Terra Nova is an independent progressive think tank whose aim is to produce and disseminate innovative political solutions in France and in Europe.

Search
Please enter your e-mail
You must check this box if you want to subscribe to the newsletter.
Online book sales, music distribution platforms, on-demand cinema on small screens, growth of video games: the worlds of culture have been turned upside down for several years by the development of digital technology. The "cultural industries" (books, music, cinema and audiovisual, video games) no longer meet their public in the same way, and no longer face the same constraints or the same challenges. Technical innovations have created a new world of availability of works, which has brought us into a world of abundance, and even overabundance. The aspirations of the public, even before the shock of the confinements due to the sanitary situation, rapidly transformed the uses. How should cultural policy adapt to this new situation? 
For more than sixty years, cultural policy has developed a range of intervention tools (budgetary, fiscal, regulatory, institutional tools, etc.) that have made it possible, with varying degrees of success, to pursue two major objectives: the promotion of art and the democratization of access to culture. It has always adapted to a changing context. But the rupture which we face with the development of the digital technology is of an unprecedented scale because it concerns as well the conditions of production, reproduction, storage and diffusion of works as their modes of consumption, making enter the artists and their works in a system of accelerated and global circulation.
After describing these changes and measuring their impact on the cultural industries, this note proposes to draw the consequences for cultural policies. Should the fundamental objectives of cultural action be changed? Support for creation and the defense of diversity remain major objectives, while the question of democratization has changed in nature in an economy of overabundance. But it is above all the tools of public action that are called into question: in a global market, where very powerful transnational actors are asserting themselves, national sectoral regulation no longer works. So what would be the relevant new tools?
After illustrating these changes in perspective on four current issues (the assessment of the "culture pass", the future of public broadcasting, the upheaval of the media chronology and the regulation of new global digital players), the note develops new priorities: ensuring equal access to the digital offer, understanding the new economic models adapted to the change in uses and technical supports to favor national players capable of sustaining global competition, supporting the physical economy at the same time, emphasizing the pluralism of prescription systems by working in particular on the regulation of recommendation algorithms, giving oneself the means to synthesize the available knowledge on a sector that is undoubtedly not yet finished with the transformation underway.
In 2019, the Ministry of Culture celebrated its 60^e anniversary. It was also the year of several decisions concerning public intervention in the cultural industries. The President of the Republic announced that year the creation of a public capital investment fund of 225 million euros, managed by BPI France, in favor of cultural and creative industries (ICC[1]), the setting up of a strategic committee for the sector (CSF) concerning them, as well as the launch of the general states of the cultural and creative industries. A new law on audiovisuals is also under discussion, and the National Music Center (CNM) has finally come out of limbo[2].
While the importance of the cultural industries has never been denied by the public authorities in France, the upheavals that these sectors have been facing for several years, characterized by digitization and the exponential growth of Internet uses, suggest that the public policy instruments implemented until now are no longer adapted to the challenges of our time. The appointment in 2019 of a president of the CNC with an unprecedented profile and the creation of the Centre national de la musique (CNM) in early 2020, for example, are evidence of the need to collectively discuss[3] issues and solutions to be implemented.
These changes require a reflection based on an understanding of the system as a whole and a vision of what public intervention in the cultural industries can and should be in the digital age.
The objective of this note is to propose a framework for the analysis of public policies in the different sectors of the cultural industries and to propose avenues for reflection on their adaptation to the new challenges. In particular, it questions the specificities of public intervention in this field, by showing that it can neither be a simple extension of policies developed in the historical sectors of intervention, nor a simple industrial policy which would not take into account the specificities of arts and culture. It will also question the relevance of a common, or generic, approach to cultural industries.
Table 1 - The weight of cultural industries in France (in billions of euros)

BOOK
MUSIC
CINEMA
VIDEO GAMES
TELEVISION
Sales figures
(direct and related)
6,3
0,725*
3,8
5,2
12
Objectives and modalities 2018 data - Source: France Créative (Ernst & Young study and DEPS Ministry of Culture)
* This figure corresponds to the revenues of distributors and broadcasters of recorded music and not to those of the entire music industry, in which live performances play an important role.
The Ernst & Young study estimates the turnover of the cultural and creative industries at €91.4 billion in 2018. This study also includes advertising (€17 billion), the press (€10.5 billion) and radio (€1.5 billion) in the CCI perimeter.
In addition to the sectors listed in Table 1, E &Y includes in the CCI perimeter two "traditional" cultural sectors:
- visual arts - 23.4 M
- live entertainment - €9.1 billion
The cultural industries in the strict sense (books, music, cinema, video games), together weigh a little more than a quarter of the CCI (27 %), and 45 % of the cultural field.
The main missions entrusted to the French Ministry of Culture[4] at the time of its creation[5] were two main components.
1) The defense and promotion of the arts: on the one hand, heritage (preservation, conservation and development of national heritage, museums, historical monuments, legal deposit, audiovisual archives of the INA[6]), and on the other hand, creation (support for artists, the structures that host them and the projects they develop). These two aspects are often presented separately, but they complement each other in that they correspond to the specifically artistic dimension of cultural policies and respond to a logic of supply. They are also strongly and increasingly interrelated[7].
2) The democratization: it was a question of legitimizing the public financing of the arts by an emancipating function ("to give access to each citizen to the artistic masterpieces"). An intensive policy of supply (concerning in particular the living culture, creation of public theaters and houses of culture, movement of theatrical and musical decentralization) was emblematic of this ambition. This policy has encountered important limits[8]The evolution of the social structure of artistic audiences has remained modest, with the level of education remaining the main determinant of the consumption of "legitimate" art forms[9] ". At the same time, the development of cultural industries (books, recorded music, cinema), giving access to a large public to works of all kinds, has led to highlight their contribution to the process of democratization[10].
Beyond these founding objectives, another mission of French cultural policy has emerged: to preserve or promote the identity of the French people. culturelle (first known as the "cultural exception"), and[11] ") and promote the diversity in creation against the risk of standardization[12].
The arts and culture are also considered generators of externalities (contribution to social welfare and economic activity, raising the level of education, etc.) and therefore deserve to be supported by the public authorities.
The growth and economic importance of the cultural and creative industries have finally led to the identification of an industrial policy objective: support for industries considered strategic in terms of their economic weight and their contribution to job creation.

1.2 Modalitys of public action

Because of the specific issues they raise, this note focuses on the actions of the State with regard to cultural industries (books, music, cinema and audiovisual, video games[13]). Nevertheless, in order to build a general vision, we will also evoke what can be done in other sectors (visual arts, heritage, live performance).
Public action in favor of culture has been structured around different forms of intervention, the range of which has grown over time.

1.2.1 Direct intervention: the state as an actor

In this configuration, the State directly manages certain activities through public establishments or public enterprises. This mode of intervention mainly concerns cultural services (heritage and live performance) and little cultural industries, with the notable exception of the public audiovisual service[14].

1.2.2 Indirect intervention: the State as funder

The State intervenes in the economy of certain sectors through grants (operating and equipment) or financial allocations. Two objectives legitimize this type of intervention:
- correcting market imperfections;
- overcome the difficulties of actors to take risks, given the inherent uncertainty of artistic creation.
Funding can be allocated to projects or to structures (associations or those with public interest missions), over periods that can be multi-year. If the second modality is much less developed in the cultural industries for questions of competition law, the first has a wider field of application and concerns all cultural sectors. It is intended as a means of stimulating creation: public commissions (visual arts), aid for writing or producing works (performing arts, cinema), aid to authors and publishers (books) are among the most frequently used measures.
It should be noted that in certain sectors (cinema and audiovisual)[15] a specific mechanism, called a support fund, whose operating principle is as follows. The fund is fed by a parafiscal tax levied on the price of the final service (cinema tickets) or on the turnover of the broadcasters (television). The sums collected can be used by the national actors of the sector concerned, automatically or selectively, to finance their activity (production, distribution, etc.). This mechanism finds its most successful expression in the CNC's "film - audiovisual - multimedia support fund". To put it briefly, by levying a tax on the price of each cinema ticket to finance new productions, it consists of a system of forced savings combined with a redistribution mechanism.

1.2.3 Influencing the structure of markets: the regulatory state

Since the cultural industries are mainly the work of private companies, in which the State can hardly intervene directly without contravening competition law, regulation is the most obvious and undoubtedly the most structuring mode of action. Regulatory measures aimed at influencing the functioning of the market make it possible to meet the major objectives of cultural policy, mainly (but not exclusively) the preservation of creative diversity.
The law on the single price for books, broadcasting quotas for French programs imposed on broadcasters (radio and television), chronology for the broadcasting of cinematographic works, anti-concentration measures, authorization or not of advertising: the range of instruments is diverse and varied. The fight against piracy must be added to this panorama, to which the creation of the HADOPI (High authority for the distribution of works and the protection of rights on the Internet[16]). Finally, it should be noted that France has a special unemployment insurance scheme applicable to artists and technicians in the entertainment industry: the "intermittence scheme  ". Created in 1936 for film technicians, it was extended in 1969 to entertainment professionals (audiovisual and live performance). The justification for a specific regime is based on the fact that, in a sector where project-based work is the norm, periods of unemployment "naturally" occur in the intervals between participation in two projects[17].

1.2.4 Taxation

Special tax provisions allow the state to support certain cultural sectors:
- reduced VAT rate (example of books);
- tax deductions for individuals and companies who make "payments to public or private organizations whose management is disinterested and whose main activity is the presentation to the public of works of the performing arts, music and cinema" (Aillagon law of 2003 on sponsorship)[18] ;
- tax credit mechanisms in order to localize (or relocate) production activities on the national territory (cinema, video games and music production);
- special tax regime applicable to copyrights and neighbouring rights[19].

 1.2.5 Mediation

The mediation function was introduced in 1982 in cinema, more recently in other cultural industries: in 2014 in books and in 2016 in music.
By appointing a mediator, the State refrains from imposing regulations on an entire profession but intervenes to settle a conflict between certain market players by organizing and framing the negotiations.

1.2.6 Training

Public actions in the field of training include two components, depending on whether the training is professional (training for cultural professions) or general (concerning the whole population).
Concerning the professional aspect, the State intervenes upstream of the markets by taking charge of training in specialized schools, with the objective of maintaining a high level of technical skills in the French workforce and providing companies established in France with qualified professionals[20].
In addition to vocational education, we should mention everything that comes under the heading of artistic and cultural education (EAC), which is offered both by the State (in elementary school) and by local authorities (music schools, conservatories, etc.). This general education aims to put young people in contact with the history of art and cultural works in a logic of formation of tastes, which will lead to the cultural practices of the adult age[21]. It also concerns the development of amateur practices[22].

1.2.7 Labeling

The labeling of cultural institutions or companies goes back to the 1980s, with the creation in the heritage field of the "classified and controlled museum" label, replaced since the law of 2002 by the "musée de France" label. In the cultural industries, the labeling concerns the cinema with theaters classified as "art et essai" and the book industry with the "independent reference bookstores". This labeling opens the right to subsidies.

1.2.8 National centers

Finally, it should be noted that in all sectors, with the exception of video games, there is a national center, a public institution whose scope of intervention varies but which is most often a place for consultation and coordination between the State and the profession. The creation of these centers corresponds to a horizontal logic of meeting between the different partners of a sector[23] replacing a vertical logic of administration by a departmental directorate[24].

1.3 Links between objectives and modalitys of action

National Book Center (CNL)
The CNL is a public institution of an administrative nature created by the law of October 11, 1946 (then the Centre national des lettres). On the advice of various commissions, it grants aid to authors, publishers, booksellers and libraries.
Financed between 1976 and 1978 by a tax on reproduction and printing equipment, since January 19, 2019 it has been financed entirely from the state budget. 2019 budget: 24 M€.
National Music Centre (NMC)
The CNM, a public establishment of an industrial and commercial nature, was created by the law of October 30, 2019 and began operations in 2020. The CNM will intervene in all fields of the sector, live performance and recorded music, in support of creation, through financial and expertise mechanisms, and also as an observatory of the profession. The CNM has merged several existing structures around the Centre national des variétés, de la chanson et du jazz (CNV), which collects a tax on each concert ticket and redistributes, depending on the year, approximately €30 million in aid to the industry: the Fonds pour la création musicale (FCM), the Information et ressources pour les musiques actuelles (IRMA) center, the Bureau export de la musique française (Burex) and the Club action des labels et des disquaires indépendants (Calif) are all included. 2020 budget: €50 million.
National Center for Cinema and the Moving Image (CNC)
The CNC is a public administrative institution with legal personality and financial autonomy; it was created by the law of October 25, 1946; it has six main missions (regulation of the cinema, support for the cinema and audiovisual economy, promotion, protection and dissemination of the film heritage, European and international actions, classification).
The CNC is placed under the authority of the Ministry of Culture. Its fund to support creation, like its operating costs, is not taken from the culture budget. They come from taxes levied on the sector (tax on cinema ticket prices, tax on the turnover of television channels, etc.). Initial 2020 budget: €675.3 million (revised budget: €588.9 million)[25]).
The links between the objectives and modes of action of cultural policies are presented in Table 2[26]. It can be observed that "classic" financing actions are mainly aimed at supporting creation, whereas the main objective of regulation is to preserve diversity[27]. Several types of action contribute to democratization (which can also be a secondary objective of certain actions, for example certain sponsorship actions target a specific public).
Table 2 - Links between the objectives and methods of action of cultural policies26

1.4 Public intervention in the cultural industries: the French case

CREATION
DEMOCRATIZATION
DIVERSITY
Actor
x
x
Funder

• Grant: structure
• Grant: Project
• Support Fund

x

x

x

x

Controller

• One price
• Quotas
• Media timeline
• Anti-concentration devices
• Ban on advertising

x

x

x

x

x

Taxation

• VAT
• Tax credit
• Sponsorship
• Copyright

x

x

x

x

Mediation

• National centers

x

Training

• Professional
• Art education

x

x

Labeling

x

x
x
x
x
Controller

• One price
• Quotas
• Media timeline
• Anti-concentration devices
• Ban on advertising

x

x

x

x

x

Taxation

• VAT
• Tax credit
• Sponsorship
• Copyright

x

x

x

x

Mediation

• National centers

x

Training

• Professional
• Art education

x

x

Labeling

x

x
x
x
x
x
Taxation

• VAT
• Tax credit
• Sponsorship
• Copyright

x

x

x

x

Mediation

• National centers

x

Training

• Professional
• Art education

x

x

Labeling

x

x
x
x
x
Mediation

• National centers

x

Training

• Professional
• Art education

x

x

Labeling

x

x
Training

• Professional
• Art education

x

x

Labeling

x

x
x
Labeling
x
Various public intervention tools are mobilized in four sectors of the cultural industries in France: books, music, cinema and video games. Without attempting to be exhaustive, we will focus on the most emblematic measures for each of them.

