Some missions that you carry out, the private UEL companies also participate in public service missions. We will undoubtedly have the opportunity to come back to this. We welcome four executives whom I will quickly introduce. First, you, Mr. Rodolphe Belmaire, you are the Chairman and CEO of the TF1 group. After starting your career in marketing, you joined the Canal Plus company in October 2001 as Director of Strategy and Development. In October 2012, you became CEO of the Canal Plus group, a group you left in 2015, sorry. You then joined the SAT group and then the Athos group in January 2022. You only stayed a few months since you joined the TFA group in October of the same year as CEO. You have been Chairman and CEO since February 2023 and you are President of the AF, the association of the audiovisual sector which brings together the audiovisual groups France Télévisions, M6 and TF1, the main collective management organizations as well as producers' unions, and you created this association, this sector in a context of profound upheaval in the sector in order to ensure, I quote you, the solidity of your economic models, to accompany the transformation of the audiovisual sector and to ensure, and this is important and it is an essential mission, the influence of the French cultural exception. Mr. Maxime Saada, you started far from the media world since you joined the DATAR in 1994 before joining McKinsey in 1999. You entered the media world in May 2004 before becoming CEO of the Canal Plus group in 2015 and Chairman of the Management Board since 2018. I add that you are also Chairman of Dailymotion since 2016 and Chairman of StudioCanal since 2018. Mr. David Larramendy, you have been Chairman and CEO of the M6 group since April 2024. You started your career at Goldman Sachs. You then joined the M6 group in February 2008 where you quickly led Ventadis, a subsidiary of the group that brought together several former distance selling flagships. Then for more than 9 years you were CEO of M6 Interaction and at the same time CEO of M6 Publicité. I add that you are currently President of the ACP, the association of private channels since June 2025, thus succeeding Mr. Belmaire. Ms. Claire Léost, you are for your part CEO of CMA Media. You joined the Garder in 2014 as CEO of the general public division. You passed through CMI France before entering Vivendi and then Prisma Media. So you became President in September 2021. From September 2021 to September 2025. You were appointed CEO of CMA Media in August 2025. And as such, you oversee, you have responsibility for BFM TV and RMC. I thank you for coming to enlighten the work of our commission of inquiry in order to understand your positioning with regard to the public service, the public sector, the public audiovisual sector. I will have a few preliminary questions, but before asking them, I will, as Article 6 of the ordinance of November 17, 1958 indicates and reminds us, ask you to declare any other public or private interest likely to influence your statements. And I remind you that under Article 6 of the ordinance of November 17, 1958 relating to the functioning of parliamentary assemblies, persons heard by a commission of inquiry must swear to tell the truth. The whole truth, nothing but the truth. I will therefore ask each of you in turn to raise your right hand and say 'I swear it.' Mr. Belmaire,
Thank you. Thank you. And I will now give the floor to Mr. Belmaire for 5 minutes.
Thank you Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen deputies. Just a few brief words by way of introduction. I don't think I'll need the full 5 minutes. You already said a lot, Mr. President, in your kind introduction. So, I am President of the TF1 group, which is the leading private free-to-air broadcaster in France and as such a central player in the landscape, particularly in the financing of audiovisual creation and the information of the French people. We have five channels on DTT, five free channels including TF1, which is the leading commercial channel in Europe. Our group brings together more than 27% audience share in 2025. So we are very close to the leading group in audience, which is the public audiovisual sector. Our recent successes such as the morning show called Bonjour which was launched in 2024, our free streaming platform TF1+ which already has more than 38 million monthly users and is offered in all French-speaking territories worldwide. The audience growth of our news channel LCI, which reached second place in the news market last month, much to our delight, as you can imagine, illustrates our ability to innovate. This innovation, this work, these efforts are provided by the 3,117 employees of the group, including 700 dedicated to informing our fellow citizens, free information that is brought every day to our fellow citizens across the entire territory. These successes hide or take place, I should say, in a complex economic context. The television advertising market is under pressure, continuous decline in individual viewing time of television shifting to digital uses, and above all regulation which remains, despite all our efforts and all our requests, very asymmetric. Regulation that penalizes national broadcasters in the face of growing competition from international platforms, first among which I would like to mention YouTube and with which we are increasingly in competition for usage and advertising revenue. In this context, the TF1 group continues to invest more than 230 million per year in French creation and 150 million euros per year also in information with an ambition, a clear editorial line which is affirmed, which is even inscribed on our screens several dozen times a day, which is to be an actor of national cohesion in our country. Our slogan is 'Les Français ensemble'. As Chairman and CEO of the TF1 group since 2022, finally Chairman and CEO since 2023, CEO since 22, I share a strong conviction. French audiovisual media, public and private, is a pillar of our democracy, our culture, especially as far as we are concerned, our popular culture and our economy. Today it is a sector going through a pivotal period marked by significant structural challenges that threaten its balance and must be understood as they should, particularly in an economy that is highly regulated by public authority. These issues do not only concern the private sector, and as President of the audiovisual sector association, recently created as you said Mr. President, I carry on behalf of this sector a global vision and an ambition for the sector which is to support its evolution and in particular its regulation in a sector which is very regulated by law, by European directives and by all kinds of regulations. This audiovisual sector has 27 members. As you said, broadcasters, almost all French broadcasters, fiction producers, filmmakers, authors, musicians, dubbing artists, actors, the whole sector is gathered and has gathered around a few simple priorities that illustrate the economic interdependence of our sector. One of these elements behind which the sector is mobilizing is, and I think this is the heart of your subject today, so I will say it in introduction, the central role of public audiovisual media as an essential link in this ecosystem and in particular the financing of audiovisual creation. And that is a very important point that must be highlighted and insisted upon. The second element is the complementarity of the public and private sectors with regard to the pluralism of information, making the public sector a pillar of our democracy. To play this role fully, public audiovisual media must have clear missions that are the subject of a national consensus and sustainable funding. So today, you question yourselves, you will surely question us on the place, role and funding of the public sector. What I mean is that after 2 years, perhaps even more than 2 years, without a contract of objectives and means, obviously, and it is almost tautological, the missions of the public service are insufficiently defined and insufficiently controlled by the public authority. So, should there be reforms in the public sector? Certainly. There must certainly be reforms to ensure funding, a public sector funded with sustainable funding and visibility on a scale and whose missions are defined for the service of our fellow citizens in a national consensus. These reforms must, however, preserve the balances of the sector in two aspects. First, the advertising resource. The public sector's access to advertising resources must respect the major economic balances of the sector and therefore must remain stable, neither reduce nor increase. And second, the public sector must be able to continue to significantly fund popular culture and information for the benefit of our fellow citizens for the greatest benefit of our national community. Thank you. So that's what I could tell you by way of introduction. I think my time is up. That's what you mean by signaling me. You told me I wouldn't use 5 minutes, but you see, it's always like that with a commission of inquiry. You're reluctant at first and then in the end you talk longer than expected. We'll see about that at the end if you agree Mr. President. Listen, no, I want to say that contrary to what might appear on the surface, and even though I am president of a private group, I consider that the public sector is an essential link in our sector, that the public and private audiovisual sectors share a common challenge and future, and that we must address it in this form.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and CEO. I will now give the floor to the President of the M6 group.
