Water Cooler

By Dom Serafini

Being Italian, I’m accustomed to the Italian social-political Machiavellian-Byzantine way of life. However, during a recent visit to Germany, I was not prepared for the intricacies of the country’s television industry. It’s not that it is secretive or mysterious. It’s just complex.
           Even though television in Germany follows the capitalistic maxim “business is business,” underneath it all, the politically-charged public TV sector controls every aspect of the business: both public and indirectly, private. With 36.5 million TV households, Germany is Europe’s largest TV market.
           The key players in the German TV game are ARD, ZDF and, to a lesser extent but still influential, Deutsche Welle (DW). Combined, these entities directly control 40 percent of the German TV market and dominate film-TV production and international program sales.
           ARD, also called Das Erste, or The First Channel, is a consortium of the country’s 10 broadcasting organizations (representing the country’s 16 states, or Länder), each financed by limited advertising and license fees. ARD also operates the Third TV Channel (ARD Dritte).
           The ARD model is so successful that it is said to have been the model for U.K.’s Freeview platform
           ZDF, or the Second German Television Channel, is controlled by the federal government and funded by TV license fees. DW is an independent public agency for overseas radio-TV services (it broadcasts worldwide radio programs in 30 languages and TV shows in 4 languages). It is part of the ARD consortium, but funded directly by the federal government.
           The license fee of 208 euro per year per household ($283), generating some 7.6 billion euro annually, is now split evenly between ARD and ZDF. Advertising brings them an additional 500 million euro per year (out of a total radio-TV ad market of 4.2 billion euro). The system is so good, that to the naked eye it may resemble a pure private enterprise that can only exist due to German common sense, fairness and respect for others.
           Jointly, ARD and ZDF own Ki.Ka (children’s channel), ARTE, Phoenix (news service), Sporta (sports coverage) and, in partnership with Switzerland’s state TV organizations SGR and SSR, 3Sat (the cultural satellite channel).
           For its part, ARD spearheaded German film-TV production. For example, Studio Hamburg is owned by ARD state member station NDR (northern state). Similarly, the Bavaria Film Group is owned by ARD member stations WDR (western states), BR (Bavaria), SWR (southwest region) and MDR (central states), as well as ZDF. Munich-based Bavaria Film and Hamburg-based Studio Hamburg are tied as Germany’s second largest production and distribution entities. The country’s number one production company is privately-held RTL’s Fremantle Grundy UFA.
          MDR, SWR and BR are also shareholders of Munich-based Telepool, a production and distribution company formed with the other ARD members such as SR (Saarland region) and Switzerland’s SGR and SSR. In addition to distributing programs from independent producers, Telepool has handled RTL’s library and all new RTL productions since 2007.
           But the web of interconnected companies gets even more complex with United Docs, a Cologne-based company specializing in documentaries set up by ARD’s member stations NDR, SWR, WDR and HR (Hessian region) and Radio Bremen.
           Furthermore, in 1997, ARD’s members WDR and NDR (and SWR in 2009) formed Cologne-based German United Distribution (GUD) as an umbrella marketing organization for three independently-run companies: Bavaria Film Group’s Bavaria Media, Studio Hamburg and United Docs. The latter company also handles GUD’s nature and wildlife programs.
           Finally, GUD represents the program catalog of ARD member stations HR and Radio Bremen and organizes the annual German Screenings with its partners, DW and Austria’s TV state organization, ORF.
           To put all this in perspective, it is sufficient to say that in Germany, domestic film-and TV production alone represents an annual investment of more than two billion euro for an output of about 70 film and 1,700 hours of drama.
           Please understand it just took me weeks, not to mention two trips to Germany, to put together all of the above, so don’t be surprised if it takes you a few ponderous minutes to understand it. The point to remember is that it is not the complex web, but rather how in Germany maintaining good relationships with one group, extends good will to others. This strong and expanding public and intertwined TV sector also represents a shield against foreign incursion into the territory.

