Mr. Rapporteur, dear colleagues, we meet again for this second hearing of the day, which will allow us to hear jointly from the leaders of several major private channels. Because taking an interest in public audiovisual media also means taking an interest in its counterpart, which is the private sector, as it interacts in a competitive landscape, in an ecosystem about which you will no doubt tell us in a few moments. The public sector and the private sector together contribute to informing and entertaining the French people, to audiovisual production, and one might even consider that certain missions you carry out, you companies of the private audiovisual sector, also contribute to public service missions. We will no doubt have the opportunity to return to this. We are welcoming four leaders whom I will quickly introduce. First, you, sir.
Mr. Rodolphe Belmer, you are the Chairman and CEO of the TF1 Group. After beginning 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. You then entered the SAT Group and then the Athos Group in January 2022. You stayed only a few months since you joined the TF1 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 Audiovisual Industry Association which brings together the audiovisual groups France Télévision, M6, and TF1, the main collective management organizations, as well as producer unions. And you created this association, this industry, 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 an essential mission, the influence of French cultural exception. Mr. Maxime Saada, you began far from the media world since you joined DATAR in 1994 before entering 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 would add that you are also Chairman of Dailymotion since 2016 and Chairman of StudioCanal since 2018.
Mr. David Lara Mandi, you are Chairman and CEO of the M6 Group since April 2024. You began your career at Goldman Sachs. You then joined the M6 Group in February 2008 where you quickly led Vente-à-domicile, a subsidiary of the group that brought together several former stars of distance selling. You were then for more than nine years CEO of M6 Interactive and at the same time CEO of M6 Publicité. I would add that you are currently president of the ACP, the Association of Private Channels since June 2025, succeeding Mr. Belmer. Ms. Claire Léos, you are for your part CEO of CMA Media. You joined Lagardère in 2014 as CEO of the general public universe. You went through CMI France before joining Vivendi and then Prisma Media. You became Chairwoman in September 2021. From September 2021 to September 2025, you were appointed CEO of CMA Media in August 2025. And in that capacity, you oversee — you have responsibility for BFM TV and RMC.
I thank you for coming to shed light on the work of our commission of inquiry in order to understand your positioning regarding the public service, the public sector, public audiovisual media. I will have a few preliminary questions, but before asking them, I will, as indicated and as reminded by Article 6 of the Ordinance of November 17, 1958, ask you to declare any public or private interest of a nature that could 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 previously 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 to say 'I swear it.' Mr. Belmer.
Thank you. Thank you. And I will give the floor to Mr. Belmer for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, members of parliament. Just a few brief words in introduction. I do not think I will need five minutes. You already covered many things, Mr. President, in your kind introduction. So, I am Chairman of the TF1 Group, which is the first private free-to-air publisher in France and, as such, a central player in the landscape and notably in the financing of audiovisual creation and the information of the French people. We have five channels on the TNT, five free channels, including TF1, which is the first commercial channel in Europe. Our group commands more than 27 percent audience share in 2025. So we are almost — well, very close to the leading group in audience, which is the public audiovisual sector. Our recent successes, like 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 in the world, the audience growth of our news channel LCI which reached second place in the information market last month — which we are greatly pleased by, as you can imagine — illustrate our capacity to innovate. And this innovation, this work, these efforts, are provided by the 3,117 employees of the group, of which — and this is an important figure — 700 are dedicated to informing our fellow citizens, the free information provided every day to our fellow citizens across the entire territory.
These successes are taking place — I should rather say — in a complex economic context. The television advertising market is under pressure, there is a continuing decline in individual television viewing time as audiences shift toward digital uses, and above all, regulation remains, despite all our efforts and all our requests, very asymmetric. Regulation that penalizes national publishers in the face of growing competition from international platforms, at the forefront of which I would like to cite YouTube, with whom we are increasingly in competition for usage and for 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 that is affirmed — that has even been displayed on our screens several dozen times per day — which is to be an actor of national cohesion in our country. Our slogan is 'The French Together.'
As Chairman and CEO of the TF1 Group since 2022 — well, Chairman and CEO since 2023, CEO since 2022 — I share a strong conviction. French audiovisual, public and private, is a pillar of our democracy, of our culture — especially as far as we are concerned, of our popular culture — and of our economy. Today it is a sector going through a pivotal period marked by significant structural challenges that threaten its balance and that must be addressed as they should be, notably in an economy that is very regulated by public authority. These issues do not concern only the private sector, and as president of the audiovisual industry association — as you said, Mr. President, created recently — I carry on behalf of this industry a global vision and an ambition for the sector, which is to accompany its evolution and notably its regulation in a sector that is very much governed by law, by European directives, and by all sorts of regulations. This audiovisual industry has 27 members, as you said — publishers, virtually all French publishers, fiction and cinema producers, authors, musicians, dubbers, actors — in short, the entire industry that has come together and rallied around a few simple priorities that illustrate the economic interdependence of our sector of activity. One of these elements, one of the elements behind which the industry mobilizes, is — and I think this is at the heart of your subject today, so I say it in introduction — the central role of public audiovisual as an essential link in this ecosystem and notably in the financing of audiovisual creation. And this is a very important point that must be highlighted and on which we must insist. The second element is the complementarity of the public sector and the private sector regarding the pluralism of information, making the public sector a pillar of our democracy.
To fully play this role, public audiovisual must have clear missions that are the subject of a national consensus and sustainable funding. Now, today, you are questioning — you will no doubt question us — on the place, the role, and the funding of the public sector. What I want to say is that after two years, perhaps even more than two years, without a contract of objectives and means, obviously — and this is almost tautological — the missions of the public service are insufficiently defined and insufficiently controlled by public authority. So, are reforms needed for the public sector? Certainly. Reforms are certainly needed to ensure funding for a public sector with sustainable funding and visibility at a scale whose missions are defined in the service of our fellow citizens within a national consensus. These reforms must however preserve the sector's balances in two respects. First, the advertising resource. Access to the public sector's advertising resource must respect the major economic balances of the sector and therefore must remain stable — neither reduced nor increased. And secondly, the public sector must be able to continue significantly funding popular culture and information in the service of our fellow citizens for the greatest benefit of our national community. So that is what I could tell you in introduction. I think my time is up — is that what you are indicating by waving? You told me I would not use five minutes, but you see, it is always like that with a commission of inquiry. We are reluctant at first and then in the end we speak longer than planned. We will see about that at the end if you would, Mr. President. Well listen, no, I can conclude to tell you that contrary to what might seem apparent, and while I am chairman of a private group, I consider that the public sector is an essential link in our sector, that the public and private audiovisual sectors have common challenges and common futures, and that they must be addressed in this way. Thank you very much, Mr. President, CEO.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and CEO. I will now give the floor to the chairman of the M6 Group. Alphabetical order like that.
Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, members of parliament, thank you for your invitation. I am very happy to be here this evening. I will present very briefly the M6 Group in a few words. We are 2,200 employees, some 350 journalists — I will come back to that in a few moments. We publish 13 television channels, five of which are on the TNT, three national radio stations including RTL, obviously, our streaming platform M6+, and all our digital assets, notably our podcasts on RTL. We are also present in the production domain and in the cinema domain, both as a producer and as a distributor. So our business, our mission is quite simple: it is to entertain and inform the French people. All the French people. We invest each year approximately 240 million euros in French creation. As for information, it is at the heart of our offering through three pillars. RTL first, and we have 10 hours of information per day. Secondly, our news broadcasts — sorry — on M6. And finally, our magazines, which are brands you know, like Capital, Zone interdite, or Enquêtes exclusives. We are very proud to carry this information — information that is produced by editorial teams, independent editorial teams, and not by algorithms — and I hope we will have the opportunity to return to this during this hearing.
So, Rodolphe spoke to you about the AF — a word about 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 the interests of our private channels in various domains. We may have the opportunity to return to that. Now, to come to the subject of your commission, I may disappoint — I do not necessarily have a judgment to pass on the programs, the information, or the funding of the public service. Is the level right? Is it too high? Is it too low? Should it be three billion, two billion, five billion? Honestly, it is not for me to say. On the other hand, I think we can ask questions about the role of the state as shareholder. And Mr. Belmer was talking about it a few moments ago. I think that between the absence of signing the latest contracts of objectives and means in recent years and the successive budget cuts we have seen in recent months, this looks more like short-sighted management than the strategic exchange one might expect. Furthermore, a third point I wanted to make on this: few people have noted that public audiovisual enjoys numerous advantages compared to its private competitors. For example, I do not know if you are aware, we are not equal regarding the frequencies we occupy. The state has a right of preemption. Right now, for example, Radio France is trying to swap the France Publique and France Info networks for reasons we can perhaps understand. Which, by the way, would be catastrophic for private national networks like ours. If you ask yourself the question, 'Could I do the same for RTL and Fun?' The answer is no. If I wanted to make Gulli an information channel? The answer is also no. So we are not equal in this regard, and it is important to talk about it, notably because it is obvious that public audiovisual has a role — and an important role — to play, but I also have the conviction that it is absolutely essential to have a strong private audiovisual sector.
Well, we live this practically on a daily basis in our group. The RTL Hungary channel, which is a sister channel in that country, is now practically the only channel, let us say, of free expression in that country. So we measure the importance it can play over there. Now, as we were just discussing, our ecosystem is in complete upheaval. Our business model is endangered by the streaming revolutions. And endangered — honestly, I weigh my words. It is a revolution in usage, it is a revolution in technology, and it is 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, notably regarding mental health, which we are only beginning to take into account. And I would like to have a thought or a word for Ms. Miller and the bill she is carrying, hoping that it can see its way through. Now, facing this revolution, we operate in a system and regulatory framework that is totally archaic. I recently called for a New Deal for audiovisual, and I take the liberty before you
of reiterating this call. One, we must reverse the prohibitions weighing on our antennas. We have music radio stations that, honestly, at the age of streaming, are forbidden from broadcasting the titles that work best for our listeners. It is incomprehensible. At the age of Netflix and Amazon Prime, on Saturday night we cannot broadcast the films we wish. Secondly, we need a New Deal on distribution. The TNT costs more and more. It is now used by fewer than 20 percent of the French. It is useful, we need it, but we obviously must drastically reduce its costs. Third element, from the moment it is authorized for digital actors, it seems obvious to me to authorize advertising for home shopping on television. The prohibition that still exists in France is an absolutely unique case in France and probably in the world. And a fourth point, we must evolve the rules of concentration. We must be able to enable the emergence of national actors in the face of the wave of platforms. Now, many of these changes that we call for would also benefit the public sector. Conversely, I draw your attention to the fact that given the situation of our industry, we must absolutely not let potential solutions for public audiovisual further weaken private actors. Privatization is not a solution, increasing advertising time either. To conclude, I would say that public audiovisual and private audiovisual are obviously not adversaries. The real question today is not how we share the market in the French audiovisual landscape. It is whether we still want to weigh against international actors, 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 illuminate our work and our reflections. Ms. Léos, I give you the floor for five minutes.
Mr. President, Mr. Rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, members of parliament, first of all, thank you for receiving me in the context 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 four 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 edition. Then the acquisition of RMC BFM two years ago, followed last year by the acquisition of Chérie 25, which was renamed RMC Life, and that of Brut Media, social media for young people. So in just a few years, a media group has been constituted, going from zero to 500 million in revenue in less than four years, and becoming the only media group to be present across all media — that is to say local and national print, radio, television, and social networks. In the audiovisual sector, the CMA Media branch forms a powerful and coherent ensemble bringing together strong information and entertainment brands that are rooted in the daily lives of the French, like BFM TV or RMC.
The first pillar of our editorial project is information. You should know that RMC BFM is the first private newsroom in France with more than 850 journalists. We cover all fields of current affairs: general news, politics, economics, local, national, international — and on all platforms. And I want to take this opportunity to thank all the teams who are on the ground, who are on air, who are behind the scenes, and who carry out this exceptional work on a daily basis. To give you an example, BFM TV, which is our reference for information, ensures continuous coverage of major events with both in-depth analysis and exclusives on all events happening in France and abroad. We provide more than 20 hours of live broadcasting per day, seven days a week, which is truly a BFM TV specificity. The last municipal elections were an example of what we were capable of in terms of coverage, since we organized more than 40 debates between candidates both on our local channels and on our national channel BFM TV — since on BFM TV we organized the four debates in the major French metropolitan areas: Marseille, Lyon, Nice, and of course the runoff debate in Paris. We are also very present right now in the Gulf region where we have more than 20 teams covering live and seven days a week the conflict. So we are mobilized both in France and internationally.
