Media chronology: changes scheduled for 2022

Just see how Netflix presents the different productions on its site with a few summary lines and some meager photos to understand that it is first and foremost to rely on the already installed tastes and the knowledge already acquired spectators to encourage them to consume new films or new series. The objective is indeed to distribute a maximum of products whose advertising is already made or has already been made elsewhere, and not to defend singular, “minority” films or even unknown, strange or unusual works.

Media chronology

An analysis carried out by the Grignoux and devoted to
The necessary chronology of the media

The analysis presented here exposes what the chronology of the media is, a regulatory system implemented in France to ensure the sustainability of French cinematographic production. It also specifies what is the role of the rooms in this chronology and explains what threats poses on this system the arrival of new distribution actors like Netflix who seek to get rid of this regulatory framework. This document is also available here in PDF format easily printable.

The necessary chronology of the media

The presentation of two films produced by Netflix at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2017 gave rise to an important controversy for the world of cinema, but which has been summarized in most media that reported. We thus opposed the supposed defenders of an archaic system to the supporters of the digital revolution, or even more caricatured a protectionism retrograde to the “freedom” of consumers choosing where, when and how they want to see films.

These kinds of debate summarized to simple alternatives masks the complexity of situations and issues. We especially ignore that the various players (producers, distributors, room operators, paid or non -paid televisions. ) occupy unequal positions and that some abuse a dominant position to maximize their profits without assuming all the costs.

Finally, the false alternatives suggest that “the old system” – in this case the chronology of the media – must necessarily disappear when it is quite possible and envisaged to do so evolve On a certain number of points to take into account developments in production, dissemination and consumption methods. But present the facts in the form of a simplistic alternative precisely those who prefer disappearance of any obstacle to their dominant position rather than considering a possible evolution.

What is media chronology ?

The chronology of the media is a French regulatory system which originally aimed to protect cinemas from competition from television channels: faced with the significant drop in cinematographic attendance, it imposed a period of three years between the first exploitation from a film in theaters and its possible broadcast on television. Subsequently, the multiplication of television channels and especially their diversification led to a shortening of these deadlines as well as a complexification of the system to take into account the specificity of the various stakeholders: Canal +, a paid chain, can thus project the films within one year because it contributes financially and significantly to the production of films that she broadcasts. The arrival of paid video on -demand services (VOD), allowed by the Internet network, has also led to an adaptation of the system (the deadline for VOD being only four months).

For Netflix, which is a video -on -request video service, the deadline is three years because most of its catalog consists of achievements produced elsewhere and purchased at low prices. It is only recently that this company has embarked on the production of series and now of films which it nevertheless wants to retain exclusivity and which it refuses to show in theaters under the pretext of the excessive constraints of the chronology of the media. But this pretext masks the real interests of Netflix which intends to benefit as much as possible from the economic concentration which it is in the process of setting up: this vertical concentration – as diffusers and now as producers – allows him to occupy a dominant position and proceed by force without negotiation.

Cinema entry tax (TSA)

The chronology of the media, which seems to advantage the rooms, would however not have meaning without another essential device, namely the tax on the inputs of cinematographic performance (TSA) [1]: on each entry ticket into room, the CNC (National Cinema Center) directly takes a tax which is then used to Finance the production of new films In France. It is a real “virtuous circle” which allows French cinema to produce hundreds of achievements per year while participating in the co -production of many films in other countries. And it was this system that allowed French cinema to do not disappear Faced with the power of American cinema (already profitable on its vast national market).

We will recall on this subject how Italian and German cinematographies, particularly flourishing in the 1960s and 70s disappeared in a few decades following in particular the liberalization of television. It is enough to compare the current situation in the different European countries [2], characterized by a fragmentation of the markets due in particular to the diversity of spoken languages, to note that this system of a chronology of the media associated with the TSA allowed the French cinema to remain one of the major players in world cinema, whose Cannes Film Festival is also an essential showcase. And we will see why Netflix wants precisely to use this showcase.