1.4.1 Cinema and audiovisual

Cinema has long been the object of particular attention from the French public authorities. It is in this domain that the notion of cultural exception has been developed and that it has been the most put forward. Numerous measures frame the cinematographic activity (support account, media chronology, modalities of film broadcasting on television...) making the French model a special case in the European landscape, supported by an intense lobbying activity of the profession, both at the national and European levels.

The main originality of the French system is that direct interventions financed by the State budget are practically non-existent[28]. The financial support is mainly provided internally, by the obligatory contributions of the companies involved in the exploitation of the films: theaters, television channels, video publishers.
It has two main components:
1) automatic and selective aid from the Support Account managed by the CNC, whose cinema portion is financed by the special additional tax (TSA) on the price of cinema tickets, the tax on television broadcasters, the tax on video publishing;
2) the investment obligations of national channels in the financing of French and European cinematographic works, in the form of pre-purchase of broadcasting rights or co-production contributions.
In addition to the support account, the film financing system is complemented by several mechanisms aimed at facilitating producers' access to the necessary resources in the context of a fixed cost industry:
- a system of credit and bank guarantees, organized around the Institute for the Financing of Cinema and Cultural Industries (IFCIC), allowing producers to obtain cash advances on past contracts or expected grants under favorable conditions;
- a tax incentive to encourage the financing of films by private funds (particularly from individuals), the Sociétés de financement du cinéma et de l'audiovisuel (SOFICA);
- aid that can be obtained at the national level (regional funds), or European level (Eurimages fund).

1.4.2 Book

The French system of financial support for the cinema is subject to a regulatory framework covering production (definition of a cinematographic work, conditions for approval to access the support account, etc.) and distribution (media chronology, quotas of French and European works for television channels, etc.).
Although literature accounts for just over 20 % of the book market[29]The defence of the diversity and creativity of this segment has inspired public policy measures, in particular the most important one: the law on the single price of books[30] (June 1981) which drastically limits the possibility of reducing book prices in order to protect the bookstore network against competition from large-scale distribution. This law, far from being a simple defense of the small business, had two main objectives:
1) the diversity of creation ;
2) the widest possible access to works through the maintenance of a network of bookstores, both general and specialized, and equal access to books throughout the territory, through the density of the book trade[31].
The aim was to limit the market power of the big stores by prohibiting price competition. Such competition, by eroding the high unit margins of the bookstore, would have forced booksellers to limit their promotional efforts in favor of books with a low turnover rate and thus harmed the diversity of creation. It has made it possible to maintain a dense network of sales outlets throughout the country and has contributed to preserving the vitality of French publishing, in contrast to neighboring countries that have seen their bookstore network collapse[32].

1.4.3 Music

The domination of the recorded music market by multinational companies may explain why the industry has been able to have much less lobbying power than the book industry, where national actors (writers, publishers, booksellers...) have a predominant role. Moreover, apart from "noble" genres (classical and, to a lesser extent, jazz) whose market share is modest, recorded music does not have the same symbolic value as literature or, more generally, the written word[33]. Consequently, while the State directly supports live music (operas, national and regional orchestras, classical and contemporary music festivals), its intervention in the recorded music economy is mainly based on regulatory instruments.
The most important of these measures is a quota system imposed on broadcasters. Since 1996, broadcasters have been required to[34] broadcast at least 40 % of French or Francophone songs on their airwaves, half of which are new talent and new productions. Radio has long been the preferred means of publicizing an artist or a song, and their exposure on the airwaves has a direct impact on album sales. The objective of imposing broadcasting quotas is to promote national production and to encourage creative diversity.

1.4.4 Video games

The video game industry has emerged more recently on the spectrum of public policy concerns. The recognition of creativity in the production process, the very important place that video games occupy among consumers, and not only among the youngest, the economic health of the sector and the existence of a "national champion" (Ubisoft) have motivated the growing interest of the authorities, as evidenced, for example, by the creation in 2008 of a video game assistance fund, co-financed by the Ministry of the Economy and Finance and the CNC[35].
The French video game industry benefits from two types of public intervention. The tax credit aims to support the national industry as a whole in the face of international competition in which wage costs are decisive (an industrial policy objective). In addition to the tax credit, other measures exist to support specific projects, in the spirit of the selective aid systems that exist in other cultural industries, particularly the cinema.

1.4.5 Synthesis

Table 3 below shows, on the one hand, the diversity of tools implemented in the different sectors, and on the other hand, the opposition between sectors according to the intensity of public intervention: books and cinema vs. music and video games.
We can also note that public policies in the cultural industries have been progressively enriched to adapt to an eminently changing context. For example, if the CNC was born after the war, the system of public intervention in the cinema has expanded as the modes of distribution of cinematographic works have diversified (cinema, television, home video, video on demand...): the TSA dates from 1948, the advance on receipts from 1959, the first media chronology from 1980...
Table 3 - Public intervention in the cultural industries

BOOK
MUSIC
CINEMA
VIDEO GAME
Actor
- Libraries
- French Documentation
- Radio France music stations (France Musique, Le Mouv')
- France Télévisions' cinema subsidiaries
- Cinematheque
 
Financing
Grants and project assistance
Support Fund
Regulation
Of which TV advertising ban
One price
Partial
Radio quotas
No
- Media timeline
- Production and distribution obligations
Yes (under review)
No
Taxation
Reduced VAT rate
Tax credit
Tax credit
Soficas
Tax credit
Mediation
Book mediator
Music mediator
CNC
Cinema Mediator
Training
ENSIB
Conservatories
- Femis
- Louis Lumière School
ENJMIN
Labeling
"Independent reference bookstore".
"Art et essai
National Center
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
 
The transformations that have affected the cultural field over the last two decades are based on two main factors: technology and consumption. They have brought about two main ruptures in the organization and economy of the cultural industries. These ruptures, whose most visible and structuring effect is the emergence of platforms as central actors in the sectors, must be analyzed in their dynamics, in order to define the framework in which public intervention must be rethought.

2.1 Breaking factors

Technological factors (digitization and dematerialization of content leading to globalization of distribution and the emergence of new players) and sociological factors (new modes of consumption) are treated separately for the sake of clarity, but it should be noted that they interact strongly.

2.1.1 Technology

The first factor of rupture was the substitution of analog technologies by digital technologies for the encoding, transport and storage of contents. The development of cultural industries in the 20th century was based on the reproduction of works of art on physical media specific to each industry. With the digitization, any content, whatever its nature (text, sound, fixed or animated image), can be coded in the form of a sequence of numbers[36]. This technology creates a common encoding format for all cultural industries: the networks, like the media, have become universal. This technological convergence has favored the emergence of new players, both in the cultural industries and in other economic sectors.
The second decisive factor was the birth and exponential development of'Internet, which allows the rapid and inexpensive transmission of digital files anywhere in the world. This innovation has led to a real revolution in the circulation of cultural content.
The first consequence of the conjunction of these two phenomena is the globalization and deterritorialization of cultural industries. While traditional industries depended for their diffusion on locally established physical facilities (bookstores, cinemas, record shops or department stores[37]), it is now technically possible to send any cultural content (a digital file) from any place in the world to another. This does not mean that borders have totally disappeared. The distribution of works remains subject to local legislation and rights ownership[38] and the audiences retain specificities, for example linguistic.
This break in the links between dissemination and territories has a decisive impact on cultural policies, since the interventions of the State (in culture as in other economic sectors) are generally limited to its national territory.
Companies in the cultural sector have long been exploring synergies between sectors, which has led, with varying degrees of success, to the emergence of multimedia groups[39]. These synergies are facilitated by technological developments, but are also based on marketing arguments: exploiting the reputation of an artist or a work and promoting it on different distribution channels.

THE PLATFORM CONCEPT
The platforms are designed to put buyers and sellers in contact with each other.
In economic theory, they correspond to the case of two-sided (or multi-sided) markets. These two-sided markets bring together two (or more) groups of agents, who have potential gains from interacting. A platform enables or facilitates transactions between these groups. For example, a free television channel brings together advertisers and viewers/consumers.
The platform is remunerated by the two categories of agents, in a generally asymmetrical way (which can go as far as free for one of them, most often the buyers).
The concept of the platform pre-existed technological development*, but the Internet has multiplied the mechanism of network externalities by broadening its scope and speed: the number of products or services referenced is almost infinite, and instant access to a global market has become possible.
Network externalities can be direct (the utility for one agent depends on the number of other users) or indirect in the case of two-sided markets (the benefit for one agent depends on the number of agents in the other group). They are the source of increasing returns (the larger the firm, the more efficient it is), which leads firms to pursue strategies of rapidly conquering market shares and leads to situations of monopoly or quasi-monopoly (a situation known as " the winner takes all").
The platform model is opposed to the traditional "vertical" model of product distribution, where a distributor buys goods from suppliers and resells them to customers without any interaction between suppliers and customers[40].
* Jean Tirole gives the example of a fruit and vegetable market where producers rent space to gain access to buyers (in Tirole J., Economy of the common good, PUF, 2016, p. 513).
The emergence of global platforms for the digital distribution of cultural content (see box) is a fundamental consequence of these developments. These players may come from the Internet or the technological world (the GAFAs or their Chinese equivalents) or develop specifically in the cultural domain (Netflix, Spotify). The market power and financial resources of some of these players are incomparable with those of companies in the traditional cultural industries.
When these companies do not have their core business in the cultural domain (this is the case today with the GAFAs), the available content is generally provided at low cost or sometimes for free. In some cases, it serves to increase the attractiveness and the traffic of the platform and therefore its advertising revenues (Google, Facebook); in other cases, it stimulates the purchase of technological equipment provided by the company and sold at high margins (Apple). For Amazon, which is now a universal marketplace, it is a loss leader for its "Prime" offer[41] "This is a high revenue generator. Moreover, as the platform considers itself to be a host and not a responsible distributor of the content it offers, serious questions have arisen concerning respect for intellectual property rights[42].
       Table 4 - Comparative weights of some cultural industry players

REVENUE
2020 (billion $)
MARKET CAPITALIZATION
to 17/05/2021 (billion $)
APPLE
274
2 106
AMAZON
386
1 650
GOOGLE
183
1 544
FACEBOOK
84
756
ALIBABA
72
572
TENCENT
74
743
NETFLIX
25
216
VIVENDI
20
39
TF1 GROUP
2,5
2,1
          Source: company activity reports (CA) - Boursorama (market capitalization)
 
 
Table 4 shows unequivocally that the national heavyweights (Vivendi and the TF1 group) weigh very little when compared with American technology companies or the two Chinese giants Alibaba and Tencent, all of which are diversified groups. Even Netflix, which is a company whose activity is entirely "cultural" (mainly SVOD), has a higher turnover than Vivendi and a much higher market capitalization.

2.1.2 Consumption

The development of digital technology has resulted in de facto by a new wave of democratization of access in the cultural industries. This has given power back to consumers, who have the possibility to compare and choose[43]This vertical logic has been replaced by a demand-driven logic, which reinforces the need for works to seduce buyers and consumers. This vertical logic has been replaced by a demand-driven logic, which reinforces the need for works to seduce buyers and consumers. This inversion has been accompanied by a feeling of liberation from intermediaries on the part of consumers, which was very much expressed in the early days of the Internet. Moreover, it has an impact on the value that consumers give to the work. The situation of abundance, integrated in access offers (platforms by subscription), participates in a trivialization of the works, to which one reaches according to the same methods as water or electricity[44].
This leads to a questioning of the legitimizing authorities (academies, critics, institutions[45]...) whose role is to produce aesthetic standards (to define what is "good" and/or "beautiful"). This questioning opposes a process " top-down " (experts defining artistic legitimacy) to a process " bottom-up "This opposition refers to Bourdieu's analysis of the role of legitimate culture as a factor in the reproduction of social inequalities. This opposition refers to Bourdieu's analyses that stigmatized the role of legitimate culture as a factor in the reproduction of social inequalities[46]. It raises questions about the symbolic power of the artistic worlds[47]This is illustrated by the polemical debates on contemporary art, or the opposition between the prize lists resulting from the judgment of professionals (for example, the prizes awarded at the Cannes Film Festival) and the results of the "box office". It should be noted, however, that in reality this opposition is not so clear-cut: the two systems are not necessarily antagonistic (certain commercial successes are also viewed favorably by the critics), and the notoriety of a work often results from a complex alchemy between the two.
This opposition has been considerably reinforced by the power of social networks, which are based on a logic of communication peer-to-peer between consumers exchanging their opinions and judgments (very far from the vertical process top-down), even if, to face the problem of hyperchoice, the consumer can resort to the judgment of new influencers or to the recommendations of algorithms[48].
The exponential growth of available data (big data) and the equally important growth of the computing power of microprocessors now make it possible to use the new modes of distribution of cultural content, which provide unprecedented knowledge of consumer behavior. The data collected, beyond the questions related to the respect of privacy, can be exploited in two ways: firstly by reinforcing the routine choices of consumers thanks to recommendation algorithms[49]Secondly, by designing content based on the anticipation of their reactions. More radically, the development of artificial intelligence techniques[50] can lead to a paradigm shift in the relationship between supply and demand and put down the romantic model of the artist's autonomy[51].

