Support ESC Insight on Patreon

200 Brave Souls: In Depth Analysis Of The 2015 Eurovision Juries Written by on May 1, 2015 | 9 Comments

Exactly one year ago today, the names of 5 people from each of the participating countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014 were announced. These were the expert juries, who were responsible for making up 50% of the total vote from each country. Today, the European Broadcasting Union revealed the names of 200 people from 40 countries who will have the same task for the competition in Vienna. In this article Ben Robertson is going to plough through the names revealed by each country looking out for common trends with our jury compositions and some of the interesting or well known faces that will be casting their scores on the night. 

For those who would like the full data, the EBU have released their own summary on their own website today as well with a link to each member available in this pdf.

The Famous Faces From The Contest

The EBU have spotted that there are in total 31 members signed up for each jury who have been a lead artist on the Eurovision stage. Marie Myriam, the victor for France in 1977, is the only winner, however more modern names of note include Aram Mp3, Dina Garipova and Margaret Berger.

Two names of particular interest are those of Cleo and Donatan, the lead singer and producer, respectively, of ‘Slavic Girls‘ which was last year’s Polish entry. The Polish song was well publicised for doing poorly with the juries compared to the televoting, so it will be particularly interesting to see how Cleo and Donatan respond to this in the voting themselves.

Other famous names include Bruno Berberes, who was the Head of the French Delegation for ten years and has recently been awarding the points for France in Melodifestivalen. You can see him here in this year’s edition of the Swedish final awarding 12 points to ‘Heroes’.

Balance Across The Jury

Last year our article reviewing the 2014 juries was somewhat critical to the EBU definition of balance. The juries should, according to the rules of the Song Contest, be able to ‘ensure sufficient representativeness in terms of gender, age and background.’ Last year in terms there were examples of gender mis-balance on the five person juries, as well as groups of completely contrasting age demographics.

In terms of the gender balance this has been an improvement from last year. In 2014 there were 79 females and 106 males on the different juries, however this was split so that 30 of the 37 juries was majority female and 2 juries were announced on May 1st with a 80-20 split of males to females.

This year our confirmed full numbers are 90 females and 109 males (Albania is, for whatever reason, missing a jury member at the moment, although they do have a back-up member in place…), which moves us closer towards a gender balance. However there are still outliers to this and not every five member jury is a 3-2 split. Azerbaijan this year has four females and one male member, with Germany, Malta and the Czech Republic featuring juries of just one solitary female voice surrounded by four men.

In terms of the age range of each jury, it does seem that we have a better mix than last year as well. Our average jury age this year is 40, the same as last year. However each jury seems to be more balanced around this average with only one country, Romania, having a jury lacking people below the age of 40 (although 40-year-old Ovi is on the jury, and maybe a miracle will make him appear more youthful). Romania’s jury is the eldest, with an average age of 52.6 years, and Latvia the youngest at 32.2 years.

Spain’s jury offers some point for consideration as the age of jurors offer a tiny range, with 32-year-old Ruth Lorenzo the youngest and chairperson Jacobo Calderón the eldest at 41 years old. Is a nine-year range of jury ages sufficient for offering the balance needed? Further critique of Spain’s choices, with four of the five being previous artists in the Eurovision Song Contest during the 21st Century, may also fail to give a true balance of backgrounds that the EBU require.

Not Meeting The Criteria

For some of the people on the juries, we would potentially question if they are qualified to be a part of the juries. The EBU’s rules document for the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest is quite strict about the professional background that members need to have. ‘Members must fall into the following categories: radio DJ, artist, composer, author of lyrics or music producer.’ However there are numerous examples throughout of people not meeting these criteria.

We would question for example if Lisa Tsangaridou, the Cypriot jury member, would fit into the mix with her background as the organiser of a dance studio in Nicosia. Similarly the biography for 21-year-old student Nicole Tabone says that she is a ‘young student and a TV presenter. She was a key person in the organisation of the JESC 2014 in Malta,’ which frankly doesn’t give enough suggestion of her work in the music industry. Further digging here tells us being the ‘key person’ amounts to her being the Production Secretary for the Malta competition, being responsible for the co-ordination of volunteers.