Netflix or the logic of the tube

Everyone knows the name of Netflix today, but few people know its real operation: the company is seen first on the side of customers – is it interesting to subscribe ? – much more rarely on the economic side: how did the company grew up ? How is she in new countries ? who draws the most important profits ? What are its competitors ?

Thanks to the Internet, Netflix can offer its customers, who subscribe to a monthly subscription, an important catalog of films, series and television shows. This is called an SVOD (Video subcription We ask) as opposed to the VOD where the buyer bought only a film or a series at a time. In other words, Netflix is ​​first of all a “pipe” that the company strives to fill with a maximum of products. This is why the company born in the United States began by buying relatively old TV or cinema productions, therefore at low prices, to give its potential customers of an extremely wide offer. The importance of the very homogeneous American market allowed him both to have an important catalog [3] and to receive a potential clientele of 300 million people. Thanks to the benefits thus released, Netflix was able to expand its catalog, embarking on the production of its own series and leaving to conquer new markets.

Two main principles guide the commercial logic of Netflix. We must first convince the public from get down Thanks to a very low price (ten euros) while promising access to an “immense” catalog: the “content” has little importance in itself, which is essential is to connect the customer to pipe . The logic is already old, of the television where we look at a chain, a flow, as opposed to that of cinema and in particular of the cinema where we choose to To see a film, A precise achievement. The price of the subscription is the essential argument of Netflix, and it conditions (underground) its offer which will consist of productions mainly purchased at “cheap”.

But this logic of the flow is accompanied by a second principle, fundamentally advertising, that we classically call the calling product. You have to attract looks, and a catalog even at low prices does not allow you to quickly set up in new markets already subject to Rude Competition. In addition to the announcement effects (“Netflix arrives in Europe ! ), The production of Prestige achievements continues this advertising objective. This is how Netflix offered successful original series like House of Cards Or Orange is the new black. The same strategy was adopted in France with the realization of the Marseille series (with Gérard Depardieu) which, despite the advertising means, was a television failure (both artistic and commercial). However, it must be seen that these productions, however successful they are, are part of a logic of flow: we must convince consumers to subscribe ! Netflix remains above all a Streamer which is only interested in production as an appeal product [4]. It is not a real producer as a cinema studio, most of the activity of which consists in finishing the production of films.

We therefore see the interest of Netflix in presenting two films at the Cannes Film Festival, which is the “world showcase of cinema”, and thus to arouse controversy by refusing that these films are first projected indoors as the chronology wants medias. These two films would indeed be visible only for Netflix subscribers. We immediately see how Netflix singularly limits the sacrosanct consumer freedom, forced to subscribe to see one or the other of these films. We also guess that Netflix is ​​more interested in the controversy fueled by the intransigence of his positions than by the few subscribers that these films could bring him.

Consumer’s “freedom” according to Netflix

Allociné advertising for Netflix

To see this film by Joon-Ho Bong, the interested spectator must Subscribe to Netflix ! Fortunately, we offer him a month of free trial… the film Okja is therefore only a product of call for a subscription, and it is a question of making the spectator captive of the “tube” of Netflix. To the supposed regulatory constraints, Netflix intends to substitute spectators prisoners of their own subscription, which in other circumstances, Boétie called voluntary servitude.

On the other side

How is this logic of “flow” is a threat to cinema or for a certain type of cinema ?

The most obvious is that Netflix, as a capitalist company seeking to maximize its profits [5], retains most of the profits generated by the dissemination of its productions. Thus, the money of European subscribers (or from any other region of the world) will essentially date back to the American company. As we saw with the TSA (the tax on cinema entrances), it will be the national cinemas which will first be impacted but also the whole French production system.

