Pff, that indeed is not a good decision. Maybe they'll change their mind after all.

That's horrible and so unlogical decision.The previous system was more fair than this.

I think its gonna be a riot if they dont take this back. Or, mabye contestent no 2 will win this year

this is bullshit

The idea is stupid. Eurovision is supposed to be about equal opportunities and how is it equal when the producers decide for a song to perform 1st and for another song to perform last? I wonder how the EBU agreed to this. The whole 'good show' argument is also stupid. Eurovision has its standard viewers who would watch the show no matter if it opened with euro neuro or with euphoria. Also, everyone will complain for some reason. Others will complain because they appear very early, others because they appear after this or that song, etc etc. The draw was the only way to ensure that noone could say this or that was fixed by the producers.

Oh, no

Its a Disgrace if this comes in, how can they fairly put a song in position 25 and another one at 1 or 2 ? how will they come to the decision without allowing favourites to come into it.they will obviously favour songs they like for the later places even if they try not to. The drawing of lots is the fairest way so why change it and spoil it all.

What happened to bringing the contest back to basics? So far the only 'old' thing they did was have it in a stadium that seats as many as in 1992...

and maybe lyss asia the old thing from 1956

Lys Assia vs. Gigliola Cinquetti
Titans' Challange

Btw I am neutral about this decision... Countries which failed previously can have an opportunity to choose a better placement and vice versa...but I still don't get the criteria with which the producers will decide the running order...
imo we shall wait and see...only when ESC will be finished we will be able to judge this changement completely

*running order position

I am still waiting for the brightest idea of them all , they're gonna make 2 semifinals in 1 to reduce costs , thats would lead us to a Sanremo-nized eurovision.

this is quite rude

Google translated interview with Sietse:

Let's start at the beginning. What motivation is to this decision based?
"It's really quite simple. On the one hand we want to make the best possible television. It is very strange for something as important as the order of the performances to chance to leave. A bad entry at the beginning takes Contest many viewers, people immediately zap away. The same applies for example three ballads in a row, or a number of countries from the same geographical region.
On the other hand, we assume that for the competition and the final result will make no difference. We looked for statistical correlations between starting order and rash, and that we can not find. Quality will always prevail. Nobody will tell me that Loreen or Alexander Rybak from starting two had not won. "
They were convincing winners. But can not do it on a smaller level difference? You have no time for anything the 'full voting introduced.
"That was not in the first instance with the order to start. We wanted people a boost: you hear a nice song and you can immediately vote. In practice it appears that do not work. Moreover, it is visually very unfortunate that those numbers than continuously on screen. Hence, that decision is also reversed. "
Return to the starting order. How do you determine who exactly?
"Broadly speaking, we go for a nice opener for possible variation between musical styles, and also variation between geographic regions. In this way, the contest also really a 'Journey through Europe'. "
Well, ballads and uptempo separate so. But what comes ballad than at the beginning and at the end what? How do you say these decisions?
"Any decision will be a creative decision. Sometimes you need more details to look for such exposure or camera work. In it we must also alternate, not three songs consecutively blue lit. There is always a good reason for such a distinction. And since we're talking about light and camera work ... We have to take in this field for years myself creative decisions, which are much more influence on the outcome than the starting order. "
But there may still delegation leaders themselves take decisions? How something should be mapped, for example?
"Delegations can express their views, their good wishes. But our production team ultimately determines what happens. And just so shall it be with the start order go. If a delegation says: "Let us just starting action ', then we can take this into account. But the decision is taken by a group of people with a lot of television experience. That seems only logical. "
A better television show is the ultimate goal. There are also drawbacks to this plan?
"For everything there is a downside to consider. A draw sit drawbacks to this plan, but I think that is exchanged for another. The main disadvantage of this system is that many reactions. For the fans it is very sensitive, but the hundred million television viewers are hereby correct benefit. "
Did you expect that negative reactions?
"On the one hand, because at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, we use this system since the beginning. On the other hand, every first time is exciting for us. That was the abolition of the orchestra, or the return of the jury. And it is logical that many responses come immediately. My appeal to the fans: give it a chance. Look in Malmo first look how it works. "
And if the system does not work?
"Then we're not too proud to come back out. We have in recent years frequently done when it was needed. We have tried many new things, some worked well, some less. 100% televoting example did not work out as we had hoped, and so we have the jury retrieved. The full voting that we just talked about, we have also reversed.
We think that this course will work very well. But we can not pin our firm for years. After we evaluate, and if it has worked well, we'll do. "

Rybak would have won but about Loreen, he should think again. In televoting, Sweden was only 11 points ahead of Russia with a much better draw (17 vs 6). If the juries hadn't placed Russia 11th and Sweden 1st with a huge difference to the rest, the outcome could have been different with a different draw.
If instead of the grandmas, Russia had sent a 'normal' song that was just below Sweden with the juries, and they lost televoting for a few points and a bad draw, they would certainly complain that they were placed 6th and Sweden 17th on purpose.
And, besides, it's not just about the winner. It's also about qualification, top 10, etc etc

At least Uk, could perform 26 at final xD.