Thank you very much Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur. Ladies and gentlemen deputies, thank you for your invitation. I am very happy to be here this evening. I will very quickly present the M6 group in a few words. We have 2,200 employees, about 350 journalists, I will come back to that in a few moments. We broadcast 13 television channels, five of which are on DTT, three national radio stations including RTL, of course our streaming platform M6+ and all our digital assets, especially our podcasts on RTL. We are also present in the field of production and in the field of cinema both as a producer and as a distributor. So our business, our mission is quite simple: to entertain and inform the French people, all French people. We invest each year approximately 240 million euros in French creation. As for information, it is at the heart of our offer through three pillars. RTL first, and we have 10 hours of information per day. Secondly, our news broadcasts on M6, and finally our magazines which are brands you know like Capital, Zone Interdite or Enquête Exclusive. We are very proud to carry this information, information that is produced by newsrooms, independent newsrooms and not by algorithms, and I hope we will have the opportunity to come back to this during this hearing. So Rodolphe spoke to you about LAAFA, a word on the ACP which I have the pleasure of chairing. It was created about twenty years ago in 2008, created by TF1, by M6 and the Canal group. CMA Media joined it last year and we defend there a number of interests of our private channels in various areas. We may have the opportunity to come back to it. So to come to the subject of your commission, I may disappoint, I don't necessarily have a judgment to make on the programs, nor on the information, nor on the funding of the public service. Is it at a good level? Is it too high? Is it too low? Should it be 3 billion, 2 billion, 5 billion? Honestly, it's not for me to decide. However, I think we can ask questions about the role of the state as shareholder. And Mr. Belmaire was talking about it a few moments ago. I think that between the effective absence of signing of the last contracts of objectives and means in recent years and the successive budget cuts we've seen in recent months, I think that looks more like short-sighted management than the strategic dialogue we might expect. Furthermore, a third point I wanted to make on this is that few people have noted that the public audiovisual sector benefits from many advantages compared to its private competitors. For example, I don't know if you know this, but we are not equal with regard to the frequencies we occupy. The state has a right of preemption. Right now, for example, Radio France is trying to swap the France Public and France Info networks for reasons that we can perhaps understand. Which, incidentally, would be catastrophic for national private networks like ours. If you ask the question 'Could I do the same thing for RTL and Fun?' The answer is no. If I wanted to make Gulli a news channel, the answer is also no. So we are not on an equal footing with that and it's important to talk about it, especially because it's obvious that the public audiovisual sector has a role, and an important role to play, but I am also convinced that it is absolutely essential to have a strong private audiovisual sector. So we live this almost daily in our group, the RTL group, RTL Hungary, which is a sister channel. In its country, it is now almost the only channel for free expression in that country. So we measure the importance it can play there. However, as we were just saying, our ecosystem is in complete upheaval. Our business model is endangered by the streaming revolutions. Honestly, I weigh my words. It's a revolution in usage, a revolution in technology, and above all a revolution in the competitive environment. So it is obviously a danger for us. It is also a danger, I think, for society as a whole. We talk about it more and more often, but not enough, especially regarding mental health which we are only beginning to take into account, and I would like to have a thought or a word for Mrs. Miller and the bill she is carrying, hoping it can go through. So, in the face of this revolution, we are evolving in a totally archaic regulatory system and framework. I recently called for a New Deal for audiovisual media and I take the liberty of reiterating this call before you. One, we must reverse the bans that weigh on our antennas. We have music radio stations, honestly, in the age of streaming, but we are forbidden from broadcasting the titles that work best for our listeners. It's incomprehensible. In the age of Netflix and Amazon Prime, we cannot on Saturday evening broadcast the films we want. Secondly, we need a New Deal on broadcasting. DTT costs more and more. It is now used by less than 20% of French people. It is useful, we need it, but obviously we must drastically reduce its costs. Third element, from the moment it is authorized for digital players, it must, it seems obvious to me, authorize advertising for retail promotions on television. The ban that still exists in France is absolutely unique in France and probably in the world. And then fourth point, we need to evolve the concentration rules. We need to be able to foster national players in the face of the flood of platforms. So many of these changes that we hope for would also benefit the public sector. Conversely, I draw your attention to the fact that given the situation of our industry, we must above all not allow possible solutions for the public audiovisual sector to further weaken private players. Privatization is not a solution, nor is increasing advertising time. In conclusion, I would tell you that the public and private audiovisual sectors are obviously not adversaries. The real question today is not how we share the market among French players, it is whether we still want to have weight in the face of international players, whether we still want French sovereignty in the face of foreign interference. It is on this condition and this condition alone that we will continue to sustain both independent information and strong creation in our country. Thank you very much.
Thank you for these remarks which already enlighten our work and our reflections. Ms. Léost, I give you the floor for 5 minutes.
