Die Zukunft der ARD – Programmdirektorin Christine Strobl über Ihre Ziele

Good evening, it's nice to be in Frankfurt again. I was at the German Film Awards in Berlin when I read about it, but the awards overlaid it. I asked Jan Schulte-Kellinghaus if he'd read it. He hadn't. I went home, still enjoying the Film Awards because ARD had done well. Honestly, no, I did not think it would become a tsunami. In the first three or four weeks, based on Patricia Schlesinger's assurances, we assumed there was nothing to it. I relied on that. Then it developed piece by piece. Now we are in a state where, regardless of what legal conclusions remain, my personal position is clear: the behavior is unacceptable. We receive public funds and have a democratic function—I see us as role models. Regardless of legal outcomes, there is something like decency. I expect that from people in leadership positions, including myself. People make mistakes, but what I know is enough for me to say I reject this behavior and support the consequences already taken, even though investigations are not complete. One must avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

My previous statement applies unconditionally, and I don't want to talk my way out of it. But we have also seen many things being scandalized where we need to look carefully. We have become quick to draw conclusions and prejudge. I am a fan of really looking closely; the colleagues involved deserve that. I cannot say much about NDR because they are in the middle of the investigation. My statement is different from what I already know about rbb; there are still points to discuss there. I don't want to talk it away, but I also see things being blown up where, for example, the famous massage chair in a car – that doesn't match the seriousness of the debate we need. However, the allegations of influence or morally questionable behavior are clear; that cannot happen. But a massage chair in a car? Honestly, I think that will be what people remember, but if you buy a car it may have one. No, my car doesn't have a massage chair, but it could. I can't really say anything about NDR; Jochen Knut reported on it in the directors' meeting, it's a difficult case. I found a remarkable article in Die Zeit today that at least presented the different opinions in the staff. But it's not a good state when 100 employees write an open letter, yet I know serious people there who see it very differently. We'll have to wait. The core of your question: we must be 100 percent careful that this accusation cannot arise. Whether it is true in this specific case, I cannot say because I don't know and I hear very different things.

In principle, I am very grateful when politics also takes care of media policy. I think it's important to have people in politics dealing with this topic. Sometimes there is too little sustained expertise. Regarding the Queen broadcast, I do not share the criticism. We have an agreement with ZDF from nine or ten years ago: for royal events we alternate. There are only two exceptions: the death of this particular Queen, and the Pope. For the Queen, we both broadcast, but it was a historic event with over 500 heads of state and government guests. We produced the broadcast from Hamburg without sending an outside broadcast van; fewer than ten people were involved. The world signal was used. Costs were very low. Many viewers watched. Since we should also make programs for everyone, I think it was justified in this exceptional case. The criticism is not justified and would not lead to major savings that would benefit the program.

We have a single exception: the death of this Queen. She was a living historical institution. We will not have that again, except possibly the Pope. So it was justified in this one exception. I am a big fan of the rotation agreement and believe we already do many things efficiently with ZDF, such as joint morning and midday magazines, sharing studios at the Olympics, and alternating for large events. We can expand cooperation, but both sides must want it. In this specific case, I found it justifiable, otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

You introduced me as program director of the first channel, but I am now ARD program director. That is an important change: merging responsibility for the ARD Mediathek and the first channel. Previously, money was tied to linear slots. But then came on demand. Usage patterns have changed dramatically; among 30-to-49-year-olds, half now watch streaming. My conviction: if our mandate is to serve everyone, we must reach people in the on-demand world. The biggest challenge is to move money away from linear slots to create independent offerings for the Mediathek. We have already launched 25 new series in 2022 for the Mediathek, and we are focusing on serial documentaries. The Mediathek looks very different now, more international, search functions have improved. And in the first channel, changes are underway, more will come in 2023.

Yes. The Wednesday movie has a high tradition in ARD, but internationally, the 90-minute standalone film is disappearing. We will focus on multi-parters and series, and also on co-productions with other countries. The Wednesday slot is an opportunity to change television storytelling and usher in a new era. People want to follow characters and stories over a longer time. Serial storytelling is key; for example, Babylon Berlin started with seven narrative threads, which initially was too complex for audiences, but now it's normal. We need to develop that.

Cooperation possibilities vary. For Babylon Berlin, in 2016 ARD was not even on the radar for high-end series, so we needed Sky as a partner. Today I would have the ambition to do it alone, but that means not doing many other things. I was at the premiere of the fourth season, it's the best one by far. The key was that we committed to many episodes at once; in Germany we often dare to make eight episodes and then wait two years. For Babylon Berlin, we ordered 13 episodes and successive seasons, which was an advantage. Successor projects: we will have something like 'Das Netz' this autumn, a European production with Italy, Austria, Brazil about football's dirty business. In general, I'm confident we will have one or two major series for the Mediathek. There are projects in the pipeline, like 'Schneller als die Angst', which just won the German TV Award with Friederike Becht. But we will be able to announce something soon.

