"I am an optimist"

Barcelona armchairs in dark brown, matching glass tables. Two dove-blue sofas, the carpet almost in the same shade of blue. Pietro Supino's office is huge, lots of wood, lots of light, somehow reminiscent of a staff room. A staff room at a private school; classic, good quality, furnished in the 1980s with design elements of bygone times. Supino did not furnish his office himself; he took it over from his uncle and predecessor Hans Heinrich Coninx, who in turn took it over from former Tamedia manager Heinrich Hächler. The Tamedia boss is sitting in the cushions of one of the sofas, shirt-sleeved, in a good mood, chatting away. At the first question, his back straightens a little, his gaze grows a little more alert.

Advertising Week: Your duties as Chairman of the Board of Tamedia and President of the Publishers Association involve a certain amount of publicity. How do you deal with that and with criticism?

Pietro Supino: Fortunately, the general public is concerned with more important issues than with me as a person. In our little world of the media, however, we actually deal a lot with ourselves. People with different motivations and views can be found there. The important thing is to have a conviction and to be at peace with yourself. You should have an idea of what you think is right and where your path should lead. You have to take criticism seriously, but you shouldn't dwell too long on complainers.

You usually come across as very positive, enthusiastic. Are you an optimist?

Yes, I am an optimist and maintain a positive attitude out of conviction. But my positive view of things is also well-founded. Overall, our situation in Switzerland is very good. That also applies to the media industry. I'm sorry if people are more or prefer to deal with negative things - which of course also exist. But if you don't cultivate a positive attitude, you miss out on a lot of opportunities. It's a shame if I don't realize that I'm actually doing well. I think it's important to recognize the positive as a starting point.

Nevertheless, worried to doom-and-gloom voices tend to be heard when people talk about the future of the industry...?

In times of change, there is a lot of uncertainty. People don't deal well with that. Uncertainty is indeed very high in our industry, and because we don't handle it well, we too often perceive it as something negative. But uncertainty is by definition neutral or open-ended. Of course, the industry is facing huge challenges, but the last 20 years haven't been all plain sailing either, and I think the bottom line is that the media landscape has developed well, and in some cases is even better off than it used to be. There is a broad range of media available today, and people have access to more information and more ways to express themselves than ever before. Our own media have also developed well. Take the Tages-Anzeiger: We offer more today than in the past. Of course, this has to be looked at in a differentiated way in each individual case, but generally speaking, the development up to this point has been positive. That gives me confidence that we can continue to make progress over the next 20 years. I also don't know what the future will look like in detail, but once I've climbed the Matterhorn, I can have the justified hope that I'll also make it to the Monte Rosa...

Where did you start your personal rise? What did you want to be when you were a child?

Footballer, the classic (laughs). I don't remember the professional future being a big topic for me as a child. But I do know one thing: I certainly didn't dream of becoming a publisher (grins). As a teenager, the ideas became more concrete. Nevertheless, I was torn for a long time as to whether I should study medicine or law and economics. It was an easier decision for me to become a lawyer after graduation. The profession interested me in terms of content. And I liked the image of a free profession. Journalism is also a kind of free profession. I see a connection there, a certain connection from the mindset to what I do today. Of course, this "freelance" component has diminished in journalism. Something is being lost there, and I can understand the melancholy about it. But the industrialization of the freelance world is not only happening in our industry - even in law firms today, you hardly ever find the universal scholar partner...

You are considered the most powerful man in the media industry. With power comes responsibility. Does this sometimes weigh on you?

No. Responsibility is something positive for me, it means being able to shape things. And that gives me pleasure. After all, I'm not an individual exercising power, but a member of a team. Our collaboration at Tamedia is close and constructive, but also characterized by a clear understanding of roles, which is helpful. I enjoy my work in the association just as much; there, too, I see myself as part of a good team. I sense that we publishers have many common concerns. I enjoy formulating these concerns, arguing about them when necessary, discussing them, and finally being able to represent them to the outside world.

Pietro Supino speaks briskly, hesitating only when he is too busy spinning on the threads of his thoughts while speaking. Relaxed, but present. He underlines his words with sometimes more, sometimes less lively gestures - depending on how much a topic, positive or negative, moves him.

The association has a number of concerns and construction sites. For example, in connection with the SRG?