Alongside BFM TV, we also have the radio station RMC, which is a generalist and popular radio station offering information, sports, and debate — with this unique positioning and a direct link with its audience. Alongside information, we have a second pillar, which is entertainment. We have a pole of three channels — RMC Story, Découverte, and Life — that offers entertainment programs, both films, documentaries, and magazines, that are accessible yet demanding, and that 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 audience. We are leaders in information among young people and working adults, and we also effectively reach our advertising targets, since we depend 100 percent on advertising. What must also be said is that covering current affairs — this BFM TV model — is a model that has no price but has a cost, an important cost, and therefore requires significant resources and solid shareholders. So we combine a solid economic foundation with the agility of a young structure, which is why last year we were the only private audiovisual actor to be in growth on the French market in a difficult advertising context, as my colleagues have reminded us. To return to the subject of this hearing, what I want to emphasize 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 missions that justify its dedicated funding from the state. The private audiovisual service contributes equally to the pluralism and vitality of democratic debate, but in a different economic framework since it is based 100 percent on commercial resources. As a private actor, it is not for us to judge the organization of the public service or even its editorial choices. On the other hand, we are very attentive and very vigilant about the fact that no change weakens private actors who already face major challenges in an advertising market that is contracting, as we have all reminded here, and above all facing the growing competition from major American digital platforms. So for us, the absence of sanctuarization or the ability for public audiovisual to benefit from new advertising resources would constitute a significant imbalance factor that could destabilize the entire private sector. I 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, members of parliament, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Canal+. I prefer to indicate this from the beginning of this hearing: I am not certain that I can directly shed light on the work of this commission of inquiry dedicated to the functioning and funding of public audiovisual media. 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 Télévision or even TF1, M6, and CMA Media. How is it different? Our economic model first: indeed, the bulk of our revenue comes from subscriptions, whereas free channels rely very largely, as you know, on advertising. Our difference also lies in our economic and geographic footprint. Canal Plus today: nearly nine billion euros in revenue, 40 million subscribers, 15,000 employees in more than 70 countries. The critical size necessary to compete with 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 — the market where our headquarters is located, where we pay our taxes in full, and where we continue to invest strongly, notably in French cinema, of which we remain the leading financier, and in which we believe, as attested by our recent stake in the UGC Group, and also in sports, of which we are one of the leading contributors. But our orientation and our development are today largely driven toward the international. It is internationally that we generate the majority of our revenue and virtually 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 completed the most important operation in the history of the Canal Plus group with the acquisition of MultiChoice, the leading audiovisual group in Africa.
This acquisition leads Canal Plus to offer content in nearly 70 languages other than French — in English of course, but also in Polish, in Vhavenda, in Portuguese, and in multiple vernacular languages: Lingala, Bambara, Swahili, Wolof, and many more. It is in this trajectory, quite distant from our subject, that our relationship with France Télévision fits. To return to the very object of your work: France Télévision is a historic partner that we appreciate and value, just as we do our 30 other partners in France — three of whom are seated at this table today alongside me — and nearly 200 other partners worldwide. Concretely, our relationship with the France Télévision group is based first on the distribution of its national and regional channels and its content in our offerings on our platform in France, notably in the overseas territories where we also distribute local versions, and internationally in the territories where we operate: in Africa, in Mauritius, Madagascar, the Comoros, Haiti, and more marginally in Switzerland, Poland, Central Europe, and the Benelux. Furthermore, we finance almost all films pre-purchased by France Télévision, even if the reverse 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 are expressing here: cost control, budgetary rigor, and neutrality. Our environment is evolving very quickly and France Télévision, like all of us, must undoubtedly adapt. We all face, whether in public or private audiovisual, the pressing question of adaptation in the face of the rapid and profound transformation of our sector. Today dominated by American actors, it may tomorrow be dominated by Chinese actors. On this inclined plane, Canal Plus had to fundamentally revise its strategy to become a profitable actor and regain growth momentum. Canal Plus first had to drastically reduce its costs, notably in France. This rationalization effort led us down a difficult path of several years, as you know, characterized by a reduction of our costs in France of more than 30 percent. Not a single cost item escaped us — from content costs to operating costs, with, alas, several departure plans. No chauffeur at Canal Plus. Today still, cost control is a guiding principle at Canal Plus. Every year, every month, every week, every day, this requirement guides all our teams. It is at the heart of their objectives because it directly conditions our survival. Today still, the Canal Plus Management Board validates all group recruitments monthly, and I myself review — as an example — the hotel stays during trips to festivals such as Cannes or Venice. Beyond cost reduction, Canal Plus has evolved its model by enriching its generalist offering of sports, cinema, and premium series with a unique aggregation strategy worldwide — to distribute alongside our own content that of the leading international platforms, first among which 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 today employ more than 2,000 engineers, among the best in the world in this field. Another element of adaptation: the profile of our customers. Our content and user experience strategy, coupled with considerable commercial efforts, has enabled us to attract young people massively. More than one million young people under 26 have chosen to subscribe to Canal Plus in France. Finally, as I mentioned, we have resolutely turned toward international markets: Europe, Asia, and above all Africa. I do not claim that this path is transferable to France Télévision, nor that there is a sector-wide silver bullet. Each actor 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 subjected to an unprecedented field of forces, to which is added for France Télévision the challenge of responding to our country's difficulties in 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 I thank you for your attention.
Thank you to all four. Perhaps two preliminary questions and then I will give the floor to the Rapporteur. You all four spoke to us about public audiovisual in warm terms — partners we appreciate, we are complementary with public audiovisual, a reliable partner — I am quoting you — a collaboration. And yet, Mr. Belmer, you filed — you announced that you would file a complaint with the European Commission to denounce illegal state aid to the benefit of France Télévision. This action was launched in November 2023. TF1 had then estimated that the funding modalities of France Télévision 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 stand currently? And then, Mr. Saada, you are the Canal Plus group and owner of the CNews channel. You indicated knowing little about public audiovisual, but the media — at least one channel you own — talks about it regularly. So I am sure that if you listen to this channel, you can have additional information about public audiovisual. But more seriously, a defamation complaint was filed by France Télévision and Radio France, as I understand it — separate complaints filed with the commercial court. How do you judge, how do you characterize this defamation complaint while you indicated to us that your group appreciates France Télévision and Radio France? Do you regret this defamation complaint? I indicate it was filed against CNews, and I am asking you the question because you are the owner of CNews. I do not know who wants to start.
