No-one should refer to themselves in the third person, of course. But the title of this post is necessary for those people searching on the interweb. The first of four, yes four, posts which I’m hoping will show how difficult it is to predict who the winner of Eurovision is and how things like TV presentation can drastically effect the outcome – or, at least, audience perception.
After an unexpected flurry of traffic to the blog post I published last week investigating whether or not YouTube stats could give an indication of who might win this year’s Eurovision, I’ve turned my attentions to my own (overdue) homework.
At the time of writing this, I’ve now completed my own initial investigations, captured my subjective view and scored everything and everyone within an inch of their lives. As any obsessive Eurovision fan will tell you, this kind of attention to detail is a necessary part of the process we all happily sign-up to at this important time of year.
Real surprises as I listened included Israel (its annoying as a song on its own, but surprisingly uplifting when I come to watch the video), Cyprus (beautifully simple melody with a pleasing chord progression towards the end of the chorus), Moldova (I really like it – classic present-day Eurovision) and Australia (which I think could land really well in the final votes). I make no apology for the UK’s final ranking – I’m a avid/rabid supporter of our song. That said, I did think very carefully and look for ways of marking us down in a desperate way to illustrate objectivity.
For those interested in the process I adopted, here’s what I did:
1. Listen to all the songs on Spotify. Marked everything out of ten depending on to what extent each song was holding my attention. I confess there were some I just jumped through when I realised I had lost interest.
2. Watched all of the videos on the Eurovision channel to see how each country’s presentation changed my view of the song. Some videos transformed otherwise dull affairs. Others (mostly off-air captures of studio-bound performances) actually detracted from what had originally sounded like a good song.
3. Marked each act out of ten for ‘potential’. This is a difficult one to judge, one largely based on instinct. It’s there to show those songs/acts which could either be transformed by a compelling stage act/TV direction or be ruined by the stage performance not quite meeting the mark.
Unlike the YouTube stats data I published last weekend, this one was a little more difficult to give a wide spread of marks. Consequently, there’s a lot of bunching up in the present tally making it difficult to determine exactly who’s in number one place. Expect to see that change considerably when the marks go in following the next bout of chilling judgements – the rehearsals/jury final for each Semi-Final show in the third week of May.
Using YouTube data collated on Saturday 18 April 2015, is it possible to predict the winner of the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest?
I don’t generally do maths. Or at least, I don’t especially enjoy it. And while Microsoft Excel may well take some of the pain out of doing calculations, it still remains the case that for the most part data analysis doesn’t normally get me excited.
But, a conversation with an old friend who is struggling to understand the YouTube success of the UK’s song compared to his personal favourites – Heroes (Sweden) and Rhythm Inside (Belgium) prompted me to think how all the songs are performing on YouTube in terms of statistics. Was there a runaway winner I wasn’t aware of? Would we be able to have a vague idea idea of who the winner would be in May by looking at the YouTube stats today?
There then started a two and a half hour session of number-crunching of the kind I’ve never embarked upon before. Not only is what follows unprecedented for me, the fact I enjoyed the process is also rather odd. None of what follows is especially scientific – I fully expect that if you held my workings up to the light it would all disintegrate. (If it does, please endeavour to point this out privately to me, if you’d be so kind.)
The initial method seemed fairly straightforward: compare YouTube views of all of the competing songs and see who comes out on top. Why YouTube views now? A couple of reasons. The first is that this YouTube data is the most readily available and by using that from Eurovision.TV’s YouTube account, everyone’s on a (sort of) level playing field. Second, the weekend before the official Eurovision album comes out, for a lot of fans, watching the songs on YouTube is the quickest (and cheapest) way of hearing all the songs in the contest.
I grouped the songs into Semi-Final One and Semi-Final Two songs based on YouTube playlists Eurovision.TV have produced. Total page views for Semi-Final One were 11,579,862; Semi-Final Two was approximately 49% down at 5,699,655 page views. The top most performing song in Semi-Final One was Russia’s A Million Voiceswith 2,972,153 page views;in Semi-Final Two was Azerbaijan‘s song 889,560 views.
The songs which have an automatic place in the final (Australia, Austria, France, Spain, Germany and the UK) had been viewed in total 4, 444,530 times, comparing well with the second semi-final. The UK’s song Still In Love With You had been viewed 1,471,081 times.
Worth noting that the data was collated on Saturday 18 April 2015.
Pulling in Extra Data
Thinking further, was it necessary to subtract the dislikes from the likes to get a more accurate measure? And then, what about likes/dislikes as a percentage of the total views?
That’s when I realised things had spiralled out of control and the brakes needed to be applied.
Using YouTube data to extrapolate the Eurovision 2015 qualifiers
Next, I drew up a list of countries for each semi-final and calculate rankings based on four categories:
1. YouTube views
2. YouTube Likes
3. Likes adjusted by Dislikes (subtract dislikes from total likes)
4. Adjusted Likes as a percentage of views.
For each category I came up with a ranking (largest to smallest) of countries for each category. Every country in every category got a point relating to where in the ranking they were. The top country – 27 points; the last – 1 point. I then totalled up each countries points and carried forward the top ten best countries on to the final.