Being strict as well it seems unfair to include Barbara Mosconi from Italy in the jury mix. She is a music journalist who has covered San Remo many times and previously been on the jury of music competitions, but sadly she has not evidenced her background within the categories that the EBU have strictly specified in their rules document.

Junior Eurovision 2014 FM Radio Broadcast

We did love Malta’s hosting of Junior Eurovision, but is the person in charge of co-ordinating the volunteers the right person to cast 10% of their Eurovision points?

We would also raise the concerns about possible conflicts of interest. The Eurovision rules require jury members to not be ‘connected in any way with any of the participating songs entered and/or artists performing in the ESC in such a way that they cannot vote in complete independence and impartiality.’ Last year at this time we raised this as a potential issue for members with a record label background, as they may favour songs from their own label in the voting. We identified three people with record label backgrounds last year, Marcus van Lier from Switzerland (Warner Music), Patrick Hughes from Ireland (Sony) and Dietmar Lienbacher from Austria (Sony). Here is how they voted last year for their respective acts.

Warner Music acts last year: Sanna Nielsen, Molly Smitten-Downes, Twin-Twin

Sony Music acts last year: Conchita Wurst, Softengine

Marcus van Lier’s votes in the Eurovision Grand Final for Warner Music acts: Sweden (1st), UK (2nd), France (3rd)

Patrick Hughes’ votes in the Eurovision Grand Final for Sony Music acts: Austria (3rd), Finland (22nd)

Dietmar Lienbacher’s votes in the Eurovision Grand Final for Sony Music acts: Finland (9th)

The correlation from Marcus van Lier’s votes show a perfect correlation to what we would expect from his professional background, one which is not evident from the members from Sony Music. The potential for any record label executive to hijack their voting to exert their professional bias means that we argue they can not be a sufficiently independent person to be on a Eurovision Song Contest jury.

Sanna Nielsen, GF 2014 (picture; Ewan Spence)

Did Sanna Nielsen get one of her top scores last year on the back of somebody else’s professional bias?

This year on the jury we have a few other names that could need to be held to extra accountability in this regard. Rafaela Spitzli is the Promotion Manager for Universal Switzerland, the label that Albanian singer Elhaida Dani is signed onto. Finland has a backup jury member called Lasse Kurki who works for Warner as their A&R manager, with Warner having Sweden’s Måns Zelmerlöw on their books.  The appearance of Italian juror Valerio Paolini is also interesting, as through running lyrics-database website MusicXmatch he has organised deals with the likes of Sony, Warner and Universal in the past.

Finally we highlight the two members of the German jury which offer food for thought. Kris Hünecke and Johannes Strate are members of the band Revolverheld. In 2010 they released the hit song ‘Halt Dich An Mir Fest’ reaching number eight in the German charts, but interestingly featured the vocals of Czech singer Marta Jandová. Will their collaboration impact on their ability to be impartial?

We will of course report on their results in full after the Contest to see if any correlations align from their professional backgrounds or not.

The Possibility Of Politics

Following on from the discussions at the Eurovision Conference, where Dr Paul Jordan told us about the relations Eurovision has had and will continue to have with the political movements of the time, it will be interesting to see if any features of this can be seen in contest scoring.

Alcazar used their chance to award the votes for Sweden in 2014 as a chance to highlight ‘human rights’ in a message that was only loosely veiled away from some of Europe’s Eastern-most countries. With Lina Hedlund from the group on the jury this year will the voting record all be biased away from those of a poor human rights record?

After last year’s Azeri and Armenian juries put each other in last place it will be interesting to observe if that trend continues. However that trend may be extended beyond their borders this year. Both Cyprus and Greece feature jury members who are half-Armenian in their mix, and especially given the politically sensitive nature of Armenian entry ‘Face The Shadow‘ how these members vote impartially on the Song Contest shall be looked at very closely.

It’s also worth highlighting Australian jury member Jake Stone and the comments reported in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Stone believes it’s his role to reward artists who take a “different and quirky” approach.  He will be asking: “What is their social relevance? What barriers has someone had to push through to get that far? “I can’t help but listen to the quality of the song, but there’s also the performance itself. Is it socially meaningful?

