IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Expert judgment versus public opinion - evidence from the Eurovision Song Contest

Listed author(s):
  • Haan, Marco
  • Dijkstra, Gerhard
  • Dijkstra, Peter

    (Groningen University)

For centuries, there have been discussions as to whether only experts can judge the quality of cultural output, or whether the taste of the public also has merit. This paper tries to resolve that question empirically, using national finals of the Eurovision Song Contest. We show that experts are better judges of quality: the outcome of finals judged by experts is less sensitive to factors unrelated to quality than the outcome of finals judged by public opinion. Yet, experts are not perfect: their judgment does still depend on such factors. This is also the case in the European finals of the contest.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/248290312
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management) in its series Research Report with number 03F12.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2003
Handle: RePEc:gro:rugsom:03f12
Contact details of provider: Postal:
PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen

Phone: +31 50 363 7185
Fax: +31 50 363 3720
Web page: http://www.rug.nl/research/som-ri/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
  2. Victor A. Ginsburgh & Jan C. van Ours, 2003. "Expert Opinion and Compensation: Evidence from a Musical Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 289-296, March.
  3. Victor Ginsburgh & Sheila Weyers, 1999. "On the Perceived Quality of Movies," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 23(4), pages 269-283, November.
  4. Vergin, Roger C. & Sosik, John J., 1999. "No place like home: an examination of the home field advantage in gambling strategies in NFL football," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 21-31, January.
  5. Victor Ginsburgh, 2003. "Awards, Success and Aesthetic Quality in the Arts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 99-111, Spring.
  6. Herbert Glejser & Bruno Heyndels, 2001. "Efficiency and Inefficiency in the Ranking in Competitions: the Case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 109-129, May.
  7. Nachoem M. Wijnberg & Gerda Gemser, 2000. "Adding Value to Innovation: Impressionism and the Transformation of the Selection System in Visual Arts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 323-329, June.
  8. Holbrook, Morris B, 1999. " Popular Appeal versus Expert Judgments of Motion Pictures," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 144-155, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gro:rugsom:03f12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Hanneke Tamling)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.