Well Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen deputies. First of all, I thank you for receiving me as part of your work as CEO of CMA Media. So, allow me first to tell you a bit about CMA Media, which is a young group in the French media landscape. It is a group that was created only 4 years ago at the initiative of Rodolphe Saadé with the acquisition of La Provence and Corse Matin. Then the purchase of La Tribune in 2023 and the launch of La Tribune Dimanche, its Sunday version. Then the acquisition of RMC BFM 2 years ago, followed last year by the acquisition of Cherry 25 which was renamed RMC Life and that of Brut, a social media for young people. So in a few years, a media group has been formed, which has gone from 0 to 500 million euros in revenue in less than 4 years and has become the only media group to be present across all media, i.e. local and national print press, radio, television and social networks. In audiovisual, the CMA Media branch forms a powerful and coherent set that brings together strong information and entertainment brands that are rooted in the daily lives of the French, such as BFM TV and RMC. The first pillar of our editorial project is information. You should know that RMC BFM is the largest private newsroom in France with more than 850 journalists. We cover all fields of news, general news, politics, economics, local, national, international and on all media. And moreover, I would like to thank all the teams who are in the field, on air, behind the scenes and who carry out this exceptional work on a daily basis. To give you an example, BFM TV, which is for us the benchmark in terms of information, provides continuous coverage of major events with both in-depth analysis and exclusivity on all events taking place in France and abroad. We provide more than 20 hours of live coverage per day, 7 days a week, which is really a specificity of BFM TV. The last municipal elections were an example of what we were capable of doing in terms of coverage since we organized more than 40 debates between candidates on both our local channels and our national channel BFM TV, since on BFM TV we organized the four debates in the major French cities of Marseille, Lyon, Nice and obviously the second-round debate in Paris. We are also very present at the moment in the Gulf region where we have more than 20 teams covering the conflict live and 7 days a week. So we are mobilized both in France and internationally. We also have, alongside BFM TV, RMC radio, which is a generalist and popular radio that offers information, sports and debate. So with this unique positioning and a direct link with its audience. Alongside information, we have a second pillar which is entertainment. We have a cluster of three channels: RMC Story, Découverte and Life, which offer entertainment programs including films, documentaries, magazines that are accessible and demanding, and which are naturally also present on our replay and streaming platform. So the strength of our group is the complementarity and coherence of our brands, which have built a relationship of trust with all their audiences. We are leaders in information among young people and active adults, and we also effectively reach our advertising targets since we need to know that we are 100% dependent on advertising. What also needs to be said is that covering the news, this model of BFM TV is a model that has no price but has a cost, a significant cost, and therefore requires significant resources and a solid shareholder base. So we combine a solid economic base with the agility of a young structure, which meant that last year we were the only private audiovisual player to be growing in the French market in a difficult advertising context, as my colleagues mentioned. To come back to the subject of this hearing, what I would like to remind you is that for us, it is essential to properly measure the complementarity between the public audiovisual service and the private service. The public audiovisual service fulfills specific programs that justify its dedicated state funding. The private audiovisual service contributes just as much to pluralism and the vitality of democratic debate, but in a different economic framework since it is based 100% on commercial resources. As a private player, it is not for us to judge the organization of the public service nor even its editorial choices. However, we are very attentive and very vigilant to the fact that no development should weaken the private players who are already facing major challenges in a contracting advertising market as we have all recalled here, and especially in the face of growing competition from large American digital platforms. So for us, the absence of a safeguard or the ability for the public audiovisual sector to benefit from new advertising resources would constitute a significant factor of imbalance that could destabilize the entire private sector. Thank you, and I am at your disposal for any questions.
Thank you, Madam CEO. And to conclude, Mr. Saada, I give you the floor.
Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen deputies, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Canal Plus. I prefer to indicate from the start of this hearing that I am not certain that I can directly enlighten the work of this commission of inquiry devoted to the neutrality, operation and financing of the public audiovisual sector. On the one hand, because I have never led a public entity. On the other hand, because the group I lead is very different from France Télévisions or even TF1, M6 and CMA Media. How is our economic model different? First, indeed, the majority of our revenue comes from subscriptions, whereas free-to-air channels rely very heavily, as you know, on advertising. Our difference also lies in our economic and geographical footprint. Canal Plus today is nearly 9 billion euros in revenue, 40 million subscribers, 15,000 employees in more than 70 countries. Critical mass is a necessity to rival American platforms. In our project, France remains of course important, notably because it is our native market which still represents a significant share of our revenue. It is the market where our headquarters are located, where we fully pay our taxes and where we continue to invest heavily, particularly in French cinema, of which we remain the leading financier and in which we believe, as evidenced by our recent stake in the UGC group, and also in sport, of which we are one of the main contributors. But our orientation and our development are today largely focused internationally. It is internationally that we generate the majority of our revenue and almost all of our profits. I am thinking in particular of the African continent where we now have 25 million subscribers and where we have just carried out the most important operation in the history of the Canal Plus group with the acquisition of Multichoice, the leading audiovisual group in Africa. An acquisition that leads Canal Plus to offer content in nearly 70 languages other than French, in English of course, but also in Polish, Burmese, Portuguese and in multiple vernacular languages: Lingala, Bambara, Swahili, Wolof and so on. It is in this trajectory, quite distant from our subject here, that our relationship with France Télévisions is situated. To return to the very object of your work, France Télévisions is a historic partner that we appreciate and value just like our 30 other partners in France, three of whom are at this table today alongside me, and our nearly 200 other partners worldwide. Concretely, our relationship with the France Télévisions group is based first on the distribution of its national and regional channels and its content in our offers on our platform in France, notably in the DROMs where we also distribute local versions, and internationally in the territories where we operate in Africa, Mauritius, Madagascar, Comoros, Haiti and more marginally in Switzerland, Poland, Central Europe and Benelux. Furthermore, we finance almost all films pre-purchased by France Télévisions, even if the reciprocal is not true. These years of collaboration and my vision of the sector lead me to two simple convictions. First, the existence of a solid public audiovisual sector with visibility on its budget is an important element for maintaining a diverse and vibrant French creative fabric. Second, this is in no way incompatible with the legitimate demands that all French people are entitled to make and that you display here: cost control, budgetary rigor and neutrality. Our environment is changing very quickly and France Télévisions, like all of us, must no doubt adapt. We all face, whether public or private audiovisual, the imperative question of adaptation in the face of the rapid and profound transformation of our sector. Today dominated by American players, it may be tomorrow by Chinese players. On this sloping ground, Canal Plus has had to profoundly revise its strategy to become a profitable player and regain a growth dynamic. Canal Plus first had to drastically reduce its costs, particularly in France. This rationalization effort led us down a difficult path of several years, as you know, characterized by a reduction in our costs in France of more than 30%. Not a single cost item escaped us. From content costs to operating costs, unfortunately with several departure plans. No chauffeurs at Canal Plus. Even today, cost control is a guiding principle at Canal Plus. Every year, every month, every week, every day, this requirement guides all of our teams. It is at the heart of their objectives because it directly conditions our survival. Even today, the Management Board of Canal Plus validates all recruitments of the group on a monthly basis and I personally approve, as an example, the nights during trips to festivals such as Cannes or Venice. Beyond cost reduction, Canal Plus has evolved its model by enriching its generalist offer of sport, cinema and premium series with a unique aggregation strategy in the world to distribute, alongside our own content, that of the largest international platforms, first and foremost Netflix of which we are the leading global partner. We have deployed StudioCanal which has become the leading European and now African studio on global franchises like Paddington and Bridget Jones or tomorrow Asterix. We have invested massively and continue to do so in technology with the development of our application and its deployment, the Canal Plus application, and we now employ more than 2,000 engineers among the best in the world in this field. Another element of adaptation is the typology of our customers. Our strategy in terms of content and user experience, coupled with considerable commercial efforts, has allowed us to massively attract young people. More than a million people under 26 have chosen to subscribe to Canal Plus in France. Finally, as I recalled, we have resolutely turned to international markets: Europe, Asia and especially Africa. I do not claim that this path is transferable to France Télévisions, nor that there is a one-size-fits-all sectoral solution. Each player has its missions, its constraints and its model. But it seems to me that we share the same challenge of adaptation in the face of an environment subject to unprecedented forces, to which is added for France Télévisions the challenge of responding to our country's difficulties in terms of public finances. It is in this spirit of sharing experience that I wished to express myself before you today. I am at your disposal to answer your questions and thank you for your attention.
