News

Exclusive: Split jury/televoting results out!

Posted by Sietse Bakker on 31 July 2009 at 14:01 updated 31 July 2009 at 15:59
Exclusive: Split jury/televoting results out!
Above: Audience at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest
Geneva, Switzerland -

After two independent audits, and in the spirit of transparancy and openess, the European Broadcasting Union is now fulfilling its promise and releases what you've been waiting for; the split jury- and televoting results of the Final of the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest!

Before releasing the detailed results, the EBU asked two independent auditors to look into the numbers to assure that the outcome is 100% correct, and to calculate the amount of televoting revenue that goes back to each of the participating EBU Member Broadcasters. The amount of data required from all European telecom providers is big, and the auditing process is therefor time consuming. Now that this process has been completed, we are sharing the detailed results with you! Also read: EBU "very satisfied" with televoting

Earlier this year, the EBU announced to introduce professional juries in all participating countries. Teams of five music industry professionals would get a 50 percent stake in the outcome of the Final. "Nothing is more democratic than the vote of the public. But a jury takes the opportunity to listen to the songs several times, before they make up their minds. In Belgrade, last year, we saw a difference in judgment of the public and the back-up juries, and we believe a combination will make the show more interesting," said Svante Stockselius, Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision Song Contest on behalf of the EBU, when the introduction of the juries was announced in early 2009.

Country
Final (mixed)
Jury voting
Televoting
Norway
1
1
1
 Iceland
2
2
4
 Azerbaijan
3
8
2
 Turkey
4
7
3
 United Kingdom
5
3
10
 Estonia
6
5
6
 Greece
7
11
5
 France
8
4
17
 Bosnia & Herzegovina
9
12
7
 Armenia
10
15
9
 Russia
11
17
8
 Ukraine
12
16
12
 Denmark
13
6
19
 Moldova
14
10
13
 Portugal
15
18
18
 Israel
16
9
25
 Albania
17
23
11
 Croatia
18
19
16
 Romania
19
21
14
 Germany
20
14
23
 Sweden
21
22
15
 Malta
22
13
24
 Lithuania
23
20
20
 Spain
24
25
21
 Finland
25
24
22
Country
Mixed
Jury voting
Televoting


Important note: Mixed ranking as presented during the Final, the ranking of jury-only voting and the ranking of televoters-only voting. In each country, jury casted 1 to 8, 10 and 12 points, and so did the televoters. The EBU's voting partner Digame then merged those two lists in each country. Whoever got the most points after the merge received 12 points from that country in the Final voting, then 10, 8 and so on to 1 point.

Download the detailed scoreboards!

The top-3

Norway's Alexander Rybak can proudly look back at the Eurovision Song Contest he took victory at. Not only televoters massively backed the young singer, the professional juries also rewarded him with 312 points. Just like in the combined result, Iceland ranked second with the juries, but as it now appears went home with 50 points less than Rybak. Televoters awarded the Icelandic entry with a 4th place, and ranked Azerbaijan 2nd and Turkey 3rd. The juries were less supportive, putting Azerbaijan 8th and Turkey 7th. Instead, the 210 music industry professionals from across Europe that made up the jury ranked the United Kingdom's entry 3rd, while televoters put Jade's entry at a respectable 10th position.

If only the 25 finalist countries had voted, the top-3 would have been the same as when all 42 nations casted their points.

Striking similarities, obvious differences

The split jury- and televoting results show some striking similarities, but also some obvious differences. The average discrepancy between the professional juries versus televoters is 6 places on the leaderboard. Within the top-10, the average difference is 5 places.

As mentioned, the winner of this year's contest won both the jury vote as well as the top rank from viewers across Europe. Runners-up Iceland could also count on backing from both. On the other end of the final ranking, juries and televoters agreed that Finland (25th in the overall outcome), Spain (24th) and Lithuania (23rd) were not worth a spot significantly higher at the leaderboard. Lithuania ranked 20th with both the juries as well as with the televoters, but after combining the two didn't get further than a 23rd place in the combined result.

