In record time and with little money Ukraine managed to stage an international show that fully met the standards of the Eurovision song contest. Indeed, organizers of future Eurovision contests will be hard put to top Ukraine’s show. “We were asked not to bungle the project; Ukraine didn’t and set even higher standards,” says Taras Stetskiv, chairman of the National Television Company of Ukraine (NTCU), adding that they had to draw up lists of people involved in the Eurovision arrangements. They total 600 names, excluding the names of contracting companies, and they will be submitted to the presidential administration’s creative awards department.
The NTCU president is proud of the fact that the Eurovision campaign came in well under budget, costing 10 million hryvnias less (53-57 million) than the fixed budget of 67 million. The difference of UAH 4 million is due to calculations that are still being made and will be completed by mid-June. The NTCU has promised to publish the list of companies that were asked to help with the Eurovision show; the Ukrainian public will learn the names and slogans of those who were paid for their work, and the sums paid. It was also stressed that the bidding took place with unprecedented speed, in February-April (within the timeframe assigned by the song contest organizers); 73 tenders were won by 200 firms.
The Greenjolly rock group sparked a public debate after their victory in the Ukrainian qualifying round: “No matter how many times Ukrainians would cast their votes, this group would still win!” One of the reasons is that the euphoria produced by the Orange Revolution was still going strong — at least that’s the NTCU president’s opinion. As for the stage sets, the organizers eventually admitted that certain questions had been asked about the structure’s ability to support the weight. The facade alone consisted of 22 tons of decorations. In the end, however, all the upgrading that was done at the Palace of Sports was approved by specialists from various institutes, who said that the ceiling wouldn’t cave in. The European participants were in seventh heaven. “It was the best show I ever saw in my life. Kyiv also hosted the best European Club, the best opening ceremony, and the best press center. Our Ukrainian partners did an incredible job, and the European Broadcasting Union is really grateful,” said EBU President Svante Stockselius.
There was a problem, however, with ticket sales. True, nearly 60% of tickets were sold, with revenues totaling UAH 5 million. The organizers point out that statistically every guest in Ukraine left some $500 behind. Mr. Stetskiv says that discussing the immediate profitability of such shows is improper because these kinds of events spell long-term investments. Eurovision in Kyiv was another opportunity for the rest of the world to hear about Ukraine. He stresses that this is the greatest advantage and that experts are predicting a better investment image for Ukraine, with future foreign investments slated to exceed one billion dollars. The 1,900 foreign journalists who attended the event will spread information about Ukraine. Despite the fact that the Eurovision show in Ukraine has ended, the NTCU president says its Web site is teeming with inquiries from abroad: “I’d like to visit Ukraine this August. What should I do? Where should I stay?”
As for the quality of the Eurovision show, the organizers deserve an A+, but not everyone is sharing in the joy of achievement. I won’t talk about Trukhaniv Island and its tent city, which was set up because there weren’t enough hotel accommodations in Kyiv. The A+ goes to Oles Sanin for his 40-second video clips about Ukraine, which alternated with Eurovision numbers (they have been ordered by three European festivals). Volodymyr Tsaruk of the State Tourism Administration (STA) says that Ukraine rates a D for failing to promote Eurovision abroad. The Greek singer owes her victory to an advertising campaign that was conducted all over Europe. In other words, the recognition principle worked, and Ukraine failed to use it. He also believes that making arrangements on such short notice is no excuse; that promoting Ukrainian performers ought to have been done in the first place. Croatia, for example, spends about a million dollars on its Euronews commercials; on top of it, its resorts are known the world over.
Mr. Tsaruk also says that it’s not worth overstating Ukraine’s popularity after the Orange Revolution. It’s true that Ukraine has been recognized internationally and that Europe has realized that this country is worth dealing with. It’s also true, however, that a favorable international image must be constantly maintained.
The State Tourism Administration has reached a different conclusion. After analyzing the preferences of foreign guests during the Eurovision events, STA experts seem to have grasped what type of tourist information is lacking: the kind of information that is available in expensive brochures and sold for UAH 10-15. As it was, foreign tourists were unwilling to purchase brochures that cost UAH 30-50. Also, there wasn’t enough reasonably priced souvenir merchandise. Embroidered works from Poltava or goat’s wool coverlets from Zakarpattia are great, but foreign guests think twice about buying them.
Canceling visas for European countries was, of course, a positive step, even if it was just for the duration of Eurovision. For more than a year there has been talk about Ukraine doing this for countries that are not causing any problems with illegal migration. However, the government created another stumbling block by abolishing the zero- VAT rate, which affected tourist operators. Thus, companies and Kyiv hotels catering to Eurovision ended up breaking even at best or at worst, in the red. Their foreign colleagues said later they were surprised by the instability of the Ukrainian market. Ukrainian tourist operators had warned that tourist services might increase by 26%, owing to the cabinet resolution.
