But is it going to be a game-killer for the contest? Does a song's starting position make a big difference for its chances? Maybe. In the past few weeks and months, fans have come up with plenty of theories to prove that the draw does make a difference, and that SVT are out to screw the chances of the songs they don't like.
I intend to show you that those theories are generally a whole load of hookum.
"But in 2009, 14 of the 20 qualifiers came from the second half of the semis."
Two points. Firstly, 14/20 is hardly an overwhelming correlation. Secondly, using statistics like that out of context ignores one of the greatest variables in the contest - the quality of the songs. One of the main reasons it's impossible to compare statistics like this on a year-by-year basis is that the songs and performances are, by their very nature, completely different each year.
Without even looking at what songs were drawn where in 2009, that argument contains obvious fallacies, as it assumes that all songs are born equal. They aren't, and by just looking at the bald statistics you're completely failing to take this into account.
Taking 2009 as an example, the first halves of those semis include 'Aven Romale', 'Copycat', 'La teva decisió (Get a Life)', 'Let' tmou' and 'Firefly', songs that most fans would agree never had any hope of qualifying. This just shows that judging the numbers and the statistics without taking into account the songs themselves is pretty much a futile exercise
"But Haba Haba is a great song, and was drawn second and failed to qualify."
Sure, you think it's a great song. Maybe everybody at your party loved it too. The problem is, of course, that there is no hard and fast way to judge a song's quality, and on the night, not enough people liked it and voted for it. And in music, unlike science, there is no right/wrong, no measure of good or bad.
We simply cannot argue that if a song had been drawn in another position, it would have got another result. Ultimately, we cannot know. Perhaps Haba Haba did only fail to qualify because it was drawn second. Or perhaps it did badly because most people didn't think it was very good or very well performed.
Ultimately, it's impossible to directly compare songs - all songs are different and we only ever see them in one starting position - it's not like we ever get the opportunity to place the same song in different positions with all the other influencing criteria intact, just to see what would happen. In summary, it's the songs themselves that are the biggest variable, and have the biggest influence over their own final result.
(Incidentally, as a side note: in researching this article and looking for an example for this section, it struck me just how many songs drawn second have actually qualified since 2008 - either six or seven out of ten, depending how you view Sweden 2008.)
"But we do see them in two different positions - in the semi and the final!"
This is a fair point, and there are examples of songs which qualify and then get a very different draw in the final, and get a very different result. Two examples would be Latvia in 2005, which scrapes through the semi then performs last in the final where it finishes 5th, and Finland in 2011, which qualifies comfortably, then has to go on first in the final where it bombs.
But are they a direct comparison? I would argue that the semi-final and the final are completely different beasts, with greatly differing audiences. Firstly and most obviously, since 2008 the final has all competing countries voting, while the semis only have a selected half. This will naturally affect voting patterns, especially if you got stuck with (or separated from) your neighbours in the semi-final.
The final itself also tends to have vastly higher viewing figures than the two semis. We therefore have a different demographic voting in the final - the semi viewers are perhaps more dedicated fans of the contest or members of a diaspora, whereas the Saturday night show attracts a wider range of people. And on a Saturday, viewers are perhaps looking for something different. The whole family may be watching together, while others may be at a party with significant amounts of alcohol consumed. All of this leads to different voting patterns in the final than in the semi.
And aside from the voting patterns of people watching at home, the final itself is a totally different contest to the semis. The hopeless songs that made you look competent are gone, and perhaps have been replaced by two acts from the other semi-final, doing the same thing you're doing, only better. With completely different competition, and different people voting, the results between a semi and a final are always likely to vary.
All in all, we can never prove that the draw is the decisive factor in a song's result. There is evidence that points that way, and indeed the Latvia and Finland examples mentioned above present a pretty strong argument, but ultimately, with the strongest variable being the song, and a lack of any opportunity to do any kind of representative testing, we can never prove anything for sure.
So, in summary, most fans making up theories and 'proofs' on the internet are talking complete rubbish.
Excellent as usual. Did you also consider Latvia 2007? Did really well in the semi and then bombed on final night. I guess the same applies to that as Finland 2011 though
ReplyDeleteAnyways, great little read;-)
M
As a maths graduate, I disagree. Obviously, it's a nonsense to pick out specific years and blame the draw for results. That's too small a sample to draw meaningful conclusions from. You're also correct to draw distinctions between semis and finals. However, there is enough data from years gone by to find a statistically significant correlation between draw position and number of points.
ReplyDeleteAll songs are not equally good, but the good ones are equally likely to be drawn early.