As you wish, it is your hearing, if I may say so. So, regarding our relations with France Télévision, as I said in my introductory remarks, we have very strong partnership relations with France Télévision that have spanned several years. As in all bilateral relations, there can be ups and downs. It so happened that in 2023, there was a phase of tension with the France Télévision group that led to various actions on the part of the TF1 Group — and not the ACP in this case — well, various actions on the part of private channels in general, including a specific action by the TF1 Group which was to initiate proceedings before the European Commission. In reality, essentially complaining about — and I touched on this a bit in my introduction even if the context is somewhat different — the absence of contracts of objectives and means that precisely define the missions of the public service and the corresponding resources, as the texts require, as the law requires, and as the principles demand. And it was on this basis that we initiated an action in Brussels. The action is currently ongoing.
Alright. Thank you. Thank you very much for this response. This is important because we, parliamentarians, will regret on many occasions — I see it with Calvez and other colleagues — but indeed that the contracts were not signed in due time, which also complicates our function as parliamentarians and legislators. Perhaps, Mr. Saada, I will let you respond. In any case, thank you, Mr. Belmer, for this response.
Yes, as there are ongoing proceedings regarding the defamation complaints, I will not comment. I do not attach much importance to it, honestly. If we were to start filing defamation complaints, we would be at it all day, including with our colleagues. Every other day, or even two days out of two, we have Bolloré, Canteloux doing deepfakes of Pascal Praud practically every evening on virtually all channels — that is the media game, as it were. We are not here filing defamation complaints. So there you have it. That is life. I have also witnessed some quite — I remember a teleshopping broadcast, of all things, where they showed the means to download an application for tracking Vincent Bolloré's private plane. That is the level of obsession we are dealing with, and yet we have not complained to France Télévision. So we deal with that all day. We do not pay attention to that.
No, no, but I asked you the question because I find it important, because it is true that this — I do not know if the word 'war' is appropriate, and given the international context, I am not sure it is entirely appropriate — but in any case, this tension that we see emerging between the public and private sectors in a democracy, perhaps I do not know if it is dangerous, but in any case it raises questions. There you go. So I do not know — the differences also sometimes exist between private actors.
There is no particular focus. And we, as you know — we will come back to it — but we believe in freedom of expression. If journalists choose to cover topics, we do not stop them, even when we have good relations with a group like France Télévision.
Thank you very much for these first responses. Mr. Rapporteur, I yield the floor to you.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, gentlemen, for your participation this afternoon. As you know — and you recalled it — this commission of inquiry is about public audiovisual media, but today, for once, there are no representatives of these public companies in this room. There is no regulator, no oversight authority, no provider — or at least not directly. In this room there are only representatives of the largest media groups in our country, who have come here also to give their views on the neutrality, funding, and functioning of public audiovisual media. And this will be precious. You work together. You all three defend your common interests via the ACP, the Association of Private Channels, as you recalled in your preliminary remarks. And on February 11 last at the Senate, you were gathered side by side at a colloquium on the future of French audiovisual where France Télévision was also represented. Yet, you will agree, the climate today in the French audiovisual landscape — the PAF — is somewhat tense. There were first the remarks of Delphine Ernotte who publicly declared in an interview with Le Monde — I quote: 'CNews is a far-right channel.' End quote. There was the defamation complaint the President spoke about, filed by France Télévision and Radio France against CNews. There was also this interview, Mr. Belmer, where you are asked a question about CNews for which you respond: 'We do not seek to shape opinion,' which was heard as a criticism toward the Bolloré Group. My question is broader than these remarks and it addresses all four of you: what is today the state of relations between private channels and between public audiovisual and the groups that
you represent?
To answer, perhaps I'll start with the point where you cited one of my statements. It is accurate, but it was in no way aimed at CNews. I was responding directly to the question of how we conceive information within the TF1 Group, and I was trying to describe the mission of the TF1 Group, which is something I do all the time. I never give my opinion on what CNews does or what France Télévisions does. It's not my job to do that. So I want to be clear: it is not at all in my nature to speak publicly to criticize my colleagues or to criticize the work that everyone does as best they can. Just as we ourselves try to do our work as well as 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 news division, its social mission, the way it sees its value for our country, is to produce information intended for and at the service of all French people, regardless of their opinions, and to serve them, to serve no particular opinion, no particular individual, no particular party. I think that's roughly what I must have said in that statement. Then, regarding our relations with public broadcasting, they are, as I told you in my introduction, of very high quality. We have great respect for the quality of their work, particularly their very important role in two key areas: the financing of audiovisual culture in our country, especially in cinema and French fiction. And we also have a great deal of respect, even though we are in direct competition with them in that segment, for the work they do in news.
Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Lara Mandi.
Listen, from a personal point of view, we have very good relations. We don't have a news channel. We perhaps have less tension, I don't know. But I think the question honestly isn't there. We each do our job. We all four said that public broadcasting has a major role to play and will continue to play it. I think that by focusing too much on this, we're missing more important changes and much stronger dangers. And I'd like to come back for a moment to social networks, and particularly to the development of algorithmic information and this algorithmic information that tends to reduce the mental framework, the mental universe in which each of us is likely to think and reason, and what could have been an open door to many other things is often something that antagonizes human relationships and creates or adds a lot of tension to a society that already has plenty. So I think it's this kind of thing. 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 major differences between public broadcasting and private channels. First, there are the missions, and then the economic model. On missions, it's true that public audiovisual broadcasting has obligations that we don't have and deals with very important subjects like education, youth, coverage of overseas territories, and culture. So public broadcasting has specific missions that justify state funding. And the second major difference, as I said earlier, is really the economic model. At RMC BFM, we live 100% on advertising. BFM TV doesn't benefit from replay revenue, for example, because news is consumed in real time by definition. Information is a resource, it's a highly perishable data, and so our only economic model is advertising. So that's really the key point of difference for us with the public sector, and it's important to preserve this balance.
Thank you very much. Saada, would you like to react perhaps?
No, just to say simply that the relations, as I believe you've understood, the industrial relations with the France Télévisions group are good. We are partners on many film co-productions, and furthermore, France Télévisions' content is all accessible on the Canal+ platform and works particularly well. They are very popular, and editorially, yes, there are criticisms from both sides. And me, as I said, that's the game. We are not in a logic of prohibiting anyone, of saying anything, and that's how it is.