We’re read the judging criteria supplied by the EBU (“Each jury member is asked to evaluate the composition, the performance, the overall act and the song’s hit potential”) and short of really twisting ‘overall’ there’s no indication that social impact or political relevance should be used to judge an act.

The Pressure Now Lies On Their Shoulders

Last year’s jury information went above and beyond the expectations of many Eurovision commentators. In the build-up to the Song Contest having access to the list of members provided the possibility for scrutiny on an individual level, and with some jury submissions the EBU did step in and request changes to their composition. To this regard the EBU have already made some alterations to the list since it was published earlier today, but we have identified further possible members who do not meet the strict requirements set out in the Song Contest rules. However we believe that the EBU do have further to go to improve the jury system, and we gave some of those suggestions in the conclusions to our Voting Insight series last summer.

However it was after the Contest that the real news lay, as almost immediately after the Eurovision Grand Final we were given access to every jury members vote, from first place to last place. In the EuroClub After Party many of us were flicking between dancing on the floor to running back and dissecting the drama that had unfolded from the jury votes of each country.

This over-indulgence of data was not missed by the bigger media either, and national press reported on those songs that completely split jury and televote opinion, resulting in zero points. Jury members gave quotes to express their opinion and, in relation to the UK jury completely destroying the chances of Poland’s entry last year, the rhetoric used was mightily defensive.

The votes of these people may not fully determine who wins the Eurovision Song Contest this year, but they certainly have the power to stop individual songs from doing so. Their results will be held up bleary-eyed on Sunday morning for cross-examination for all the media to see and analyse. Our jury members now know the kind of pressure they will be under, and the level of quite personal scrutiny that their votes will be under. In that respect it is pleasing that many big names from the musical world and Eurovision bubble have happily stepped into being a jury member this year, not damaged by the negative PR backlash that exploded post-Copenhagen last year.

Our expectation of the impact of vote revealing is that jury members may think twice before awarding scores that could damage their personal reputation, and would be more likely to vote following the expected trends of the Song Contest. Only time will tell of course, but after last year’s trial run the importance of the jury vote is now bigger than ever and puts a lot of weight on their individual opinions.

About The Author: Ben Robertson

Ben Robertson has attended 23 National Finals in the world of Eurovision. With that experience behind him he writes for ESC Insight with his analysis and opinions about anything and everything Eurovision Song Contest that is worth telling.

Read more from this author...

You Can Support ESC Insight on Patreon

ESC Insight's Patreon page is now live; click here to see what it's all about, and how you can get involved and directly support our coverage of your Eurovision Song Contest.

Have Your Say

9 responses to “200 Brave Souls: In Depth Analysis Of The 2015 Eurovision Juries”

  1. Fatima says:

    I wonder if UK jury member Dave Arch is being lined up for a future crack at the contest. The BBC could do worse. The song could be premiered (or even selected) on the previous year’s Strictly. Plenty of slots for that particularly in the Sunday night show in November / December. A huge audience is guaranteed and the Dave Arch band would have nothing to lose.

  2. Of all the absurdity you didn’t mention Sweden having a dancer in the jury? Even if dance and music are connected, that’s still outside the EBU criteria and definitely enlighten what Bjorkman, SVT and MF have pushed on esc agenda every year: more show, less music.

  3. and also, “hit potential” over “vocals” now… sad era for Eurovision ahead?

  4. The hit potential discussion is interesting and I’m going to look at the this more. I do wonder about how and when that change in terminology hit.

    In terms of Sweden Rennie has a background also with the Contest and was Head of Delegation in 2013 while Christer B was busy producing the show. He does have a knowledge of the Contest more than many others we could argue. I certainly wasn’t going to highlight every case here, just pick out some topical discussions. The dancer issue was one I brought up last year in the equivalent article a year ago (Sweden did it then as well).

    The bigger issue here is that the rules document from the EBU is either not up to scratch or more worryingly are not keeping to their own strict demands.

