A good 58 percent of those who voted were in favor of expanding Swiss film funding. The costs seem marginal. The range of Swiss films on streaming services and private TV channels is now set to increase as a result of the referendum. Whether consumption will also increase is a completely different question.
The people want more protection for Swiss films.
Imagine the following: the federal government orders clothes shops, computer sellers, car dealers, Migros and all other sellers of goods in Switzerland that a certain minimum proportion of the products sold must come from within Switzerland – so that “not so much money flows abroad”. . And all other countries would demand something similar. That would upset the basic rules of international trade, to which Switzerland owes much of its prosperity.
But this principle was at the heart of the bill for revising the film law. Homeland security for film is common in many countries, as it is for agriculture. In Switzerland, the state, including SRG, has so far supported Swiss films with around 100 to 120 million francs a year. The people have now accepted the expansion of film homeland security decided by parliament with 58 percent yes votes.
What will change
In future, online streaming services such as Netflix, Disney, Sky and Amazon will have to direct 4 percent of their Swiss sales to independent Swiss film productions or pay a corresponding substitute fee for film funding. Such an obligation now also applies to foreign TV stations with Swiss program and advertising windows (such as for Sat 1 and RTL).
A tightening comes with the people’s yes for language-regional and national private TV stations: A 4 percent quota already applies to them today, but in future they will only be able to count in-kind contributions to a limited extent, such as commercials for Swiss films, and in-house productions are no longer countable.
Foreign and Swiss private TV stations and streaming services will be treated equally in future, according to the supporters of the Swiss film quota proposal. Equal treatment would also have been possible by dispensing with the previous soft quota for Swiss private TV stations, but as is so often the case, the declared concern for “harmonisation” must be used as a cover for an expansion of regulation. For the streaming services, there is also a requirement of at least 30 percent for European films. However, this rate should be easier for providers to achieve than the Swiss rate of 4 percent.
According to estimates by the Federal Council, the bill will lead to additional investments in Swiss film of around CHF 18 million per year. Measured against the standards for a national voting proposal, the sums involved were very modest. Assuming five million consumers of streaming services and private TV stations, that would mean an average of three to four francs per capita and year. The providers are likely to try to pass on at least part of the additional costs to the customers sooner or later. When and to what extent this will happen is unclear. The Swiss prices for streaming services are primarily based on the customers’ willingness to pay. In turn, the willingness to pay depends on purchasing power and the prices of competing offers.
The smallness of the additional costs limited the general public’s interest in this voting proposal – and this, above all, limited resistance. If the benefits of a legislative project are concentrated on a few actors, and the costs are diffuse and widely distributed, and it also appears to primarily affect foreign providers, this is a politically favorable starting point for the proponents. If the benefits are concentrated on a few, even small total sums are important to those who benefit, while those who pay hardly notice the costs.
However, there was a group of domestic players who concentrated part of the costs: the private TV stations. They had also taken up the referendum and, with their active No campaign during the voting campaign, met with a response from a significant number of those who went to the polls. But in the end the opponents lacked a lot for a majority. The concerns of private TV stations are unlikely to rouse most citizens, and given the small sums, the warning of higher costs for consumers did not have the impact that the opponents would have needed.
The polls leading up to the vote showed two clear tendencies in particular: leftists were far more likely to be in favor of the bill than rightists, and the young (“Netflix generation”) were far more likely to be against the bill than the older generation. Sunday’s Swiss voting card also confirms the usual picture: the French-speaking cantons vote more left-wing than the German-speaking Swiss, and the same applies to the urban/rural comparison. These tendencies were also clear in the February elections on the expansion of media subsidies. In contrast to the media package, however, the film law achieved a majority in most cantons; the no votes predominated in only seven of the 26 cantons.
Does the evidence now follow?
The people’s yes to the film law will now inevitably lead to an increase in the range of Swiss films on streaming services and certain TV stations. Whether the consumption of Swiss films will increase to a similar extent, however, is a completely different question. In the past, the domestic market share of Swiss films measured by demand was significantly smaller than measured by supply. For example, according to data from the federal statistician, 3.6 percent of the films offered for subscription services including streaming came from Switzerland in 2020, but only 0.2 percent of the films consumed were Swiss. In 2019, the discrepancy was even greater: 4.6 percent market share for supply, practically zero percent for demand.
But there is hope: In view of the new quota pressure, international streaming services may now invest more in co-productions and, in their own interest, ensure that Swiss films are “closer to the people”. One can be curious.