Yes, and they won't all be easy to solve. The situation with SRG is a mess. Nevertheless, some points could be solved more easily than they seem. A waiver by SRG of online advertising, including targeted advertising, would be one starting point. This is a small concession for SRG, but very important for the publishers. If SRG, with its huge advertising inventory, were to insist on being able to offer targeted advertising, it would enter into direct competition with all publisher offerings for more narrowly defined target groups and massively increase the pressure, especially on the smaller publishers. Sooner or later, this would be a disaster for the diversity of offerings and the democratic formation of opinion in Switzerland. At the same time, it is completely uncertain whether SRG would benefit from targeted advertising - after all, if it can better commercialize one part of its audience thanks to targeted advertising delivery, it won't be any easier to market the other contacts. The damage to publishers would be enormous, while the benefit to SRG is unclear. In any case, it would be completely insignificant in relation to its annual revenue of 1.6 billion Swiss francs, three quarters of which comes from fee income. If SRG were to refrain from expanding its commercialization, we would have solved one side of the conflict.

And the other sides?

The direct competition of private media offerings by the SRG with the ongoing expansion of its offering, which already goes far beyond radio and TV broadcasts, for example. It is impossible for us publishers to transform the subscription models for our premium journalism into the digital world if we are competed there by the SRG's fee-financed free offering. However, in view of the enormous competition in the advertising market, also with globally active providers, and the associated price collapse, it is vital for us to maintain our pay models.

Why is the publishers' association fighting Admeira so vehemently?

There is now widespread agreement that it is not okay to bring SRG's fee-financed advertising inventory into an exclusive partnership with a single Swiss publisher and one of the largest German publishing houses - after the clear decision of the Federal Administrative Court, the wind has also turned in Bern against SRG's insensitive approach.

How, if at all, could this dispute be resolved?

Viewed with a little distance, we have more in common than differences. Nevertheless, it has not yet been possible to find a basis for constructive talks. The fronts have hardened, and the whole issue has become highly politicized. Many of the arguments put forward do not stand up to closer scrutiny. In my opinion, mediation would be a possible solution. Each side could put forward its legitimate interests, all the others would have to be sorted out, and then it wouldn't be so complicated, I think.

Closely linked to the SRG construction site is the Ringier construction site. What is to happen there?

In the association, we would welcome a return of Ringier - we have many common interests, from education and training and the cultivation and development of our industry-specific savoir-faire, to the framework conditions for the distribution of newspapers and magazines, to the concentration of SRG on its constitutional mandate.

How seriously should Marc Walder's statement be taken that all publishers are welcome to join Admeira?

The parties involved want to create the impression that Admeira is in the interest of the industry. We have tried to take the hand that is supposedly outstretched and start talks. The first reaction was that the Admeira Board of Directors had to be welcomed first. When asked, we were then told that no talks were being held with a view to an industry solution, but only with individual companies that could join Admeira. Admeira is currently ruling out an industry solution in which everyone can participate on an equal footing. We think that is incorrect. If the publicly financed SRG enters into industry partnerships, all interested private media companies should be able to participate on equal terms without discrimination.

So closer cooperation between Swiss publishers in certain areas would be a good idea in principle?

Yes, but Admeira is initially an attempt by SRG to operate online advertising in the form of targeted advertising through the back door. This does nothing for the Swiss media landscape. All it does is create a domestic cut-throat fight. A joint data management platform for exchanging and refining user data would be a good approach. This would enable us to improve the data quality of Swiss providers in comparison with large international competitors such as Google. Whereby differentiation from Google and Facebook should not be our motivation. The goal should be to increase the quality of our data and establish user-friendly standards. Such a platform should also not be a closed company that wants to divide up the Swiss market among itself. It should be open and transparent to users. We cannot sustainably do business with user data without the users themselves agreeing to it because they see added value in it. If we serve users well and improve their experience, they will allow us to work with their data. Such a user-centric approach is crucial - not only in terms of handling user data, but in general.

What do you mean by that?

As an industry, we need to develop the ability to be more customer-centric. Sitting on our high horse is no longer in keeping with the times. We have to get out of that habit. We have a lot to gain by focusing less on ourselves and more on people and their needs. Our basic attitude must change. That is my most important conclusion from my three-month mini-sabbatical in California last spring.

What did you do during this sabbatical?

My starting point was Stanford University in Palo Alto. As a Visiting Scholar, I had access to the entire program there and to all the institutes and specialists. I was particularly interested in developments at the interface between journalism and technology. In addition, I attended various conferences and a few selected lectures, and had many conversations with personalities from the venture capital industry and start-ups.

What impressions did you gain from this?

