Sweden is known for making changes when they host Eurovision, and now it seems they have plans to add more life to the last part of the show by improving the presentation of the points section.

Executive producer Martin Österdahl told Aftonbladet that the grand final, “has a tendency to hold on for a long time and just oozes out at the end. We have some ideas on how we can make it more exciting and more stringent at the end.”

SVT’s plan is to improve the results section of the show. The broadcaster isn’t yet saying what their exact plan is, but they will need to get the permission of the EBU to make any changes.

Get to the results!

Clocking in at almost one hour, the results section has always been one of the longest parts of the show, and over the decades many changes have been made to keep the results section interesting.

Will *that* dress still welcome?
Will *that* dress be welcome in Stockholm?

The results section is still a lot of fun, but as much as we love the drama of the points being revealed country by country, sometimes it feels like it’s dragging.

As video link technology has improved, we’ve seen points spokespeople who don’t seem to be able to deliver their points without first profusely thanking the host country, all of Europe (“and Australia!”), congratulating their country’s act, making an in-joke that no one gets and – if we’re really lucky – singing, all prodded along by the increasingly impatient hosts.

So yeah, there is room for improvement. It remains to be seen whether the EBU will approve such changes, but with Sweden’s experience hosting Melodifestivalen, whatever they propose to the EBU is likely to be well thought out.

Does the the points section need to be slimmed down and sped up? Or should points spokespeople always be allowed to show off their comedy routines? Share your thoughts below!

Follow all our Eurovision 2016 news here

80 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugh
Hugh
5 years ago

The two issues I have with that system are these: 1. We know which of the countries expected to win only received smaller votes, leaving the highest points to others; after a couple of years we’d all know to look down the table for the winner. 2. There is suspense to be had throughout the table, not just at the top. While miraculous 12s descend from the clouds once a decade or so, we’d more or less know if there was a nul pwah after the first ones were revealed. Further, there’s something nice about seeing Armenia gives 3 points… Read more »

AG
AG
5 years ago

@BE, well, with the current system you have bunch of countries getting lower points so you can’t hear their names anyway during the entire voting.

😉

DR
DR
5 years ago

@AG @CookyMonzta

I knew the UK would be top in 2009, we got practically all our point from 1-7, I thought Norway would be low, not that low. 2011 was interesting. The UK being third then falling to 11.

BE
BE
5 years ago

@AG Interesting, but a downside with that idea is that most of the countries would not get a single point for the rest of the show after the 1-7 has been given out. I would be happier seeing a 5 coming in every now and then instead of receiving all our points in the beginning followed by an increasingly worsened mood for every country that is not giving us any points. 🙂

Julian
Julian
5 years ago

Voting is the part where each European broadcaster has 1 min to exchange a few words with hosts and announce points. It also gives a hint of broadcasters feelings and attitude towards what had happened during the show. Hope they don’t screw that.

WTF
WTF
5 years ago

Just revert to the system where they used to read all of the points, Eurovision’s only once a year anyway…

esc1234
esc1234
5 years ago

THINGS ARE SIMPLE: THE SPOKESPERSON HAS NO MORE THAN 10 SECONDS TO SAY HEY AMAZING SHOW WELL DONE BLAH BLAH, THEN ANNOUNCES POINTS FROM 1 TO 7 WITHOUT A FRENCH TRANSLATION FROM THE PRESENTERS AND AFTERWARDS, THE 8 10 12 ARE ANNOUNCED BY THE SPOKESPERSON AND THE POINTS ARE REVEALED IN THE SCREEN ALSO, SOMEHOW AS ON THE SEMIS WITH THE QUALIFIERS IN 2009-2011.

thank you.

AG
AG
5 years ago

Here is another case that can confirm my idea would be fun. 2011, generally strange year when it comes to voting, but it was exciting. These are the results without 8, 10 and 12 pts: 1 Sweden 91 2 Italy 83 3 United Kingdom 78 4 Ukraine 77 5 Germany 65 6 Moldova 61 7 Denmark 60 8 Azerbaijan 55 9 Russia 53 10 Austria 52 11 Slovenia 52 12 Serbia 49 13 France 48 14 Estonia 44 15 Bosnia and Herzegovina 39 16 Ireland 39 17 Georgia 38 18 Finland 35 19 Romania 35 20 Hungary 33 21 Greece… Read more »

CookyMonzta
CookyMonzta
5 years ago

My bad. The idea is AG’s. Had they done it AG’s way, Norway’s climb would have been spectacular.

