Zukunft des Fernsehens: Linear oder On Demand? - Nadine Bilke

First of all, it's clear that I have a soft spot for the media library because I worked for it a year ago. Now I've been at Neo for about three-quarters of a year, and I'm always asked: 'You're the online woman from the media library, now you're at linear Neo, are you going to shut down next year, Mrs. Bilke?' And then I say, 'No, I'm sorry to disappoint you.' It's very important that we continue this because I think the real idea is to orchestrate the formats – the right content for our target group on the right paths: linear, media library, social media, who knows what else. That's kind of the rocket science of program planning in the moving image market now. That's why it's a bit difficult to quantify the relationship in general terms because only part of it can be summed up in a number. We can combine linear television and the ZDF media library. We can say that a successful fictional program might bring about 15 percent share via the media library, but that includes all linear broadcasts – it's aired multiple times. We can't count social media in that. For example, to watch something like 'Medium Magazine Royal' without mentioning social media would be nonsense. So we look very closely at the platform numbers. We can't currently add our own platform numbers to our platform numbers from ZDF, because unfortunately Facebook, YouTube, and Google don't really participate in the AGF (the Working Group for Moving Image Research). They are trying, so YouTube numbers should be included in the future, which will be very exciting, especially for 'Neo Magazine Royal'. So that I can then see the whole picture.

In my personal bubble, it's the same. I come from digital too. But actually, the numbers are not like that. Streaming services – whether the public broadcasters' media libraries or the US players – are gaining reach in Germany, but the national linear TV program is absolutely leading in terms of numbers and contacts. So I think the idea is precisely the mix. The linear audience, for example, has almost seven million contacts per day with Neo. We combine things: we do online first, we make the spot of our series; people can start watching on TV and continue in the media library. But linear usage numbers are still very significant. In the younger age group, on-demand might slowly be at the same level, but that's the situation we're in now. But looking ahead, would you say that linear will fade away or become very little? I personally believe that this usage scenario – linear television, I switch on and something is offered to me – will remain. But it could also be that this will eventually be satisfied via a kind of playlist once platforms are advanced. Technically, it's no longer the distribution path, but I think this use case – sitting down, switching on, and seeing what's on – will still be interesting for certain things. For series, perhaps binge-watching and linear time-shifted viewing might even prevail. But for events like co-co shows, sports events, or other programs consumed as events, even if they aren't really, I think linear – this targeted linear and this 'I switch on and want to see something' – this usage scenario will remain.

There are actually a few problems of technological, media law, and other nature. Public and private providers already tried to come together a long time ago – Germany's Gold, through the cartel office, etc. There are also strategies that I think would not bring public and private together. As public broadcasters, we can't, for example, say we make a series and keep it behind a paywall forever. We are not allowed to do that, we don't want to. There is a broadcasting fee and financing for basic provision. The public broadcasters among themselves are already taking the path of networking, and I think it's very smart to do this networking, to seek alliances even in individual productions. For example, the ZDFneo series 'Perfume' is a co-production with Netflix. So through co-productions and alliances between platforms, we get the best possible portfolio for our viewers. I'm not entirely convinced that one mega platform would lead to better user scenarios. Because in the end, it's about serving these target groups well, and they are quite diverse. What about if I add Europe? A platform for all of Europe would target the same international audience as the US players. Then to go a step further, one could say we make a platform, say, EU-wide, license it so that it can be reused, for example, on Wikipedia pages or under special topic media libraries. For biotechnology, etc., one could wonderfully sort in ZDF HD productions. And on the third-largest website in the world, with excellent TV productions, people would always find them. And the productions could be assembled in a variety of ways because I also believe that on a mega platform like Netflix, it's already hard to find content that interests you and that you like. I see that problem. So why not take this step and license it so it can be reused, for example, on Wikipedia? We do that with individual projects; there have been cooperations, and we will continue to try. It's a bit complex because we work with creative people who also have rights to their material and legitimate interests, and that currently doesn't quite align. They have exploitation interests, and if Wikipedia says everyone should always be able to use it for free or for commercial purposes, then the creatives would have to give up all rights to their content. There are a few difficult questions. It's not that public broadcasters don't want to give it away, but many are involved in the creation process, and what Wikipedia currently demands is relatively difficult to reconcile with all these interests of the creatives. But I'm not saying it's impossible; maybe we'll get to a point where these markets shift and we can get there. Aside from the licensing question, you could say you pay the creatives more upfront because secondary exploitation becomes difficult when it's on Wikipedia and released for financial use. But in principle, do you think it's a worthwhile goal to publish public broadcasting content on Wikipedia? As I said, we have already done cooperations. I always have a bit of a problem with everyone talking about the super platform and the vessels, rather than the content. I think it has to come from an interesting content approach, from the user's need, and then such a project can make total sense. But it really depends on the topic; across all genres, it's probably a bit difficult, but I can imagine various interesting topics and use cases.