I always encourage future ARD chairs to be bold. And we are already the most successful German provider (if you don't count Netflix). In 2021 we increased viewing time by 80% and we are ahead of the ZDF Mediathek. With the program we have planned, I am quite confident we can achieve that if we consistently drive the transformation, especially in fiction, documentary, and comedy.

Actually, quite a lot has happened. You can already search across Mediatheken: if you type 'Tatort' in ZDF, you get to it. That sounds trivial, but it's already barrier-free switching. However, that's not the goal. The idea is to avoid double technical development. The product itself is crucial: search, curation, personalization. To do that, we need a mandatory login to gather data. That is controversial, but I think everyone is used to logging in. Without a login, we cannot provide personalization or regional diversity, which is our strength. We come from a world of nine broadcasters and seven different Mediatheken; just this year BR finally moved to the joint platform. ZDF is more centralized. So we need to convince each other, but work on shared infrastructure is intensive. It needs a clear political signal from the ARD chair and the ZDF director to move faster. I think it's essential; if we don't get it right, it will be difficult.

No one can predict the exact tipping point. I'd say we have to be prepared by 2030, but it could be 2035. Interestingly, daily TV usage is now declining even among the over-70s, though it's still much higher there—about 10% use on-demand, the rest still watch live. Maybe ten years, but honestly, anyone making predictions has already lost. As for the second question, we're not there yet. We don't have a truly independent offering where the Mediathek is completely different from Das Erste. We need that, and we still need to solve how to handle breaking news, regionalization, and personalization in the Mediathek. We have big challenges ahead, and I can't say if we'll solve them quickly enough, but we're trying. My personal assessment is that in the 2020s, it will be like this: if you take 'Tatort,' which is still the gold standard in linear TV, linear usage still accounts for 85-90% of total viewing. If you add usage on third-party platforms, maybe another 2-3% drops off, but the majority is still linear. That's partly due to the age pyramid—there are more older people. But for the future, by 2030 at the latest, it should be balanced.

No one has to give up. We want to operate it together, and the authorship of each program must be clearly visible. It's a shared platform operated jointly. So I wouldn't say anyone has to give up; both contribute their part. We would also operate the technology together. We already do that in part. Whether the technology ends up entirely with one broadcaster or remains with both, I can't answer right now. As of now, I'd say both.

I'll answer directly because it's so different. I have to strongly disagree: ARD is the absolute number one in Saturday evening entertainment. We have 'Klein gegen Groß' with Kai Pflaume, which I think is the most-watched. Some love it, others find it old-fashioned, but for me it's family entertainment of the best kind. 6-7 million viewers, where young people and children show adults how it's done. I don't know better family entertainment. We have classics like 'Verstehen Sie Spaß?' hosted by Barbara Schöneberger. We can argue about taste. We have spin-offs for young people. That's classic TV entertainment we do on Saturday evenings half the year. So I don't want to talk about 'Die Sendung mit der Maus' for Saturday evenings—the crossovers in children's programming are really strong. That's the last form where you still get that campfire feeling in entertainment. We achieve that once or twice a month. It's a very classic linear TV format that reaches a specific but large audience. So we already have that. Many people want something new, but many also want exactly what we have. When you introduce something new, you have to discontinue something old. That's related to the budget. Classic big TV entertainment is not something you can repeat; it's a one-time event, a real campfire. We do it much more successfully than anyone else, with great enthusiasm for family. We have big quiz formats shown in XXL. There are also new formats—I won't announce any tonight, but there's no reason to introduce new ones because the people who want to see these old formats are well served. I'm more concerned about needing modern comedy. We've established a new face with Carolin Kebekus. We have 'extra 3' and a very broad spectrum of comedy. At the turn of the year, we'll get something completely new combining investigative journalism and comedy. We can talk about that at the beginning of the year. But classic family entertainment relies on tradition and renewal within tradition, like making a YouTube spin-off of 'Verstehen Sie Spaß?' rather than an entirely new format. But there may be new things. The existing formats are very well received, and I invite you to watch them again. They work well.