CookyMonzta
CookyMonzta
5 years ago

@DR: Here is Eurovision 2009, without the 8-, 10- and 12-point scores: 1. United Kingdom 97 (5th with 173 points) 2. France 97 (8th, 107) 3. Iceland 84 (2nd, 218) 4. Azerbaijan 75 (3rd, 207) 5. Armenia 72 (10th, 92) 6. Turkey 67 (4th, 177) 7. Greece 64 (7th, 120) 8. Estonia 59 (6th, 129) 9. Denmark 58 (13th, 74) 10. Ukraine 48 (12th, 76) 11. Moldova 45 (14th, 69) 12. Russia 45 (11th, 91) 13. Portugal 39 (15th, 57) 14. Albania 38 (17th, 48) 15. Germany 35 (20th, 35) 16. Bosnia/Herzegovina 34 (9th, 106) 17. Croatia 33 (18th, 45)… Read more »

Darren
Darren
5 years ago

Why do SVT want to change Eurovision? Every time they get the hosting rights they make some new change. Eurovision does not belong to SVT so why do they feel that they have the right to make changes? It makes me dread Sweden winning, because every time they do, I know a ridiculous and unnecessary change the following year. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the voting at ESC, except for the questionable votes of course, but the process doesn’t need to be changed. I quite like seeing the different tv presenters of Europe give their countries votes or I… Read more »

Jonas
Jonas
5 years ago

I hope it’s nothing too drastic. I hate change!

Could they be considering a Melodifestival-like structure where the jury points are given separately and then a jumbo-televoting points bonanza?

I really hope the spokespeople don’t come to the arena. That is just so wrong to even consider.

@EugeneESCUK
5 years ago

Robyn :- That is right, that is why I wrote “will not be changed”.

Ranting Ruby
Ranting Ruby
5 years ago

Why change it? The points section is the perfect time to go and have a shower, pack up your lunch-box for tomorrow, put the cat out, dry your hair and then settle down in front of the TV to see who won!

Oliver
Oliver
5 years ago

I really hope they don’t change anything from the voting! The voting is the second best part about the contest, the first is the songs. The fact people want the spokesperson to go to the venue and announce the vote there would make me really sad because I really like seeing what they chose as their background. The spokesperson’s thanks, jokes, pauses, and singing don’t bother me so I think it really doesn’t matter unless they drag it for longer than 40 seconds. Lastly with the host announcing the winner before the voting is not that big of issue at… Read more »

Fenistil
Fenistil
5 years ago

Points section has always been my favourite part of the show. This unique way of voting and revealing points is what makes Eurovision so special for me. I even miss those times when all the points were presented, not only the top 3. So I hope they won’t mess up with it too much.

Nikos
Nikos
5 years ago

Leave it to SVT to keep mechanizing the contest… The results (aside from performances) are the best part! I do agree with the comments about the announcement of the winner. They can celebrate all night after they get up on stage, why should we have to take 5 mins to watch them celebrate in the green room and then again later?

DR
DR
5 years ago

@AG
That is a great idea. Think what that would have been like in 2009? Norway starting with about 3 points shooting to the top as Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iceland, and the UK fought it out at the top. That would have been amazing to see.

AG
AG
5 years ago

@CookyMonzta, if we do the same thing with previous contests things are also very interesting. The winning country with this voting pattern normally jumps from 9th-12th position to the first and that’s really fun!

It creates interesting tension and I hope SVT will try to apply my idea, haha.