Thank you all four. Perhaps two preliminary questions and then I will give the floor to the rapporteur. You have all four spoken to us about the public audiovisual sector in warm terms: a partner we appreciate, we are complementary with the public audiovisual sector, a reliable partner, I quote you, a collaboration. And yet, Mr. Belmaire, you filed a complaint, you filed, you announced that you would file a complaint with the European Commission to denounce illegal state aid benefiting France Télévisions. This attack was launched in November 2023. TF1 then considered that the financing methods of France Télévisions were contrary to European law. Can you perhaps detail the procedure that was launched? Was it done at the time on behalf of the ACP and where does it currently stand? And Mr. Saada, you are the Canal Plus group and owner of the CNews channel. You indicated that you do not know the public audiovisual sector well, but the media, at least a news channel that you own, talks about it regularly. So I am sure that if you listen to this channel, you can get additional information on the public audiovisual sector. But more seriously, a complaint for defamation was filed by France Télévisions and Radio France, from what I understand, separate complaints with the commercial court. How do you judge? How do you qualify this complaint for defamation when you have indicated that your group appreciates France Télévisions and Radio France? Do you regret this complaint for defamation? There, I indicate it was filed against CNews and I ask you the question because you are the owner of CNews. I don't know who wants to start, as you wish. It's your hearing, if I may say so.
So concerning our relations with France Télévisions, as I told you in my introductory remarks, we have very strong partnership relations with France Télévisions for several years. As in all bilateral relations, we can have ups and downs. It so happens that in 2023, we had a phase of tension with the France Télévisions group which led to different actions on the part of the TF1 group and not of the ACP in this instance, finally different actions on the part of the private channels in general, including a specific action by the TF1 group which was to bring an action before the European Commission. In reality, overall complaining about, and I said it a bit even if the context was a little different in my introduction, the absence of a contract of objectives and means that precisely define the missions of the public service and the corresponding resources as per the texts and as per the law and as per the principles, and it is on this basis that we introduced an action in Brussels. The action is ongoing.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for this response. It's important because we, the parliamentarians ourselves, have regretted on numerous occasions, I see that Ms. Alvest and other colleagues, but indeed that the COMs were not signed in time, which also complicates our function as parliamentarians and legislators. Perhaps Mr. Saada, I'll let you answer. In any case, thank you Mr. Belmaire for this response.
Yes, since there are ongoing procedures regarding the defamation complaints, I will not comment. I don't attach much importance to it, very honestly. If we were to launch into defamation complaints, we would spend our days doing so, including with our colleagues. Every other day, even two days out of two, we have Bolloré, Canteloup doing deepfakes of Pascal Praud almost every evening, daily, on almost all channels—it's the media game, I'd say. We're not there to attack for defamation. So there you go. That's life. I also recall a Telematin where it was shown how to download an application to track Vincent Bolloré's private jet. That's where we are, to give you an idea of the level of obsession. And yet we didn't complain to France Télévisions. So we have that all day. We don't pay attention to it. We work and move forward.
No, no, but I asked you the question because I think it's important because it's true that this, I don't know if the word war, and given the international context, I'm not sure it's quite appropriate, but in any case this tension that we see between the public and private audiovisual sectors, I'm not sure it's entirely, that's why I asked you not so much to comment on the defamation complaint but because we have the impression, and moreover when we hear Delphine Ernotte, she says the same thing to us about you, that we work rather in a complementary and partnership manner, yet alongside the relationships you have among yourselves as leaders, we have the feeling that there are strong tensions. And it's true that we tell ourselves, and here I speak as a legislator and as a citizen, that these strong tensions we see emerging between the public and private audiovisual sectors in a democracy, maybe I don't know if it's dangerous, but in any case it raises questions. There you go. So I don't know, the difference, but as I said, they also exist sometimes between private players, so there is no particular focus. And as you know, we believe in freedom of expression. So if journalists choose to cover subjects, we don't prevent them. Even when we have good relations with a group like France Télévisions. Thank you very much for these first answers. Mr. Rapporteur, I give you the floor.
Thank you Mr. President. Thank you madam, thank you gentlemen for your participation this afternoon. You know, as you recalled, this commission of inquiry concerns the public audiovisual sector, but today for once, there is no representative of these public companies in this room. There is also no regulator, no supervisory authority, no supplier, or at least not directly. In this room there are only representatives of the most important media groups in our country who have come, moreover, to give their opinion on the neutrality, financing and operation of the public audiovisual sector, and this will be valuable. You know how to work together. All three of you also defend your common interests through the AACP, the association of private channels, as you recalled in your opening remarks. And on February 11th in the Senate, you were gathered side by side at a symposium on the future of French audiovisual media where France Télévisions was also represented. Yet, you will agree, the climate today in the French audiovisual landscape, the PAF, is somewhat tense. First there were the remarks of Delphine Ernotte who publicly declared in an interview with Le Monde, I quote, 'CNews is an extreme right-wing channel.' End quote. Then there was the defamation complaint that the president mentioned, filed by France Télévisions and Radio France against CNews. There was also that interview, Mr. Belmaire, where you were asked a question about CNews and to which you replied, 'We are not trying to shape opinion,' which could be heard as a criticism of the Bolloré group. My question is broader than these remarks and it is addressed to all four of you. What is the current state of relations between private channels and between the public audiovisual sector and the groups you represent?
So, to respond, perhaps starting with the point you cited, a remark of mine that is accurate but which in no way targeted CNews. I was directly responding to the question of how we conceive information in the TF1 group and I was trying to answer what the mission of the TF1 group is, which I do all the time. I never give an opinion either on what CNews does or on what France Télévisions does. It's not my job to do that. So I want to clarify that it is not at all my habit to speak publicly to speak ill of my colleagues and to criticize the work that each one does as best they can. I imagine, just as we ourselves try to do our work as best we can in the service of our fellow citizens. And what I was trying to say is that the role of the TF1 group and its information, its social mission, the way it sees its interest, its value for our country, is to produce information that is intended for and in the service of all French people, whatever their opinions, and to be at their service, at the service of no opinion, no man, no party. I think that's roughly what I must have said in that statement.
