Sovereign European states have always been and always will be notoriously competitive. Unsurprisingly, this can in some cases lead to some pretty silly things, among them the yearly embarrass-athon that is the Eurovision song contest.
For non-Europeans out there, it is perhaps best to explain that no-one really watches the Eurovision song contest for the quality of the songs or performances. What the Eurovision contest actually represents is the yearly opportunity for relatively passive European states to publicly ridicule or appease their nearest frenemy states; and in so doing, hopefully rid themselves of any associated national tensions. A cleansing, if you will.
So every year we see the same old top-scoring trends: Greece votes for Cyprus, Cyprus votes for Greece, Germany votes for Poland, Poland votes for Germany, the Baltics vote for each other, and all former soviet states vote for Russia. Etc, etc, etc…
Topical political trends can also be seen influencing the voting pattern — most famously, the United Kingdom received the dreaded ‘nul points’ in 2003, a fact some Eurovision watchers interpreted as a European-wide thumbs down to the UK government’s support of the Iraq war. Although, to be fair, the song ‘Cry Baby’ by Jemini was pretty rubbish.
This year’s Eurovision takes place at the weekend, and we at FT Alphaville wonder if this year’s voting might reflect some more financially driven themes — namely those stemming from the global economic crisis.
Although, we should point out, in a bid to work around the usual voting patterns and make it a little bit more about the music, the committee has introduced a jury component to the voting methodology. Nevertheless, enough of a televoting component exists to highlight popular trends.
So what can we expect in 2009?
First, we should consider the actual consequences of winning the competition. The winner is, after all, obliged to stage the following year’s event, which may or may not incentivise altruistic performers representing smaller states to put in a particularly bad rendition on the night to spare their nations the costly consequences. Winning the contest three years in a row in the 1990s certainly took a small financial toll on Ireland.
Note, San Marino has already pulled-out due to “financial reasons”, while Latvia and Georgia were at one point also considering dropping out too.
And then there’s popular sentiment. Will Eastern Europe’s recent bailout see a larger number of votes flow towards Germany and France, in a show of thanks for eurozone support? Will we see a drop in the total number of votes cast as people opt out of spending money on needless telephone calls? Will Spain be particularly fond of Germany’s ‘Alex Swings Oscar Sings!’ entry Miss kiss kiss bang?
Of course, if Q1 GDP performance is any indicator of national success — or rather failure wish — a relative favourite Estonia might be inclined to trip up more so than any other competitor on the night. The Baltic state on Wednesday announced Q1 GDP had tumbled 15.6 per cent on the year – reflecting what IHS Global Insights called a clear indication of a crash landing of the Estonian economy.
Which means, Sandra Nurmsalu representing Estonia with Rändajad, you can’t afford to win! Nor for that matter can another previous strong performer, Latvia and its entry Probka. Latvia’s GDP fell 18 per cent year on year in the first quarter.
Most analysts, by the way, expect those contractions to worsen further still in the second quarter. As RBC Capital notes:
We expect Q2 figures for all three countries to be worse. Latvia currently has an IMF loan, Lithuania desperately needs one and Estonia, historically the better managed of the three Baltic States, looks set to follow suit.
Something Eurovision contestants should definitely bear in mind, we feel.
Related links:
Estonian GDP Shrinks By An Annual 15.6% In The First Three Months Of 2009 - A Fistful of Euros
Estonian Eurovision entry - Youtube