Of course, my impressions are varied. If there is a common thread, it is on the one hand that we in Switzerland and at Tamedia are in a very good position, even in comparison with the avant-garde of development. On the other hand, I was impressed by the basic attitude of the people, their openness, which is also related to their great diversity, and how user- and product-oriented they are moving forward.

Is it different for us?

Yes, and it's refreshing compared to our self-centeredness. This is already evident when we say and claim that our media give us a special role in society and thus place us under homeland security, so to speak. It's true that we have a special responsibility, but we shouldn't presume too much about it, but rather justify our status through our performance. This applies not only to journalism, but also to the commercial side of the business. With our monopoly-like position, we have long been able to determine what we offer without asking what customers want. That's no longer possible today in the hypercompetition for users and advertisers.

Given these dynamics, is there a future for print?

Print is and will remain very important. I'm not just saying this because of my personal affinity. Printed newspapers are - as things stand today and for the foreseeable future - without a doubt the most important media genre for democratic opinion-forming in Switzerland. But printed media can only survive with good framework conditions for their distribution. Besides the distortion of competition by the SRG, the distribution of printed media is the biggest structural issue for the industry.

So will indirect press funding be insufficient as relief?

Printed media are a high-volume business. The declining print runs are therefore a problem. In printing, we publishers can counter the declines by adjusting capacities and closing printing plants if necessary. In distribution, costs are a function of volumes in the given distribution areas. The monopoly position of Swiss Post allows it to increase prices when volumes are declining and to pass on its basic supply costs to newspaper distribution. This causes us a lot of trouble. Indirect press subsidies do not protect us against this. It is not the last word in wisdom, but it is a good and proven thing that must be preserved. In addition, however, we depend on newspapers and magazines being distributed by Swiss Post at marginal cost and not having to co-finance the basic service mandate. The question of whether Swiss Post is making or losing money on newspaper distribution revolves around this point. For publishers, this means an existential difference. Before the state thinks about direct press subsidies, it would therefore be more sensible and urgent to relieve the print media by refraining from making money with them.

The sales problem was also created by developments in the online sector. What positive things can online bring to the industry in the future?

I am concerned with the question of how we can make technological development serve us even better. Firstly, to become more efficient and counter cost pressure, and secondly - and this is more important to me - to deliver new and better qualities. A great example is data journalism. It allows our journalists to do research in a way that wasn't possible before and offers real added value. Behind that is the broader field of Data Science. Its application enables new qualities, but also the automation of work steps. But the media industry is highly fragmented and each individual company is often overwhelmed by these new possibilities. This is also true for Tamedia. Because we are in fact a larger SME, even if we are sometimes perceived as larger in the narrow Swiss context. By cooperating in the media industry in the pre-competitive area, we can better benefit from technological progress together. This is also the idea behind the launch of a Chair and Center for Media Technology at ETH.

How long are your working days? How much time do you have to read the newspaper?

During the week, I work maybe ten hours a day and am on the road relatively often. Besides that, I read a lot of newspapers, but that counts as pleasure for me. At the weekend, my children sometimes complain that I read too much newspaper...

Apart from reading the newspaper: What do you do when you have time off?

Then I spend time with the family, I also like nature and sports. In winter I go on small ski tours and in summer I go sailing. But this year, unfortunately, I did not get to do it. With the kids, the days often pass quickly and unspectacularly - that's nice too.

Which of your characteristics is more of a hindrance at work?

Do you think I'm going to tell you? (laughs, thinks a little longer than with other questions). I always take the time to go into topics in greater depth. Because our operational management is excellent, I can afford to do this without anything being left undone. As a publisher, I have the privilege of meeting very interesting people both internally and externally, and I love these opportunities to talk, to exchange ideas with exciting people. It's not always just about so-called important issues. Often, it is only the conversation that reveals whether something important will come out of it. And as a family business owner, I take time for topics that a manager focused on efficiency would leave out. One example of this is our new building here on the Werd site. I took a lot of time for that. I had the feeling with this project that it was important. Not only because I'm convinced that a building like this can convey more clearly than many words how much we believe in our future, but also because I think it's important that our employees can feel good at work - especially today, when the pressure is enormous. These qualities can be viewed positively, but also critically, because they don't always make me efficient. At least, by specifically taking time, I don't just let myself be driven by the agenda, but can pause and get input, also for the day-to-day business.

Will you still be publisher and Chairman of Tamedia in ten years' time?

Very likely it is.

_{Text and pictures: Nora Dämpfle}