Introduction, of very high quality. We greatly respect the quality of their work, in particular their very important role in two dimensions which are the financing of the audiovisual culture of our country, notably in the cinematic field, Mr. Saada, and also in the field of French fiction. And we also have a lot of respect, even if we are in direct competition with them on this segment, we have a lot of respect for the work they do in news.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Larond. Uh, listen, from a personal point of view, we have very good relations. We, we don't have a news channel. Maybe we have less tension, I don't know. But I think the question honestly is not there. We each do our job. All four of us said public broadcasting has a major role to play and will continue to play it. I think that by focusing too much on this, we are missing more important changes and much stronger dangers. And I would like to come back for a moment to social networks and in particular to the development of algorithmic information and of this algorithmic information which tends to reduce the mental framework, the mental universe in which each of us is likely to think, to reason and what could have been an open door to many other things and often something that antagonizes human relations and which creates or at least adds a lot of tension to a society that already does not lack it. So I think that's the kind of thing. So we have many common subjects with public broadcasting to continue to develop in this new environment, rather than focusing on the differences we may have.
Two main differences between the public service and private channels. First, there are the missions, and then the economic model. Regarding missions, it is true that the public service broadcaster has obligations that we do not have and deals with very important subjects like education, youth, coverage of the DOM-TOMs for example, and culture. So the public service has specific missions that justify state funding. And the second major difference, as I said earlier, is really the economic model. We at RMC BFM, we live 100% from advertising. BFM TV does not have the benefit of replay resources, for example, because it's news that is consumed in real time. By definition, news is a very perishable resource, a very perishable data, so our only economic model is advertising. So that is really the key point of difference for us with the public sector, and it is important to preserve this balance.
Thank you very much. Mr. Salada, would you like to react perhaps?
Simply to say that the relations, as I think you understood, the industrial relations with the France Télévisions group are good. We are partners on many film fundings. Moreover, the France Télévisions platform, all the content of France Télévisions is accessible on the Canal Plus platform and works particularly well. They are very popular and editorially indeed, there are criticisms on both sides and as I said, it's part of the game. We are not in a logic of banning anyone, of saying anything, and that's how it is.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your answers. Mr. President, Mr. Pelmaire, I suggest we address the situation of your studios. I was able to address this question with one of your representatives who was heard before us. In 2015, when TF1 bought Newen, the amount of your contracts with France Télévisions amounted to 92 million euros. Since then, it has continuously decreased. 87 million in 2016, 84 million in 2017, 80 million in 2018 and 2019, then 75 million in 2020, 72 million in 2021, forgive me for reading this year after year. Then, France Télévisions decided to stop Plus belle la vie, it was in 2022, a flagship daily soap opera that you produced for France 2. Your contracts with France Télévisions have therefore reached, and there the sharp drop, 37 million euros in 2024, so you have lost 60% of your business with France Télévisions. How do you explain such a loss of business, such a loss of contracts with the public broadcaster over such a short period?
Well, indeed, this subject is a matter of great concern on the part of the TF1 group, and it was a matter of great concern for me when I arrived at the head of the TF1 group in 2022. And indeed, underlying the tension that may have occurred at that time between the France Télévisions group and us, there was this issue of the treatment of our studio, which we considered to be unfair. Since then, things have improved and the curve you cite has slightly improved, and we think that in 2026, we should record, well the figures are not exactly the same as the others, but at the same order of magnitude, but we should record a little more than 40 million euros in revenue with France Télévisions. So it's much less than the figures we knew a few years ago because, according to our own accounting, we recorded up to 105 million. Nevertheless, we are satisfied with this amount, even if we would always like more. Why was this a source of tension? Because we are in a country where, as you know, audiovisual production and the audiovisual sector are highly regulated. We have all said this very broadly in our remarks, and in particular by the quota rule. What does that mean? It means that when you are an audiovisual group and you own a studio, you cannot source from your own studio beyond a certain amount, which is quite small in reality. What does that mean? It means that if you cannot find clients outside, and in particular from the largest client in the country, which is the public service, your activity is doomed to wither or even die out. Hence the important problem this posed to our group and hence the emotion that followed.
Thank you for your reply. A simple follow-up. I was able to compare over this period perhaps the contracts passed between France Télévisions and other production companies, notably the company TGA Media, which over this period where you lost nearly 60% of your contracts, the company Together tripled the amount of its contracts in a period of 2 years. That was between 2020 and 2022. I don't think there is any other company like yours that has suffered such a drop in revenue with France Télévisions. A first question for you: don't you think this is the result of a hostile strategy by the management of France Télévisions? And another question for the three of you, well, for the other groups. Could you perhaps specify the evolution of the amounts of business between France Télévisions and your groups? Because I think you also rely on a studio activity, Fremantle for the M6 group, Studio Canal for the Canal Plus group, with contracts passed with France Télévisions. Over this period or over the last few years, could you also give us an order of magnitude on the amount of contracts passed? Has it increased? Has it decreased?
So for Fremantle, it is indeed a company that belongs to RTL Group, not to M6. So I don't have access to those figures.
Thank you, Mr. Sard. Indeed, there are commercial relations between Studio Canal and France Télévisions. I don't think they have been affected in any negative way, but I will send you the precise elements so that you can judge for yourselves.
On the question you asked, finally, about Together Studio Media, pardon me. What is sure and certain is that when the TF1 group bought, it was called Newen at the time, the France Télévisions group was concerned about this situation and wished to disengage from its orders to the Newen studio at the rate you described, which created tension with us and which has since been resolved. I frankly do not think that the orders lost by our studio were irrigated to Together. Why? Because the orders lost by our studio are for the most part orders for French fiction, and Together, they are essentially producers of flow programs. So I think there is no cause-and-effect relationship between the two.
Thank you for your answers. Last question on this climate. In any case, from an external point of view, perhaps a little tense within this French audiovisual landscape. Today, the line of tension seems to lie more between the France Télévisions group and the Canal group. But yesterday, in any case, for a fairly recent period, it lay more between the France Télévisions group and the TF1 group. On May 11, 2023, under your leadership, Mr. Belmaire, the association of private channels sent a letter to Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne to deplore the competition exercised by the public service, which is not subject to the same constraints in terms of regulation, programming, and advertising. Mr. Belmer, if I am to believe an article from Radio France dated January 25, 2024, during a telephone call, Delphine Ernotte allegedly let slip these words, I quote, or rather I quote the article: 'In any case, from now on, it's war.' End of quote. Do you confirm these words attributed to Delphine Ernotte? What does this reflect more broadly about this situation in the French audiovisual landscape between major public and major private?
Frankly, I absolutely do not remember these words. And besides, it's not really Delphine's style to say them. So I allow myself to doubt it, and I don't really see how a journalist could be aware of a telephone conversation between Delphine and me. So I do not endorse this quote at all.