I used the term 'fourth estate' and said that we are part of it. I compared it to decency and behavior. I think overall, the media may have the status of a fourth estate, though legally they are not formally designated as such. But I would go so far as to say that's how it's seen and factually is. However, I didn't refer only to ARD or public broadcasting; you misunderstood me if that was unclear. I would say the media are a kind of fourth estate. You asked how we can be the fourth estate if politicians sit on the boards. I don't see it that way because the boards—there are usually two: the Administrative Board oversees the business of the state broadcasters and the directors, and the Broadcasting Council represents society. You mentioned a third—that refers to the ZDF Television Council. It's regulated differently in each state. But politicians are a clear minority, and they are usually from different parties. The state parliament and government can send members to the Broadcasting Council, but they cannot influence the program. Program design is controlled ex post by the Broadcasting Council, but the Council does not design the program. In program design, we are autonomous. Citizens or journalists can file a program complaint about specific programs, and the Council rules on it. The Council deals with the program permanently, but it cannot influence specific reporting or program design. So in that sense, no. As for your other question about competition: we are public broadcasting. You pay a fee of €18.36 per household, and we use that to make programs. What we are allowed to do, including which apps, is approved in a three-step test. You know we have legal disputes about text-heavy offerings. There are cases with the BDVZ at the arbitration court. For example, Radio Bremen was accused of being too text-heavy, too similar to what a newspaper offers. We are not under press law but broadcasting law. So the question is how the courts decide, and there are rulings that go against us. From my perspective, we are allowed to offer apps; the legislature has created the basis, and we offer them on that basis. I personally think it's important because if you restrict our ability to develop—if you say stay with TV and don't move into the modern world—then conversely, people who only use apps would ask why they should pay. One conditions the other. In Austria, there was a ruling on the streaming gap: the ORF was not allowed to offer streaming or a Mediathek, only to post things for seven days. Someone sued, saying they only use on-demand and don't use the service. The court said that's not acceptable; the policy must allow the broadcaster to be active in this world, otherwise they can't collect fees from everyone. So one conditions the other. Ultimately, we cannot set the framework ourselves; we have guidelines we must follow. So I wouldn't speak of distortion of competition; we do what we are supposed to do and are authorized to do.

That's our constitutional mandate. It's public broadcasting, whether you like it or not. You pay the fee of €18.36 as a population, and we use it to make programs. What we are allowed to do, including which apps, is approved in a three-step test. You know we have legal disputes about text-heavy offerings. There are cases with the BDVZ at the arbitration court. For example, Radio Bremen was accused of being too text-heavy, too similar to what a newspaper offers. We are not under press law but broadcasting law. So the question is how the courts decide, and there are rulings that go against us. From my perspective, we are allowed to offer apps; the legislature has created the basis, and we offer them on that basis. I personally think it's important because if you restrict our ability to develop—if you say stay with TV and don't move into the modern world—then conversely, people who only use apps would ask why they should pay. One conditions the other. In Austria, there was a ruling on the streaming gap: the ORF was not allowed to offer streaming or a Mediathek, only to post things for seven days. Someone sued, saying they only use on-demand and don't use the service. The court said that's not acceptable; the policy must allow the broadcaster to be active in this world, otherwise they can't collect fees from everyone. So one conditions the other. Ultimately, we cannot set the framework ourselves; we have guidelines we must follow. So I wouldn't speak of distortion of competition; we do what we are supposed to do and are authorized to do.

Regarding what you said last: I know that survey about trainees, and I think the conclusion drawn from it is wrong. Moreover, I believe a good journalist must be able to separate his personal stance from his political and private convictions. That applies not only to political convictions but to all convictions. Each of us has private things—one is Catholic, another Protestant, one likes genetic engineering, another doesn't. A good journalist for me is always one who can separate that from his professional work. That we make mistakes in a large system and discuss them publicly is undisputed. But I think no one is as transparent with mistakes as we are, precisely because we are closely observed. I consider the assessment that we are a left-wing biased broadcaster to be wrong. I move around these newsrooms every day, and I can tell you with full conviction: every day, every information program is intensively discussed by the editors-in-chief. It's a critical debate every day. Not everything will please you, but it's not a homogeneous group marching in one political direction and pushing it through. That's simply not true. As for your question about economics: I share your assessment. We have a magazine called 'Plusminus,' which I think is committed, but it has developed more into a consumer magazine and is no longer the economic magazine it could be. We have political magazines like 'Monitor,' 'Report,' and 'Fakt' where economic topics play a big role and there are good contributions on economic policy. For example, climate and energy have been extensively covered. But I agree with you, and that was part of our reform discussion: we don't have a classic economic magazine. I don't think it has to be a magazine. We are now working on documentaries on economic topics, where we address big issues and want to explain things. We are in the final phase before something new comes out. One will be a series called 'Moneymaker,' which tells stories of people who became very rich through partly legal ventures—people who made money with ideas like Bitcoin. It's about how they came to extreme wealth. I've seen the first two episodes; it will be a seven-part series prominently offered in the Mediathek. We will do more in this vein. Whether we will also have the strength to develop 'Plusminus' back into a stronger economic magazine—that would be a format I could imagine—or whether we will tell economic stories in narrative, filmic formats like documentary series, that's something we can discuss. I'm meeting with the economic editorial teams next week at their annual meeting to discuss exactly this question. I agree with your analysis: we are not good enough in that area, and we need to change that. I want us to be part of the conversation, not just Handelsblatt or FAZ. We formulated that clearly a year ago. We are working on it. I'm sure we'll achieve something, whether it will be what I dream of, I don't know, but we are on the way. I'm self-critical: it's not good enough there.

