/page/oslo2010/voting"   >manner in which the televotes and jury votes of different countries are combined </a>to produce the final votes awarded by those countries.</p>
<p>The table below shows what each of the finalists&#8217; points tallies (and positions) would have been , had their final combined points tallies been calculated as an average of their total number of televotes and jury votes, while also showing how the extent to which their actual points tally differed from  this (positive figure suggests country getting a &#8220;points bonus&#8221;).    </p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="486">
<col span="1" width="30"></col>
<col span="1" width="260"></col>
<col span="1" width="98"></col>
<col span="1" width="98"></col>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="30" height="21"> </td>
<td width="260">Points in Final (avg of tele/jury votes)</td>
<td width="98">Points</td>
<td width="98">Difference</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">1</td>
<td width="260">Germany</td>
<td>215</td>
<td>31</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">2</td>
<td width="260">Romania</td>
<td>161</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">3</td>
<td width="260">Turkey</td>
<td>148</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">4</td>
<td width="260">Denmark</td>
<td>148</td>
<td>2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">5</td>
<td width="260">Georgia</td>
<td>144</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">6</td>
<td width="260">Armenia</td>
<td>141</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">7</td>
<td width="260">Azerbaijan</td>
<td>139</td>
<td>7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">8</td>
<td width="260">Greece</td>
<td>131</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">9</td>
<td width="260">Belgium</td>
<td>131</td>
<td>13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">10</td>
<td width="260">Ukraine</td>
<td>112</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">11</td>
<td width="260">France</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>-11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">12</td>
<td width="260">Russia</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">13</td>
<td width="260">Israel</td>
<td>81</td>
<td>-10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">14</td>
<td width="260">Spain</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>-7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">15</td>
<td width="260">Serbia</td>
<td>74</td>
<td>-2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">16</td>
<td width="260">Albania</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">17</td>
<td width="260">Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">18</td>
<td width="260">Iceland</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>-8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">19</td>
<td width="260">Portugal</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">20</td>
<td width="260">Norway</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>-5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">21</td>
<td width="260">Ireland</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>-14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">22</td>
<td width="260">Cyprus</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>-10</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">23</td>
<td width="260">Moldova</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">24</td>
<td width="260">Belarus</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>-2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="21">25</td>
<td width="260">United Kingdom</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>-3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>As yet, the EBU has only only the total number of jury votes and televotes won per country in the two semi-finals and the final &#8211; it is unclear as to whether individuals country&#8217;s televotes and jury votes will also be released (you may remember that Romania released their jury votes just after the contest, as was discussed in <a href="http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/2010/06/04/release-of-romanian-jury-votes/"   >a previous post</a>), as <a href="http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=3503&amp;_t=Exclusive%3A+Split+jury%2Ftelevoting+results+out%21"   >transpired for the 2009 contest</a>, but hopefully, and to ensure greater transparency on behalf of the organsiers, this will also be the case in 2010.  Such figures would be useful to assess the extent to which the changed voting system has been useful in offsetting the degree of <a href="http://nuimgeography.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/ireland-and-eurovision-where-have-all-the-votes-gone/"   >geographical and diaspora based bloc-voting</a> evident in voting patterns evident in televoting-only contests throughout the the 2000s, or whether the change in the rules is impacting on the voting patterns of some, but not all, countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/28/commentary-on-release-of-eurovision-televote-and-jury-vote-details-by-ebu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Borda-less Eurovision</title>
		<link>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/a-borda-less-eurovision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/a-borda-less-eurovision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 20:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John P Egan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oslo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[televoting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/?p=258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As everyone in the ERN knows Eurovision uses  a Borda count to tabulate scores. Each country allocates points to their 10 favourites. However, rather than allocate 10 points to the first ranked and 9 to the second, first place earns 12 points; 2nd 10 points. The idea is to skew the vote in favour of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As everyone in the ERN knows Eurovision uses  a Borda count to tabulate  scores. Each country allocates points to their 10 favourites. However,  rather than allocate 10 points to the first ranked and 9 to the second,  first place earns 12 points; 2nd 10 points. The idea is to skew the vote  in favour of top-ranked scores&#8230;and to reduce the possibility of tie  scores.</p>
