Eurovision 2021: Data Visualizations
The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) is an annual music competition that has been broadcast since 1956.
Countries who are members or partners of the European Broadcasting Union are allowed to send a
representative and song to compete for the victory.
The 2021 edition saw 39 countries present their acts over the course of three shows: two semi-finals and one
grand final. The contest was held in Rotterdam, Netherlands, where rock band Måneskin took the victory for
Italy with the song “Zitti e Buoni” (Shut up and Behave).
Below is a representation of the results and a rough analysis of them. I mainly worked with modules within
the Matplotlib and Plotly Python packages.
Tempo/BPM
Coming after a long wave of lockdowns and the cancellation of Eurovision 2020, many countries predicted that
the public would be up for a party. The songs chosen for this year’s ESC trended to be up-beat, optimistic,
and dance-able. There were far fewer ballads this year than in the past.
Breakdown of Tempo
While many people associate faster tempos with more upbeat, happier music, that is not necessarily true.
Austria’s Amen had the fastest tempo this year, at 161.5 bpm (beats per minute). Another ballad, Spain’s
“Voy a Quedarme” also ranked highly at 152.0 bpm. In contrast, Azerbaijan’s ethno-pop banger “Mata Hari” and
Finland’s rock anthem “Dark Side,” ranked towards the lower end of the spectrum, at 99.38 bpm. The range of
tempos this year went from 80.75 (Belgium) to 161.5 (Austria), with the median being 123.047 bpm. This
figure would be considered allegro (fast), suggesting that ballads opted for a faster song.
ESC Participants by BPM (Interactive Map)
The map of countries by BPM shows that this trend was not limited to any geographic region, and that as a
whole, most countries tended to submit uptempo songs.
The chart was produced using Matplotlib’s Pyplot module, while the Choropleth map was produced using
Folium. The tempo of the songs was measured using Librosa, a Python package designed to analyze music.
Voting Breakdown
The voting sequence of the contest is one of the most exciting parts of Eurovision. Up until the very end, it
can often seem like anyone’s contest to win, and it’s also exciting to see the flops and successes. The
voting is also a good source of data and a way to put into numbers the patterns and trends of the year’s
contests.
In the Grand Final, half the points come from the professional juries of each countries, while the other
half come from the televote, viewers voting by phone. Professional juries are made up of 5 industry experts,
who rank all the songs (except that of their own country). Only the songs in each jury’s top 10 will receive
points.
In the televote, anyone living in a participating country is allowed to vote for a song, aside from their
own country’s act. When televote scores are counted, only the top 10 most-voted on songs will be given
points by that country. Songs placed 10th-8th are given 1-8 points, while 2nd place receives 10 points and
1st receives 12 points, the coveted douze points.
12 Points map
This connection map shows which countries received 12 points (1st place) from the juries. This year’s
contest was considered “wide-open,” with multiple countries being seen as contenders for the win. This can
be seen on the map, where a wide array of countries received juries’ 12 points.
In some cases, the awarding of 12 points can be motivated by politics/cultural ties. This is clear in the
case of the Greece-Cyprus voting exchanges. Given the ethnic and cultural ties between the two countries,
they almost always award each other 12 points, despite neither country being a contender for the win. A
similar case can be seen in North Macedonia’s 12 points to Serbia and Russia’s 12 points to Moldova.
Breakdown of Jury Points
This treemap shows a breakdown of the jury votes. As can be seen on the
left, around a third of the points were distributed among the three jury winners: Malta, France, and
Switzerland. The three countries collectively took around a third of the jury points. Compared to these
three, the points awarded to the remaining countries dramatically decreased. Italy and
Iceland were the only two countries to come near the jury voting margin established by Malta, France, and
Switzerland. In the top right corner, we see the United Kingdom, which received 0 points.
Breakdown of Tele Points
This treemap shows a breakdown of the televotes. Here, around a third of
the points were distributed among Italy, Ukraine, and France. The two closest competitors to those three
were Finland and Iceland. It should be noted that Iceland and France retain their positionings from the jury
vote. In the top right corner, we can see the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany, all of whom received
0 points from the televote.
These charts really illustrate how skewed the voting was towards the favorites. This left average or
overlooked entries like the (such as the UK), with little to no points in either category. Songs placing
mid-table also received smaller scores compared to the favorites. Among the favorites, voting patterns
showed how open the year was. Neither the juries nor televoters could completely agree on one winner.
The map was made using Matplotlibs’ Pyplot interactive map module. The treemaps were created using Squarify.
Juries vs Televote
For a song to win Eurovision, it should rank highly with both the televote and jury. Furthermore, most
Eurovision winners place both Top 3 in the jury and televote, which has occurred for the last four contests.