Thank you for your responses. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Belmer, I'd like to address the situation of your studios. I was able to raise this question with one of your representatives who appeared before us. In 2015, when TF1 acquired Newen, the amount of your contracts with France Télévisions rose to 92 million euros. Since then, it has never stopped declining: 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 by year. Then, France Télévisions decided to stop Plus Belle la Vie in 2022, the flagship daily series you produced for France 2. Your contracts with France Télévisions then reached, and here's the sharp drop, 37 million euros in 2024. So in short, you've lost 60% of your revenue with France Télévisions. How do you explain such a loss of revenue, such a loss of contract with public broadcasting over such a short period?
Well, indeed, this subject is a matter of serious concern for the TF1 Group, and it was a matter of serious concern for me when I arrived at the head of the TF1 Group in 2022. And indeed, in the underlying tensions that existed at that time between the France Télévisions group and us, there was this issue of how our studio was being treated, which we considered unfair. Since then, things have improved, and the curve you cite has slightly improved. We think that in 2026 we should record, well the figures I have aren't exactly the same as yours, but they're in the same order of magnitude, we should record about a little over 40 million euros in revenue with France Télévisions. So that'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're satisfied with this amount even if we'd always like more. Why was this a source of tension? Because we're in a country, as you know, where audiovisual production and the audiovisual sector is very regulated. We all said this extensively in our statements, particularly through the quota system. What does that mean? It means that when you're an audiovisual group and you own a studio, you can't supply from your own studio beyond a certain amount, which is actually quite small. What does that mean? It means that if you don't find external clients, and particularly from the biggest client in the country, which is public broadcasting, your activity is condemned to wither away or even to die out. Hence the important problem this posed for our group and hence the emotion that followed.
Thank you for your response. A quick follow-up. I was able to compare over this period the contracts between France Télévisions and other production companies, notably we heard the company Togazer Media, which in this period where you lost nearly 60% of your contracts, Togazer tripled the amount of its contracts in a period of 2 years, between 2020 and 2022. I don't get the impression that other companies like yours suffered such a drop in revenue with France Télévisions. A first question for you: don't you feel this is the result of a hostile strategy by the management of France Télévisions? And another question addressed to the three of you, the other groups. Could you perhaps clarify the evolution of revenue amounts between France Télévisions and your groups? Because I believe you also rely on studio activity, Fremantle for the M6 group, Studio Canal for the Canal+ group, with contracts with France Télévisions. Over this period or in recent years, could you also give us an indication of the contract amounts? Did it progress? Did it decrease?
So for Fremantle, it's indeed a company that belongs to RTL Group, not to M6. So I don't have access to those figures.
Indeed, there are commercial relations between Studio Canal and France Télévisions. I don't think they were affected negatively in any way, but I'll send you the precise elements so you can judge for yourselves.
On the question you were asking about Togazer Media, what is certain is that when the TF1 Group bought what was called Newen at the time, the France Télévisions group was concerned about this situation and wished to reduce its orders from the Newen studio, in the decline you described. This created tension with us, which has since been resolved. I don't really think that the orders lost by our studio went to Togazer Media. Why? Because the orders lost by our studio were essentially French fiction orders, and Togazer Media are essentially producers of flow programming. So I don't think there's a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.
Thank you for your responses. Last question on this climate. In any case, from an outside perspective, perhaps a bit tense within this French audiovisual landscape. Today, the line of tension seems to be more between the France Télévisions group and the Canal group. But yesterday, or at least in a fairly recent period, it was more between the France Télévisions group and the TF1 group. On May 11, 2023, under your leadership, Mr. Belmer, the Association of Private Channels sent a letter to Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne deploring the competition exerted by public broadcasting, which is not subject to the same constraints in terms of regulation, programming, and advertising. Mr. Belmer, according to a Radio France article dated January 25, 2024, during a phone call, Delphine Ernotte may have uttered these words. I quote the article: 'In any case, from now on it's war.' End of quote. Do you confirm these remarks made by Delphine Ernotte towards you? What does this reflect more broadly on the situation of the French audiovisual landscape between big public and big private?
Frankly, I absolutely don't remember those remarks. Moreover, it's not really Delphine's style to say such things. So I take the liberty of doubting it, and I don't really see how a journalist could be aware of a phone conversation between Delphine and me. So I don't approve at all of this quotation. On relations, we've been clear on the subject. We experienced in 2022-2023 elements of tension with the France Télévisions group that led us to take various actions: one action you cited, an initiative in Brussels, and other actions that were communications efforts to try to get public authorities to 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 some tension, as in all competitive sectors, for the same resource if I may say so, even if it's very inelegant to call it that, which is audience. And so inevitably, we are in competition every evening in prime time on the news for audience. And this doesn't pose a problem, obviously, except when the missions of the private sector are defined extremely precisely by the state through a tool called conventions that the state negotiates with private operators and which regulate in detail, in the detail of the detail, all of our activities. And the state itself, when it manages its own properties, if I may say so, namely the public sector, has requirements that are far more modest, which creates an asymmetry. Notably, the main asymmetry manifests itself in the inadequacy of the COMs when there were any, they were inadequate, and in the absence of COMs for two and a half years. And that's not possible. It's not possible because we operate in roughly the same sector, roughly the same market. So that doesn't prevent us from generally considering that the public sector is a very important actor that must be supported, that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But nonetheless, what we tell the state overall, and I take the liberty of telling you today because you invited me, is that public authority, the legislature, the executive, must intervene in this regulated sector of activity, must intervene to resolve the asymmetries that affect us vis-à-vis the major American digital players with whom we have to compete every day, and must also manage its own properties as it manages the private sector. It's quite remarkable that public authority manages us in much more detailed, meticulous, and precise ways than it manages its own assets. We're supposed to be in a liberal country. We do our job, frankly, I think, very well, and in any case as well as we can, and it's somewhat absurd that we have everything dictated to us in detail about what we should do, while the public sector actors are addressed much less.
Well, except that normally, if I understand correctly, they should be voted by parliament, they should be voted, but to vote on them you need to have them. Ah yes, well listen, that's how it is, there's the executive and the legislative, you know this, Mr. Chairman-CEO, and we regularly express concern about not having the COMs. But since it's not us who legislate them, we vote on them, but to vote on them you need to have them. And many of us here, you're absolutely right, regularly express concern about not having them.
Mr. Rapporteur, I believe you want to follow up.