2.2 The double shift in the cultural industries

These ruptures have given rise, more than to an evolution, to a double shift that concerns all cultural industries in varying proportions: from an economy of (relative) scarcity to an economy of abundance, from a concentric economy[52] to a global economy.
We explain these two aspects.

2.2.1 The shift from scarcity to abundance

The shift from scarcity to glut is the result of a combination of three phenomena: the reduction of sectoral barriers to entry, the development of storage capacities and the globalization of distribution.
Reduction of barriers to entry
The digitization of works and their availability in dematerialized format have allowed a significant reduction in production costs by eliminating everything related to the physical reproduction of works and their distribution (physical duplication of the original, logistics, storage in sales outlets, etc.). At the same time, production tools, formerly reserved for professionals, have seen their price drop significantly and their ergonomics improve, opening their use to informed amateurs.
Development of storage capacities
The theory of the long tail proposed by Chris Anderson[53] was based on the idea that digital technology allowed the passage from a world of limited storage capacity (in stores) to one of infinite storage capacity (on digital platforms). As a result, even low-demand works now have the opportunity to remain available to the consumer (whereas they quickly disappear from the shelves of physical stores), allowing sales to be spread over time across a wider range of products. Products with low demand, or low sales volume, can then collectively account for a market share equal to or greater than that of the bestsellers. As Anderson writes, "suddenly popularity no longer has a monopoly on profitability. While the consequences of this analysis - and the theory itself - have been belied by the facts, the concentration on the bestsellers having instead increased, at least to this day[54]The phenomenon relating to storage capacity remains true. As a result, the number of works available to the public on digital platforms is increasing, without any comparison with the number of references available in physical stores. For example, the number of books on Amazon and music tracks on Spotify have increased from 2.3 million to 2.6 million and from 18 million to 40 million respectively between 2010 and 2018[55]. Today, the development of algorithms that structure the targeting of consumers would not lead to a smoothing of the consumption curve, but to a polarization around several communities. These phenomena remain to be confirmed.
Globalization of distribution
The third phenomenon driving the shift to the age of abundance is the advent of globalized distribution channels, which make it technically possible to provide a universal offering to consumers around the world. While the audiovisual content sector is currently exploiting this possibility in a limited way, keeping a pool of programs aimed at specific territories, the platforms in music and video games are taking a global approach. Netflix is available in virtually every country in the world[56] without the company having an extensive network of territorial affiliates, and some rights are purchased for worldwide exploitation. Spotify has the same offering in eighty countries and Steam offers its video games to Internet users wherever they live. This leads to distribution channels feeding off a wider range of offerings, resulting in greater competition between content in the catalog.
Here again, the development of algorithms can lead to a partial relocation of consumption, as shown by the success of French artists in contemporary music.

2.2.2 The shift from a concentric to a global economy

In the context that led to the development of the cultural industries, the diffusion of a work was done in concentric circles. It was first necessary to find an audience at the local level (the scale could vary from one country to another, according to the specific characteristics of the sectors), then to widen its distribution. Today, these different steps are no longer necessary and building an audience can be done on a global scale from the start.
For example, the third film in the series Star Wars (Return of the Jedi1983) was distributed worldwide over a period of several years. In contrast, the seventh film in the series (The Force awakens) had an international release in 2015 that lasted only a few days.

Figure 1 - Changes in National Outputs of Return of the Jedi and the Awakening of the Force[57]
In music, when a group sold out venues in its home territory, it could then be broadcast nationally, and eventually reach an international audience. To build his success, the artist first had to be recognized locally, and thus build an identity linked to his territory. Today, the diffusion on digital platforms allows some artists to build their success by starting to create a community whose members are recruited from all over the world, without necessarily going through the local box. To this day, this dynamic does not replace the first one: besides the global development of artists, progressive developments continue to exist, in the physical world as well as in the digital world.
This change, far from being anecdotal, is fundamental because it modifies the conditions of competition, which today mainly concerns visibility, a scarce resource in the digital age. A single, globalized market is taking hold and is taking on a predominant role alongside local markets that may remain more or less important depending on the sector[58]. This replaces a situation in which the global market was based on a multitude of local markets from which emerged artistic proposals that had succeeded in federating a diversified audience linked to a territory. In this single market, the cost of visibility is increasing, the minimum level of audience that must be reached in order to benefit from visibility is also increasing, and works that are able to gather large audiences around the world have an undeniable advantage. Video games and, to a lesser extent, animation have partly evolved over time in this global context.
Figure 2 - The concentric economy of cultural industries[59]
The historical model (Figure 2) of building the reputation and the economy of a work or an artist is now being challenged by a model (Figure 3) that bypasses the local and national levels and places the works and the artists who are part of them in a context of competition that is immediately global. In this new model, distribution is done by platforms (Spotify or Deezer, Netflix...), and prescription is ensured in part by these platforms, via their algorithms for highlighting, in part by other varied means. It is up to the artists and their publishers to try to find ways to be visible in the maelstrom of these global platforms. In this context, even more than in the previous one, financial means are a considerable asset to generate visibility.
Figure 3 - The global economy of the cultural industries[60]
In the previous context, the mandatory passage through local consecration offered a form of protection to national expressions. In the new context, the competition for visibility is based on the classic criteria of cost and quality, but also on the capacity to capture attention at the global level, a rare resource in a digital world where all works have a right to be seen.
Nevertheless, two nuances should be added to this fundamental change. On the one hand, recent developments seem to indicate that the "local" dimension of artists can be protected even in the context of global markets. In the way in which the algorithms of digital platforms target consumers to whom to offer works, it is possible that, indirectly, the nationality of the works - for example, the language of the songs - plays a role, which leads to an advantage for national works. This would explain the success of French music today. Of the twenty most listened-to artists on Spotify in France in 2018, eighteen were French-speaking. Nineteen were urban music artists, which tends to indicate that the question of diversity is no longer posed in terms of nationality but of music genre or artistic renewal.
On the other hand, if the platforms and the associated modes of consumption (digital, subscription) constitute the main engine of growth of the cultural industries today (with the exception of books), the survival of parallel circuits can be envisaged: vinyl and concerts alongside streaming, cinemas alongside SVOD... These traditional circuits will continue to be part of a "concentric" economy and will still be able to allow artists to live or to develop their notoriety at a local scale. An outstanding question is the viability of their economy in this new context, the health crisis having a tendency to exacerbate its characteristics.
All of these analyses lead us to the conclusion that cultural policies are facing a new shift and that they must adapt their tools to the context of digital cultural industries (Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Paradigm shifts in cultural policy contexts[61]
Public policies for cultural industries have been built up little by little, adapting permanently to the changes in the context in which they have developed. While initially mobilizing the instruments used for the traditional cultural sectors (heritage, performing arts), including production subsidies, they have gradually broadened their modes of action by putting in place specific, better adapted instruments. The regulatory instruments are among these and aim to preserve the diversity of the cultural offer (for example, as previously mentioned, the law on the single price of books or the system of media chronology relating to the distribution of cinematographic works).
However, even if public policies have not ceased to adapt, including in the face of the ruptures described in the previous section, the question of their validity and effectiveness remains today, in view of the questioning (or aggiornamento) of their objectives and the new conditions in which they are carried out.

3.1 The consequencesof the changes

3.1.1 A new environment 

When questioning public intervention in the field of cultural industries, it is necessary to take into account other contextual elements, beyond the structural upheavals that were analyzed above.
Several major changes have occurred since the creation of the Ministry of Culture sixty years ago and affect its place in the cultural ecosystem in France.
- The place of the State the state has lost its central position in relation to the cultural sectors. This is the case in the traditional cultural sectors (heritage and performing arts), due to the growing weight of local authorities in the financing of these activities. This is especially the case in the cultural industries, where the State must face the question of the legitimacy of its action in the face of sectors that are accommodated by the market economy and where international companies such as digital platforms have taken a predominant place[62]. These developments considerably reduce the State's autonomy of action.
- The status of art and its place in the society also changed considerably, we evoked it. In Malraux's perspective, the value of art was above all aesthetic (intrinsic/endogenous): the objective was to put the population in contact with the "masterpieces of humanity", defined without ambiguity by art historians and experts. The question becomes more complex when it comes to contemporary creation[63] not benefiting from the legitimization by the historical hindsight. It is also posed for new forms, not belonging to the traditional perimeter of the cultural field whose extension is done gradually by a process of recognition and legitimization: let us recall that the cinema was, at its beginnings, considered as a fairground attraction, whereas nobody would deny him today a statute of mode of artistic expression; one can think that the same process is in progress for the video games. This extension of the forms[64] is central in several cultural industries, whose activity is not limited to the reproduction and diffusion of traditional forms (literature, for example), but which create their own content. The question of the perimeter is accompanied by questions about the definition of the artist, which will be, as we will see later, at the heart of policies to support creation. The definition of the field covered[65] by the action of the Ministry of Culture has been criticized in the name of anti-elitism and extended to more "popular" practices[66] ". Other values, linked to the positive externalities of art (extrinsic/exogenous), have appeared to justify cultural policies: social values (justifying cultural expenditures by their social effects, notably inclusion, in a utilitarian logic opposed to the autonomy of art), ethical values (justifying the work of art by its ideological conformity to the service of causes[67] - gender, anti-colonialism... - and not by its aesthetic value[68]).
- The relationship between supply and demand The creation of the Ministry of Culture took place in a context of scarcity of supply, and its first actions concerned the development of supply (for example, theatrical decentralization). The underlying logic was based on the postulate of "revelation": it was enough to put the public in contact with a work for the artistic relationship to be established[69]. The new context is, in particular for the cultural industries, in the perspective of a very abundant offer. This leads to a greater interest in a demand confronted with a situation of hyperchoice, which gives a central place to the prescription aiming to help the consumer to orientate himself in the face of the overabundance of the offer. The difficulty of prescribing is reinforced by the "mediation crisis" which, in the age of social networks, calls into question the legitimacy of expert judgments. Taking demand into account can even go so far as to orientate creation by means of "data" collected on the past behaviour of consumers[70]. Action on demand was also the basis of the "Culture Pass" experiment.

 3.1.2 Renewed objectives

Support for creation remains a central mission of the Ministry of Culture. One of the first statements made by the new Minister of Culture was in this sense: "I will be the minister of artists". The extension of the intermittent workers' regime concretely translates this objective of preserving the artistic ecosystem and concerns both the traditional sectors and the cultural industries (in particular the cinema). This support is justified by the classical vision of the autonomy of art and the artist, but also by its contribution to the creative economy[71]. The difficulty is to define operationally who is a professional artist in a context where the borders of creation can be blurred (cf. the slogan "all creators", the amateur practices and the development of UGC, "User Generated Content").
In a context where demand is confronted with an overabundance of supply, itself reinforced by the transition to a digital economy that allows easy (via the Internet) and low-cost access to a wide range of products and services, the question of democratization is shifted to that of the "digital divide" (those who have access to the Internet compared to those who do not have access or have limited use of it[72]). A new political priority is therefore to reduce this divide and allow every citizen to have access to the extremely abundant offer provided by Internet platforms. Similarly, in a context of mediation crisis, in which consumers make their own choices according to their system of preferences or tastes, influenced by interpersonal communication (word of mouth)[73]In addition, the public intervention must deal with the prospect of an accelerated evolution of art towards entertainment and its insertion in an economy of the "new". entertainment "or recreation[74],[75].
Diversity remains a consensual objective: it is undoubtedly the specifically cultural dimension of industrial policy in the field of cultural industries and is a foundation of regulatory policies. It was first approached from the angle of the "cultural exception", a formulation that was later abandoned because of its protectionist connotations (even national preference), whereas diversity has an ecological connotation (cf. biodiversity) and is more positive. However, the maintenance of national or local cultures remains an important issue: in a perspective of cultural sovereignty, we cannot externalize the production of the artistic imagination as we do for industrial goods. One might think that the overabundance of supply would mechanically resolve the issue. Except that, in a globalized market where the main stake is visibility, the concentration of demand[76] risks undermining this ambition. If the long tail worked, we would have diversity on both the supply and demand sides. If, as we have seen previously, it does not work, we end up with a concentration of demand: faced with hyperchoice, the consumer falls back on the offers validated by the majority of the moment. There is then a risk of standardization[77]. This implies a shift of the issue to the visibility of existing diversity in the context of limited cognitive resources in the attention economy[78].
Industrial policy continues to occupy a central place in the relations of the public authorities with the cultural industries. The question is then to specify what is specifically cultural in such policies.
In summary: the crisis of the art leads to questions on the two first objectives (defense and promotion of the art, democratization) which were the foundations of the original public cultural policy. What is obviously not going to be without consequences on the means of action to implement. Two objectives seem to us today to have to occupy a central place[79] These are: support for creation (with no doubt different modalities than before) and diversity, supported in particular by regulation (cf. table 2). Democratization is called into question, at least in its modalities, by the abundance of supply and the direct action on the demand of the cultural industries.