Russia 10, 10, 9, 4: 33
Azerbaijan 10,10, 10, 10: 40
Albania 9, 9, 10, 9, 7: 44
Israel 9,9, 9, 5: 32
Armenia 8, 8, 7, 0: 23
Iceland 8,8, 8, 2: 26
Georgia 7, 7, 8, 10: 32
Montenegro 7,7,4,0: 18
Belgium 6, 6, 4, 2: 18
Malta 6,6,7,0: 19
Estonia 5, 5, 3, 0: 8
Norway 5, 5,5, 4 : 19
Belarus 4, 4, 5, 5: 18
Slovenia 4,4,6, 9: 23
FYR Macedonia 3, 3, 6, 6: 18
Lithuania 3, 3,0,0:6
Serbia 2, 2, 0,0: 4
Czech Republic 2,2, 2,0: 6
Moldova 1, 1,0,0: 2
Latvia 1, 1, 1, 3: 6
Romania 0, 0, 2, 8: 10
Sweden 0,0, 3, 8: 11
Netherlands 0, 0, 1, 3: 4
Poland 0,0,0,7: 7
Hungary 0,0,0,1: 1
Ireland 0,0,0,6: 6
Qualifyers ranked in order with (points):
FYR Macedonia (18)
A surprise emerges from this process. Sweden doesn’t appear as the runaway winner (nor Belgium for that matter) I expected it to be. My assumption had been that even being uploaded to YouTube later than the other competing countries, that Sweden would be at the top of their semi-final.
Part of this is down to the low numbers of views for Sweden’s song Heroes. It’s a cracking number which has garnered a lot of enthusiasm amongst Eurovision fans, in part because of its rousing anthemic qualities and also because of the clever stage presentation used in Sweden’s selection show MelodiFestivalen. The preview video on Eurovision.TV plays the whole thing incredibly straight in comparison just featuring singer and lyrics. I’m reliably informed by a pal that concerns over plagiarism have resulted in an amended version being uploaded to Eurovision.tv after there claims made that the animations used in Melodifestivalen broke copyright. A comparable figure of over a million views of ESCSweden15’s Melodifestivalen upload could be counted here (see my thoughts at the bottom of this post).
I applied the same process to the competing countries in the final, combining their figures with the qualifiers from semi-final one and two. Rankings were drawn up and points assigned (27 to 1) according to how countries ‘performed’ in four categories. For the final I incorporated an additional category: adjusted likes as a percentage of total views. I’m struggling to work out exactly why at this stage (its been a long process), but I was interested in seeing what the results might be.
As a reminder, the five categories are:
1. YouTube views
2. YouTube Likes
3. Likes adjusted by Dislikes (subtract dislikes from total likes)
4. Likes as a percentage of YouTube views, and
5. Adjusted Likes (see point 4) as a percentage of views.
So, here they are. Countries ranked according to their total points assigned. First for Albania, twelfth for Belgium, sixteenth for the UK and twentieth for Sweden.
Some thoughts arising from this Heath Robinson approach to picking out a Eurovision winner. They’re noted below.
1. Some countries had selection programmes on TV; others revealed their songs online. Is there a correlation to be drawn between numbers of views on YouTube and whether or not there was a TV programme to decide on the song? If there was a TV show, would that result in fewer YouTube views?
2. There seems to be a lot of clustering in the top four countries in the final ranking. I’m not entirely sure why this is.
3. Are record comapnies buying YouTube views and likes? It’s possible to do. Is it being done here? Does it matter?
4. Had Sweden been able to keep their innovative TV presentation from Melodifestivalen up on Eurovision.TV as a preview video, would we see Sweden higher up the table? The ESCSweden15 account posted Mans’ Melodifestivalen performance, a video which has totted up over a million views.
5. Is there a correlation to be drawn between when a video was uploaded and the total number of views. That is, if a video is uploaded on March 12 for example, it is likely to get more views over a video uploaded on April 7, by virtue of the former being available for longer.
Never have I ever imagined that Eurovision would make it to the display board on Charing Cross Station concourse. The news itself wasn’t a surprise. I was alerted to it by a colleague at work who’d received a text from his husband. “Can this be true?” “No,” I replied, “they broadcast it, but they can’t take part,” after which I was corrected by a tweet from BBC Newsbeat and a fairly unedifying news story.
It’s a bit of weird thing, though for those of us who’ve followed the show reasonably closely over the years, less of a random idea, more of a natural progression. SBS has ‘relayed’ the show for years, sent commentators in the years I’ve been blogging about it and, last year, took part in the show producing a special interval act.
The fact Australia are participating in the 60th contest this yearis rather nice extension of the inclusiveness spirit of the event the EBU has fostered over the past 20 years. The event we see now on TV is as much a reflection of the passions of its core fan base as it is a statement on the strategic aims of its editorial team.
Their participation will, for one year at least, silence once of my oldest friends who regularly texts at the beginning of the contest each year to so me why Israel are included in the festivities – “they’re not even a part of Europe”. I’ll be putting her a note through in advance of this year’s final to explain Australia’s participation, just to be on the safe side.
Personally, I think it’s a great way to celebrate the show. An acknowledgment that a far away audience has had in shoring up the Contest’s ongoing popularity in recent years.