Thank you, Mr. President. A question addressed to all four of you on the topic of regulation, since you mentioned it. Would an harmonization of public-private rules seem relevant to you? We heard from a witness who explained before this commission of inquiry that such harmonization of rules might be necessary. For example, a return of advertising after 8 PM to finance public broadcasting. What do you think about this? It's one of the subjects, and an important one, of this commission of inquiry. We've debated little about it since the beginning, so I take advantage of your presence and your expertise to get your views on this specific subject.
I can answer on advertising, that would be a catastrophe. Let's be clear, we need perhaps two figures. The TV advertising market dropped 9% between 2024 and 2023. The TV advertising market, including its digital format, represented 30% of total advertising investments in 2016. This share has dropped to 18%. Today, the TV market overall operates with about 6 billion in resources: 3 billion in advertising, 3 billion in public funding. If you increase, if you reduce the public funding through privatization or in another way by raising advertising ceilings, the advertising share, the 3 billion, are not extensible. So whether through privatization or through, for example, lifting the ban on advertising after 8 PM, the direct consequence is that the 3 billion won't move. However, there will be more actors sharing this pie that tends to decline, and to decline sharply. So it's simply the survival of the free 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 was attached to public broadcasting but that to finance it, it needed to be financed entirely by advertising resources. Do you share this view, Mr. Saada? Do you consider, like Mr. Bolloré, that public broadcasting should be financed by advertising resources?
I suspect I won't surprise you if I say that I'm obviously aligned with a number of things that were said by my reference shareholder. The subject he raised is an economic one, about the envelope and resources available for France Télévisions and its endowment, which I believe is 2.6 billion. And so the subject, it seems to me, is mainly economic, and the state's capacity to finance today the 4 billion we talk a lot about, and of which 2.6 billion go to France Télévisions. And if we're looking for alternatives, there's a solution that consists of reducing this endowment. And if we're looking for additional resources, since as has been mentioned here, I said the important role that France Télévisions plays in the French creative and sporting fabric, advertising is one of the possible paths. And I'm not sure I believe in the zero-sum game theory where there's a fixed market and then someone comes to take market share. In any case, I'm not making friends by saying this. I appreciate, in any case, when C8 and Téva disappeared, there was 130 million in revenue. I didn't completely see it arrive at TF1 M6. I didn't see it arrive at YouTube either before everyone said everything went to YouTube. The 130 million disappeared from circulation. I said we wouldn't find them again. And when we look at other markets, as I said, we exercise our agility on many markets, including in Europe. In many markets, the public actor competes directly in terms of advertising, and we have markets like Belgium or Italy where the market share of television in advertising in invested media is 30% or 31% or 35% above what it is in France. So there could also be a dynamic created by France Télévisions entering this market. I also take the liberty of adding two things. The first is that yes, it would create disruption, undoubtedly, for the actors around me. But I want to say, I'm also, excuse me, vice-president of the Lagardère group which exclusively owns radios and not television. When it comes to extending the range of possible advertisements on television, we don't ask ourselves the question of what impact on radios or local press of destabilizing that market. So there you go. And the third subject I'll add, and I said it on the TF1-M6 merger, I expressed myself before the Senate. I said that I understood quite well the approach of my neighbor to the left in particular, and that industrially this merger made sense, no doubt that from a competition standpoint it raises a number of questions, and notably one of the things I had mentioned when I appeared before the authority was the market share of a combined TF1-M6 on the most powerful GRPs. And the only actor today who can compete with TF1-M6, a new potential combination, on powerful GRPs is France Télévisions. So tomorrow, potentially, if this merger scheme is studied, there will inevitably be this question, in my view, of possible competition from public broadcasting on this prime-time advertising market.
Thank you. Mr. Belmer, I give you the floor.
That works. Obviously, I'm going in the same direction as David Lara Mandi. As a private sector actor financed by advertising, these subjects concern us at the highest level. What I want to say is that one, what we see very clearly, and it's true in all European countries, we're also present in quite a few countries, in French-speaking countries at least, the linear advertising market is declining significantly in double digits. So demand is declining. Creating an influx of supply in a market where demand is declining, with economic rules being what they are, we can see that this 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 revenue of private groups, mine, David's, Claire's? It's an impoverishment of programs. Our groups operate globally, David does a bit better than the others, but with a 10% margin. 10% margin of profit means these are quite modest profits. All our money goes into funding programs. A reduction in our groups' revenue doesn't mean a reduction in our margins, because our margins are really very low. It means a reduction in programming costs. It means a reduction in the quality of information, a reduction in the quality of entertainment, a reduction in the quality of cinema presented to our citizens. And that needs to be kept firmly in mind. These aren't numbers thrown into the air, it's a direct impact. And what we do is a social role, a social mission that is absolutely unique. We're the only country, because Maxime cited figures, things that are true, but I believe we can take pride in being the country where free television has the highest quality. We talked about Italy, we talked about Spain. I don't want to take a jab at our European colleagues, but honestly their television isn't the same. Why? Because there's less money. Why? Because the competitive intensity on the advertising market is much greater. So one, in their countries, public broadcasting fills fewer public service programs because they're interested in advertising revenue. And two, the private sector has fewer means to produce quality information and quality entertainment, which makes us smirk a bit when we go on vacation there. So that's the result. We need to realize that our audiovisual system is a system aimed overall at funding works. What we call cultural exception, that's it, making sure that the major audiovisual actors maximize their funding for programs, and therefore less money means less quality.
Thank you very much, and I'll perhaps quickly let Madame Léos speak.
Yes, I'd like to add a point, a specificity about news channels, which is important to state especially here: citizens have a right to free and informed information, and we provide this information because, for example, at BFM TV, we have 270 journalists. So if tomorrow you weaken private channels that live 100% on advertising resources, we will no longer be able to be everywhere as we are today, in Iran or during municipal elections for example. We'll have to make choices, and we can see in countries like the United States, there are places with what are called information deserts. So there are areas that are no longer covered by journalists, with the consequences that can have for democracy. So it's really a sovereignty issue, a democratic issue. I think it's important to recall that any element that weakens news channels in particular is a setback for democratic debate.
Thank you very much for this important clarification.
Thank you for your responses. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chairman-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, it was in 2015. You had just left Canal+, and one of the first decisions Delphine Ernotte made was to appoint you as special advisor. The Chairman omitted this in his introduction, 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, for about four months. How do you explain this brief stint as special advisor to Delphine Ernotte upon her arrival at the head of France Télévisions, and what strategic orientations were you able to submit to the management of France Télévisions during that time?