 

 

Posted by watercooler at 10:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

There are different ways to curtail a free and open press: Censorship, threats, blackmail, well-orchestrated deceits, licensing journalists, etc. But, besides being killed as happened in Mexico (just in 2009, seven journalists were slain), the most hideous of all is using a court of law as a tool to silence speech, especially when it’s not a criminal court but a civil court — just to extract pecuniary awards. This aspect is even more hideous than withholding advertising support to the offending media, when published stories are known to be accurate.
           Recently, Great Britain has come under fire for its frivolous libel laws, better known as “libel-tourism” because it refers to court cases tried in London, even if none of the litigants (or the offending media) is based there.
           Using defamation as a tool to silence the press is a common occurrence in Italy, but I was totally surprised that such things could happen in Britain.
           In Italy, defamation laws always existed, but were confined to the criminal court. Only recently this type of case moved to the civil court for multimillion euro awards. On average, every year there are more than 400 libel suits against the press in Italy, for awards in the order of 15 million euro.
           This predicament made the Italian press shy away from investigative reports. In addition, the huge monetary settlements silenced the independent media, since only large corporations can afford to go to a court trial (libel insurance is not available). At times, it is a sufficiently subtle threat made by a rich subject to silence a story from a small media outlet. Technically, in Italy a journalist can be sued for libel by saying that so-and-so “doesn’t know the Italian Constitution” (by the way, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly protect freedom of the press). A further deterrent introduced in Italy, is “privacy violation,” intended purely as a tool to protect public figures who don’t want to be under scrutiny.
           With 259 libel tourist cases in 2008, Britain is not too far off from Italy. But the U.K. has the added reputation as the most attractive place to sue someone (especially in England and Wales). There are reports of an Australian newspaper killing an interview with a British scientist, for fear of being sued in London. A Danish radiologist was sued in London by a U.S. company because of a speech he delivered at Oxford. A British cardiologist was taken to court in London because of an interview he gave in Washington, D.C. A few years ago, Richard Perle, an adviser to President George W. Bush, threatened to sue investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in London, because of critical articles about him. A U.S. writer was sued in London by a Saudi billionaire because her book was available in Britain. A U.S. film star took U.S. tabloid the National Enquirer to court in London because of an unappreciated story that appeared on the paper’s website (available to British readers). A French resident won a libel suit in London again American Vanity Fair, while a Russian oligarch won a libel suite in London against the U.S. business magazine, Forbes.
           Perhaps, because of these abuses and absurdities, British Justice Secretary Jack Straw recently announced a sweeping review of the libel law. In 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that prohibits U.S. courts from enforcing foreign libel judgments. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year. Several U.S. states already have anti-libel tourism laws. It is expected that the federal Congress would act soon.
           In the U.S., if a libel suit is considered frivolous (as long as the food industry isn’t involved), the judge throws it out, and can even ask the claimant to compensate the court for the time and effort it took to throw it out.
           Any American public figure bringing a libel action has to prove that what was written was not only untrue but published maliciously and recklessly.
           However, pre-emptive censorship is not just a problem for Italy or Britain, but for the entire EU, which, unfortunately doesn’t have the power, the will or the leadership to tackle it.
           Fortunately Iceland is coming to the rescue with a proposal of an “off-shore” haven for press freedom, especially for investigative journalism (Iceland Modern Media Initiative).
           Reykjavik is expected to pass a law for press protection for media based there. It’s a good idea both for Iceland and the world. Silencing the press with money or the courts is a great defeat to those who have interest in silencing the press. Unfortunately, there is not yet a solution for those who use the power of the gun.

 

 

Posted by watercooler at 08:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Dom Serafini

