To the point: interference guaranteed
SRG has been in the red since 2006. While the loss in 2009 was still 46.6 million francs, it will probably rise to 75 million francs this year. One of the reasons is the additional cost of the Winter Olympics and the World Cup.
Last year, operating income amounted to 1.56 billion Swiss francs, which is actually not exactly low. The loss figures signal the need for action. Saving is the order of the day. SRG points out that several rounds of savings have been made since 2005, which would correspond to a sustainable volume of 100 million francs. That may be true, but in any other company, savings must also be made when either revenues fall or expenses rise. So the sympathy is limited.
The fact that SRG sees the main causes of its desolate situation in factors that it cannot influence is shocking. This was stated in the financial report that it submitted to the Federal Council at the end of November 2009. It talks about inflation, disproportionately rising costs for sports broadcasting rights, the rapid pace of technological development, the slump in advertising, and general demographic and sociopolitical developments. If I may say so, this line of argument does not exactly bear witness to a business-oriented approach. No company, no matter in which industry, can simply say that external circumstances have unfortunately developed in such a way that nothing can actually be done. A company manager who did this would not only be the laughing stock of the media, he would also be punished and have to vacate his post.
Now, it may be conceded that this cannot be seen so narrowly in the case of a public company that has to fulfill a performance mandate with its public service. That may be so.
But a little more tact would be in order. The salary increase for the departing general manager belongs in this chapter.
No wonder there is resistance in parliament. The National Council wants to disempower the Federal Council, which has set radio and television fees until now. A parliamentary initiative to this effect was accepted. In the future, parliament will set the level of fees. We can prepare ourselves for something here. There will be no end to the party-political bickering, and it is to be feared that parliament will use the leverage of fees to interfere in programming. Cheers then!
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
pc.meier@werbewoche.ch
The fact that SRG sees the main causes of its desolate situation in factors that it cannot influence is shocking. This was stated in the financial report that it submitted to the Federal Council at the end of November 2009. It talks about inflation, disproportionately rising costs for sports broadcasting rights, the rapid pace of technological development, the slump in advertising, and general demographic and sociopolitical developments. If I may say so, this line of argument does not exactly bear witness to a business-oriented approach. No company, no matter in which industry, can simply say that external circumstances have unfortunately developed in such a way that nothing can actually be done. A company manager who did this would not only be the laughing stock of the media, he would also be punished and have to vacate his post.
Now, it may be conceded that this cannot be seen so narrowly in the case of a public company that has to fulfill a performance mandate with its public service. That may be so.
But a little more tact would be in order. The salary increase for the departing general manager belongs in this chapter.
No wonder there is resistance in parliament. The National Council wants to disempower the Federal Council, which has set radio and television fees until now. A parliamentary initiative to this effect was accepted. In the future, parliament will set the level of fees. We can prepare ourselves for something here. There will be no end to the party-political bickering, and it is to be feared that parliament will use the leverage of fees to interfere in programming. Cheers then!
Pierre C. Meier, Editor-in-Chief
pc.meier@werbewoche.ch