I just want to clarify, as we live in an era of generalized suspicion and conspiracy theories, I did not have this information. Not being as well-informed as the Rapporteur, my sources not being as deep within public broadcasting, as a Prefect I didn't have this information. Otherwise, of course I would have mentioned it. I wasn't aware, but your response will be an opportunity to enlighten us, as probably apart from the Rapporteur, few people here were perhaps aware of this passage.
I hope this will interest you. Indeed, when I left Canal, I changed my career trajectory. I was quickly appointed general manager of Telesat, in the space industry. Now, I had quite a few competencies in media, and so my expertise interested certain groups. I was a board member of Netflix during that time. You didn't mention that either, and I was a bit upset, Mr. President. I was also chairman of Series Mania, chairman of Brut, which you didn't mention, and I was also chairman of the strategic council of France Télévisions. It was an activity I performed pro bono, to help public broadcasting and particularly to help Delphine Ernotte, who was arriving in her position, coming from a different industry since she came from telecommunications, and who wanted to surround herself with people with expertise and experience in media to help her, if I may say so, I hope I'm not being condescending, her rapid acculturation to the media sector. And so I helped her for quite a while, in reality perhaps two years, in her first steps, by opening my address book to her, sharing my reflections and my experience of running a large audiovisual group. So it didn't last four months, but it's true that it was announced and then four months later I was announced at Telesat, because in reality it's something I continued pro bono from the beginning and which continued throughout a large part of my career at Telesat. Then after a while, perhaps after two years, there wasn't a fixed date, but Delphine felt, and she was quite right, that she had reached her cruising speed and the experience she needed in the sector, and so it tapered off. There you go.
And she didn't propose you join France Télévisions as an employee?
No, I don't really think so. Anyway, at the time, I really wanted to change industries. I made that choice, I had spent 15 wonderful years at Canal and I wanted to do something else, learn new things, and so I wanted to change industries, which I did. And after, it's true that making other groups benefit from what I'd learned over 15 years, I thought that was nice. There you go.
Thank you for your response. I'd also like to come back to remarks that may have been made during the colloquium of February 11, which focused on the future of the French audiovisual landscape. Mr. Chairman-CEO, Mr. Belmer, you estimated that the audiovisual sector needed a strong public broadcasting, you reiterated that, funded, and notably, I imagine, because the advertising market isn't extensible and because it's also financially a bit more comfortable for you, that the public sector contribute to its share in the financing of audiovisual creation. In an interview with Le Figaro dated May 16, 2023, Delphine Ernotte, the President of France Télévisions, estimated, I quote her: 'The real goal of TF1 is to force us to reduce our investments in creation to bring down the audiences of our fictions.' End of quote. So I believe I read or perceive a contradiction between the support you've recently expressed and at the same time this attack by Delphine Ernotte in Le Figaro in 2023. Who should we believe? What are the intentions of the TF1 Group, and do you ultimately have an interest in France Télévisions continuing to finance audiovisual creation in the broad sense?
The intentions of the TF1 Group, only I can know them, at this stage. So the intention of the TF1 Group is, I express it very clearly, I say it whenever I can, including under oath as today, which is to convey that we need a strong public broadcasting, particularly to finance audiovisual creation. Public broadcasting is one of the main actors, perhaps the main actor in the overall financing of audiovisual creation if we encompass fiction and cinema. Now, we all live and 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 on TF1 fictions also work for France Télévisions, they also work for Canal, and we need to have a sector that is sufficiently irrigated to have very strong creative dynamism that benefits each of us and each of our editorial lines. Clearly, a reduction in public sector investment 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've always said so.
Thank you for your response. A question addressed to all four of you. You know, France Télévisions is a limited company, but the leaders of France Télévisions who preceded you in these hearings explained that France Télévisions should rather be compared to public administrations, on the grounds that public administrations received about 36% more public resources since 2015. And you know, France Télévisions is indeed a public company, but it's a private law company operating in a competitive market, that of audiences and partly also that of advertising. And so I found it relevant to compare the evolution of the public endowment budget of France Télévisions and also the evolution of the revenue of the groups you represent. I therefore referred to a document published by ARCOM on its website, the financial report of free national channels. The DGCCRF, which we heard last week, seemed unaware of this document, since they told me they didn't have knowledge of your annual budgets, which I found surprising for the trustee 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' revenue grew by 8%, the revenue of the other free channels grew by only 3%. If I go into the detail at constant scope, that of the TF1 group, if I'm not mistaken, and you can confirm, grew by 7%, that of the M6 group grew by 4%. So to summarize, since 2015, the budget of the France Télévisions group has grown faster than that of private groups. What is your assessment of this, in relation to the statements of the leaders of France Télévisions? Isn't there, in a way, funding that could be likened to a distortion of competition compared to your private group figures?
It's true that we have the same source of funding, mainly advertising, if I set aside our friend Maxime. So that means that when the market evolves upward or downward, broadly speaking, it depends a bit on audience shares, it depends a bit on the commercial share, but broadly speaking, we evolve together either up or down. It's not the same for France Télévisions, since as you recalled, their advertising revenue probably represents around, I don't know, between 10 and 15% of their total resources. So it depends obviously on the state endowment. If it decreased more than the advertising market, it would be a competitive advantage for us. Indeed, in the recent past, or in the past perhaps, in any case over the 10 years you mention, it was rather the other way around and rather to our disadvantage. And we had seen prospects that are now distant but of growth over the next four to five years that would have really posed serious competition problems between us. Now, I have the impression things are converging more at the moment.
I allow you perhaps to respond if you have additions to this response. Otherwise, I'll move on to another question. It's really up to you if you want to respond, otherwise I'll move on.
What I just wanted to say is that indeed, the revenue of private channels that live on advertising is under tension at the moment, since the advertising market is in decline. And on the other hand, our costs are fixed, because in particular news channels have fixed costs and a fixed editorial cost and a fixed distribution cost, notably TNT which is very expensive and also fixed. So it's very important to say that we're already in a model that's being weakened, since we're under tension on our advertising revenue, and we also have costs that are difficult to reduce given the specificity of our model.
If there's an addition, Mr. Lara Mandi. Go ahead.
Yes, I just wanted to add one thing, which is that most of the proposals we make to give a bit more freedom, whether on editorial content or, for example, on lifting the ban on sectors prohibited from advertising, would also benefit the finances of France Télévisions. Or another example, which is reducing TNT distribution costs. So the so-called advertising fight or resources isn't the only way to solve part of the problem.