 3.1.3 Historical means of action called into question

If we systematically review the means of action described in the first part of this note (see Table 3), several observations can be made.
The direct intervention of the State, which was the privileged mode of action in the traditional sectors, is called into question by the evolution of the sector and is not very appropriate in the case of cultural industries.
- The creation of public institutions[80] is no longer really justified in the face of the overabundance of supply (which, in addition to the arguments of control of information, was the case for public television[81]created at a time when there was no private offer).
- Direct funding is subject to both competition rules and budgetary constraints; it can only be exceptional aid, especially in the context of the Covid crisis.
The means to be privileged in a "contemporary refoundation" are therefore the regulation (with a focus on diversity), the taxation (for example, the debate on sponsorship[82] should emphasize its role as a multiplier of public spending instead of stigmatizing it as a tax niche) and the mediation (places of dialogue between public and private actors). In addition, actions such as the defense of copyright or the status of intermittent workers remain relevant in the perspective of support for creation, as well as tax credits in the context of industrial policy. Action on the demand side should focus on'education (determining future demand) and the labelling (which can play a role of prescription within an overabundant offer).
If the issues and modalities of arts education go beyond the scope of this note, as indicated above, a few remarks can be made about prescription, which plays a central role in a context of hyper-offer accentuated by digital technology. Maintaining a diversified production is important, provided that this production has the means to exist in distribution. When everything is available, it is the way in which consumers are helped (the prescription) that allows to act on the demand. The digital platforms integrate their own algorithmic modalities of prescription. But the Internet is an open universe, in which third-party actors (influencers, social networks) can participate in the prescription. In this context, a cultural policy of highlighting certain works - works produced by national artists, catalogs that are not bestsellers, etc. - will first and foremost require the construction of new prescription tools, adapted to each of the two worlds, the physical and the digital universe. Refocusing on the prescription is a path to be studied for public action. It is obviously not a question of promoting an "official art", which would be contrary to the liberal principle of aesthetic neutrality of the public actor. It should however be remembered that the actions in favor of the arts in the monarchic period also concerned the contents (see for example the support of Louis XIV to Molière or Lully).
In contemporary times, the choices of public order also include an aesthetic dimension (for example the presidential choices concerning the architecture of new public buildings such as the pyramid of the Louvre or the Bastille opera). Nevertheless, aesthetic choices do not concern the cultural industries very much (one could however cite the case of the advance on receipts of the CNC, but the decisions are delegated to commissions composed of professionals of the sector). It is rather a question of regulating the mechanisms of prescription: we will come back to this later.
On the other hand, certain methods of action seem obsolete in view of the digital evolution of the sector: for example, while the imposition of quotas seemed to be a relevant solution in the former context to preserve a place for national production, it is no longer appropriate, and difficult or even impossible to implement for digital libraries (SVOD, streaming music, etc.).
 
In this section, after an analysis of the limitations of current policies, we will identify the key elements that should structure the definition of contemporary cultural policies.

3.2.1 Limitations of current policies

Our analyses confirm that a new era has begun and call for a different approach to public intervention. This new approach must be based on an understanding of the dynamics at work and requires greater investment in the analysis of how these sectors operate and how they interact. It is necessary to go beyond the reading grid that currently constitutes the essential grammar of action of public authorities: steering by indicators, the binomial "états généraux"-the release of millions of public funds, the ambiguous obsession with the champion, support for production.
In recent years, the State has entered an era in which its actions are subject to the formulation of objectives and then to an evaluation based largely on indicators. It must first be admitted that indicators, whatever they may be and in whatever context, have a structuring effect. But, in the field of culture, figures must be taken with caution. The question of indicators is therefore twofold: definition (which must take into account the context and its changes), and measurement methods (which must avoid the "reductionist" risk of limiting oneself to what is easy to measure).
In the cinema, for example, a few obvious indicators stand out: attendance (number of spectators in theatres), the market share of French cinema, the number of French films produced... These indicators fit very well with, on the one hand, a division of screens between Hollywood blockbusters and great popular French comedies, and, on the other hand, the existence of a large number of French films that almost no longer have access to theaters. Many voices have been raised in recent years to say that too many films are being produced. If the "optimal" production volume is impossible to calculate, it is certain that a situation where many films are produced that will not have the opportunity to be seen (difficulty of access to theaters, too little exposure time) is problematic. It is, however, compatible with a battery of indicators that play a role in sector management.
Culture does not fit well with simple numerical indicators. As it seems difficult to abandon this method of evaluating public policies, it seems at least important that the indicators, included in the mission statement of the directors of institutions, be made public, thus allowing a debate on their choice.

3.2.2 Key decision elements

Comme indiqué précédemment, le soutien à la création dépasse les frontières sectorielles pour concerner l’ensemble de l’écosystème artistique : le statut des artistes (au-delà des seuls intermittents du spectacle[83]), copyright, production support.
If we consider more specifically the cultural industries, three key decision factors must be taken into account.
1) Are the cultural industries a specific and/or homogeneous field? Is sectoral regulation always appropriate?
2) How to define and implement public policy in a globalized world? Is the national level still relevant for public action?
3) What is the relationship between public authorities and companies?
A homogeneous domain?
Policies towards the cultural industries have been developed sector by sector. The upheavals highlight the strong structuring dimension of digital technology. Convergence was first of all technological: networks and platforms make all types of information available, regardless of their nature (data, text, sound, image). They are increasingly imposing similar movements on the various sectors, and may even lead to accentuated convergence at the industrial level: several players (Apple and Amazon, for example) are thus offering bundled packages (" bundles "This calls for cultural policies that go beyond the purely sectoral logic and are consistent with an understanding of the movements underway by taking into account their transversal dimension. This calls for cultural policies that go beyond purely sectoral logics and are coherent with an understanding of the movements underway by taking into account their transversal dimension.
- Some measures concern extensions aimed at adapting previous regulations to the new digital context: they may, however, be called into question by the ongoing upheaval in marketing methods. Digital platforms began by duplicating the practices of the physical world (one-time purchase or rental). Then they adopted the subscription mode, which gives unlimited access to a vast catalog of content for a fixed price. Music (Spotify or Deezer) and video (Netflix or Disney +) have already switched to this new economic model, the book industry not yet[84]. The law on the single price of the book has been extended without problem to digital bookstores based on the model of purchase by the act, but what would be in the case of a model of streaming financed by subscription or in the case of new forms of writing ("augmented" book, collaborative writing ...)?
- The creation of centers also corresponds to a sectoral logic, reviving the tradition of "one-stop shops[85] "This is the approach taken by the Ministry of Culture since its inception. If it favors consultation and mediation between public and private actors, it can be confronted with the porosity of sectoral borders (for example between the music industry and the performing arts[86]), as well as the existence of players, especially international ones, whose action is multisectoral (the GAFAs all offer a diversified cultural offering on their platforms: music, video, video games, etc.).
The limits of national action
Public policies are confronted with the national limits of their action, while the context is now globalized. This characteristic does not only concern the cultural industries, but the specificity of the latter lies in the necessary preservation of diversity, which is one of the conditions of their survival.
National policies lose their relevance when borders become permeable and markets are largely globalized and dominated by companies operating in (almost) every country in the world. We can see that recent measures to protect copyright or to ensure the protection of personal data have been taken at the European level; the same is true of discussions on the taxation of transnational digital actors (notably the GAFA). We will return to these issues later in a section on sovereignty issues.
Some industrial policy measures, such as tax credits, remain globally relevant for locating (or relocating) economic activity in the country. Similarly, the creation, announced by the President of the Republic, of investment funds accessible to stakeholders in different sectors should strengthen the resources of national companies in order to better face international competition. A priority action should be, in a logic of cultural sovereignty and support for creation, to encourage the localization of production[87] of contents on the national territory. It is not necessary however to neglect the risks of contradiction between the universality of the art and a withdrawal on oneself leading to the provincialism.
Actions concerning companies 
Another crucial question of industrial policy in the digital world is the ability to have powerful national or European players. These players will be able to develop favorable power relations with the platforms, which can preserve a space for national or European productions. Today, Europe and France have major players in the music industry, in terms of content producers (Universal Music), streaming platforms (Spotify, Deezer) and digital distribution. In this field, Believe Digital, a French unicorn considered the fourth largest music company in the world, is a major player.[88]In the video game industry, France has a major player (Ubisoft), which has built up a strategic position in the reorganization of the industry by first positioning itself in digital distribution (delivery of files to platforms), before moving up the value chain and incorporating the traditional functions of record companies. In video games, France has a major player (Ubisoft). The European audiovisual sector is undergoing a consolidation process that should enable players to reach a significant size to discuss with platforms. Mediawan (created in 2006 by Matthieu Pigasse, Xavier Niel and Pierre-Antoine Capton, €1 billion in revenues by 2020) and Banijay are two French champions in the process of being structured. The notion of a national or European champion, in this digital environment, is relevant[89]. These dynamics are the result of business strategies. It is not necessary for public authorities to act on these dynamics, except to ensure that they remain possible by creating an environment favorable to their development.
Public intervention in the cultural industries has often maintained an ambivalent relationship with regard to "champions". The public authorities are suspicious of the creation of large groups, considering the existence of a diversity of small players as a guarantee of the diversity of creation itself. In the context of an open system that makes room for extra-national players, it is important not to misinterpret the objectives: choices and decisions must be guided by cultural policy and sovereignty objectives, and not by the safeguarding of the position of this or that player, which often reflects corporatist interests. This disconnection imposes to treat the fate of the big actors as those of any other economic actor: it is not only a matter of a cultural policy, but also of an industrial policy taking into account the social aspects (notably employment).

3.3 Some priority issues

Rather than listing a battery of recommendations in an endless inventory, it seems more appropriate in this section to identify a few particularly current and urgent issues. They contribute to the definition of a decision-making agenda and illustrate the implementation of the issues analyzed above. We will also include in this section some reflections on the impact of the health crisis on the cultural industries. Four cases have been selected:
- the culture pass illustrates the problem of the paradigm shift from supply to demand;
- public broadcasting corresponds to a case of direct state intervention;
- The media chronology is an example of regulation;
- relations with global operators show the constraints and limits of national action.

3.3.1 The Culture Pass 

The launch of the Culture Pass is emblematic of a paradigm shift in public funding from supply to demand. Its creation[90] was one of the campaign commitments of the current President of the Republic. After a test phase in several departments (five then fourteen), its generalization was decided in May 2021. Its principle is the payment of an allowance of 300 euros to any person in the year of his 18 years[91] to finance exclusively the purchase of cultural goods. This payment will be preceded by several payments spread out over several years between the fourth grade and senior year, for a total amount of 200 euros[92]. The budget for this system in the 2021 Finance Act is 59 million euros; the cost of its generalization is estimated at 266 million euros in a full year (starting in 2022)[93].
The first question is obviously that of the perimeter of eligible goods: an approach that is too restrictive would reinforce an elitist vision of culture, whereas an approach that is too broad would only reinforce market trends and lead to public financing of cultural industries. The perimeter retained includes tickets and subscriptions (shows and museums), cultural goods, digital services (capped at 100 euros[94]), as well as courses (to encourage amateur artistic practices) and the corresponding material.
 The first results[95] indicate that there were 782,000 account openings (corresponding to a penetration rate of 80 %). The average expenditure was 116 euros (significantly less than the amount available). The main purchases[96] are books (78 % in volume, including 60 % of mangas, 50 % in value), followed by cinema and audiovisual (10 %) and music (6.9 %). Performing arts[97] (excluding concerts) represents only 1 % of bookings. Artistic practices (drawing or dance lessons, purchase of instruments) correspond to 2 % in volume but 15 % in value.
An important dimension of the Culture Pass is also its prescription function. The application presents an editorialization of the offer and will be downloadable by all (beyond the only beneficiaries of the financial allowance). The first phase of access (before the age of 18) will be supervised by the French Ministry of Education, with "referent" teachers in the context of artistic and cultural education[98].
However, the launch of the Culture Pass has also been the subject of much criticism[99] concerning both the financial weight of the device (at a time of scarce resources, particularly in the context of the health crisis which has already mobilized a lot of aid for the cultural sector), and doubts about its effectiveness in terms of democratization (is it a windfall effect in a "consumerist" logic[100] "Will the project contribute to the expansion of the cultural horizon of the beneficiaries? These criticisms are reinforced by the first results as well as by the failure of previous experiences[101],[102].
With respect to democratization, there is a major risk that a nice promise is based on false premises (assumptions about consumer behavior). Indeed, as with the actions concerning free[103]The Culture Pass is based on the assumption, derived from economic theory[104]This hypothesis is valid in the context of a need economy, but not in the context of a demand economy. However, if this hypothesis is valid in the context of a need-based economy, it is not valid in the context of a desire, of which cultural goods and services are a part. Indeed, these are considered to be part of the addiction economy: addictive goods are defined as those for which the probability of consuming increases with the volume of previous consumption (and not saturation as is the case in the economy of needs[105]). The phenomenon of cumulative experiences is also frequently observed in the field of cultural consumption. In this context, the desirability is the central element, the price only intervening in a second time[106]. Cultural barriers ("it's not for me") also play a major role. One of the challenges will be to observe whether prescribing at a younger age[107] (the fourth grade) will make it possible to broaden the target of consumers beyond the usual users (urban people with a high level of education and rather from affluent backgrounds[108]).
Faced with this disruptive innovation, it will therefore be necessary to set up a precise and public evaluation system, making it possible to evaluate the consequences of the Culture Pass both in terms of democratization (characterization of users and uses, including a diachronic perspective, dynamics between the successive phases of use) and in terms of industrial policy (spin-offs by sector). Depending on the results, decisions may be taken concerning a redefinition of the perimeter, even going as far as abolishing the system in order to redistribute the financing towards other forms of action.

