• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Eurovision 2024

BarryZola said:
I'll go back to my argument a couple of years back about these contests not having to cost the host country so much money (it was the World Cup football back then). These tournaments cost so much to host because people host them in such a way that they choose to spend more than needed. It's an arena with some music acts performing, and it's even televised so there must be money to be made from the broadcast rights. Adele and other artists can do a music show without television rights and make money out of it. What is the major malfunction with people that they can't even do a break-even music event that millions want to watch on TV and thousands will pay to attend in person? Where is the wasted money going?
Click to expand...

If you take us hosting last year. Cost was reported to be around 21-24 million. Depending on what source you read. We the tax payer, bought and hosted the entire thing. £8-16 million through the licence fee. £9-12 through the government. Merseyside police spent £3 million just to police the week.
 
Last year, the drain Eurovision put on available freelancers in TV was noticable. I picked up a lot of work because other people were taken out of circulation for a good month. :D So I can well believe those costs, on staffing alone!
 
If they're spending that much on just hiring staff then they need to cut back on some of the extravagance and simplify the event a bit. It's just a fancy singing contest in an arena that's also on the telly. But yeah, we're dealing with an industry that thinks it's a good idea to pay ex-footballers a million quid a year to talk about it on camera once a week, seemingly with no more insight than some random could come up with for 5% of the price. They could try not having stages that spin around and transform into a million different things in a couple of hours too. Like I say, so much money is wasted in industries like this and then they complain that they can't afford to do things. Yeah, because you're just throwing cash down the toilet! 👍 :tearsofjoy:
 
Obviously I didn't mean to imply that all of that cost was spent on staffing alone. More that the ammount of people involved, and the time they were involved for, gives a good indicator of the overall scale of the event. ;) The Britt Awards, for example, hardly makes a dent of the numbers of available freelancers. Eurovision meant everywhere was struggling to find crew.

.... To be clear, this is a good thing! Work is scarce these days, and the more big events, the better. Even if I don't personally work on them, I can pick up the slack. ;)

Getting back to Eurovision itself, I'm not sure how much of the cost is actually footed by the host these days? I get the feeling most of it comes from the EBU, the "big five", and sponsors that we never get to see on the BBC?
 
Problem is to do something that's entertaining and engaging costs money. I don't want to hear a randomer talk about football, I enjoy hearing from ex footballers who are experienced, have a rapport with their fellow presenters and have a knack for communicating with the audience. Of course this comes at a cost, and I don't necessarily agree with the sheer amount of money they're paid. That's for another topic which I'm fairly sure we've discussed on here before, but at the end of the day the wider market dictates what they're paid.

Similarly, I don't want to see a singer plonked on a stage singing their song, I want to be entertained. I want that whole crazy lighting and innovating staging as a whole package. The audience figures that Eurovision pulls in also shows that's what people want too.

Away from the spending, it's also now a huge opportunity for people in the industry to get together and work on what is a very prestigious event. The sheer complexity it all is insane, so having your involvement in that environment is a huge plus for future employment. Likewise, it's also become a showcase for new technology over the years too, especially for things like new lighting products - where it's now often used to premiere new products.

The world would be a very boring place if we didn't splash out on entertainment and controversy aside this year, I'm glad this little week of craziness is still with us.
 
Yeah, I get that it's a good thing for people working in the industry. I think I just like a good rant about wasted money, in general haha. You're probably right about who picks up the bill etc. I was responding earlier to a poster this morning who suggested that no-one wants to host it because in essence they lose money on hosting it, but later posts have suggested that this is no longer the case. I enjoyed my rant though, so it was all worth it in the end, for me ;):p

Edit - That was responding to Diogo.
 
Well said, @Craig It absolutely is a showcase for new technology, in all departments. And there's nothing better, as a techie, than having new toys to play with.... Except maybe having an almost unlimited budget to spend on hiring those new toys, so you can really see what they can do en mass.

A decade or so ago the fashion was to cover every inch of set in video wall, at the expense of actual lighting. Luckilly these days it looks like a good balance between the two has been struck. Screens and lights now compliment eachother, rather than compete for your attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top