First, that's not correct—I have to contradict. The basic idea was to work with the colleagues of the 'Weltspiegel' editorial team to recognize that they have a very loyal fan base of 1.5 to 2 million viewers who watch reliably on the current slot and are very reluctant to move. I consider the debate about slots to be outdated. I believe we must recognize that we have an incredible treasure of correspondents, but it's not enough to always delight the usual 'Weltspiegel' viewers. We need to reach other target groups with these stories. That was the approach of this reform. I said at the very beginning: if we only think about classic television and the magazine format, we will no longer reach a certain part of the population. Talk to people under 50 about how they feel about watching 'Weltspiegel' on Sunday evening at that time. That's the challenge. The good thing is that everything will come: the 'Weltspiegel' editorial teams will produce documentaries alongside their classic magazine show that we need in the Mediathek. That was the reform approach. It was always about the fact that on Sunday, we said 'Weltspiegel' is there, we exchange 'Publica'—if you take linear TV seriously, you have to get the program flow right. But the decisive thing is that from 2023, we will offer a new foreign format that takes into account new narrative styles. Magazine shows are simply not used in the Mediathek; you need pieces that have a different form and narrative style. That's what I need from the 'Weltspiegel' editorial teams. That was the challenge, and after a storm of outrage—which always happens when you change things—we tackled it together. They are working hard, and I am in exchange with them. From '23, it will be visible. So I didn't learn anything from it because it didn't surprise me that change first causes unrest. If there's no unrest, you probably aren't really planning to change anything. I didn't come here to keep everything as it is. I say it again: if we don't orient ourselves to what's happening around us, if we are self-sufficient and think that the TV box was once our future, then one day we won't exist anymore because we are no longer relevant. I want us to remain relevant. That means we have to keep the whole population in view, and we have to honestly say that we have already lost the whole population for a while. We haven't reached younger people on Das Erste for a very long time. But I want to reach them. I want them to be confronted with our great topics from the world, but then we need different production methods and narrative styles. That's the challenge that every editorial team has to face: they have to produce not only for classic TV but also for the Mediathek. They do it enthusiastically, and I find it very creative. That there is a bit of excitement at the beginning is normal.

Clearly, the documentary is a form that we need for the Mediathek. When you watch pieces made for the Mediathek—I mentioned 'Moneymaker' earlier, or you can also watch the new foreign or investigative pieces—they tell a story over 20-30 minutes. They are structured differently than in a magazine. In a magazine, you have a moderator, a report, then the moderator, then the next report. That doesn't work in the Mediathek anywhere in the world. In the Mediathek, you want to watch pieces. You can see from the user numbers that they tell a story. That story is from the world and is superbly researched for the magazine report, but it has to be made differently to work in the Mediathek. That's the challenge, and we are tackling it cheerfully, sometimes with many discussions, but it's necessary.

We will discuss that. I only expressed my opinion. The concerns you raise are also present with us, and I think rightly so. I believe no one has to adhere to data protection as strictly as we do. When you give data—I don't know if you do, but if you've ever shopped at Amazon or Netflix, you automatically give your data. I think no one handles it as carefully as we do because we have very strict guidelines. I only say: if you want a recommendation system, and I believe that especially as a regional provider like ARD, which has something no one else has—it interests me in Frankfurt what happens in Hesse, but not so much in Bremen—it would be smart to offer tailored offerings. But you are right, we have to translate that for ourselves: what does it mean? We can't just leave people in their bubble and only confront them with things that interest them; we also want to consciously lead them to things that don't interest them. As for feature films, I am a total advocate. I think I even introduced the summer cinema on Das Erste. I am a total advocate of preserving cinema on TV despite all difficulties, and also the single piece. I would have been completely misunderstood there. I only think we have to do it selectively and also see what we can afford. But we also have to see that we haven't done an excessive amount of series so far; we were more into single pieces. So we have to do both. You would have misunderstood me if you thought the cinema film wasn't important to me on TV. But what the colleague in front meant was the classic old feature film, and you can find that in the Mediathek. We will broadcast fewer of them on Das Erste, but we just had a very successful summer cinema season with German productions like 'Lindenberg,' 'Kaiserschmarrndrama,' 'Knives Out'—really great, high-quality cinema films that had their first broadcast on TV. So cinema is important, but we also have to integrate it so that people find it and not just show it without anyone watching because no one knows about it.