3.3.2 Public broadcasting

The budget allocated to public broadcasting represents about half of the total budget of the Ministry of Culture and Communication. Even if it is fed by a specific tax (the audiovisual fee), one can wonder about this ratio: is it legitimate that public broadcasting weighs as much as all the other cultural sectors combined? This is a delicate issue, even explosive, politically and socially, which probably explains why, despite several reports on the subject[109]In the past, public actions have been oriented more towards continuity than towards reform.
Questions about public broadcasting concern its missions and the scope necessary to accomplish them. It should be remembered that the creation of public television was done in a monopoly situation in a context of absence of a private offer. The situation is totally different today where the private offer is overabundant[110] and where modes of consumption have profoundly changed. We have indeed passed from a linear mode of consumption where it was possible to gather at the same time a large audience to a delinearized mode where everyone can consume what he wants and when he wants. In this context, the creation of social link, aiming at making share to the national community a common imagination, which was one of the founding elements of the public television[111]This is increasingly a pipe dream. The fragmented and individualized modes of consumption, the fragmentation of society that we can observe in France[112] as in other countries, as well as the shrinking and aging of the audience (over 60 years old on average for public service channels) make this ambition increasingly difficult to achieve[113].
 The initial missions were organized around a triptych: inform / educate / entertain by addressing the largest possible audience[114].
- The information function is a specific field of analysis that is outside the scope of this study. The specific role of a public service could be to be a place of independence, neutrality and objectivity to guarantee the pluralism of information[115]. 
- The educational function remains important, especially in the context of the health crisis and distance or blended learning. Even if a lot of content in this field is available elsewhere (for example on YouTube[116] or on thematic channels such as Histoire[117]), one could imagine a role of labeling and prescription played by public television (undoubtedly in connection with the Ministry of Education).
- Finally, the function of entertainment is now largely fulfilled by the private sector. We must therefore ask ourselves what the specific contribution of a "public service" entertainment service should be. For example, is it legitimate for the public service to outbid for sports rights?[118]  against private operators (what is the added value of watching a soccer or rugby match on a public channel rather than on a free private channel[119]?). The same is true for certain variety or game shows, where the logic of the audience leads more to similarity than to differentiation with the private sector.
Faced with these developments, it seems to us that the main orientations to be assigned to public broadcasting should be refocused on two main aspects: complementarity (correcting market imperfections) and innovation.
- Correcting market imperfections: this orientation, which concerns both viewers and programs, consists in addressing population categories that are less well served by commercial channels[120] and to program content that is less present on their channels. If the desire for entertainment is largely covered by the private offer, certain fields are clearly less favored by the editors than others: it may be a question of "minor" sports that are less exposed on commercial channels[121] or cultural programs[121]. 
- Supporting innovation: The public service must strongly support original French creation but also explore innovative formats, in order to strengthen the place of the French industry in the crowded world of audiovisual production. In addition, it is important that the research and development function be preserved to allow French and European talent to express itself[123].

3.3.3 Media chronology

New audience indicators
The approach currently followed by public television is very generalist. This is reflected both by the presence of advertising on the antennas[124] as well as the use of audience measurements derived from the advertising-financed commercial television model as performance indicators[125]. These indicators (known as content centric "They lead to an implicit weighting of viewers according to their viewing time, since they are counted as many times as they are connected to the channel (hence, for example, an underweighting of young people, whose viewing time is lower than that of other population categories). In the case of a public service, it would be more relevant to distance ourselves from these advertising logics[126] and to use audience indicators (known as user centric ") where every citizen[127]the payer of the audiovisual fee, has the same weight[128] no matter how loud you listen[129].
A reform of public broadcasting should be part of a broader reflection, taking into account the entire broadcasting ecosystem. Analysis of the system of financing the audiovisual sector[130]In France, cinema occupies a singular position within this system, and this is beyond the scope of this note. We will therefore limit ourselves here to dealing with a subject that holds an important place in this system and which is very topical: media chronology.
The system enshrines the central role of the cinema in the promotion of films. In France, it also marks the place of television, and in particular Canal+, as the main financer of the cinema. It is periodically adjusted following vigorous inter-professional negotiations.
The media chronology is currently being challenged in a more fundamental way for two main divergent reasons: on the one hand, the case of low-budget films and, on the other, the development of SVOD platforms. In the first case, it is a question of authorizing low-budget films with fragile economics, for which theatrical release offers limited revenue prospects[131]to be released simultaneously in theaters and on DVD or VOD in order to make the communication expenses for their launch more profitable.
The case of platforms that produce their own content (films or series)[132]) is quite different: the media chronology currently imposes a delay of three years after its theatrical release to broadcast on their platform a film they have produced; this delay results in the refusal of a theatrical release in favor of a direct release on the platform[133].

This debate was obviously accelerated by the closure of movie theaters during the health crisis. This closure opened the way for new distribution methods that bypassed the cinema stage: for example, French films were allowed to be released directly on VOD without losing CNC subsidies; for others, the distribution rights were sold to SVOD platforms such as Netflix or Amazon Prime. In the United States, Universal launched the film Trolls directly in VOD pay-per-view[136]the same goes for Disney's launch of its new blockbuster Mulan on its SVOD platform Disney+ (at a price of $30 on top of the subscription). This solution has the disadvantage of restricting the potential audience (only subscribers to the platform in the case of Disney), but the advantage of benefiting from the entire revenue without having to pay a large percentage back to the theaters; moreover, the exclusive accessibility of a content can be an incentive to subscribe to the platform[137]. The issue of "hybrid" film releases (simultaneous release in theaters and on a platform[138]) will have to be taken into account in a new definition of the media chronology.
The debate is not over, and the current negotiations are the subject of very lively exchanges between the stakeholders: the old players, such as Canal+, are obviously attached to their historical advantages, while the new entrants are in favor of more radical changes. There are also diverging interests within the film industry between producers, distributors and exhibitors. As long as the new players are also subject to production financing obligations (as a percentage of their turnover, as mentioned above), it would be fair to apply the same rules to players subject to the same obligations.
Beyond short-term issues and decisions, the question of the media chronology invites a more in-depth reflection on the future of cinema and its distribution in theaters. Currently, the legal definition of a film (concretized by the issuance of an exploitation visa) is based on the theatrical release (which corresponds to the interests of one part of the industry, the exhibitors). However, it can be observed that the periods of confinement linked to the health crisis have accelerated the evolutions already underway towards a digital transition of film viewing at home (as shown by the success of SVOD platforms, in particular Netflix). The first results on attendance after the reopening of cinemas, as well as surveys on post-crisis intentions to attend cultural venues[139]The results of this study, which was carried out in the course of the year, converge towards the enduring persistence of new consumption habits. In particular, admissions are concentrated on a small number of successful titles at the expense of independent auteur cinema. This evolution should encourage reflection on differentiation of the media chronology according to the type of film. This reflection should concern in particular auteur films: hybrid releases, or even the creation of a "art house" VOD platform specially dedicated to them[140].

3.3.4 Sovereignty and relations with global operators

It is impossible to end this section on the priority agenda without addressing the issue of relations with the major global operators[141]whether they are generalists[142] (GAFA) or specialized in the production and distribution of cultural content (Netflix, Disney...). These relationships raise both questions of industrial policy and cultural sovereignty. They cannot be considered at the national level alone: more often than not, they must be dealt with at the level of consultation within the European Union. Europe was built with the primary ambition of constructing the single market and for a long time considered that sovereignty was a matter for the Member States. In the cultural field, European directives set a certain number of principles and minima (broadcasting quotas, for example) that the Member States must respect, leaving them the possibility of making local adaptations.
One of the most telling examples of a necessary change of perspective is the European AVMS (Audiovisual Media Services) Directive[143]). This directive has two main consequences: the introduction of investment quotas in cinematographic and audiovisual production; the obligation to include at least 30 % of European works in the catalogs of platforms. The investment obligation, which aims to increase the financing of creation, already raises the question of the volume - should the investment obligation proposed by the European Union be tightened at the French level? two contribution rates are envisaged 20 % or 25 % of the turnover[144] -It will also have an impact on the basis for the definition and measurement of the local turnover of global companies. The consequences will be a profound upheaval in the system of financing the cinema and audiovisual sector in France, as well as a necessary renegotiation of the media chronology (see previous section).
A central issue, for the time being unresolved, will be the equal treatment of international platforms and national television channels with regard to the exploitation rights of financed content: platforms have full, and most often worldwide, ownership of these rights, whereas television players have only limited ownership in time and space (shared with the producers of this content).[145]). It is also a question of cultural sovereignty: will the decision to launch new film and series projects be made in France or internationally?[146]? Short of implementing an overly protectionist policy[147]At the very least, it is necessary to loosen the regulations and anti-concentration measures currently in force in order to strengthen the industrial fabric of national (or even European) producers in the face of globalized competition.  A subsidiary question is whether there will be a global treatment for the whole sector or separate treatments for the cinema and the rest of the audiovisual sector.
Another sensitive area is that of prescription. We know that mastering this activity is essential to guide the consumer faced with the dilemmas of hyperchoice, as well as to ensure the indispensable diversity in the cultural domain. Recommendation algorithms[148] are at the heart of the functioning of digital platforms and occupy an important place in the prescription systems we analyzed earlier. These algorithms are strategic assets for the platforms and sometimes evolve in a very dynamic way, which makes it illusory to control their effects. In these conditions, the promotion of diversity by platforms can only be assessed byex postin the actual consumption. We can therefore consider setting up a label to judge the quality of the algorithms available on the market, highlighting those that best respect diversity. Another way of doing this would be to label those that offer their users several options and not just one, which, more often than not, highlights their commercial innovations.[149].
Two other issues will also have to be addressed: copyright and taxation ("GAFA tax"). Negotiations will take place in the more global geopolitical context of international trade relations.
Summary of proposals on the four priority issues
- Culture Pass: setting up a public evaluation system to distinguish between an effective contribution to democratization and additional funding for cultural industries.
- Public broadcasting: development of new audience indicators; positioning in a logic of subsidiarity/complementarity.
- Media chronology: in the short term, adjustments to allow platforms to be integrated into the financing and distribution system; in the medium term, an overhaul that takes into account the diversity of films and new consumption habits.
- Sovereignty: revision of competitive rules to promote the emergence and development of "national champions" faced with globalized competition.

4. The matrix of an ambitious cultural policy

The cultural industries face the health crisis
The research on which this note is based was, for the most part, undertaken prior to the occurrence of the health crisis resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. And it is clearly not the purpose of this paper to analyze the crisis and its consequences[150]. However, some observations relevant to the cultural industries can be made.
The cultural sector is one of the sectors most affected by the economic consequences of this crisis[151] The Ministry of Culture has estimated the loss of revenue in the cultural market sectors between 2019 and 2020 at 11 billion euros[152]. However, these effects are strongly differentiated according to the sectors that make up the sector. Film projection (-65 %) and live performances (-43 %) are the two sectors most affected, while video games posted an annual increase of 21 % in revenues. In the second quarter of 2021, after five consecutive quarters of decline, sales in the cultural market sectors rose by 21 % compared with the second quarter of 2020, the quarter most severely affected by the crisis. However, it did not return to the level of the second quarter of 2019 before the crisis, recording a loss of 9 % compared to this quarter of a "normal" year[153] ".
The closure of public places has led to a break in the economic and symbolic link between cultural institutions and enterprises and their audiences. It has led to a retreat of cultural consumption into the domestic sphere, reinforcing the divide, already observed in surveys on cultural practices, between the culture of going out and the culture of the living room. It has had a very violent impact on the entire heritage sector: museums and monuments, art fairs and galleries, and the performing arts.
For cultural industries, the situation is much more contrasted, two sectors have been particularly affected: book publishing (closure of bookstores) and cinema (closure of theaters and stoppage of filming[154]). The music sector was also affected for its live performance part (cancellations of concerts and festivals). On the other hand, the evolution has been favourable for other sectors: the television audience has increased (about one extra hour per day)[155]As well as subscriptions to SVOD platforms and the consumption of video games. Faced with the uncertainty of the evolution of the health situation[156]The question of future trends remains. In the short term, it seems that bookstores' sales are experiencing a significant rebound due to a catch-up effect of a demand that was suppressed during the confinement. The same cannot be said for the cinema, which is far from returning to its previous level of attendance (admissions after the reopening are about 30 % of those of the same period the previous year). In the long term, the question of a "return to normal" is posed: do the developments observed during the confinement correspond to an acceleration of the ongoing mutation from heritage culture to digital culture?
Cultural policies towards the cultural and creative industries (CCI) are still marked by approaches and instruments inherited from history. The first step in developing an ambitious policy for these sectors is to assert major principles, which derive both from general objectives and from the identification of major issues arising from a largely renewed context.
This context, as we have seen previously, is mainly the result of the constant progression of digitization (and in particular of the central role of platforms), further accelerated by the health crisis, and by its numerous repercussions. We will develop the main issues after stating what we believe to be the foundation on which they rest.