ESC 2021 was the year of the televote. In the case of Italy, the song placed 4th with the jury and 1st with
televoting, owing its 25-point margin of victory to the televote. Had the televote been any less, France,
the which placed Top 3 in both categories, would have won.
Jury vs. Televote
The televote also played a large role in the success of other songs. As seen in the graph below, Ukraine and
Finland also benefited greatly from the televote. One explanation for the songs’ poor performance in the
jury vote is their genre: Ukraine sent a techno-folk trance tune, while Finland opted for Linkin Park-esque
rock. Similarly, Italy sent a glam rock song that won the televote. Eurovision juries tend to favor songs
with potential radio and commercial success, playing it safe when awarding points.
On the other hand, televoters vote for what stands out and seek novelty or emotional connection with songs.
Several factors, such as language choice (Ukrainian and Italian), genre choice (rock, techno, folk), and
performance (all had show-stopping stage setups), set these three songs apart from the rest. These songs
were vastly different from anything else in the contest and came across as authentic to the public.
In the middle, we see songs on which both juries and televoters agreed on. This category includes both the
successful France (2nd place) and unlucky United Kingdom (last place).
Towards the bottom, we see Switzerland, Bulgaria, and Malta. Switzerland performed a dramatic
French-language ballad, “Tout L’Univers.” Bulgaria competed with a Billie Eilish-inspired act, “Growing up
is Getting Old.” Malta sent a female empowerment anthem in “Je Me Casse.” All of these songs held radio
potential and featured strong vocals, things juries are expected to reward. However, they were overlooked by
televoters, especially in the case of Malta (47 pts versus 208 pts). Perhaps these songs did not stand out
enough or they were too “polished” for televoters to connect with. Other factors include the running order
and stage performance.
This chart was made using Matplotlib.
Running Order
When it comes to the televote, running order is a factor in what reaches the public. Unlike juries,
televoters are not obligated to watch all songs and will most likely not be taking notes while watching.
Televotes think on what is memorable as they cast their votes. The running order aids in this, as a song can
be more memorable or forgettable based on when it performs.
Generally, a song placed around the 11-13 positions (right before the end of the first half) and the 23-25
(right before the end of the second half), are expected to do well.
Running Order vs. Televote Performance
Generally, a song placed around the 11-13th positions (right before the end of the first half) and the 23-25
(right before the end of the second half), are expected to do well. This can be seen in Switzerland (11th)
and Iceland (12th). Other memorable positions include 1st and last performance, although these do not
guarantee success, see Cyprus (1st) and San Marino (26th).
What surrounds a song can make or break its success. A good example is Italy (24th), which buried is closest
competitors in the televote: San Marino (26th), Sweden (25th), Netherlands (23rd), and Norway (22nd). A
similar example is Finland (16th), who was the only song from the 13th-17th positions to break 100
televotes. Both of these songs were loud rock entries, which definitely stood out in the recap played to the
viewers before and during voting.
It is also interesting to note that there is quite a gap between the top 7 televote scorers and the rest of
the pack, at around the 150 line. As it was with the jury vote, only a handful of songs attracted the
majority of the total votes.
This chart was made using Matplotlib.
Moldovan Televote Controversy
Lastly, we take a look at a potential case of voting manipulation. Moldova’s Natalie Gordienko sung “Sugar”
for the Eastern European country. The song was written by Philip Kirkorov, who was heavily involved in the
Moldovan delegation’s promotion and production.
Kirkorov is widely known in his home country of Russia and other Slavic countries. He is also considered a
very contentious figure in the Eurovision community. Closely associated with the Russian music industry and
Putin, Kirkorov’s involvement in Eurovision has been heavily scrutinized.
Semi-Final vs. Grand Final votes for Moldova
This year, large differences between semi-final votes and grand final votes for Moldova rose questions on
whether the Moldovan team had manipulated votes. As seen in the top half of the graph, several countries
gave Moldova the most possible points in the semi, but 0 in the final. This meant that the Moldovan entry
placed 1st in the televote in the semi-final, but placed 11th or further in the final.
One could explain that with the presence of other songs, Moldova’s televote ranking sunk. However, it is
sketchy that these countries would completely disregard the song after resonating with it in the semi-final.
How could a televote be rigged? A precedent can be found from Eurovision 2013, where it was alleged that
Azerbaijan bribed voters in several countries to vote for the Azerbaijani entry. The allegations included
providing voters with SIM cards, so they could vote multiple times.
The 2021 controversy was not investigated, leaving a rather erratic voting record to stand.
This chart was made using Matplotlib.