In any case, thank you very much, Mr. Rapporteur.
Thank you, Mr. President. A question now perhaps about costs, the budget and its details. It's a question I've asked the leaders of France Télévisions a number of times. In comparing the information I was able to gather on the costs of public broadcasting and those of private groups, I noticed a striking gap between these costs, the cost of grids and programs, and the audiences your groups achieve. I'll take the example of the TF1 group. Now, the figures may not be exactly right and you may amend them, but I perceived that at comparable scope, the grid cost of France Télévisions is nearly twice that of the TF1 group. And even if we remove the regional, local and overseas networks of France Télévisions, which represents about 100 million euros, notably for France 3, the national programming of France Télévisions represents 936 million euros in 2024, excluding sports rights. In other words, I believe a cost roughly equivalent to TF1 but for fewer hours of programming. It's the same for news: 230 million euros for France Télévisions against, according to information we were able to read, nearly 140 million euros for TF1, and yet even without regional channels. The TF1 evening news, the one from the era of Jean-Pierre Pernaut which was taken over by Marie-Sophie Laparra and positions itself as the news of the regions and territories, draws twice the audience of France 2's news, with amounts, I recall, far below those of France Télévisions. And if we take a broader view, in 2024, France Télévisions represents 54% of the free channels' budget compared to 26% for TF1, for audiences that are once again fairly comparable. There are public service missions we've discussed that are not in dispute and...
Perhaps the cost is higher than the cost of private channels, but does such a difference in amount for audiences that are also low compared to competitors not raise questions about the proper use of public funds? How do you, as head of a private channel, how do you perceive and analyze this gap between cost and audiences at the end? And perhaps confirm for us — I know the rapporteur is very well informed, including from within the private sector, I wasn't sure, maybe the grid placement, I'm not sure these are public information. So can you confirm the figures 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 entirely correct. Moreover, they are published, as the rapporteur highlighted, by ARCOM, to whom we make annual declarations. So there are public documents to which we can refer. In this case, the orders of magnitude are correct. It doesn't shock me that public service generates fewer audiences than private actors, insofar as these missions, from my point of view, must be separate from what private actors do. When it comes to entertaining the French, entertaining the French aged 25 to 49 — why do I say that? Because they are the underlying foundation of our sector's economy, since whether we like it or not, that is what advertising advertisers seek. These missions, we do them very well and very economically, very productively, because that is our business. We have industrial companies managed to maximize the efficiency of their industrial model within the framework of a business and a social role.
Public service, which by construction should normally — and that is the idea and what should be reflected in these framework and means contracts — carry out missions that are not profitable. Otherwise, we would hand them over to the private sector. And these less profitable missions are: cultivating, educating, informing — missions where profitability is difficult to find, and audiences that are difficult to monetize. For example, a very important audience for everyone, I'm sure of it, is children. There need to be quality programs for children. We need to prevent our children from spending all 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 the children's audience, and furthermore there are many prohibitions that Parliament knows well because it often voted them, which weigh on the advertising that can be directed at children. So these are programs that cannot be monetized, and consequently, focusing on the children's audience, on the teenager audience, on the very broad audience of individuals over 50 years old — and I am one of them — these are missions that the commercial sector cannot fulfill because the economic model does not allow it. And so in this regard, public service has missions that are eminently elevated, which are costly: properly informing our citizens, properly entertaining our young people, our children with quality programs, and so on. It costs a lot of money, but since these audiences are sometimes smaller, it generates less mass audience than what we can generate. And personally, it doesn't shock me, and I think it is exactly the role and mission of public service in a country like ours, in a great country like ours.
Thank you. Perhaps one more question — two questions from the rapporteur, then I'll give the floor to the political group before returning to the rapporteur.
A very short question. Thank you, Mr. President. This is addressed to you, Mr. Chairman and CEO of the M6 group, Mr. Larmandi. M6 is reputed to be one of the most profitable groups in the French audiovisual landscape. You communicated an operational margin of 17% for the year 2025. If you had to communicate to the management of France Télévision a method — well, 'miracle' would be excessive — but at least a method of cost optimization, what would be the main priorities you could advise? You may have followed some of the points revealed during this commission of inquiry, but again, within this imperative of good management of public funds, you who seem to be running your group with significant operational margins, what recommendations could you formulate?
It's difficult for me to answer your question, as you can imagine. We do indeed have an operational margin that is significant, which is also linked to the channel's history. It's a channel that was created in 1987, which had to fight to survive, notably up until the shutdown of La Cinq. M6's survival was at stake for many years. We got used to living — I would say, well, in any case, being extremely careful with expenses, whether on programs or everything else. So it's completely in the culture of the group, and it's very important for us. That being said, the issues weighing on our industry are the same. The decline in advertising trends is exactly the same. As my colleagues have said, our industry is a fixed-cost industry. So when your revenue decreases, it's obviously very, very complex for profitability because you cannot simply reduce costs in response. So I am personally worried about the future for all actors funded by advertising, and I therefore take the liberty of reiterating that there are options for France Télévision that benefit — let's say that benefit all actors. The options around advertising are catastrophic for the free private actors.
Thank you, Mr. Rapporteur. One more question.
I thank you for your answer. A question addressed to all four of you, which will be a fairly simple one. We heard from representatives of the Court of Auditors and the General Inspectorate of Finance who conducted reports on the state of the finances and accounts of France Télévision. We were very surprised to learn a number of things. First, the inadequacy of cost accounting, which was requested of Delphine Ernotte since her arrival in 2015, was recalled in the latest Court of Auditors report. Cost accounting that is not at a high level, especially compared to Radio France, for properly managing a company of this size. And a second element — I could cite many others — but a second element that caught my attention is the size of the internal audit and fraud prevention team. It was the representatives of the General Inspectorate of Finance who explained this to us. It's a company of 9,000 employees with a budget of nearly 3 billion euros per year, the vast majority being public funding. There are only 5 people in the internal audit team. I asked the representatives of the General Inspectorate of Finance, at a roughly constant scope or at least for private competitors, what would be the average size? They couldn't answer us. So I take the liberty of asking you, even if the size of your groups is not identical, what importance do you give to your internal audit teams? And perhaps you can remind us of your workforce size and if you have information on the number of people dedicated to internal audit and fraud prevention.
So, who starts? Mr. Saada.