Juries and televoters also agreed on the approximate ranking of entries from Croatia, Moldova, Estonia and Ukraine. The total number of countries for whom the difference in outcome within the jury vote and the televoting was 5 places or less, was 12.

Music industry professionals and viewers at home disagreed most about the Israeli entry. Juries awarded There Must Be Another Way with a 9th place, televoters put Israel last. French super-star Patricia Kaas was awarded a 4th place by the juries, but only finished 17th with viewers at home. Third-time runner Chiara, who represented Malta, finished 13th with the juries and 24th with the televoters. Denmark's Brinck finished 6th in the jury vote with his song Believe Again, which was penned by hit singer Ronan Keating, while viewers at home put him 19th. Finally, Albania's catchy pop tune was well-appreciated by televoters - Kejsi Tola finished 11th there - but could not convince the professional juries who put the young singer on the 23rd spot of their leaderboard.

"More fair, less predictable"

After analyzing the results, Executive Supervisor Svante Stockselius commented exclusively to Eurovision.tv: "Some of those countries who traditionally benefit from neighbour- and diaspora voting, rather than from the quality of their song and performance, now find themselves lower on the leaderboard. Those who came up with a genuinly good song saw themselves rewarded by both juries as well as by the viewers at home. We believe the introduction of professional juries made the contest more fair, and the outcome less predictable."

Apart from quality of the composition and performance, the EBU asked the professional juries to look for hit potential. "Not only did juries and viewers agree that Norway had the best entry, it also brought you the biggest Eurovision Song Contest hit of the past decade. Along with record televoting numbers, a stunning 125 million viewers and skyrocketing numbers on the internet, we think it's fair to say that the Eurovision Song Contest truly and still is Europe's favourite TV-show," Stockselius said. Alexander Rybak topped the charts in countries across Europe and was a massive download hit in the weeks after the contest. At its peak, Fairytale was Europe's third-most successful single.

More news about televoting figures and ratings can be expected next week!

What do YOU think?

Now we are inviting you to look into the numbers and see for yourself whether you believe this new voting system is truly successful. Please share your comments with us, and with fellow fans across Europe by leaving a comment to this exclusive report. We also have the discussion going on Facebook.

Comments

React!

Your comment is very welcome! Those not in line with the Terms of Use of this website will be removed by a moderator, and could lead to blocking your MyEurovision account. Reactions are only allowed in English and French.

Note that it can take a couple of minutes for your comment to appear!

james newton

Comment by jamesn96 from United Kingdom

Posted on 22 November 2009 at 15:42
this would have been my favourte ten ( no uk becasue i am british

12- Estonia
10- norway
8 - azerbijan
7 - turkey
6- iceland
5- malta
4- romania
3- sweden
2- croatia
1- armenia
michael cunningham

Comment by mykaloen from United Kingdom

Posted on 20 September 2009 at 22:15
what is the point in having a jury vote...if they vote on the final rehearsal and not the actual final performance...i find this absolutely ludicrous...furthermore did the competitors KNOW that the jury were awarding their points on the final rehearsal ?
Steve Fayek

Comment by stevemalta

Posted on 27 August 2009 at 20:13
12. Norway
10.Romania
8. Sweden
7. Finland
6. Turkey
5. Iceland
4. Greece
3. Azerbaijan
2. United Kingdom
1. Germany
Steve Fayek

Comment by stevemalta

Posted on 27 August 2009 at 20:09
I voted for Norway but I also liked Andorra, Turkey, Finland and Sweden
Steve Fayek

Comment by stevemalta

Posted on 27 August 2009 at 20:08
Malta certainly deserved a better place!
Bjørn

Comment by Avis2 from Norway

Posted on 21 August 2009 at 00:37
Who told them a professional jury only have to be 5 members strong? Why not 20 or even 50??
Bjørn

Comment by Avis2 from Norway

Posted on 21 August 2009 at 00:36
Who told them a professional jury only have to be 5 members?? Why not 20 or even 50?
Euronut UK