CookyMonzta
CookyMonzta
5 years ago

@AG: That’s a damn good idea! Montenegro, Azerbaijan and Greece made pretty good jumps up the leaderboard with the 8-, 10- and 12-point scores they got. The suspense for Sweden and Russia would have reached a fever-pitch this way. Imagine a country being VERY low on this board, because it received very few 1-to-7-point scores; only to climb the board with unprecedented speed because it got the lion’s share of 8-, 10- and 12-point scores. Imagine such a country winning on the last ballot this way. I like this proposal. 🙂

CookyMonzta
CookyMonzta
5 years ago

@Susej: Not announcing the winner before the roll call is finished, won’t stop a particular delegation (and their fans) from letting out a thunderous cheer, especially if they are keeping track of the number of countries remaining and how far ahead they need to be to clinch the title. And I’m pretty sure a lot of Swedes (among many others) had calculators with them at the venue in Vienna.

AG
AG
5 years ago

Maybe they should automatically just show the points from 1 to 7 that countries receive and then they can start with the highest points. Without showing how countries voted from 1 to 7 pts. For example, this is how the scoreboard would look like before the highest points in 2015: 1 Belgium 145 2 Latvia 132 3 Italy 100 4 Australia 96 5 Israel 89 6 Estonia 88 7 Norway 82 8 Russia 77 9 Sweden 55 10 Slovenia 31 11 Serbia 31 12 Georgia 31 13 Lithuania 30 14 Romania 23 15 Armenia 22 16 Hungary 19 17 Spain… Read more »

CookyMonzta
CookyMonzta
5 years ago

@MirkoJoshua, Jak: That’s exactly what I suggested. Instead of having spokespeople on location deliver the scores, let the scores be given by their spokespeople inside the arena. They lost the feed more than once, and some of those countries had to deliver their scores at the end.

DR
DR
5 years ago

I just wrote a simple script for it. With a thank you for an amazing show at the beginning and did in a calm and natural way, with the French bits, in 24.39 seconds.
Just give them a basic script and it would spread it up. But I like the stupid spokespersons taking a long time. It gives Graham Norton more ammunition. It funny when he take the mickey for a bad joke, or making a fool of themselves.

Denis
Denis
5 years ago

Yes, the voting is a tradition but does it need to take that long? Up til 2003 or so the voting was “normal” and even with technical glitches it never went over time. But now it’s like everyone is competing in who can draw it out the most. Do we really need cheesy inside.jokes no one is laughing at? And do we really need to know you took part in ESC 35 years ago? No one remembers that.. What’s so wrong with just greeting, a short compliment and then straight to the votes? That how it was until recently, and… Read more »

Lawrence Gibb
Lawrence Gibb
5 years ago

OK, you’re all entitled to your opinions but how about waiting to hear what the changes actually are before cricriticising. Who knows you might like them.

MTD
MTD
5 years ago

Btw, the voting alone lasts from 45 to 60 minutes. And it’s enough because it is a integral part of the whole show. THIS AIN’T X FACTOR!

DenizNL
DenizNL
5 years ago

I don’t get how some of you can be eurovisiobfans.. The show takes too long, I mean really? For me it can take 5 hours more, if it needs too.

Bogdan Honciuc
5 years ago

I think it’s a question of cultural difference. We in Eastern Europe don’t mind a long show and don’t get why it should be shorter. That’s I guess many spokespersons from our neck of the woods tend to be very lax with time and go blah-blah. It’s a different perception of time over here. If you ask us, we are not robots, like the Nordic tribes. Ten seconds for each spokesperson?! What are we, stormtroopers? I thought diversity was part of Eurovision’s charm!

Susej
Susej
5 years ago

I just want them to stop announcing the winner before all the countries are done giving their votes, I find it a little disrespectful. If they want to have the winner ready for the final performance, just take the top 3 in the lead and set them up for whatever the outcome is. I find the voting fun and I like the suspense, it’s always funny to see the announcers.

jr esc nl
jr esc nl
5 years ago

@hector, i was thinking exactly the same! seems pretty weird to me…

@EugeneESCUK
5 years ago

So far 3 changes have been proposed for ESC 2016 and so far only one has been officially approved. That is that the 6 automatic qualifiers will appear more prominently in the Semi-finals. (SVT should be very happy with that one. ) As yet there is no official announcement as to whether the ESC start time will be brought forward 1 hour as SVT wanted, but the early indication is that the start time will not be changed. Then we have this proposed change. Whether we agree/disagree or don’t care, it is very important to voice that opinion. This feedback… Read more »

Jak
Jak
5 years ago

Definetely.