<p>Using the awesome data available from <a href="http://www.myledbury.co.uk/eurovision/"   target="_blank" >here </a>I  yanked the Borda count down to a normal count. Pretty simple really:  convert the 10 point allocations to 9, the 12 point ones to 10.  Doesn&#8217;t  change the results, but does give a clearer idea of how closely the  songs scored.  The italicized songs are the top 10 for each night. <span id="more-258"></span></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve resisted the temptation to calculate <em>z </em>scores though.   <img src='http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p><strong>Semi-final one: (Note the gap between Iceland and Portugal &#8211; 32  points) </strong><br />
<em>Belgium    152<br />
Greece    128<br />
Iceland    118<br />
Portugal    86<br />
Russia    74<br />
Serbia    74<br />
Albania    71<br />
Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina    57<br />
Belarus    57<br />
Moldova    52</em><br />
Finland    48<br />
Poland    44<br />
Malta    43<br />
Estonia    39<br />
F.Y.R. Macedonia    34<br />
Slovakia    24<br />
Latvia    11</p>
<p><strong>Semi-final two: (note how closely Azerbaijan, Romania, Georgia and  Denmark are clustered)</strong><br />
<em>Turkey    111<br />
Azerbaijan    104<br />
Romania    101<br />
Georgia    99<br />
Denmark    96<br />
Armenia    76<br />
Ukraine    75<br />
Israel    69<br />
Ireland    64<br />
Cyprus    64</em><br />
Sweden    57<br />
Lithuania    42<br />
Croatia    31<br />
The Netherlands    29<br />
Bulgaria    19<br />
Slovenia    6<br />
Switzerland    2</p>
<p><strong>Final: (Germany still wins by 6o+ margin; Turkey and Romania much  closer; places 4 through 9 separated by 8 points)</strong><br />
<em>Germany    223<br />
Turkey    159<br />
Romania    156<br />
Denmark    138<br />
Azerbaijan    136<br />
Belgium    135<br />
Armenia    134<br />
Greece    131<br />
Georgia    131<br />
Ukraine    106</em><br />
Russia    83<br />
France    82<br />
Israel    69<br />
Serbia    68<br />
Spain    66<br />
Albania    59<br />
Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina    48<br />
Portugal    43<br />
Iceland    41<br />
Norway    35<br />
Moldova    26<br />
Cyprus    25<br />
Ireland    25<br />
Belarus    16<br />
United Kingdom    10</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be curious about the thoughts of any others quantitatively bent: should we stick with a Borda count?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/a-borda-less-eurovision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Release of Romanian jury votes</title>
		<link>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/release-of-romanian-jury-votes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/release-of-romanian-jury-votes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Kavanagh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jury voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oslo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[televoting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ahead of the publication of jury votes and televotes from all the participating ESC countries on www.eurovision.tv over the coming weeks, some countries will be publishing their own scores ahead of this and Romania is the first to do so, having released the Romanian jury votes for Semi-Final 2 and the Final. Differences between the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahead of the publication of jury votes and televotes from all the participating ESC countries on www.eurovision.tv over the coming weeks, some countries will be publishing their own scores ahead of this and Romania is the first to do so, having released the <a href="http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/15904"   >Romanian jury votes for Semi-Final 2 and the Final</a>. Differences between the jury votes and the actual votes are quite interesting here &#8211; the Moldovan entry, <em>Run Away</em>, who got 10 points from Romania in the Final, failed to be ranked at all in the Romanian jury vote, suggesting (perhaps not surprisingly) that Moldova must have got the 12 points in the Romanian televote. Differences between the semi final jury vote and final jury vote are also very interesting, given that the same people would have been voting on both contests. Ireland&#8217;s Niamh Kavanagh was ranked 3rd (awarded 8 points) in the Romanian jury vote for the semi final but then failed to be ranked at all in the jury vote for the final; this could be down to jury voters having switched their vote for the final to Belgium&#8217;s Tom Dice, who was not participating in the same semi final as Ireland/Romania and who was awarded 10 points in the Romanian final jury vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/06/04/release-of-romanian-jury-votes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eurovision 2010 forecast</title>
		<link>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/05/21/eurovision-2010-forecast/</link>
		<comments>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/05/21/eurovision-2010-forecast/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 12:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Toni Sant</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/?p=69</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the things that Eurovision Song Contest pundits and researchers alike will undoubtedly find fascinating is the search data available through the iGoogle “Predictor” gadget. Essentially, &#8220;it shows how popular each participant is and then calculates the scores they would get&#8221; from the voting public. Interestingly, although &#8220;countries can&#8217;t vote for themselves &#8211; so [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the things that Eurovision Song Contest pundits and researchers alike will undoubtedly find fascinating is the search data available through the iGoogle “Predictor” gadget. Essentially, &#8220;it shows how popular each participant is  and then calculates the scores they would get&#8221; from the voting public. Interestingly, although &#8220;countries can&#8217;t vote for themselves &#8211; so search data from the  participant&#8217;s own country is excluded&#8221; this is not a precise science since there are loop holes through proxies, just as there are loopholes in the actual voting system through roaming mobile phones.</p>
<p>Here is a live version of the tracker (updated daily):<br />
<iframe src="http://eurovisiongadget.appspot.com/?lang=en" width="320" height="370" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.eurovisionresearch.net/blog/2010/05/21/eurovision-2010-forecast/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