We were clear on the subject, and we observed in 2022-2023, well, we experienced elements of tension with the France Télévisions group, which led us to take various actions. One action you cited, an initiative in Brussels, and other actions which were of a communication nature to try to make the public authorities reflect on the symmetry of treatment between the private sector and the public sector. The private sector and the public sector are in competition, and that's what creates a bit of tension, as in all competitive sectors for the same resource, if I dare say, even if it's very inelegant to call it that, which is the audience. And so inevitably, we are all in competition every evening in prime time, in the news, for audience, and that poses no problem, obviously, except when the missions of the private sector are defined in an extremely meticulous way by the State through a tool called conventions, which the State negotiates with private players and which frame in minute detail, in the detail of the detail, all our activities. And the State itself, when it manages its own properties, if I dare say, namely the public sector, has requirements that are far less, which creates an asymmetry. In particular, the main asymmetry manifests itself in the indigence of the COMs when there were any, they were indigent, and two, in the absence of COMs for two and a half years. And that, that's not possible. It's not possible because we operate somewhat in the same sector, somewhat in the same market. So that doesn't prevent that globally we consider that the public sector is a very important player, that we must support, that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But nevertheless, what we say to the State globally, I allow myself to tell you today because you invited me, is that the public authority, the legislator, the executive must intervene in this regulated sector, must intervene to settle the asymmetries that strike us against the major American digital players with whom we must fight every day, and must also manage its properties as it manages the private sector. It's a bit rich that the public authority manages us in a much more detailed, meticulous, and precise way than it manages its own assets. We are supposed to be in a liberal country. We do our job, frankly I think very well, and in any case as best we can, and it's a bit senseless that we have dictated to us in detail what to do, while the public service actors are much less so, and what's even stranger is that then the public authority, in this case you, come to be upset about it.
Well, in this case, since it's the executive that... wait, normally, if my memory is correct, the COMs must be voted on by parliament. To be voted on, they must be presented.
Ah yes, but listen, that's... well, there is the executive and the legislative, you know that, Mr. Chairman and CEO, and we regularly get upset about not having the COMs, but since we don't draw them up, we vote on them. But to vote on them, they must be presented, and many of us here, you are perfectly right, are quite regularly upset about not having them.
Mr. Rapporteur, I think you wanted to comment.
Thank you, Mr. President. A question for the four of you on the issue of regulation, because you have spoken about it. Would harmonization of public-private rules seem relevant to you? We heard Mr. R., who is the CEO of Pernod Ricard, who explained to this commission of inquiry that it might be necessary to harmonize the rules. For example, a return of advertising after 8 p.m. to finance the public service. What do you think? This is one of the subjects, moreover, which is an important subject of this commission of inquiry. We have barely debated it since the beginning, so I am taking advantage of your presence and your insight to have your opinion on this specific subject.
I will answer on advertising. It would be a catastrophe. Let's be clear, we need perhaps two figures. The TV advertising market fell by 9% between 2025 and 2024. The TV advertising market, including its digital format, represented 30% of total advertising investments in 2016. This share has fallen to 18%. Today, the TV market overall, let's say, operates with around 6 billion in resources, 3 billion in advertising, 3 billion in public funding. If you increase, if you reduce the funding via privatization or in another way by increasing the advertising caps, the public share, the advertising share, sorry, so the 3 billion are not extensible. So whether through privatization once again or through, for example, lifting the ban on advertising after 8 p.m., the direct consequence is that the 3 billion will not move. On the other hand, there will be more players sharing a pie that tends to decline and decline strongly. So it is simply the survival of the free-to-air private groups that would be at stake if such a measure were approved.
Perhaps Mr. Saada, because Mr. Bolloré here in this commission of inquiry told us that he had the solution to finance public broadcasting, that he explained he was attached to public broadcasting but that to finance it, full financing through advertising resources was needed. Do you share this view, Mr. Saada? Do you consider, like Mr. Bolloré, that public broadcasting should be financed by advertising resources?
I sense I won't surprise you if I say that I am obviously aligned with a number of things that have been said by my reference shareholder. I think the subject he raised is an economic subject, about the envelope and available resources for France Télévisions and its funding, which is I think 2.6 billion, or thereabouts. So the subject, it seems to me, is primarily economic and about the state's ability today to finance the 4 billion we talk about a lot, and of which 2.6 billion for France Télévisions. And if we are looking for alternatives, then there is one solution which consists of reducing this funding. And if we are looking for additional resources, since as was mentioned here, I said the important role played by France Télévisions in the French creative and sporting fabric, and others, advertising is one possible way. And I am not sure I believe in the zero-sum game theory where there is a fixed market and then someone comes and takes market share. At any rate, when I say that, I'm not making friends. I appreciate, well we appreciated, in any case when C8 and NRJ 12 disappeared, there was 130 million in revenue. I didn't entirely see it arrive at TF1 or M6. I didn't see it arrive at YouTube either, before someone said it all went to YouTube. The 130 million, they disappeared from circulation. I said we wouldn't find them again. And when we see other markets, as I said, we exercise our agility in many markets, including in Europe. In many markets, the public player is head-on in terms of advertising, and we have markets like Belgium or Italy where the market share of television advertising in total media investments is 30% or 31% or 35%, above what it is in France. So there could also be a dynamic created by France Télévisions arriving in this market. I also allow myself to say two things, to add two things, pardon. The first is that yes, it would create disruption no doubt for the players around me, but I feel like saying, I am also, excuse me, vice-president of the Lagardère group, which exclusively owns radios and not televisions. When it comes to expanding the field of possible advertisements on television, we don't ask the question of what impact it would have on radios or local press to destabilize that market. So, well, there you go. And then the third subject I will add, I said it on the TF1-M6 merger, I expressed myself before the Senate. I said that I thought I completely understood the approach of my neighbor on the left in particular, and that industrially this merger made sense, no doubt, but from a competition point of view, it raises a certain number of questions, and notably one of the things I mentioned when I appeared before the authority was the market share of a TF1-M6 entity on GRPs, let's say the most powerful ones. And the only player today that can compete with TF1-M6, a potential new entity, on powerful GRPs, is France Télévisions. So tomorrow, potentially if this merger scenario is studied, there will in any case be this question in my opinion of potential competition from public broadcasting in the TV advertising market in prime time.
Thank you, Mr. Belmer, I give you the floor.