This is going to be an “event” year for television, particularly in the U.S., and as we know, television luves big events. Indeed, this year promises — if not guarantees —  that audiences will return to the old-fashioned boob-tube or the not-so-idiot box after all. The questions now are: Will broadcasters take advantage of this? Or, better yet, can they?
    The year opened with the Golden Globe Awards in mid-January, followed by February’s Grammys. The Super Bowl also upped the ante in early February, viewed by a record 106 million people who were not necessarily American football fans (myself being an example of such). The Vancouver, Canada, Winter Olympics continued in February, while in Italy the Sanremo Music Festival garnered a record TV viewership with its line-up of American guests. Also consider the NBA’s All-Star basketball game and the Daytona 500, which both aired in mid February.
    The Academy’s Oscar Awards, held in early March, brought the TV event back to the international scene (U.S. ratings were up 14 percent compared to 2009), airing after the Winter Olympics. Other world events will be taking place in May, such as UEFA football Championship League. In June and July, the biggest event of all, the World Football Cup in South Africa hits screens. Also in May, television in France will feature its Cannes Film Festival, while in October the big event action returns to the U.S. with baseball’s World Series.
    Unfortunately, not all broadcasters will be making money from these big events. NBC, for example, is reported to have lost $250 million on the Winter Games, because in 2003 it agreed to pay $820 million for the U.S. broadcast rights, 33 percent more than it paid in 2004 for the 2006 Games in Turin.
    In Italy, in order to pay guest appearance fees for the popular Sanremo Music Awards, which recorded an average audience of 11.3 million viewers (a 50.74 percent share), the broadcaster had to contemplate closing five foreign offices. The cumulative cost of operating those offices for one year is almost comparable to the fee for one major guest appearance (like Jennifer Lopez).
    But financial loss or gain is not the issue here, since politicians, financiers and regulators allowed the creation of larger and fewer media conglomerates, they now have to pick on someone their own size. When the industry comprised smaller television groups, bids were confined to the more manageable few million dollars, offering fewer risks and more opportunities to generate large profits.
    Today, the key issue concerning big television events is the risk that middle and lower social strata will be progressively excluded from enjoying such programming, due to aggressive competition from richer pay-TV services.
    For this reason, a U.K. government-appointed panel recommended that events of  “national resonance” — such as the British Open, Wimbledon and FIFA World Cup qualifiers — should be “freely available to the widest possible audience,” meaning via over-the-air free broadcast television. This is an issue now facing several countries, including Italy, Germany and Australia.
    It is possible that Germany’s Kirch Group’s insistence on showing popular football matches on pay-TV services contributed to the group’s demise. Reportedly, 85 percent of Germans want free access to important football matches, which prompted the governments of 16 German states to implement a “national protection list” of important sporting events that must remain on free TV.
    This means that, after broadcasters lobbied so hard to have governments off their backs, they’re now begging for government protection from richer-than-thou pay-TV competitors. But all bets seem to be in the FTA’s favor. In addition to avoiding political backlash, all major entertainment events depend on a broad public support for their popularity, because on a pay-TV platform, rather than millions of households watching at an event, interested parties can only count on thousands.
    Big events are important to broadcast television’s survival, and free TV station owners should capitalize on the fact that public opinion is in their favor. Unfortunately, many free over-the-air broadcasters also operate pay-TV services, which if not an outright conflict of interest, is certainly a difficult position to be in.

Posted by watercooler at 08:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A few days prior to MIP-TV, VideoAge managed to get a last minute outlook from two of Germany’s largest TV contingents in Cannes. Please note that Day 3 of VideoAge Daily at MIP will be focusing on the German TV industry.

Christian Wittich, head of International Sales, Studio Hamburg

“We expect this MIP-TV to be more encouraging than last year’s MIPCOM. Business is still being influenced by the worldwide financial crisis, but both parties — buyers and sellers — are finding models of cooperation. Besides this, it’s always cheaper to buy than to produce content — that’s the opportunity for sellers.
          Our focus for the market is all of Europe. But of course we use MIP as a chance to continue and renew already established business contact all over the world and start new business relationships. Thirty years of wildlife programming makes us one of the most respected suppliers of this program genre.

Patrick Elmendorff, managing director Studio 100 Media

“Studio 100 Media has an extensive library of new and existing programming which we are offering to buyers and we expect to sell our key properties into an increasing number of European markets and beyond.
           MIP-TV is important for our company as it gives us the opportunity to meet with clients from all over the world. We not only have the chance to initiate and to close deals, but to present all our new programs—from development to post-production stages, and the market itself enables us to contact potential partners for future co-productions or talk to licensors regarding possible agency agreements.
           At MIP we’ll continue with our sales activities, network with our existing partners, meet with new customers, establish co-production and co-financing partners for new projects and productions and pursue third-party content.”

Posted by watercooler at 11:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)