So, that’s Eurovision done for another year. We managed to escape the dreaded ‘nul points’ and SuRie heroically sung through, in spite of the stage invasion.
But what we’ve all been debating in the office is whether she should have sung again. As it was, she left the stage to roaring applause and we expect that more than a few votes for stoicism came her way.
A second chance to sing probably wouldn’t have made her a winner, but, behaviourally speaking, it could have put her in a better position.
The more you hear it, the more you like it
Repetition works. By singing twice, SuRie would have had the ‘mere exposure’ advantage, making her song feel more familiar, and so potentially more popular.
It’s easier to remember the last song you heard
Eurovision hosts often talk about the early acts being at a disadvantage. When you’ve got 26 similar songs to wade through, it’s hard to remember the earliest ones. By going last, SuRie’s song would be firmly lodged in our memories, just before the voting lines opened.
Three of the countries that did best in the popular vote – Italy, Israel and Cyprus were amongst the final songs we heard.
Even with those advantages, SueRie would have struggled to beat Israel
In a competition known for its bizarreness, Israel’s chicken dancing and unusual staging still stood out. Apparently, Toy was already a hit on YouTube well before Eurovision aired, so it already had the mere exposure advantage. And, dubbed by some as a song for the #MeToo generation with lyrics including “I’m not your toy, you stupid boy,” Netta’s winning song wasn’t just timely, it was a behavioural mix that was pretty hard to beat.