Well, obviously, I will go in the same direction as David Larramendy as an actor in the private sector and financed essentially by advertising. These are subjects that concern us to the highest degree. What I mean is that one thing we see very clearly is that, and it's true in all European countries, we are also present in quite a few countries, in French-speaking countries at least, the linear advertising market is declining significantly, by double digits. So demand is falling. So creating an influx of supply in a market where demand is falling, the economic rules being what they are, we see that it won't produce favorable results. Second element, what would be the social impact of a decline in the advertising market and a decline in the revenues of private groups? Mine, David's, Claire's, it's an impoverishment of programs. Our groups operate globally, well David does a little better than the others, but with a 10% margin, a 10% profit margin, meaning these are quite modest profits, or our money all goes into financing programs. Reducing the revenues of our groups does not mean reducing our margins because our margins are very low. It means reducing program costs. It means reducing the quality of information, reducing the quality of entertainment, reducing the quality of cinema brought to our fellow citizens. And that, we must keep in mind. These aren't just numbers thrown in the air; it's a direct impact. And what we do is a social role, a social mission that is absolutely unique. We are the only country because Maxime mentioned figures, things that are true. But I think we can be proud of being the country where free-to-air television has the highest quality. We talked about Italy, we talked about Spain. I don't want to judge our European colleagues, but honestly their television is not the same. Why? Because there's less money. Why? Because the competitive intensity in the advertising market is much greater. So first, the public service in their country fulfills fewer public service programs because they are interested in advertising revenue. And second, the private sector has fewer means to produce quality information and quality entertainment, which makes us laugh a bit when we go on vacation there. So that's the result. We must realize that our audiovisual system is a system that aims overall to finance works. What we call the cultural exception, that's it, making sure that the major audiovisual players maximize their financing in programs, so less money means less quality.
Thank you very much. And I'll leave perhaps quickly Madame Léost.
Yes, I would like to add a point, a specificity on news channels. It's important to say here especially that the citizen has the right to free and informed information. And so we provide this information because, for example, on BFM TV, we have 270 journalists. So if tomorrow you weaken the private channels that live 100% from advertising resources, de facto, we will no longer be able to be everywhere as we are today, in Iran or during municipal elections for example. We will have to make choices. And we see clearly in countries like the United States, there are places that are what we call news deserts. So there are places that are no longer covered by journalists, with the consequences that can have in terms of democracy. So it's really a sovereignty issue, a democratic issue. I think it's important to remember that any element that weakens news channels in particular is a setback for democratic debate.
Thank you very much for this important insight.
Thank you for your answers. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Chairman and CEO of the TF1 group, Mr. Belmer. I have a question for you. When Delphine Ernotte was appointed president of France Télévisions for the first time, in 2015, you had just left Canal Plus and one of the first decisions Delphine Ernotte made was to appoint you as a special advisor. The President omitted it in his presentation, but he probably omitted it because at the time, you were chairing a strategic orientation committee for France Télévisions and you didn't stay very long. You joined the management of Telesat in December. So you stayed, if I'm not mistaken, if my information is correct, about 4 months. How do you explain this brief stint as a special advisor to Delphine Ernotte just at the head of France Télévisions and what were, in that duration, the strategic orientations you were able to submit to the management of France Télévisions?
Just to clarify, since we live in an era of generalized suspicion and conspiracy theories, I did not have this information, not being as well informed as Mr. Rapporteur. My sources are not as deep within the public broadcasting system as a prefect's. Otherwise, of course I would have mentioned it, I was not aware, but your response will be an opportunity to enlighten us, because probably apart from the Rapporteur, few people here were perhaps aware of this stint.
I hope it will interest you. Indeed, when I left Canal, I changed my professional trajectory. I was appointed quite quickly CEO of Telesat, in the space industry. However, I still had quite a bit of expertise in media, and so my competence interested certain groups. I was a board member of Netflix during that time. You didn't mention that either, and I was a bit offended, Mr. President. I was also president... Usually I do the biographies and then the people being heard redo the biography. I decided to change a bit,... you gave me back my time, indeed, I understand.
So I'll let you... you are president of... well...
So, I was a board member of Netflix, I was president of Simania, I was president of Brut, which you didn't cite, and I was also president of the Strategic Council of France Télévisions. This was an activity I did pro bono, which I did to help the public service and notably to help Delphine Ernotte, who was arriving in her post, coming from a different industry since she came from telecoms, and who wished to surround herself with people having competence and experience in media to help her, if I dare say, I hope I won't offend, but her rapid acculturation to the media sector. And so I helped her for quite some time, maybe 2 years in her early steps, by opening my address book, sharing my reflections and my experience in managing a large audiovisual group. So it didn't last 4 months, but it's true that it was announced and then 4 months later I was announced at Telesat, but in reality it was something I continued pro bono from the start and which continued throughout part of my career at Telesat. Then at some point, maybe after 2 years, there was no fixed date, but Delphine thought, and she was quite right, that she had reached cruising speed and the experience she needed in the sector, and then it faded away.
And she didn't offer you to join France Télévisions? As an employee, I mean.
No, I don't think so. In any case, at the time, I really wanted to change industries. I made that choice. I thought I had spent 15 wonderful years at Canal and wanted to do something else, learn new things, and so I changed industries, which I did. And then afterwards, it's true that to make other groups benefit from what I had learned over 15 years, I thought that was nice.
Thank you for your response. I would also like to come back to remarks that may have been made during this colloquium of February 11, which focused on the future of the French audiovisual landscape. Mr. Chairman, CEO, Mr. Belmaire, you stated that the audiovisual sector needs a strong public service, you reiterated that, financed, and notably, I imagine, because the advertising market is not expandable and because it is also, in a way, financially a bit more comfortable for you that the public sector contributes its share to the financing of audiovisual creation. In an interview with Le Figaro dated May 16, 2023, Delphine Ernotte, the President of France Télévisions, stated, I quote, 'TF1's real goal is to force us to reduce our investments in creation to lower the ratings of our fictions.' End quote. So I think I read or perceive a contradiction between the support you have recently expressed and at the same time this attack by Delphine Ernotte in Le Figaro in 2023. Who to believe? What are the intentions of the TF1 group and, fundamentally, do you have an interest in France Télévisions continuing to finance audiovisual creation in the broad sense?
The intentions of the TF1 group, only I could know them. At this point, at least. So the intention of the TF1 group is very clearly expressed. I say it whenever I can, including subtly like today, which is to signify that we need a strong public service, notably to finance audiovisual creation. The public service is one of the main players, perhaps the main player in financing audiovisual creation overall, if we include fiction and cinema. However, we live, we all feed, around this table, from a creative ecosystem that is irrigated by our investments and also by those of France Télévisions. The directors who work for TF1 fictions also work for France Télévisions, they also work for Canal, and we need a sector that is sufficiently irrigated to have a very strong creative dynamism that benefits each of us and each of our editorial lines. Clearly, an impoverishment of the public sector's investments in audiovisual creation would mean an impoverishment of the creative vitality of our country and consequently of our editorial lines, of our programs. That is absolutely inevitable. It's clear, and I think we have always said so.