4.1 A cultural policy to promote the place of art in societyand cultural sovereignty

Let's start by reaffirming the specific character of cultural activities, both in their essence and in their economy.
In their essence, because we place this conclusion under the sign of a conviction: the essential character of the artistic creation and the culture, as fundamental components of the human development and the social link. As such, it can (and must) be treated like health or education. However, this character is sometimes denied by the temptation to justify intervention in these sectors by its economic spin-offs. Without denying the importance of the weight of culture in the gross domestic product of our country, or its effects in terms of employment or foreign trade, it is important not to make them the main drivers of public intervention in culture. A cultural policy, even if it applies to sectors that are part of a market economy, must never abandon its primary objective of promoting art and creation as such.
Secondly, in their economy, because although these sectors are not incompatible with a market economy, the natural tendencies to which they are subject make public intervention a necessity, as soon as we recognize their essential character and reaffirm the issues related to this vision. We recall them.
- Cultural diversity and creative dynamism: avoid standardization or formatting of works, allow a diversity of forms of expression and creative renewal.
- Access to culture and social ties: promote access to culture for all, and make cultural consumption a vector for social ties.
- Sovereignty and cultural diplomacy[157] To make the expression of French and European voices possible and radiate throughout the world.

  4.2 New guiding principles in line with a renewed context

The implementation of a cultural policy implies taking into account the radical transformation of the context as we have analyzed it. This transformation is mainly manifested in the following aspects:
- shift to an economy of overabundance ;
- globalization of the economy of digital cultural goods and the central role of platforms ;
- coexistence of a digital economy with a physical economy;
- possibility of a balkanization of consumption.
The shift towards an economy of overabundance shifts the stakes from production to visibility, making a certain number of tools, such as quotas, unsuitable and making it essential to refocus regulation on the question of visibility and prescription.
The advent of a digital economy structured around platforms, of which metavers will be a new avatar[158]The weight of algorithms, the attraction of content with global potential and less human support offer a less suitable outlet for innovative content. The weight of algorithms, the attraction of content with global potential and less human support offer a less suitable outlet for innovative content that needs time to build its audience and often has a strong national base. Moreover, the strong dynamics of the digital economy, subject to sudden strategic movements by its players and rapid changes in consumer practices, requires tools for understanding and monitoring developments.
In addition, the digital economy promotes works that are different from those that take place in a physical economy. But competition between these two economies can jeopardize the physical economy: the issue is the complementarity or substitutability of these modes of distribution. For example, competition from Amazon for fast-moving books is weakening the economy of bookstores [159]However, bookstores do not have the same role as Amazon in the book economy, particularly with regard to the promotion of new authors. It therefore seems essential that cultural policies take this duality into account and consider these two economies separately, focusing both on the diversity and vitality of national players on digital platforms and on the protection of traditional channels with a strong physical component.
Finally, in addition to the now central role of algorithms, we have observed, since before the arrival of the Internet, a considerable reduction in the influence of the mass media. This evolution has the effect of calling into question the structure of cultural consumption as we have known it up to now. A major effect is the gradual disappearance of unifying cultural programs at the national level. Whereas the whole of the citizens could find themselves around common cultural references, the personalization and the delinearization (consumption independent of an external programming) generate phenomena of "cultural sealing[160] "The question of culture as a vehicle for a shared identity is called into question. Under these conditions, it is the question of culture as a vehicle for a shared identity that is called into question. In a society where we no longer share the same sources of information, nor the same cultural references, the only thing left would be the great sporting events[161] to assume this role. The societal risks associated with this balkanization should lead to questions about how to recover unifying cultural productions.
The issues and trends outlined above form the matrix in which cultural policies should be developed (Table 5). We then suggest some general principles or mechanisms derived from this matrix. Others can be developed from this matrix for action and decision-making in specific contexts.
     Table 5 - Cultural policy trends and issues

4.3 Replacing the diemocratization through equal access and regulation of prescription

TREND
ISSUE
Towards an economy of overabundance
From democratization to visibility
Globalization and platformization
Regulation of platforms (understanding the models)
Coexistence of a digital economy and a physical economy
Ensure complementarity between these two worlds
Balkanization of consumption
Find federative cultural productions
Democratization has been one of the pillars of French cultural policy since the creation of the Ministry of Culture. The problem today is no longer to enrich the offer - it is overabundant - nor to make "legitimate" art percolate in all spheres of society. It is first of all to make sure that everyone can have access to this abundant offer[162] and therefore first of all to reduce the "digital divide". As previously indicated, there remains a fraction of French people (15 % to 20 % depending on the indicators) who do not have access to the Internet or to broadband networks: it is therefore necessary to complete the digital coverage to allow everyone to have access to the digital cultural offer.
Another dimension concerns, in a mediation logic, the quality and diversity of the proposed prescriptions. To this end, although it is not the responsibility of the public authorities to dictate what should be offered to the public, they can nonetheless take action on prescriptions that promote cultural diversity. The labelling of algorithms, as proposed earlier, is part of this logic. The evaluation of offers should be shifted from programming to actual consumption: virtuous companies, in the era of overabundance, are less those that present a variety of works than those that give rise to the actual consumption of a variety of works[163].

1. 4.4  A policy that promotesentrepreneurial approach

The arrival of platforms as a means of distributing cultural goods has created a new context, which must be taken into account in redefining public intervention. The transformation of production and distribution methods for works is accompanied by a shift and a change in the nature of competition.
The main reason for this is that the platforms' offer is overabundant. First, because they can store a huge number of titles. Secondly, because the barriers to entry have been significantly lowered in most sectors, resulting in the multiplication of creative offers (self-publishing in books, professional hardware and software accessible in music, video games or audiovisuals for quality self-production, UGC production on YouTube or on social networks such as TikTok). In fact, the market for all cultural industries has become hyper-competitive.
The competition between artistic proposals is no longer so much about access to distribution channels that were once marked by a certain rarity (presence in bookstores, signing with a music label or programming in a movie theater) as it is about capturing an audience.[164]. This changeover makes it necessary not only to be able to propose works, for which the platforms open up a gigantic market, but also to allow them to quickly gather an audience, in a new context where competition is even more exacerbated.
The era of platforms introduces a competition that is now played out on two axes: the ability of works to be put forward and their capacity to quickly catch an audience.
The first axis has implications in terms of prescription. Negotiating power with respect to platforms and means of promotion play a key role, favoring de facto powerful actors. The only role that public authorities can play is to ensure that the recommendation algorithms are not biased (see section 4.3 above).
The latter requires compliance with technical quality standards or aesthetic canons, old or new. The book and video game industries, like the recorded music industry, have world-class representatives in France (Hachette-Editis, Ubisoft, Universal Music, etc.).[165]) and a very dynamic network of innovative players[166]. Entrepreneurial logic is the norm, and the French industry can stand comparison with its foreign counterparts. The situation is not the same in the film sector. The sector is indeed subject to various protections (quotas, media chronology) and benefits from a financing system that until now has been largely based on the contribution of national audiovisual actors (mainly television channels) and founded on a system of tax redistribution and production obligations. This system has had some virtues[167] but has also led to drifts[168]This leaves the fabric of French film producers, largely disconnected from the market, potentially at the mercy of decisions taken across the Atlantic (the major North American platforms having to take over the financial responsibility of national broadcasters).[169]).
The canonical model of the creative economy relies on investors (producers or publishers) who believe in a project or an artist and strive to make it emerge from the multitude. It is up to the publishers/producers to assume their choices and to defend them, which supposes a minimal editorial interventionism of the public authorities[170]. On the other hand, it is up to the public authorities to put in place a framework that strengthens the economic fabric (financing of innovative projects, business development assistance, training ...) to better cope with a now global competition and contribute to the preservation of the national expression.

1. 4.5 Supporting thephysical economy

The physical economy is based on a completely different logic and leads to the production of works of a different nature, which are more strongly based on local or national roots. It seems essential to us to encourage the maintenance of this economy that allows access to works, in parallel with the economy that is being built around the platforms This support will allow them to be viable and to be able to support national productions and avoid the risk of losing the diversity of an economy that would give up its physical footing. This support will allow their viability and their capacity to support national productions and to avoid the risk of losing the diversity of an economy that would give up its physical footing. In this respect, it is to be expected that support for structures can generate a call for air, allowing different projects to develop.

4.6 For a transversal approach to cultural policies

The platform economy is specific, extremely dynamic and very structuring with respect to the cultural field. The digital revolution has led the various cultural sectors into a convergence that is, at the very least, that of issues and trends. Acting on the economy of culture therefore implies acquiring the means to have a detailed understanding of it, which implies an understanding of the economy of creation on the one hand, and the digital economy on the other. Today, the intelligence of these sectors appears to be too fragmented and highly sectorized: public action is often defensive, dictated by reactions to crises and guided by the pressure of various lobbies, as shown by the regular recourse to general states, sometimes coupled with the release of funds.
While this approach may have been relevant in a world that remained nationally driven, such as the French film ecosystem, it is no longer relevant in an open context, where the notion of a national industry is no longer relevant when faced with the deployment of global platforms. Moreover, this approach naturally tends to favor the defense of existing players to the detriment of a dynamic for the creation of new players.
Also, we propose that the State bring together the skills of monitoring and intelligence of the digital cultural economy in a cross-sector approach : a center for research and expertise, shared among the various cultural industries, which could provide public authorities with the tools necessary to analyze the digital environment, the functioning of recommendation algorithms, the dynamics of consumption, the power relations between pipes and content producers, and the strategies of platforms. It is urgent that the State reappropriate a capacity to understand these sectors, which gives it a capacity to assert a cultural policy that is no longer subcontracted to the actors of the different sectors. It is perhaps preferable not to house it at the Ministry of Culture, to mark the affirmation of a transversal logic and limit the risks of returning to a logic of one-stop shops. It is possible that such a center could be placed under an interministerial authority (Culture, Economy, Digital).
In the cultural industries, a cultural policy cannot be reduced to a competition policy or to public statistics. It presupposes proactive action on the part of the State, based on an in-depth and forward-looking understanding of the sectors, and choices that are guided primarily by cultural objectives. The State must assume a strategic role in the battle for content.
Proposition 1 Promote the entrepreneurial logic of content creators in the digital economy
Breaking with the logic of the counter;
Loosen the regulations and anti-concentration devices currently in force in order to strengthen the industrial fabric of national (or even European) producers;
Support the incubation of innovative projects.
Proposal 4 Clarify the objectives (indicators) of major public operators and make them public for debate.
 

Bibliography

WORKS
Anderson C., The Long Tail, Flammarion, 2012
Baricco A., The Game, Gallimard, 2019
Bellanger P., Digital Sovereignty, Stock, 2014
Bourdieu P., The Distinction, a social critique of judgmentÉditions de Minuit, 1979
Busson A. and Y. Evrard, Cultural and creative industries: economy and strategyVuibert, 2013
Cagé J., Saving the media, Seuil, 2015
Cardon D., What do algorithms dream ofs ? Seuil, 2015
Citton Y., The Economy of AttentionLa Découverte, 2014
Donnat O., The Amateurs, enquête sur les activités artistiques des Français, Ministère de la Culture, Département des études et de la prospective, La Documentation Française, 1996
Elberse A., Blockbusters: Hit-Making, Risk-Taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment, Faber & Faber Libri, 2013
Fourquet J., The French Archipelago, Seuil, 2019
Gombault A. and Petr C., Free access to museums and monuments for the publicLa Documentation française, 2006
Guillou B., Multimedia strategies for communication groups, La Découverte, 1988
Heinich N., The Artist EliteGallimard, 2005
Heinich N., The Paradigm of Contemporary ArtGallimard, 2014
Karpik L., The Economy of SingularitiesGallimard, 2007
Kotras B., The Voice of the Web, Threshold, 2018
Le Diberder A., The New Economy of Audiovisual, La Découverte, 2019
Lombardi P. and Wolff L., Fifty years of cultural practices in FranceCulture Studies MCC/DEP, 2020
Mamère N., The Dictatorship of the AudienceLa Découverte, 1988
Pflieger S. and Greffe X.The Cultural Policy in FranceLa Documentation française, 2009
Schwartz M. (coord.), France Télévisions 2020: the path of ambitionThe Documentation Française, 2015
Tirole J., Economy of the common good, PUF, 2016
Toledano J., GAFA: let's take back the powerOdile Jacob, 2020
Wolton D., La Folle du logis: television in democratic societiesGallimard, 1983
 
REPORTS
Babeau O., "Refonder l'audiovisuel public", Fondapol, September 2016
Bonnell R., "Le financement de la production et de la distribution cinématographiques à l'heure du numérique", report submitted to the CNC, December 2013 
Boutonnat D., "Rapport sur le financement privé de la production et de la distribution cinématographique et audiovisuelle", report submitted to the Ministry of Culture, December 2018
Cour des Comptes, "Le soutien à la production cinématographique : des changements nécessaires", April 2014 
Hardy A., A. Busson & alii, "Towards a new social contract for public television", Terra Nova, July 2015
Ministry of Culture, "Analyse conjoncturelle des chiffres d'affaires de la culture au 4^e quarter 2020", Economic Outlook, 2021
Racine B., "The author and the act of creation", January 2020
Viard A., " Réguler par l'épreuve : outils de gestion et cogestion sectorielle du cinéma français ", D. thesis in management sciences defended on December 16, 2019, Centre de recherche en gestion de l'École Polytechnique.
 