But it is also necessary to distinguish between different types of cultural productions or cinematographic achievements. Even if the borders are not waterproof, the purely economic system creates deep divisions between, on the one hand, cinematographic productions dominant, Mainly American, which are profitable on a large market, which have significant means of promotion, which are easily exported in all regions of the world and thus multiply their benefits, and, on the other hand, from the Minority cinematographies, Whether in geographic terms (most European but also Asian or South American countries against the United States), artistic (we think of course of art cinema and essay subject to strong competition from commercial cinemas), politicians , ideological, or simply in terms of targeted audience, more limited, more local, more selective [6].

The logic of the flow, whether it be televisions or Netflix, is indifferent in content. It is a question of maintaining the public in front of the screens by offering him achievements likely to please as many spectators as possible. Of course, the “markets” are today more segmented than in the past, but the logic of Netflix is ​​to suggest, thanks to the history of choices made by different customers, of the similar productions to those they have already appreciated. It is no coincidence that televisions invented and then multiplied the series which allow to retain their customers, a system that Netflix continues to favor if not to use the rope. It is not a question of denying the quality of many of these achievements and in particular series which have experienced an important renewal thanks in particular to the HBO channel. But it must be seen that the principle of flow is to favor what is rightly called mainstream production, that is to say achievements which are already known in one way or another of the public, And not to defend “minority” cinemas (in every way), nor to change consumer preferences and even less to “transform the viewer’s gaze”. “Minority” films may possibly be offered in commercial niches which will however be drowned in a much wider offer which will always promote dominant productions in the long term [7].

So that “minority” cinematographies can live and reach an audience as wide as possible, it is necessary another system, A proactive system which is determined to fight against the dominant current, and which culturally and economically defends the works or the more fragile, less known, possibly more difficult achievements. Faced with the reign of a continuous flow, it is in particular a question of affirming that there are Singular movies, which express different points of view, foreign to the strong sense of the term, and which require new curiosity to spectators.

The role of criticism

In this perspective, we see the importance of critical cinematographic, whether prestigious reviews such as CAHIERS DU CINEMA Or Positive, generalist or specialized press, or more local newspapers like that of the Grignoux. Cinematographic criticism does not consist, as one believes too easily, in giving a positive or negative opinion on a film but defend certain achievements which, without that, would go unnoticed. It is to discover Films that the dominant production and diffusion system tends to marginalize, because of their geographic origin, their radical positions, from their more or less disturbing point of view, of their innovative or unusual aesthetic.

Just see how Netflix presents the different productions on its site with a few summary lines and some meager photos to understand that it is first and foremost to rely on the already installed tastes and the knowledge already acquired spectators to encourage them to consume new films or new series. The objective is indeed to distribute a maximum of products whose advertising is already made or has already been made elsewhere, and not to defend singular, “minority” films or even unknown, strange or unusual works.

Now since the origins, the Cannes Film Festival, which represents with its enormous market [8] the whole of world production in its diversity, has always wanted and still wants, through its multiple competitions, discover and discover original works , which would not find their place in the cinematographic landscape without this prestigious “showcase”. But Netflix only intends to use this showcase to promote call products that will not serve the cinema but a dissemination system which, in general, maintains cultural consumption habits already installed. Only the consumption mode changes, the spectator being invited to no longer leave his chair or his sofa.

Again, it is not a question of claiming that this system offers only bad films or bad television achievements, which would be clearly false, but to understand that it is a system of diffusion, and not of production and even less creation, and that as such, it promotes trendy culturally, socially and economically dominant productions. Netflix obviously is not intended to defend art and essay cinema, nor any other type of “minority” cinema, even if it can occasionally Highlight one or the other example of this kind of cinema [9].

The role of rooms

We come back to the role of rooms and the chronology of the media as it exists mainly in France. The cinemas have several roles on which we will come back. But their first role is tofilms. Of course, the Art and essay rooms, which form in France and to a lesser extent in Belgium a dense circuit, do not do so in the same way as commercial cinemas or multiplexes which are generally satisfied with a more or less intensive display. Art and essay cinemas, which are part of a whole chain that links producers to directors, distributors, operators and finally to the public, defend films by different strategies such as critical work through newspapers, gazettes or websites or the establishment of events, meetings, debates around films. These strategies, sometimes tiny [10], sometimes very important, make it possible to make known achievements which, without this, would not manage to reach their potential spectators. Again, the rooms do not work alone and it is a whole chain who works to defend a more cinema minority with specific accents according to places, moments, the target audience, the sensitivities of each.