Instead of video-calls, bring all the spokesperson to Stockholm – as they do in Junior Eurovision, but with a green background filled with the view of their cities.

And SVT also should talk about dresses, etc. In this way a fairly big part of the voting is shitty.

I really liked Australian, Austrian, British spokespersons this year – and Anke Engelke in the past.

Actually they should bring Anke back somehow.

Héctor
Héctor
5 years ago

I don’t get why people want to short the time of the show. Eurovision is once in a year and we are looking for it the whole year, I think we can make an effort. We’ll see what changes SVT wants…

Sarah
Sarah
5 years ago

They should have a timer for 15 secs if you are slower than that then too bad the countries vote won’t be counted THIS WILL WORK SND THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE SURE THEY RUSH THROUGH THE VOTING!! eg now we are going to speak to Ace in Sweden * ace spends 10 secs singing his song that didn’t pass the semis* then she says 8 points to Norway but then the 15 secs run out and they cut the broadcast but don’t add the remaining 10 and 12 points! This will make the Swedish people angry ace will get hated… Read more »

jr esc nl
jr esc nl
5 years ago

Ronny, it’s already a bloodbath to qualify for the final with 43 countries competing and you want to cut the amount of entries in the final even more???

Leaf
Leaf
5 years ago

They should charge the local broadcaster if their presenter is a previous Eurovision contestant and decides to sing his/hers song from 5-8 years ago while receiving a muted reaction in the hall.

Sarah
Sarah
5 years ago

Owww leave it svt I hope if Portugal wins someday they decide to change things back to normal! I hate when svt hosts it they are bloody annoying

jr esc nl
jr esc nl
5 years ago

Meh… Im statisfied with how the points section works now.

Sarah
Sarah
5 years ago

Compared to all the other changes this isn’t that bad. It doesn’t affect anything however I was hoping that they were planning to change the voting system with the juries but they aren’t going to change something that they are benefiting from.

MirkoJoshua
MirkoJoshua
5 years ago

I think the only problem of this is when the connection to a country doesn’t work… In Austria three countries had to give their points at the end because of some technical problems

Azaad
Azaad
5 years ago

Just give all the spokepersons a script with ONE actually funny joke, and have them just tell the points without needing to praise the contest and glorify it further.

Branko
Branko
5 years ago

Why not leaving voting like it is… but shortening the show by leaving out some Interval acts (boring!) and JESC winners (not necessary, because many do not even know JESC)…? Like that Chinese song and singers on ladders in Copenhagen 2014? Was that necessary? And also cut the long intro!

Deven O'Kearney
Deven O'Kearney
5 years ago

I think that, as unfair as it sounds, try only having the countries in the final vote. I think that in doing this: 1. You might get a more exciting voting sequence. It becomes more diverse. 2. Countries will fight for their right to vote in the Saturday show, so they will start submitting higher calibre entries. In turn, we will see a higher standard of acts. 3. The show will be kept to a lean 3 hours. But I do have 1 argument against that notion. 1. If a country doesn’t qualify for the final, the broadcaster risks losing… Read more »

Hippo
Hippo
5 years ago

Agree with pp that the parade of participants before it starts should be scrapped, so pointless.

Hippo
Hippo
5 years ago

Leave the format alone. If there is anything to change, maybe a few more breaks for the greenroom etc.

Hugh
Hugh
5 years ago

@Ronny that gives the already significant bias towards the big 5 and host even more oomph.

I’d have the big 5 compete in the semis, but keep the host as an automatic qualifier. Yes it might mean some of them withdraw, and that the contests have a smaller budget, but it’s also fairer. Have 11 from each semi getting through, plus the host, for a final of 23?

Ronny
Ronny
5 years ago

Cut the number of entries coming through from the semis. I don’t want a 25 acts long final. 7 from each would be enough.