" I therefore hope that the specifications of public television to be reviewed and that consideration be given to the total suppression of advertising on public channels that could be funded (sic ) by a tax on advertising revenues of private channels and increased by a tax i nfinitésimale on sales of new means of communication such as mobile telephony and Internet access. This is a revolution, changing the economic model of television Public change at all while giving the cultural policy in the communication society of ours .
Nicolas Sarkozy, Press Conference on 8 January 2008. 1) An unexpected announcement but an old idea (from left)
The announcement of NS was a surprise in the current debate on audiovisual financing, rather it was considering an increase in advertising revenue for public broadcasting. In testimony to Furthermore this dispatch market from January to September 8 H43: UBS lowered its recommendation on TF1 to buy to neutral, and its price targets on TF1 and M6, the bank felt that prospects were bleak advertising channels. But
remove any advertising on public TV is not a new project, and that even an old project left.
- In 1989, Michel Rocard, then Prime Minister, wanted to implement this reform in the financing include a 3% tax on all investment advertising, media and offline media. (MR just said this morning that Mitterrand had refused this reform on the advice of his finance minister, Pierre Beregovoy, who thought to what would term a rate increase and thus inflation).
- In September 1999, a hundred intellectuals and media professionals (including Pierre Bourdieu) signed an open letter proposing a total suppression of advertising on France Television.
- In 2002, following the work of a committee chaired by John Martin, authors of various companies including SACD, SCAM and SRF, were also imposed for the removal of advertising.
2) The British model: a good model?
Among the major public television channels in Europe, only the BBC operates today without advertising. But the BBC funding remains problematic and is the subject of constant debate for over twenty years (see report Peacock 1985). If the BBC is able to run it through a large fee (currently £ 135.50 with a steady increase up to £ 148 planned in 2012) and with the resources it draws from the sale of programs and services ( 20% of its budget in 2007, the royalty of 74%, the rest from budgetary allocations). The BBC Trust has for several years a policy of reducing its costs. Finally, programming the BCC has often been criticized in recent years, especially for not taking sufficient account of the needs of the population.
If Britain gives us an interesting example, is less than that of the BBC from Channel Four in its first version (1982-1990). This channel then no advertising, fully funded by other private channels of the ITV network had the mission to offer alternative programming to include minorities in society. And during its first decade, she has demonstrated great innovation and creative freedom.
3) Good news for private TV stations?
Who will benefit from advertising dollars that go to public channels today?
- Only a portion of these investments will be transferred to other vectors. What is of interest primarily an advertiser on television is to reach the widest possible audience (including prime time). Investing more on TF1 and M6 is useless if you can not touch the viewers who watch France 2 at the same time.
- TF1 and M6 have advertising space limited by regulation (6 min with an average daily maximum of 12 minutes per hour). Certainly, they can raise their rates, but should the demand for their screens elleaussi increases. However, in a simmering economic crisis, advertisers currently tend to reduce their advertising budgets big media. For
TF1 and M6 can benefit optimally from the elimination of advertising on public channels, it would increase the maximum permitted daily average hourly (or delete it, as allowed by the TWF Directive) and permit a second commercial break during movies (or even a third since the TWF directive authorizes a break every 35 minutes for a movie).
If there is delay, it will without doubt to the new DTT channels, the Internet and as a return to the print and radio (which have seen their advertising budgets stagnate or decline due to the opening of the television advertising large distributors).
It is not clear that TF1 and M6 are taking full advantage.
(It can be seen jumped dramatically after Jan. 8 (TF1 rose from 16.5 to 18.36 at the close), the prices of these two companies have fallen almost in the same proportion today, 9 January ).
4) How to finance the shortfall for the audiovisual public?
advertising revenues are around France Television 840 million euros. Where and how to find the equivalent of that sum?
Taxes:
- tax on "increased advertising revenues of private channels " is the first solution proposed by NS (note in passing the very ambiguous "increased" the tax base-will Does all the recipes or just increase their potential to come). But it can at best cover a portion of the shortfall, except to set an excessively high rate.
Question unanswered: Does it include in the tax base and other media that could benefit from the elimination of advertising on TV? (I would be surprised that we want to annoy the press with that).
- The tax revenue of mobile operators and ISPs : here, there's plenty to do if you consider the revenues of mobile operators (around 17 billion euros) and profit margins comfortable. However, it is perhaps not a good idea to tax ISP if you want to encourage the dissemination Internet.
If I make an estimate with a ladle: the combined turnover of private television channels, mobile operators and ISPs is between 23 and 25 billion euros. It should therefore be taxed at 3.5 or 4%.
Increase fee:
This option is currently ruled by the entourage of NS (see response to Europe 1 this afternoon's special adviser Henri Guaino, who played a large role in the concept of political civilization, the abolition of advertising is a part). But it seems inevitable (and we can count Lobbying of economic actors: public-service, public funding).
A reduction in the budget of public broadcasting:
If it does not tax too heavily on private operators and if it does not increase the fee, it seems that the third possibility, She also inevitable (and the example of the BBC goes in this direction).
It may take the form of a policy of cost reduction within each public channel, a grouping of channels in the group Televisió France, or - more explosive and politically difficult for the moment - a "reduction in the scope of France Televisions" as they say, ie the privatization of one of its chains.
5) Less advertising, so better programs?
is the implicit reasoning not only Nicolas Sarkozy but also of all those who in the past have embraced this project.
This reasoning actually works in two stages: No advertising, so no racing at the hearing, no hearing race, so potential for more proactive programming pursuing lofty goals.
But these two relations, especially First, are far from obvious:
- The elimination of advertising on public channels will not necessarily abstracting them from the logic of the hearing. The audience ratings are not only economic indicators used to maximize advertising revenue, they are also political indicators is used (if other) to measure the response to "demand" or satisfaction " expectations "of viewers. Even without advertising, public channels (at least F2 and F3) will always seek to reach significant audiences to establish their legitimacy and demonstrate that they are useful to the public and do good work. What would people say if France 2, the prime time, it was watched by fewer than a million viewers?
- The programming of a television channel is not only a function of viewing figures that can carry its programming: it also depends on the rules and constraints imposed by governments in terms of programming and production.
- Finally, a public channel that would not target audience is not necessarily a quality chain. That will depend primarily financial resources available to it and then the talents of those who make it.
NB: The links references will soon be uploaded.
Coming soon:
6) Towards a greater dependence on public broadcasting against the government.
7) What is the public service in broadcasting?
0 comments:
Post a Comment