The chronology of the media allows precisely the cinemas to make this exhibition work of the least known and the most fragile films. And it is this work that gives visibility to films which will then be taken up in the flow of televisions, paid or not, and then of the internet. Netflix on the other hand is a “clandestine passenger” which short-circuits this work whose fruit he hopes to withdraw thanks to the Cannes exhibition, forgetting that it was the rooms (and in particular those of the Grignoux) who made known in Europe the first achievements of Bong Joon-Ho and Noah Baumbach. And of course, Netflix will neglect all the more difficult films that are not in its catalog where, anyway, these kinds of films would be drowned and would not be truly defended.

And the Grignoux in all of this ?

Netflix will he kill the Grignoux ? We are obviously not paranoid at this point (but still a little. )). But the example of the Grignoux rooms (the Park, the Churchill, the Sauvenière in Liège and the cameo in Namur) allows precisely to understand how this circuit of cinemas can work that can be described as “minority” [11].

Defending less known films, discovering new directors, showing more or less difficult films not benefiting from a large media coverage, assume that there is a motivated, curious audience, attracted by demanding, unpublished and less known works. This public share is essential but is exhausted over the years if new spectators are not trained in this kind of cinema. If the school undoubtedly plays an important role, it is first and foremost by the discovery and then the attendance of the Grignoux rooms that the public can to renew and widen. But these new spectators, young or old, will cross the door of our cinemas to see films which they have already heard of in the press or the media. The programming of the Grignoux therefore offers A range of films which goes from the most “sharp”, the most “difficult”, the most “demanding” to quality achievements but more accessible, better promoted. It is this balance which allowed the Grignoux – but it is also the case for many other art cinemas and essay – to keep its audience and even to develop. It is therefore essential for all “minority” films that the rooms where they must take place have access to “carriers” films, films that will attract new spectators and which will make them discover the places as well as others films, other achievements probably less known but completely worthy of an interest that can be passionate.

And we can see how Netflix and others try to recover these promising films for their benefit – which is legitimate – but excluding the rooms of the exploitation of these same films. This is called a dominant position abuse.

The role of cinemas in social life

The arguments of opponents of any regulation and any chronology of the media remains much more summary, claiming that spectators must be left “freedom” to see the films where they want, when they want and as they want [ 12]. We have seen, however, that Netflix’s strategy aims precisely to create an audience captive and at exclude cinemas in the exploitation of films produced or produced this company.

But cinemas have another role to play than television or digital screens in the life of the city. You have to get out of home to go to the movies ! It’s obvious, but it involves Another way to see Movies that on TV, on a computer screen or on a smartphone ! For a long time, the cinemas have had a significant advantage in terms of quality of projection, sound system, atmosphere and comfort of the spectator plunged into darkness and entirely absorbed by the magic of cinema. This advantage still exists (especially facing the smartphone !), but he does not alone explain the persistent success of the rooms.

The exit to the cinema is Social experience, Even for an isolated spectator ! It is a meeting place with a film but also with other spectators with whom we share reactions, emotions, various reflections and more or less important. The films that we defend very often call for such a collective reaction: Me, Daniel Blake From Ken Loach, Palme d’Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival, is precisely a film which aims to provoke an awareness among spectators who are invited to debate together what they have seen and heard !

It is in this perspective that we defend cinemas as a place of exchange, meeting and discussion through in particular the events events and the debates we organize, with directors of course who are the first defenders of their Work but also with cinema technicians, personalities and members of various associations who can bring other points of view, other lighting on the screened film. This function aimed at creating social dialogue Between people from various backgrounds seems essential to the life of the city and is specific to the cinemas like ours. Netflix in his only broadcast logic obviously does not intend to play such a role, the spectator being reduced to an isolated consumer.