ARTICLES
Benghozi P. J. & Benhamou, F., " The long tail: myth or reality? International Journal of Arts Management, 12(3), 43-53, 2010
Benhamou F., "Bilan sur le prix unique du livre", The life of ideas, 2010
Colombani C., " Pass Cultura : une initiative de la collectivité territoriale de Corse ", in Evaluating policies public of the culture, MCC/DEPS/Culture Matters, 2016, p.197-204
David J. & Dionisio N., "The metaverse could actually help people", MIT ReviewOctober 27, 2021
Delvainquière J-C & F. Tugores "Cultural expenditure of local authorities in 2014", in "Culture Chiffres", Ministry of Culture and Communication, 2017.
Evrard Y., "Democratizing culture or cultural democracy? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 27(3), 167-175, 1997
Girard A., " Industries culturelles ", Futuribles, September-October 1978
Guillault H., "Why the long tail doesn't work", The Leaf, June 24, 2014
Le Diberder A., "Disappearance - the sad fate of platform filmsAfter the digital revolutionDecember 10, 2021
Paris T., "Cultural diversity and globalization", in de Montbrial T. & P. Moreau Defarges, Ramses 2005, The hidden faces of globalization. Paris, Dunod, p. 173-187
Porro P., "Six manières de financer l'audiovisuel public", The media review, April 2018
Sukis J., "The Relationship Between Art and AI, Medium, May 6, 2018 
[1] There is no standard definition of the scope of CCIs, either among economists or by the public institutions involved in this field. For an in-depth definition of the field covered by CCIs and their main characteristics and properties, see: Busson A. and Evrard Y., Cultural and creative industries: economy and strategyFor the remainder of this note, we will adopt the term "cultural industries" to cover the field studied and limit the field to four sectors: books, recorded music, film and audiovisual, and video games.
[2] 2020 should be considered a "special year" because of the differentiated effects of the pandemic on the cultural sectors; this will be examined infra.
[3] By unifying the music industry by bringing together recorded music (cultural industry) and live music (usually classified as heritage).
[4] To go further: Pfliger S. and X. GraftThe Cultural Policy in FranceLa Documentation française, 2009.
[5] Previously, there was a Secretary of State for Fine Arts whose scope of action corresponded to the first part (and even to the first half of it) of the missions entrusted to the new Ministry.
[6] These last two examples show that the heritage mission is not limited to the "traditional" artistic fields, but also concerns the cultural industries.
[7] The creation becomes heritage the day after its public presentation. Heritage elements are frequently used in contemporary creations, which are often hosted in heritage sites.
[8] See on this subject Evrard Y. "Democratizing culture or cultural democracy? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 27(3), 167-175, 1997.
[9] See Lombardi P. and L. Wolff, Fifty Years of Cultural Practices in FranceCulture Studies, MCC/DEP, 2020.
[10] On this subject, see the article entitled "Cultural Industries" published by Augustin Girard, then Director of the Studies and Research Department at the Ministry of Culture, in the magazine Futuribles of September-October 1978. This article caused a scandal because, written by a well-known personality of the Ministry of Culture, it affirmed that "the cultural industries have done more for cultural democratization than all the public policies of cultural action".
[11] Cultural exception: a set of provisions aimed at making culture an exception in international treaties, particularly at the WTO. The purpose of these provisions is to specify that States are rulers and based on limiting the free trade of the culture on the market to support and promote their own artistsThey are the vehicles and spokespersons of their culture (source: Wikipedia).
[12] See on this subject Paris T., "Diversité culturelle et mondialisation", in: de Montbrial T. & P. Moreau Defarges (eds.) Ramses 2005The Hidden Faces of GlobalizationParis, Dunod, p. 173-187.
[13] It should be noted that local authorities have a considerable weight in public support for culture in France. But they intervene mainly in areas that are not covered by this note: conservation and development of heritage, performing arts, etc. Cf. Delvainquière J-C & F. Tugores "Dépenses culturelles des collectivités locales en 2014" in Culture Figures, Ministry of Culture and Communication, 2017.
[14] In the 2020 budget bill, the contribution to public broadcasting represents 3.8 billion euros, which is more than the budgetary appropriations of the Ministry of Culture for all other sectors (3.7 billion euros).
[15] There is a similar system (levy on the price of tickets) in the performing arts: the FSTP (Fonds de soutien au théâtre privé).
[16] Recently merged with the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel) to form the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (ARCOM).
[17] See on this subject: Busson A. & Y. Evrard, op.cit., p. 89.
[18] The development of patronage in France dates from the 1960s. The Léotard law (July 23, 1987) and the Lang law (July 4, 1990) strengthened measures in favor of patronage, but without any real tax incentive. The Aillagon law of 2003 has remedied this handicap. There is currently a debate on the opportunity to return to the advantages, considered by some as a "tax niche", from which the patrons benefit thanks to this law.
[19] For detailed information on the subject, see the article on the website of the Société des gens de lettres: https://www.sgdl.org/guide-des-auteurs-2017/3125-la-fiscalite-des-auteurs.
[20] École des Beaux-Arts (visual arts), Conservatoires nationaux supérieurs (dramatic arts, music and dance), Femis, École Louis-Lumière, École supérieure d'audiovisuel and Cinéfabrique (cinema), École nationale du jeu vidéo et des médias interactifs (video games), Ina Sup (audiovisual)...: the list is long of public state institutions that provide high quality education. Other training programs are provided by local authorities or the private sector.
[21] Three out of four students in primary or secondary education have been involved in at least one action or project related to artistic and cultural education (Ministry of Culture, Culture Figures, 2019-3).
[22] Donnat O.: The Amateurs : survey on the artistic activities of the FrenchMCC/DEP, La Documentation française, 1996.
[23] In his thesis, Alexandre Viard speaks of co-management. Cf. Viard A., "Réguler par l'épreuve : outils de gestion et cogestion sectorielle du cinéma français"., D. thesis in management sciences defended on December 16, 2019, Centre de recherche en gestion de l'École Polytechnique.
[24] Often close to a "counter" logic distributing subsidies.
[25] The closure of the movie theaters has de facto resulted in a decrease in ticket tax revenue.
[26] There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between actions and the objectives they serve: one action can contribute to several objectives. However, for the sake of clarity and readability, we have chosen to include only the main links in the table.
[27] It should be remembered that support for creation corresponds above all to a logic of supply, whereas the objective of diversity responds more to a logic of demand (encouraging the distribution of works).
[28] Aid exists at the level of local authorities, mainly the regions.
[29] In the SNE's 2020-2021 balance sheet, literature, with 21.5 % of total publishing turnover, is the main segment of the sector. It does not include children's books, comics, humanities, or fine books.
[30] It should be noted that in France, after the vote of the law, there were actions of resistance of the large-scale distribution (Fnac, Leclerc) which brought the case before the European institutions of the competition, these having validated in fine With the exception of the book.
[31] The two objectives are linked: the disappearance of the bookstore and the concentration of the distribution in the hands of the big stores risk seeing the offer restricted to fast-moving works for essentially financial reasons. On the other hand, the disappearance of record shops demonstrates, in a quasi-experimental logic, the effectiveness of the law.
[32] In the United Kingdom, where the Net Book Agreement was abandoned in 1974, the chains have absorbed a large part of the retail market, with the exception of very specialized booksellers, and even a bestseller like Harry Potter has made booksellers lose money, so much so that the race for discounts has eroded effective margins (source: Benhamou F., "Bilan sur le prix unique du livre", La Vie des Idées, 2010).
[33] It is common for politicians to publish books to legitimize and justify their actions and projects.
[34] Following the adoption of the law known as the "Carignon Law" of 1^er February 1994.
[35] Managed by the CNC.
[36] Digitization can have an impact on the quality of the reproduction of works. Purists" consider, for example, that the sound quality of a digital CD is less than that of an analog LP. This fact explains the "renaissance" of vinyl recordings that has been observed for several years, whereas vinyl technology was considered obsolete with the arrival of the compact disc.
[37] Most sectors were globalized. But to sell works in local markets, multinationals needed territorial subsidiaries or agreements with local distributors. Similarly, radio licenses were all allocated on a local or national basis. In order to see an American film on a French TV channel, the US distributor had to sell the rights to the " broadcaster " French. Internet broadcasting removes this constraint.
[38] Global players may also find it interesting to develop programs for local markets. For example, Netflix has set up a subsidiary in France in 2019.
[39] Multimedia strategies are favored by recent developments, but the idea has existed for a long time: see Guillou B.Multimedia strategies of communication groupsLa Documentation française, 1984.
[40] For example, in a supermarket, there is no direct contact between a yogurt buyer and the manufacturers of these products. The major consequence of the lack of interaction is that FMCG producers (unlike platforms) do not have data on consumers and are forced to acquire information through other sources (consumer panels, or even retailers themselves). 
[41] Subscribers to "Amazon Prime", a premium service (including faster delivery) offered to customers of the Amazon marketplace, have free access to a VOD channel (with an additional charge for the French soccer championship).
[42] As well as on the phenomena of disinformation.
[43] We talk about " consumer empowerment ".
[44] This corresponds to the definition of the democratization of culture proposed by Jean Vilar. One should not however neglect the risk of trivialization of the contents which can result from this logic of flow and to be thus opposed to the economy of the singularity which traditionally characterizes the cultural offer (Cf. Karpik L., The Economy of SingularitiesGallimard, 2007).
[45] These bodies may also be in conflict over the choice of standards (cf. the "Hernani quarrel"), in a competitive logic, particularly in periods of innovation.
[46] Bourdieu P., The Distinction, a social critique of judgmentÉditions de Minuit, 1979.
[47] This debate is recurrent and returns with each innovation in the modalities of diffusion of cultural goods and services. Beyond the "democratic" dimension of the opposition between two forms of legitimacy, that of the experts (sometimes accused of elitism) and that of the market, it is also necessary to take into account the dimension of innovation which is constitutive of artistic goods and services. The reception of the novelty is far from being always immediate and the history of the art is full of major works whose recognition was late: the market can be myopic.
[48] See on this subject Kotras B., The Voice of the Web, Threshold, 2018.
[49] See on this subject Cardon D., What do algorithms dream ofs ? Seuil, 2015.
[50] Regarding the relationship between artificial intelligence and art, see: Sukis J., "The Relationship between Art and AI ", Medium, May 6, 2018: https://medium.com/design-ibm/the-role-of-art-in-ai-31033ad7c54^e
[51]Although sometimes questioned, this model remains strongly prevalent in artistic circles. On the models of definition and representation of the artist, see Heinich N., The Artist EliteGallimard, 2005.
[52] Where the diffusion was done progressively by radiating from a (local) center of creation or production.
[53] Anderson C., The Long Tail, Flammarion, 2012
[54] See on this subject Benghozi P. J. & F. Benhamou, "The long tail: Myth or reality? International Journal of Arts Management, 12(3), 43-53,2010. And also Guillaud H., "Why the long tail doesn't work", The Leaf, June 24, 2014. It should be noted that the phenomenon of sales concentration conflicts with diversity goals.
[55] At the same time, the number of available book titles in Barnes & Nobles stores and record titles in Walmart stores were stable at 0.13 million and 0.030 million respectively.
[56] With the notable exception of China and a few other smaller countries (e.g., North Korea or Syria).
[57] Source: authors.
[58] For example, the share of local expression is, in France, more important for books than for movies (and even more obviously than for video games, which is probably the most successful illustration of a globalized industry).
[59] Source: authors.
[60] Source: authors.
[61] Source: authors.
[62] But also in the traditional sectors: for example the creation of important private museums like the Fondation Vuitton opened since 2014 in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, or the Pinault Collection inaugurated in May 2021 at the Bourse de Commerce. We can also mention the Google Art Institute.
[63] See the numerous debates on contemporary art. Among the numerous works on the subject, one can quote: Heinich N., The Paradigm of Contemporary ArtGallimard, 2014.
[64] Beyond this "continuist" perspective (evolution of the field by progressive extension), some authors think that digitization has the effect of a disruptive change in the paradigm of definition of culture (see for example: Baricco A., The Game, Gallimard, 2019).
[65] The debate on the extension of the "legitimate" field is reflected in the questions about the nature of the expenses that can be included or not in the Culture Pass. We will come back to this later.
[66] In particular at the time of the Lang ministry with the recognition of the "current musics".
[67] This was the case, for example, with the socialist realism of the Soviet era. The importance of ethical values (even their predominance over aesthetic values) finds a new topicality at the time of the " cancel culture ".
[68] This tendency is favored by the absence of (or non-consensus on) quality standards since the end of the classical (academic) era.
[69] This logic was later criticized in the name of the need for mediation.
[70] The taking into account of the demand by the artists is not an absolute novelty: the painters took into account the tastes of their potential buyers; the Hollywood films were the subject of screen tests. What is new here is the abundance of available data.
[71] We also talk about "content creators".
[72] In France, INSEE estimates that 17 % of the population (one French person out of six) is "electronically illiterate". At the global level, just over half of the world's population, or 4 billion people (out of 7.6 billion) have access to the Internet. In France, 88 % of the inhabitants have access to the Internet (which means that 12 % are excluded) and 77 % to mobile broadband networks.
[73] The influence of other people's taste can also be exerted outside direct communication through imitation effects (e.g. following bestseller lists), which contributes to a concentration of demand.
[74] Perhaps, moreover, the worm was in the fruit from the start in the semantics of the title: we went from "State Secretariat for Fine Arts" (focused on supply) to "Ministry of Culture" (thus integrating the reception and therefore the consideration of demand).
[75] The fact that art belongs to the world of leisure (in the same way as do-it-yourself) is at the basis of debates on the value of art and its place in society that go beyond the field covered by this note.
[76] See for example, in the case of cinema: Elberse A., Blockbusters, Faber & Faber Libri, 2013.
[77] However, a more positive view of the concentration of demand is possible. In a "balkanized" society (cf. Fourquet J., The French Archipelago, Seuil, 2019), having common cultural references can have a social bonding function.
[78] See on this subject Citton Y., The Economy of Attention, La Découverte, 2014.
[79] One could also add the dimension of artistic and cultural education, but it is far from being the exclusive responsibility of the Ministry of Culture (except for specialized higher education schools). This is an important issue, but it is beyond the scope of this note.