At Neo, we have basically three pillars that we will continue. You have the factual area – for example, 'Number Boys and Girls' about gender roles, how to learn to be a man or a woman. We will continue that strand, having factual approaches with entertaining claims, emotional but also scientifically sound. We have shows, we have personalities we present: 'Neo Magazine Royal' with Jan Böhmermann, Clara Knapp is doing a new show, Laura Karasek will have a show. And we also have fiction. In all these strands, we will continue. In fiction, we will make drama series, but we also want to make sitcoms because we believe that humor, and using humor to address the big questions of life, makes a lot of sense for a young target group. And we have already had success with that. So we think from this content perspective and will then bring it to our viewers via linear, of course, also via the media library, and accompanied on social media, sometimes more, sometimes less. But when you plan such shows or series, do you think first about on-demand? It varies. It's really a portfolio. We are not just making one series but several. We have series where I would say that is simply binge-worthy material. For example, we are about to make two European co-productions, 'Undercover' and 'Something', series of eight and ten episodes, with cliffhangers, exciting, a character ensemble – hopefully our viewers will stick with it. I know for myself, when I watched them, I naturally looked very closely at the media library numbers. We have other series in the making that are told episodically, like 'Tagungen', perhaps a bit more suitable for viewers to dip in and out of linear, watch again a week later. So we think in a portfolio of our material. I wouldn't say we only do one thing; it depends on clever combination.

First of all, I think the start of funk made a lot of sense, the way it started. Funk is based at ZDF's online department, so in my old job I was very close to it. ZDFneo also has two cooperation projects with funk for good reason, because we have overlaps in the target group and they are very successful. I think you first have to come with the content and say, 'Hey, we have mega cool content for you, and we are, by the way, funk.' That makes total sense for the young target group. But we also have a project like 'Druck', the series, which in its second season was also broadcast on Neo linear and is also available in the ZDF media library. So I think it's clear to look at the funk projects where the docking points are, where you might find another target group for them and bring them onto other platforms. Whether the content now goes a step further, I find it very difficult to imagine transferring this audience that has been built up – this million-strong audience for funk on YouTube – somewhere else. Which media libraries? I don't even know if the idea is necessarily to transfer it. In the end, we have different, very heterogeneous target groups; it's not one target group. And if 'Druck' on YouTube for funk works so well, then the question is more: we bring it here and there and open up new target groups that may overlap with this YouTube target group but also complement it. To transfer it completely would be a difficult thing; people have their own ideas about media usage.

I think it's not hidden at all; quite the opposite. I think the colleagues in the formats have done it very cleverly, always weaving in a charming 'Thank you for your broadcasting fee' like Jan Böhmermann does. The funk creatives and traders do something similar. And I think with this statement at the end of every funk program, the sender ARD and ZDF for funk – the public broadcasting sender – is communicated very clearly. Because this double sender ARD and ZDF actually stands for public broadcasting in Germany. So there is no intention to hide anything.