Of course, all the cinema sessions in our rooms or elsewhere are not followed by more or less exceptional meetings (even if the number of events organized in Liège exceeds 125 per year, which represents two to three events per week !)). Nevertheless, even for spectators who frequent our rooms more or less diligently, the exit to the cinema remains an event, a deliberate choice, whether it is made alone, with family or friends. For at least the duration of the projection, each one shares with others, known or unknown, a social experience which extends to the exit of the room, if only by crossed views, a few words exchanged, a dialogue which Starts and continues at the cafe or the brewery.

In this, the cinemas located in cities in cities contribute significantly to The life of the city : where television, the Internet and now Netflix contribute to the growing isolation of individuals, to chilly withdrawal in the “home”, to confinement on the values ​​and certainties already acquired, cinema invites us to get out of Circle of our habits, to confront us with other spectators, to share with them on the spot a moment of emotion, reflection, dialogue which goes beyond the simple time of the projection.

1. See. The CNC explanatory brochure.

2. In Belgium, there is a media chronology which is respected by an agreement between the various stakeholders in the chain, but there is no regulatory framework or TSA. Nor is there equivalent to the French CNC which makes it possible to overall manage any conflicts of interest between the various stakeholders.

3. Netflix, for example, bought old series at low prices as Friends which had been widely seen on television.

4. By a classic effect of snowball, the profits generated by the broadcast make it possible to finance an increasingly important production (which worries other producers in particular of television), but which remains in a logic of product of product. For the moment, the production of original content would represent 20 to 25% of Netflix purchases.

5. In 2015, Netflix moved its Luxembourg headquarters to the Netherlands in a tax optimization strategy.

6. We explained elsewhere (in 1993 already, then in 1999) what are the economic mechanisms (in particular a unified cultural market) which, over the long term, favored the domination of American cinema, and which, little by little, with in particular The invisible aid of televisions, led to the disappearance of numerous cinematographies in countries like Italy or Germany. (Cf . “Should we protect minority cinemas ? ” In The unpublished (The Journal des Grignoux) N ° 43, Oct.-nov. 1993, p. 2 & 19)

7. Currently, we are still far from this “niches” system on Netflix. When you consult your catalog in Belgium, we see that it is the logic of genres (police, series, drama, war. ) which is privileged. There is in any case the notion of cinema author.

8. Cannes is a festival with multiple competitions (official competition, fifteen directors, ACID, etc.) But it is also a market where professionals around the world (mainly producers on the one hand and distributors on the other) can show their various productions, possibly sell them or buy them. Of course, all this is of unequal quality and many achievements will not find a distributor, but this market and the whole festival reveal a much wider cinematographic diversity and variety than the Netflix catalog.

9. It is essential to consider the entire Netflix catalog and not to highlight only one or the other prestigious and high quality achievement: it is through the whole of this catalog that we can determine objectively that these are mainly mainstream achievements.

10. In Grignoux rooms, we systematically offer, instead of advertisements, the trailers of the films to come.

11. The expression cinema of art and essay is too restrictive. Certain films, without having great artistic ambitions, have a local, political, social, ecological or simply human interest which deserves a particular exhibition thanks in particular to partner associations. These kinds of films are regularly shown and defended in Grignoux.

12. It is quite possible to adapt the chronology of the media to market developments, as has already been the case in the past. But what the naive or interested defenders of Netflix want is the disappearance of this system. Of course, they wish to maintain the systems that benefit them, and Netflix is ​​not at all ready to accept the hacking of their channel in the name of consumer freedom, as the Pirate Party in Sweden wishes for example and elsewhere.

Click here to return to the analysis index.

Media chronology: changes scheduled for 2022

2022 marks a change on the chronology of the media. Suddenly, what is it, and what does it bring ? We tell you more !

The chronology of the media, what is it ?