Comment by Euronut from United Kingdom

Posted on 20 August 2009 at 04:28
It seems a lot of people on here are only complaining and boycotting the new jury system because their bloc voting was somewhat stopped and their average entries were shown for what they really are. Abid a few, the positions reflect each songs merit and THAT is what will bring Eurovision the much needed gratification and prestige as opposed to the joke that it was becoming with biased 100% televotes, and countries that were victimised for whatever reason (war, politics, economy, distance etc) are now taking this thing seriously and the results reflect that. Welcome back the era of the SONG!
wesley van looy

Comment by squelle from Belgium

Posted on 4 August 2009 at 13:29
i'm very glad with this new thing because you see what you see others it was back the same country's like always
because everybody now that hadise live is not so good
she had a great place's but she was not so good for a 3place
BU RR

Comment by BURR from Russian Federation

Posted on 4 August 2009 at 06:11
More or less fair -
if it wasn't for ISRAEL and DENMARK!!!!
Matthew Chew

Comment by LiangNan from United Kingdom

Posted on 3 August 2009 at 11:26
I much appreaciate all of the votes being released, and I think this is a very good system to have in the system to calm down diaspora voting. BUT, there is one thing: why did it take sooo long? 2months...
BU RR

Comment by BURR from Russian Federation

Posted on 3 August 2009 at 09:27
No one voted for Israel but the jury, Patricia would be upset with her public ratings before her promo tour LOL! )
BU RR

Comment by BURR from Russian Federation

Posted on 3 August 2009 at 09:09
Surprise for Malta ever the professional jury did not make into the top 10
bas & paul

Comment by double bass from Netherlands

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 21:39
Interesting to see that the jury took a liking to the more 'credible' entries while the public had a more regional coloured perspective. But then, isn't also just a mather of how artists are able to mobilize their fanbase? We are experiecing that write know on our own website where a poll about summer hits has mibilized entire Croatia to vote for Severina. We think it's funny but if you' re Italian, Spanish, Turkish or French...you're fellow country artists need your help. So vote on www.europopmusic.eu for Tiziano Ferro, Matia Bazar, Michel Delpech, Jarabe de Palo or Alizee.
A Mystery

Comment by Blaise

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 16:28
Oh yeah, I forgot that the norwegian televote wasn't used in the contest, that's interesting.

But that's Eurovision, it's rare for there to be no glitches. And it's not like in 2003 when Russia claimed they would have WON had the Irish televote been used (but there was a problem on the night).
Queeten Queeten

Comment by Queeten from Ukraine

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 14:18
I like United Kingdom and Iceland on ESC 2009 but I hate Norway.
Kato Hansen

Comment by eurokato

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 14:06
Concerning the Norwegian-Croatian televoting mystery, I should add that both Norway and Croatia competed in the second semi final. It featured only 19 countries, whereas in the final there were 25. In that semi final, the Norwegian televoters didn't give a single point to the Croatian song. Hence it is almost impossible that in the final, amongst much tougher competition, the Norwegian televoters could have ranked the Croatian song 6th. So the televoting result from Norway, as published by the EBU, is most certainly wrong.
Kato Hansen

Comment by eurokato

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 13:54
If the Norwegian televoting results - as published here by the EBU - had been correct, and if they had been combined with the Norwegian jury's voting in time for the final countdown, then this would have affected the ranking of 8 countries:

Bosnia-Herzegovina: 8th place, not 9th
France: 9th place, not 8th
Denmark: 12th place, not 13th
Ukraine: 13th place, not 12th
Croatia: 17th place, not 18th
Albania: 18th place, not 17th
Sweden: 20th place, not 21st
Germany: 21st place, not 20th
Kato Hansen