  5. HarrietKrohn says:

    I really wonder if it can be so hard to put together a proper German jury. Only one woman, and one man who has worked with one of this year’s artists (with his band colleague as back-up – how helpful). Seriously. I have a lot of respect for Johannes Strate and he is a very pleasant guy, but if you exchanged him for another woman, possibly a bit older than the rest of the gang, you’d have something that would match the criteria closely enough. Strate could just as well be a jury member next year, if he wants to. (I wonder if they’ll all have the same number 1 again, like they had with Denmark last year. Denmark!)

    It baffles me how little the EBU seems to care. They define nice rules, but then only take a quick glance to check if they are being followed. They catch some things, but let others slide. How is anyone expected to take these things seriously? A lot of people don’t agree with the existence of juries in the first place – couldn’t the EBU at least try to be a bit more strict here so that there is one less thing people can (rightfully) complain about?

  6. Gert Waterink says:

    Dear Ben, I think there’s too, way too much emphasis on factors like age, gender, cultural background, music background, experience and so on. What counts for me is the very fact that there ARE actual juries (ever since 2009). Let me elaborate on that.

    Foremost, jurors are by no means televoters. They simply judge “differently” than televoters. The very fact that all these 200 jurors have been asked to actually judge must feel as quite an honour for most of the judges. That honour does have some implications I think. Judges will no doubt judge more seriously than televoters.

    Secondly, jurors are sitting somewhere in a TV studio to judge all the entries. In contrast to televoters, jurors can not walk to the fridge for a beer or Lays, can not smoke a cigarette when they want to, will not zap to another TV channel, and will not interupt with the other jurors for a fun little chat about work or other private stuff.

    On top of that, all jurors need to rank all entries in the given semi final or final. That’s quite a task, so the EBU is asking quite a lot from these jurors.

    So the level of concentration is already much higher as compared to televoters. They simply judge “differently” than televoters. It is the main reason for me that I’m happy that juries are back, regardless of the precise content of juries.

    One last thing I want to say about using the word “politics”. In many cases it’s being mixed up completely with the definitions of “demographics” and “immigrants”. I dislike that. Dutch people of Armenian and Turkish descent, will always have more favouritism towards the countries around the Caspian and Black Sea. And there were times that Israel and Turkey were quite negative towards each other in the contest. That goes back to the 1970’s. The Armenia-Azerbaijan-conflict will therefore not go away that easily. It takes times.

    So I do welcome all the scrutiny on the juries, but one can also overreact and over-scrutinize. In a contest with 40 countries you simply have more influx of issues related to cultural diversity and demographics. Way more as compared to the pre-2003-era, when there was only one final. So people should be careful calling this an issue of “politics”.

    Real politics are happening in the UK on Thursday, when people in fact vote over issues that could decide their lifes. Eurovision is completely different. It’s still entertainment. And although there was a lot of boo-ing last year for the Russian entry, it won’t result in Putin executing more financial and economical boycots.

  7. Hej Gert,

    The factors you mention in the Song Contest I agree are not huge factors. After the results came out last year we did a lot of work going through the data. Take a look in the link below when we broke down the different jury members into different demographic sections. There were trends between age, gender and so forth, but these were on the whole small, two or three places here or there tops.

    https://escinsight.com/2014/06/24/voting-insight-ages-gender-and-professions-in-the-2014-juries/

    The biggest factor was we found that jury members were more likely to correlate their votes to who they were with. It could be political or cultural or it could simply be that they are sharing and learning from each other and taking that into account in their results.

    I believe we do this kind of scrutiny because it deserves it. Yes the politics is not real, but listening to the Eurovision Conference last week it became quite clear to me how it’s use as a soft political tool of pressure does exist throughtout all levels, including voting. The EBU make some strict requirements about the juries, and I believe if we want the integrity of Eurovision to remain strong we need to critique that especially it is not reaching the standards set out by the EBU themselves.

  8. Hebbuzz says:

    I’d prefer to have more people in jury’s who themselves teach singing, composing or songwriting. Those people don’t have connections to music labels.

    There is IMHO an overload of people focussing on hit potential and viewing figures (producers, presenters, mamagers). As we’ve seen last year only resulted in two Europe-wide hits: Common Linnets and Conchita Wurst.

    Good article btw.

    Which label earns money on the compilation album of Eurovision?

  9. Ewan Spence says:

    Hebbuz, Universal publishes the ESC Compilation album online and in the physical world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *