LE FIGARO (@ erenault) – This morning, open, under the aegis of Aurélie Filippetti, Audience broadcasting. The issue is quite simple: to rebalance the relationship between the chains and producers. France Télévisions is investing € 420 million in building a year and affects only 16,000 euros rights revenues. What do you specifically ask the producers?
Martin AJDARI – The story of the 16 000 is talking but it is exaggerated because it focuses only on work funded since 2009 so the time is not very long. We have a very strong shift. What we are asking today mainly is a regulatory developments that better reflects the changing competitive landscape, the proliferation of uses and, given the considerable effort that we agree (420 million euros in 2012), allows us to have revenue. We also want better disseminate works on all platforms, and also protect the brands that we fund.
When you fund "Plus belle la vie" for example, you do not touch anything?
It touches almost nothing because the rules of recovery revenues are deeply unbalanced. Second, we must, then we fund the ninth season, buy the first season so they do not go to the competition.
You ask the producers share of co?
Get co-production shares is a means offered also recently mentioned here and there, but this is not the only one. We are ready to work in the coming weeks.
You are in charge of Finance of France Télévisions. We need to save money. You are accused of making penny-pinching in removing the cultural programs of the third part of the evening ("Words Midnight", "Taratata" …). Does not it take more to tackle the reform of France 3 to real savings?
The penny-pinching, it covers 300 million, or nearly 10% of our resources by 2015. So talk about penny pinching, this is not true. Whenever emissions stop, there is a strong media focus, we only talk about it. But the 300 million we will get with an internal effort productivity and restructuring that will result in a voluntary redundancy plan that will be presented in the second half. All this can sit on a historic collective agreement. This, nobody talks about, but the collective agreements of different companies have been restructured, harmonized in an agreement that was recently signed by almost all the social partners. So there, we work background.
Economies it focuses on the social largely?
No, saving wear on the operation. They cover overhead, distribution costs and the number of jobs, we'll make sure to decline, which has not been done so far, while controlling the use of non-permanent employment.
What savings for France 3?
France 3 began to make the effort. We have already finished the year 2012 below that the budget provided, then we started the year above. France 3 and contributed significantly to work with a real resource planning, including replacements in case of leave, which is already bearing fruit. It is useless to focus on France 3, which, remember, at a total cost in areas of less than 400 million euros, which is 15% of the costs of the group.
Aurélie Filippetti announced this morning that it would create a parliamentary commission on revenue of France Televisions. You are claiming for a long time a return to advertising after 20 hours and an increase in the fee to sustain your recipes. So far, the government was against. The debate is it reopened?
The announcement of a reflection involving parliamentarians is a very good thing. Generally, we do not claim the tax financing. It is a matter for the full legitimacy of Parliament. We are not asking. We simply note that the 2009 reform introduced a form of weakness and confusion in public funding, sitting on the fee and subsidy.
Except that the government subsidy has dropped
Absolutely. It was a fee that increases by 6 euros in 2013, which is historic. But not everything is resolved, because at the same time, the state subsidy decreases by a greater amount. In total, there are fewer resources, while the French pay more tax. This is the result of ambiguity created by the 2009 reform. To work, the solution is not necessarily to increase the fee, even if it is one of the lowest in Europe. It is also to see if we can work on his plate, not the rate but on which it sits.
That is to say, extend the levy to second homes?
I do not have the answer. This is not to say that we will tax but consider that in what we bring to the debate, access to public service broadcasting does not only through the TV. It is done by various means (PCs, tablets …), direct and indirect, including when you find content on Dailymotion. It is also a public access service that we fund, there is no reason to consider the TV and possession as the only way to understand this use.
Concerning the return of advertising, you are claiming after 20 hours?
There are two important points. We are funded by advertising. Our responsibility is to attract attention when there is a problem. Now we have two concerns. The first is that the advertising day in principle, after 2015, it's over. This is the 2009 law that was intended. To stop and to keep advertising, we need a new law soon! It should not be that advertisers, investors and business can expect this withdrawal. Second important element: the lack of publicity in the evening we penalize a competitive point of view. In two years, between 2011 and 2013 forecast, we have nearly 25% drop in advertising revenues. This is much more than the market decline as effectively, meanwhile, channels have proliferated on TNT, Canal + bought D8 and D17, and suddenly the supply of prime time – where screens are powerful – is multiplied. In a report that has been reversed, we can not offer advertisers a few screens at halftime of a football game or between 20 am and 20:45. We believe that this should be in the debate. This is not to claim, but to finance public service missions entrusted to us.
Parliamentarians are in favor or against?
They are really shared. The debate is entirely legitimate. It's a good thing it is introduced now, along with the announced review of the law on the independence of broadcasting since independence, it is also funding.
There are two laws that will be important to you: the law on the independence of broadcasting and the Finance Act 2014. Between these two laws, which pose uncertainties, can you sign the new contract of objectives and resources with the State or is it will be completely obsolete?
It will not be obsolete. We worked hard, made great progress on the objectives with the government. What we want here in July, it is also able to converge on clarifying the conditions under which all of this will be financed. There will be a parliamentary debate on the independence of broadcasting in July. The working group will meet soon announced in the next few weeks, with answers. Based on these responses, it may be that, depending on the contract of objectives and means – and that could be signed in October or November – do a thorough job.