It is a mechanism in France for the broadcasting of films after their passage in cinemas. Indeed, the broadcast in past rooms, several supports release a version of this same film, according to certain rules. For example, the financing of production is taken into account, or the number of in -room entries, etc. We therefore speak of media chronology to notify the time elapsed between indoor outings and outings on different viewing media such as DVD releases, television or video on demand for example.

In fact, channels or platforms that bring funds for the creation of films generally obtain a better place. Instead of having to wait a long period before broadcasting, the latter may have a place allowing them to have only a few months to wait. Depending on the arrival of competition or even the evolution of the audiovisual, the chronology is revised, updated in a punctual way. Revised for the last time at the end of 2018, officially in February 2019 for a validity of three years, it is in 2022 that this chronology must be updated. It is still active currently and should be modified in February of this year.

What does the new media chronology offer ?

What it implies

The main novelty of this new media chronology is to include American giants. At the end of the year, Netflix, Disney+ as well as Amazon Prime Video have officially returned to the race. On the other hand, they will have to pay between 20 and 25 % of their turnover for local production, in France. This year, it is therefore a hope of 250 to 300 million euros brought to the financing of audiovisual and cinematographic productions of France.

The only one of these giants to have signed the offer is Netflix. The Agency France Presse announces that “this agreement is a significant first step in modernization of the media chronology”. However, Disney regrets that “this new media chronology does not establish a fair and proportionate framework between the various players in the audiovisual ecosystem”. The American company adds its dissatisfaction by stressing that “it is all the more frustrating since we have increased our investments in the creation of original French content”.

Summary of data from the new media chronology

Diffusion support	Old chronology	New chronology
DVD exit, Blu-ray, etc.	4 months	4 months
Paid channels: Canal+, OCS, etc.	8 months	6 months
Netflix	36 months	15 months
Video platforms on demand: Amazon Prime, Disney+	36 months	17 months
Free channels: TF1, France 2, etc.	30 months	22 months

Waiting time before the different groups are disseminated on their support.

Netflix saves time compared to competing platforms thanks to the signing of the agreement and the various financial contributions on the production of small on -scale films. A standoff between Canal+ and the video on demand video platforms was led, because it had been envisaged that the broadcast was reduced to 12 months for the latter rather than the 15 and 17 maintained.

Disney+ who has not signed the agreement, considering herself losing, lets doubt doubt. Indeed, the risk is that the Disney group no longer broadcasts its films in theaters in France in order to offer them directly on their platform, Disney+. Even if this decision seems unlikely in view of the figure that the cinema outings represent, it is nevertheless possible that a compromise is found: Disney could then offer only certain films in the cinema and not the entire production.

In view of the validity of this new media chronology, we must expect a revision in 2024 for an official update in February 2025.

Are the series concerned by the chronology of the media ?

Indeed, this question is after all legitimate, and the answer is no. The series indeed have a separate frame, not being broadcast in the room. Being directly broadcast on television or on platforms, they can allow simultaneous outings in several different countries.

Until then, what an impact on French spectators ?

A review clause has been established for a year. The goal is to take stock of the integration of the various actors. Thomas Valentin, vice-president of the M6 ​​group said that they will be “very vigilant on the balance of power between these large platforms and the French actors”.

This new agreement, signed at the Ministry of Culture, in the presence of Roselyne Bachelot, is therefore valid for three years. The minister, on the other hand, is delighted to have reached an agreement which “was an impossible mission. All the Nantes parties realized that the quarrels of chapels had to be overcome given the difficulties “. In addition to protecting indoor outings and various broadcast supports in the months that follow, this media chronology wants to protect the diversification of tricolor productions.

In fact, the main impact on the French is a time saving. The consequence for the public is that he will have access more quickly to content, including the different platforms. This shortening of the diffusion window suggests a more virtuous behavior of consumers who, having access to content earlier, would go less through download sites.

Many operators to date offer video platforms on demand with their services. Which one to choose ? And at what price ? Do not hesitate to call on a JeCchange expert who will make you the turn of market offers, for free !

Find the best box or mobile offer and save money !