It’s that in-between time after the end of Melodifestivalen and the start of Eurovision, and we’re all bored. So Schlagerfiasko is bringing out the inner geek for a series of the nerdiest posts ever seen on this blog. It started last week after I’d (David) had a beer and decided to begin my now-infamous ‘#Eurovision truth’ rant on Twitter. It got a lot of people talking, with lots of agreement – but there was plenty of contention as well. So I’m going to expand on my 140-character limit to explain a few of my points further. And this first one requires GRAPHS (stick with it)…

Little disclaimer – I’d had a glass of Riesling as I collected all these figures together. I think everything is correct, but do tell me if you disagree.

#Eurovision truth: While you might complain about the songs in this year’s Melodifestivalen, it’s got more viewers than ever before.

— Schlagerfiasko (@schlagerfiasko) March 7, 2013

 

#Eurovision truth: And the reason it’s got all those viewers is because it’s entertaining and generates headlines. It’s fun. Not Eurovision.

— Schlagerfiasko (@schlagerfiasko) March 7, 2013

 

#Eurovision truth: The gap between the voting figures and the viewing figures for Melodifestivalen is HUGE. People just want to watch.

— Schlagerfiasko (@schlagerfiasko) March 7, 2013

 

2013 has been a hugely successful year for Melodifestivalen, with outstandingly high viewing figures for the four heats (see the figures here). The show continues to generate massive amounts of publicity for itself (and is there any such thing as ‘bad publicity’?) and everything is marvellous. Which it is.

But my cynicism creeps in (okay, it barges through the door) when I hear Eurovision enthusiasts declaring how countries should follow Sweden’s example to choose their Eurovision entries, and how everyone would have success if they just did a 6-week song competition, or something similar. So how’s that working out for Sweden?

This year’s final had 4,130,000 viewers – the second highest since 2002*. Brilliant. And you can’t really argue that Melodifestivalen was ever ‘in trouble’, as some have, when, at its lowest point since 2002 it had 3,592,000 viewers for the final in 2009. On the grand scheme of things Swedish, that is definitely huge.

* I’ve not researched figures before 2002, because the festivaler before that didn’t involve public voting to a comparable level as it has done since 2002. Otherwise, 2013’s contest would be the third-highest rated, with 2000 in second place and 2006 at the top.

Where it gets interesting is when you compare the overall voting figures to the viewing figures. To keep it simple, I have taken the total number of votes counted in each final for this example. That obviously doesn’t factor in anyone who might have voted more than once, so these are definitely not precise comparisons – but they do give a realistic perspective on how viewers feel about influencing the result of the show. I haven’t factored in the influence of the international jury, either, because that was frying my brain. Neither have I considered the various rule changes between 2002 and 2013. This is just a simple survey. To what extent this is skewing my findings maybe a reader can tell me.

So, in 2013, there were 1,644,628 votes counted. That’s a lot of votes. But think about it this way: 1,644,628 out of 4,130,000 viewers means that if every person who voted did so just once each, then 39.82% of the audience felt strongly enough to do so. Again, that’s a sizeable chunk – but if this were a political contest, then such a turnout would arguably not be hailed as a success.

Looking at the percentage of voters compared to the total viewing figures for every final since 2002, then 2008 was the most successful year, with just under 60% (again, don’t forget that it is highly unlikely that each voter voted only once, so the actual percentage could probably be estimated to lie somewhere between 45-59%, maybe – but we will probably never really know for sure).

However, it is difficult to make the case that, as viewing figures increase, then more people are interested in voting for a winner – that they actively care about the final result. From an initial 24.89% in 2002, voting levels have varied. Between 2002 and 2008, it certainly was the case that increasing proportions of the audience were voting year-on-year. But as viewing and voting figures dived in 2009, so the voting proportions began to become less certain. In fact, only 2012 saw a year-on-year increase since 2008 (and a substantial one, from just over 36% to just over 50%), before decreasing again this year.

It’s interesting to look at the heats and andra chans rounds separately from the finals.

There’s a consistent pattern of increased voting in andra chans rounds – only 2003 saw less votes as a percentage of the audience. (Andra chansen 2002 did not feature public voting.)

Meanwhile, voting in individual heats hardly suggests active viewer engagement with the voting process. This year, only 9.15% of the audience voted in deltävling 1 – the lowest proportion of any heat in this sample group. Deltävling 4 saw a series high of 13.20% – but hardly setting the lines alight.

The highest heat voting to date has, almost ironically, been in 2009’s lowest-rated contest, with perhaps nearly 27% of viewers voting in deltävling 2.

So what does this all mean? Well, Melodifestivalen is massively popular. That hasn’t changed, and we’re all grateful for it. But it’s clear that the Eurovision element of the contest arguably isn’t taken ‘as seriously’ by its Swedish audience as it is by Eurovision fans and overseas viewers (or, at least, to the vocal fans who blog, tweet and Facebook about it). Since 2002, never more than just over a quarter of the audience has been compelled to vote in a heat – and certainly not since 2009.

If we look at Sweden’s Eurovision entries from 2002-2012 and order that list in terms of viewing figures, the result isn’t as clear-cut as a simple ‘Sweden knows pop’ would suggest. Two fifths and a winner are excellent results – but then there’s a 19th and 18th. That’s UK territory, surely? But over a decade, of course it’s generally a fabulous record of achievement – that cannot be denied.

Year	Finalen viewers	Artist & song	Eurovision placing
2006	4 240 000	Carola: Invincible/Evighet	5
2012	4 110 000	Loreen: Euphoria	1
2004	4 105 000	Lena Philipsson: It Hurts/Det gör ont	5
2005	4 055 000	Martin Stenmarck: Las Vegas	19
2008	4 045 000	Charlotte Perrelli: Hero	18
2007	3 975 000	The Ark: The Worrying Kind	18
2010	3 870 000	Anna Bergendahl: This Is My Life	not a finalist
2003	3 815 000	Fame: Give Me Your Love	5
2002	3 720 000	Afro-dite: Never Let It Go	8
2011	3 670 000	Eric Saade: Popular	3
2009	3 592 000	Malena Ernman: La voix	21

And when the same list is reordered to reflect the proportion of votes received against the viewers for the final (again, being aware that the proportional figures will never be precise), then you’d almost think Sweden hadn’t got a clue. While that top five includes a winner, the other four are comprised of two 18ths, a 21st and a never-made-it-out-of-the-semi.

Year	Finalen viewers	Artist & song	Eurovision placing
2008	4 045 000	Charlotte Perrelli: Hero	18
2007	3 975 000	The Ark: The Worrying Kind	18
2012	4 110 000	Loreen: Euphoria	1
2009	3 592 000	Malena Ernman: La voix	21
2010	3 870 000	Anna Bergendahl: This Is My Life	not a finalist
2006	4 240 000	Carola: Invincible/Evighet	5
2005	4 055 000	Martin Stenmarck: Las Vegas	19
2011	3 670 000	Eric Saade: Popular	3
2004	4 105 000	Lena Philipsson: It Hurts/Det gör ont	5
2003	3 815 000	Fame: Give Me Your Love	5
2002	3 720 000	Afro-dite: Never Let It Go	8

I’m not making any judgements with this data – I’m simply trying to extract fact from fiction from the figures (and alliterating all the way). My point is that we shouldn’t automatically assume that Melodifestivalen’s success is dependent on its connection to Eurovision. And that in the past decade, Sweden as a Eurovision nation has been very successful – but by no means does a Melodifestivalen audience know what makes a winning entry. Rather than focus on which songs are Eurovision-worthy, do what I do – just focus on 32 possible reasons for excitement at the start of the cold winter months…