Thank you for your reply. A question for the four of you. As you know, France Télévisions is a public limited company, but the executives of France Télévisions who preceded you in the context of these hearings explained to me, however, that it was better to compare France Télévisions to public administrations, on the grounds that public administrations would have received roughly 36% more public resources since 2015. But as you know, France Télévisions is certainly a public company, but it is a company under private law that operates in a competitive market, that of audiences, and partly also that of advertising. And so I also found it relevant to compare the evolution of the budget of public funding for France Télévisions and also the evolution of the turnover of your groups that you represent. I therefore referred to a document published by ARCOM on its website, which is the financial balance sheet of free-to-air national channels. The DGMIC, which we heard last week, seemed unaware of this document, as it explained to me that it was not aware of your annual budgets, which I found surprising for the supervisory authority of France Télévisions, representing the State on the board of directors. And I was able to see that between 2015 and 2024, while France Télévisions' turnover increased by 8%, the turnover of other free-to-air channels only increased by 3%. If I go into detail on a like-for-like basis, that of the TF1 group, if I'm not mistaken, and you can confirm, increased by 7%, that of the M6 group increased by 4%. So to summarize, since 2015, the budget of the France Télévisions group has increased faster than that of the private groups. So what is your assessment of this, compared to the statements of the leaders of the France Télévisions group? Is there not, in a way, a form of financing that could amount to a distortion of competition compared to your figures as a private group?
Certainly, since we have the same main source of financing, advertising, if I put our friend Maxime aside. So that means that when the market goes up or down, roughly it depends a bit on audience shares, a bit on the commercial share, but roughly we evolve together, either up or down. It's not the same thing for France Télévisions, since, as you recalled, their advertising revenues probably represent around, I don't know, between 10 and 15% of their total resources. So it obviously depends on state funding. If it fell more than the advertising market, that would be a competitive advantage for us. Indeed, in the recent past, there could have been, at any rate over the 10 years you mention, it has rather been the other way around, and it has rather been to our disadvantage, and we had seen prospects, which are now distant, of growth over 4-5 years that would have really posed serious competition problems between us. Now, I have the impression that things are more convergent at the moment.
Mr. Rapporteur, I allow you maybe to answer if you have any additions to make to this response. Otherwise, I will move to another question. It's really up to you if you want to respond, otherwise I'll ask another question.
What I just wanted to say is that indeed, the revenues of private channels that live from advertising are under pressure at the moment since the advertising market is declining, and on the other hand our costs are fixed, since in particular news channels, these are fixed costs: a fixed editorial cost and a fixed broadcasting cost, notably DTT, which is very expensive and also fixed. So it's very important to say that we are already in a model that is fragile, since we are under pressure on our advertising revenues, and we also have costs that are difficult to reduce given the specificity of our model.
Thank you. A follow-up, Mr. Larramendy. Go ahead.
Yes, I just wanted to add one thing: most of the proposals we make to give a little more freedom, either on editorial content or, for example, on the removal of sectors banned from advertising, would also benefit the finances of France Télévisions. Or another example: the reduction of DTT broadcasting costs. So the fight between advertising resources is not the only way to solve part of the problem.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rapporteur.
Thank you, Mr. President. A question now perhaps on costs, the budget, and this detail. It's a question I have asked a number of times to the leaders of France Télévisions. Comparing, in the information I was able to obtain, the costs of public broadcasting and those of private groups, I was able to see a striking gap between these costs, the cost of schedules and programs, and the audiences your groups achieve. I'll take the example of the TF1 group. Perhaps the figures are not entirely accurate and you can amend them, but I was able to see that on a comparable basis, the schedule cost of France Télévisions is almost twice that of the TF1 group. And even if we remove the regional, local, and overseas networks of France Télévisions, which represents about 600 million euros notably for France 3, the national program of France Télévisions represents 936 million euros in 2024 excluding sports rights. In other words, I think a cost roughly equivalent to TF1 but for fewer hours of programming. The same goes for information: 230 million euros for France Télévisions compared to information we have read from SLat around 140 million euros for TF1, and yet, even without a regional channel, TV1's evening news, formerly with Jean-Pierre Pernaut and now taken over by Marie-Sophie Lacarrau, which aims to be the news of the regions and territories, gathers twice the audience of France 2's, with amounts I recalled, much lower than those of France Télévisions. And if we take a step back, in 2024, France Télévisions accounts for 54% of the budget of free-to-air channels, compared to 26% for TF1, for audiences that are again quite comparable. There are public service missions, which we discussed, that are not contested, which perhaps also mean that the cost is higher than that of private channels. But does such a difference in amount for such low audiences compared to the competitor not raise questions about the proper use of public funds? How do you, as heads of private channels, perceive and analyze this gap between cost and audience in the end? And first, perhaps confirm for us, I know the Rapporteur is very well informed, including within the private sector, I wasn't sure, finally, maybe the schedule cost, I'm not sure this is public information. So, can you confirm the figures that the Rapporteur has just indicated, because that is the starting point of his question and of our work.
In fact, regarding the TF1 group, the orders of magnitude of the figures are quite accurate. Moreover, they are published, as the Rapporteur pointed out, by ARCOM, to whom we make declarations every year. So there are documents that are public, which we can refer to, but in this case, the orders of magnitude are accurate. It doesn't shock me that the public service generates less audience than the private players, insofar as these missions, from my point of view, must be separate from what private players do. When it comes to entertaining the French, entertaining the French aged 25 to 49. Why do I say that? It's the underlying economy of our sector since, whether one likes it or not, that's what advertisers are looking for. These missions, we do them very well and we do them at a lower cost than the public service, which is legitimate, since they have other missions, including of course the obligation to offer a completely different program schedule.
In a very economical, very productive way, because it is our business, we have industrial companies that are managed to maximize the efficiency of their industrial model within the framework of a business and a mission and a social role. The public service which, by construction, normally... well, that's the idea and that's what must be taken up in those objective and means contracts: to carry out missions that are not profitable. Otherwise we would entrust them to the private sector. And these less profitable missions are about cultivating, educating, informing. They are missions on which profitability is difficult to find, and they involve audiences that are difficult to monetize. For example, a very important audience for everyone, I am sure, is children. We need quality programs for children. We must prevent our children from spending their time on YouTube. For that, we need quality programs that are very difficult to monetize by the commercial sector. Why? Because there aren't many advertisers targeting children, and on top of that there are many restrictions that Parliament knows well because they often voted them, weighing on the advertising that can be directed at children. So actually, these are problems that cannot be monetized, and therefore taking an interest in the audience of children, of adolescents, taking an interest in the very broad audience of individuals over 50, and I am part of that. These are missions that the commercial sector cannot fulfill because the economy, the economic underpinnings, the business model does not allow it. And therefore, the public service has missions that are eminently high, that are costly. Properly informing our fellow citizens, properly entertaining our young people, our children with quality programs, etc. That costs a lot of money, but ultimately since these audiences are sometimes smaller, that means less mass audience than what we can generate, and personally, that doesn't shock me, and I think that is exactly the role and mission of the public service in a country like ours, in a great country like ours.