[80] These are establishments for the production and distribution of cultural content (which, moreover, have little to do with the field of cultural industries). The creation of the CNM (National Center of Music) has a different logic: to complete the system of sectorial centers.
[81] We will come back to this case later.
[82] Which concerns more the traditional sectors (museums and heritage, live performance) but is not absent from the cultural industries.
[83] Cf. Racine B., "L'Auteur et l'acte de création", January 2020.
[84] Because of the relatively marginal place that digital books have occupied up to now. The same is true for subscription formulas (clubs), with the exception of public libraries.
[85] Which can facilitate the influence of lobbies.
[86] The creation of the CNM (Centre national de la musique) takes into account this evolution of intersectoral boundaries.
[87] As well as their conception: see for example the actions carried out by the company "La fabrique des formats" in the audiovisual field to develop, in stock and in flow, French formats, which can later be exported, instead of being satisfied with the adaptation of foreign formats.
[88] Its turnover was estimated at around €700 million in 2019.
[89] The notion of national champion is reactivated by the proposed merger of TF1 and M6 to form a major player in the audiovisual sector (subject to the reactions of the Competition Authority).
[90] The Culture Pass is managed by a SAS in which the State holds 70 % and Caisse des Dépôts 30 %.
[91] This corresponds to a population of 825,000 people.
[92] The total of 500 euros is the amount used in the test phase.
[93] Additional funding from partners is envisaged for an estimated 20 % of the expenditure, which is considerably less than the amount initially foreseen.
[94] To "encourage the diversification of practices and contacts with local cultural partners".
[95] As of October 2021.
[96] Some resale phenomena have been observed, but it is impossible to evaluate their extent.
[97] It is useful to remember that most theaters already implement specific actions for young people, including (but not limited to) specific pricing.
[98] At the risk of being perceived as the promotion of an "official good taste".
[99] For example, in January 2021, the Culture, Education and Communication Commission of the Senate considered that it was necessary to wait for complete evaluation results before considering a generalization of the system. The day after the announcement of the generalization, the USEP-SV (Union of employers of the public sector of the live performance) asked for the suppression of what it considers as a "presidential gadget".
[100] Is the role of a public cultural policy to finance the sale of manga?
[101] Cf. Colombani C., " Pass Cultura : une initiative de la collectivité territoriale de Corse " (in Evaluating policies public of the culture, MCC/DEPS/Culture Matters, 2016, pp. 197-204).
[102] There are also many examples of "youth cards" set up by local authorities or cultural institutions. But to our knowledge, they have not been systematically evaluated.
[103] See Gombault A. and Petr C., Free access to museums and monuments for the publicLa Documentation Française, 2006. Studies on free admission in museums have shown that it increases the attendance rate of those who already go to museums rather than attracting "non public" visitors.
[104] In classical or neo-classical economic theory, price is the determining element of the equilibrium between supply and demand (the "equilibrium price").
[105] You are more likely to go to the theater if you have been there than if you have never been there.
[106] As luxury companies have understood very well. For many people, including many young people, having sneakers or designer clothes is a desire generating narcissistic pleasure and status affirmation. In the end, their problem would be rather to limit the "democratization" of their products to maintain the values of rarity and exclusivity and avoid the risk of trivialization.
[107] Before the habitus of tastes is already installed.
[108] Strengthening their consumption of cultural goods and services would not be a negligible result. But the objective is also (especially?) to attract new categories of consumers.
[109] See for example: Babeau O., "Refonder l'audiovisuel public  ", Fondapol, September 2016; Schwartz M., coord., France Télévisions 2020: the path of ambitionThe Documentation Française, 2015. See also:"  To a new social contract for public television ", Terra Nova, July 2015.
[110] In February 2021, there are 207 channels authorized, agreed or declared to the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel).
[111] See on this subject Wolton D., La Folle du logis, television in democratic societiesGallimard, 1983.
[112] See on this subject Fourquet J., op. cit..
[113] France 2, the flagship of public television, achieves less than 15 % of the total television audience in France (source Médiamétrie, Médiamat Hebdo, April 2021), the leader being TF1 with 19 % of market share. The public sector is better positioned on the radio with France Inter (1st place in cumulative audience) and France Info (3^e place). Let's remember that these two media, radio and TV, have had a declining audience over the last ten years (with a strong drop in 2020 for radio).
[114] In the debates that exist in Europe on the modes of financing or programming of public service media, there has long been a consensus that their primary vocation is to address all citizens. It is this vocation that justifies and makes acceptable the collective financing of public service media.
[115] For more details, see Cagé J., Saving the media, Seuil, 2015.
[116] Cf. Le Diberder A., The New Economy of Audiovisual, La Découverte, 2019.
[117] Belonging to the TF1 group.
[118]  Sports, and in particular soccer, regularly gather the highest audiences: in 2018, the year of the soccer World Cup and France's victory, nine of the ten highest audiences were for matches. For France TV, the Tour de France also represents important audiences. Only presidential interventions (during the Yellow Vests crisis or the health crisis) exceed these audiences, but they are broadcast simultaneously on several channels.
[119] As sport is the main "federating" program, there are obligations for free access (on public or private channels) for major events considered to generate social ties (for example, the matches of the French soccer team). The rights to other sports events (e.g. the French soccer or rugby championship) are sold to private pay-TV channels by the leagues that organize them.
[120] For example, young people or the elderly (outside of the "housewife under 50", the main target of commercial TV (even if the multiplication of channels now makes it possible to aim at finer targets) or fans of heritage culture.
[121] The broadcasting of the Olympic Games, where all sports are present, can be considered as going in this direction. The performances of the French teams, especially in team sports that are not usually broadcast (basketball, handball, volleyball), have attracted a significant audience. It is possible to think that a more regular broadcasting would allow to maintain the interest for sports that are not very present on commercial channels.
[122] Defined in a broad sense: including "legitimate" and "popular" culture. The creation (and success) of Culture Box is an illustration of this (as well as the weekly programming of live performances on France 5). Culture Box was initially launched on a temporary basis to compensate for the closure of cultural venues during the health crisis. It was continued in the evening on the France 4 channel, after the decision to maintain this channel (which had been strongly envisaged to be abolished), which strengthens the public linear offer.
[123] This mission has existed since the origins of public broadcasting. We can recall the existence at the ORTF of a research department directed by Pierre Schaeffer, which was at the origin of innovative forms of production.
[124] Unlike the BBC, which is often cited as a model. It is also worth noting that the new BBC chairman, Tim Davies, in his inaugural speech, mentioned the hypothesis of a tightening of the offer to 80 % of the current volume of program hours.
[125] This is not a new problem (see Mamère N., The Dictatorship of the AudienceLa Découverte, 1988).
[126] The presence of advertising on public broadcasting, currently authorized for television with time constraints, should also be debated. The situation on this point varies in the different European countries. See on this subject Porro P., "Six manières de financer l'audiovisuel public", The media review, April 30, 2018.
[127] The total number of people reached could be a relevant indicator. For example, Delphine Ernotte (CEO of France Télévisions) indicates that the different public channels reach more than 80 % of the French every week (interview in Journal du Dimanche May 9, 2021).
[128] That is to say, without taking into account its "advertising utility" linked to purchasing power.
[129] The same debate can be found for the distribution of copyrights of music streaming operators (Spotify or Deezer).
[130] See in particular: Bonnell R., "Le financement de la production et de la distribution cinématographiques à l'heure du numérique", December 2013; Cour des Comptes, "Le soutien à la production cinématographique : des changements nécessaires", April 2014; Boutonnat D., "Report on Private Financing of Film and Audiovisual Production and Distribution," December 2018.
[131] Let's remember that 50 % of French films make less than 100,000 admissions in theaters.
[132] They also buy the rights to broadcast content already produced by other operators.
[133] The case of Martin Scorsese's film The Irishmanproduced by Netflix, is, among other examples, emblematic of this situation. There is also a debate with film festivals about whether or not to recognize the filmic nature of these productions and therefore accept them in the list of selected films (for example Roma, which won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, was not released in theaters). The same applies to their eligibility for professional awards such as the Oscars.
[134] Let's remember that there was a time (until the 1960s) when the chronology of film releases applied within the cinema universe: there were "first exclusive" cinemas, which screened new films, and "second exclusive" cinemas, in which films were programmed a few weeks later with a lower ticket price and used copies.
[135] With a distinction depending on whether the channel is a co-producer of the work or not.
[136] This launch was the source of a conflict between Universal and the cinema chain AMC, which ended with an agreement on media chronology: the possibility of releasing a film on VOD seventeen days after the theatrical release (instead of ninety days previously), in exchange for the retrocession to the cinema circuit of a percentage of the profits of streaming.
[137] See for example the cases of Borat 2 on Amazon Prime or the new Sofia Coppola movie on Apple.
[138] Conflicts over hybrid releases are not just about the relationship between producers and exhibitors. One example is the lawsuit brought against Disney by actress Scarlett Johansson, who believes that the simultaneous release of the film Black Widow has reduced its box office receipts and therefore its own revenues based on a percentage of these receipts.
[140] Cf. The French and post-crisis cultural outingsHarris Interactive study for the Ministry of Culture, September 2021.
[141] One could imagine that such a platform would be implemented by a group of distributors currently too dependent on theatrical economics.
[142] We could also describe them as globalized, or even "supranational", insofar as their actions transcend national borders. It should be noted that this problem was addressed several years ago by Pierre Bellanger in his book Digital Sovereignty, Stock, 2014.
[143] These operators are often present in several sectors, which allows them to offer bundled subscriptions (" bundling ") transcending sectoral boundaries.
[144] Two other directives, with a broader scope, are being developed: DSA (Digital Services Act) and DMA (Digital Markets Act).
[145] The length of time it takes for the films to be released would be directly dependent on the contribution rate chosen. Shorter (less than one year) if the chosen rate is 25 %
[146] In the name of diversity, the aim is to safeguard independent production.
[147] The reactions of French broadcasters to the production financing obligations imposed on platforms are significant in this regard. In particular, they fear inflationary consequences on access to talent.
[148] This would consist, for example, in prohibiting foreign investors from acting as line producers for investments made on Community territory (as is the case in France for the film subsidiaries of TV channels).
[149] Cf. Cardon D., op. cit.
[150] This question is part of the more general problem of the regulation of digital companies and its implementation will not be without conflicts (cf. Toledano J., GAFA: let's take back the powerOdile Jacob, 2020, in particular chapter 5). 
[151] Other analyses on this subject, conducted by the same team of researchers, are underway and will be published soon.
[152] Another sector that is very strongly affected is tourism, which has indirect effects on the cultural sector.
[153] Ministry of Culture, "Analyse conjoncturelle du chiffre d'affaires de la culture au 4^e quarter 2020", Business Outlook 2021.
[154] Ministry of Culture, "Analyse conjoncturelle du chiffre d'affaires de la culture au 2^e Quarter 2021," Business Outlook 2021#4.
[155] Which concerned the entire audiovisual sector (shooting of series and other programs). The ban on filming and theatrical rehearsals was lifted during the second lockdown, as was the closure of bookstores.
[156] This has not necessarily been a boon for commercial channels faced with a decline in demand for advertising.
[157] There are two opposing hypotheses: a "return to normal" with the lifting of restrictions, or an evolution of the epidemic towards an endemic leading to a "new normal" (e.g. maintaining the wearing of masks and the use of health passes)?
[158] Cf. "soft power".
[159] See David J. & Dionisio N. "The metaverse could actually help people, MIT ReviewSeptember 2021.
[160] The same could be true for small concert halls in the face of livestream competition.
[161] Leading to a social structure in "archipelago" (Cf. Fourquet J., op. cit..).
[162] In particular, soccer (at least international matches broadcast free of charge) is often at the top of the ratings. Consumer culture" could also play this unifying role around brands, especially consumer products, but it too is increasingly split between physical commerce and the Internet. As for religion, another matrix of social structuring, it is obviously no longer a unifying factor in a multicultural society.
[163] It should be noted that this is a break with the hierarchy of arts and works, which plays a central role in the vertical logic of cultural democratization, and that the question of building a common imaginary constructed around a set of masterpieces recognized by all rests on a normative and universalist vision that may contradict the objectives of diversity.
[164] The difficulty on this point will be access to consumption data, which is often confidential on platforms (in addition to the problems of transparency of recommendation algorithms).
[165] A rare commodity in the context of the attention economy.
[166] Vivendi recently became a very small minority shareholder.
[167] For example, Novaquark in the video game sector, Believe in the music sector and Mediawan in the audiovisual sector.
[168] In the logic of the "cultural exception".
[169] The drifts exposed in particular by Vincent Maraval: "French actors are paid too much", in The World December 28, 2012. To quote just one excerpt from this article, "French cinema relies on an increasingly subsidized economy. Even its biggest commercial successes are losing money."
[170] The European Parliament's vote on the SMAD decrees, which oblige platforms to invest in production specific to the country of distribution, could be perceived by the film sector as a Pyrrhic victory, even if it undoubtedly allows French audiovisual production to find alternative financing in the face of the loss of revenues by national broadcasters. See on this subject Le Diberder A.; https://alain.le-diberder.com/la-disparition-le-triste-destin-des-films-de-plateforme/#more-1844
[171] This leads to the recommendation to abolish choices by commissions.
Please enter your e-mail
You must check this box if you want to subscribe to the newsletter.

source

https://2macp.fr/gestion-de-la-production/