Comment by eurokato

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 13:37
In the aftermath of the ESC, it was said that the Norwegian televoting result had to be declared nil and void due to a problem with the votes registered for Croatia. The problem doesn't seem to have been solved, because the 5 points awarded - accrding to EBU's official statement - by the Norwegian televoters to the Croatian song must certainly be incorrect. There is just no way that the Norwegian audience could have voted so massively for Croatia's entry that it came 6th in the national televoting. That type of Balkan ballad is absolutely not popular in Norway. Any "ballad votes" would rather have gone to the songs from Estonia, the UK and Malta (Norway gave Chiara 12 in 1998 and 10 in 2005) who, according to the EBU's results, all got 0 in the Norwegian televoting. Furthermore, there are not enough Croatian immigrants in Norway to influence the voting the same way that for instance the Bosnians do every year.
Kato Hansen

Comment by eurokato

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 13:34
An interesting feature of the voting breakdown as published by the EBU is that the televoting results of Norway have finally surfaced. They show that just like the Norwegian jury, the Norwegian televoters gave 12 points to Iceland. But the rest of the list is rather different: Bosnia-H. 10, Sweden 8, Turkey 7, Denmark 6, Croatia 5, Azerbaijan 4, Estonia 3, Moldova 2 and Lithuania 1. Based on this, the combined result (jury + televoting) from Norway would have looked like this:

Iceland 12
Turkey 10
Denmark 8
Azerbaijan 7
Sweden 6
Bosnia-H. 5
Germany 4
Croatia 3
Moldova 2
Ukraine 1
baptiste edouard

Comment by baptou76 from France

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 13:05
What appens on the big 4? France and UK realised the 4th and 5th places instead of the televoting placed them on the 10th and 17th places. the problem of a professionnal jury is that they all work in the same industry, i'm not sure they are realy independant, and i'm not sure they like the same think than their public. i'm for the full televoting vote. instead of that, for winning the televoting and the jury contest, congratulations for Alexander Rybak.
Gloria Chen

Comment by Gloria_Chen from China

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 05:53
@ ListigRaev:
"....but it can tell jurors only to look at song lyrics and music, and leave hit potential and performance to televoters."
I think that's not likely to happen. It's really hard to set any actual standards for either jury or tele voters. The juries, obviously, are made up of different types of (music) professionals who might well direct their attention to different aspects of a song/performance. For the general audience it is even "truer": I don't think, for example, neighbour voting can never be automatically ruled out in "popular" voting. You simply can't ask hundreds of millions of people to think the same way.
I think the introduction of jury voting system balanced some undesirable elements inherent in televoting to quite an extent. I don't want it to be eliminated in the years to come. We should also remember that its influence to the final results can never be accurately measured and so it can only add to the unpredictable!
A Mystery

Comment by Blaise

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 01:17
To be honest Israel kept many of the eligible countries from North Africa and the middle east from competing. I believe a statement was made earlier this year though, stating that all the countries that were eligible are competing or have competed. I'm not sure about Liechtenstein though, who I think want to join.

The Luxembourgish broadcaster has 'not been interested' these past few years and I think they've left the EBU, thus making them unable to enter.

Austria, Italy and San Marino are quite likely to return in my opinion. However, I think we'll never get Monaco or Luxembourg Back. And I'm not sure Andorra and San Marino will stay around for long.

Eurovision's not easy for a microstate!
Christopher Ellaby

Comment by c1ask0 from United Kingdom

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 01:17
It's all good and well pointing out that the winner was fair, but the voting was much less predictable this year thanks to the juries. The voting procedure lasts for almost an hour and it is nice to have surprises throughout this time.
Azad Ali

Comment by azy_786 from United Kingdom

Posted on 2 August 2009 at 01:05
to ListigRaev....morocco can't return. I also want them to return but unfortunately they can't because they don't recognise Israel.
<< First < Previous
1 • 
2 • 
3 • 
4

... but there is more!

Share your story!

Did you find interesting Eurovision Song Contest related news in your local newspaper? Or did you hear a juicy gossip? Let us know! Remember to mention your source, as we cannot publish anything without knowing where it came from.
The official website of the Eurovision Song Contest
25, 27 & 29 May, 2010 in Oslo, Norway