"Voyeurism formats will go under".
TV director Peter Schellenberg would like to realize a daily soap for young people
TV Director Peter Schellenberg would like to realize a daily soap for young peoplePeter Schellenberg, Director of SF DRS, is still firmly opposed to "Big Brother", but is happy to allow commercial broadcasters to supplement the public service. The 1.5 market share points that SF 1 has lost to the private broadcasters is a hefty loss. How much market share do you actually want to give up to the commercial channels in future?
Peter Schellenberg: It's 1.1 percent, because we make one program on two channels, and SF 2 has made up for part of the decline in SF 1. I assume that part of this loss is due to "Big Brother" and other voyeuristic formats. But they will lose power and go under. And as soon as that happens, we could see a stabilization in market share. Because the commercials have no replacement for "Big Brother".
How much longer do you give the new formats?
Schellenberg: The decline is already becoming apparent - most recently with "Girls Camp", but also with other "Big Brother" copies. They are not successful enough. This also has to do with the central characteristic of these formats, voyeurism. It only works as long as you haven't seen enough of something. But if you have seen something a hundred times, you can no longer use it for voyeurism. It's exactly the same with breaking taboos. Once a taboo has been broken, it is no longer a taboo. And this is exactly where the weaknesses of these programs lie.
But TV 3 has at least managed to be successful with teenagers and young adults. A target group that is under-represented on SF DRS and for which an offensive is actually called for. What are you planning in this direction?
Schellenberg: With "Nickelodeon", we are among the top three channels in the relevant target group, with a very small gap to the two leaders. So we are right there with them. However, we do have a problem in terms of our appeal to young viewers. After all, young people want one thing above all: American series and feature films.
And why can't SF DRS keep up?
Schellenberg: Because of the first broadcasting rights. We'll never have them because they're far too expensive for us. We're at a huge market disadvantage compared to the German TV billionaires, and I don't see how we can get them.
could make up for that. Another way to be successful with young people would of course be a daily soap. That would be a huge success. But we'll never be able to afford a daily soap, we're simply too small for that. That's the point where the German channels will always be superior to us. That's why I don't see our really big competition coming from Switzerland, but from the TV billionaires in Germany. We have to hold our own against them. We need the Swiss commercials to complement the public service.
Let's stay with the public service: What are the trump cards with the coveted young audience?
Schellenberg: We play them every day, but in a slightly different way to the commercials. It's not always about high viewer numbers. That's why we deliberately include some information in the show "Oops". Nobody would do that with the commercials, you can't get a big audience with that. But information is part of our mission, even with young people. That's why we will continue to do this. At the same time, of course, we are constantly putting out feelers for new programs. But that's nothing new. Our children and youth department is constantly thinking about optimizations and new programmes. That's part of their job.
And will formats such as "Big Brother" and co. not be available on SF DRS for ever? The young audience that likes to watch them is already a large part of the fee payers. And the interests of fee-payers should be taken into account by the program managers in accordance with their mandate. Why doesn't this apply to "Big Brother" and co.
Schellenberg: This is a question of ethics and responsibility. The statement that the participants in "Big Brother" take part voluntarily is not nearly enough. The broadcaster is responsible for what happens in its programs. This has been established by the Federal Supreme Court and applies to every medium. In such voyeuristic programs, things can happen that will cause damage to the people involved that they have no idea about today. We want to be able to assess the impact of TV. And sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.
Interview: Daniel Schifferle
Peter Schellenberg: It's 1.1 percent, because we make one program on two channels, and SF 2 has made up for part of the decline in SF 1. I assume that part of this loss is due to "Big Brother" and other voyeuristic formats. But they will lose power and go under. And as soon as that happens, we could see a stabilization in market share. Because the commercials have no replacement for "Big Brother".
How much longer do you give the new formats?
Schellenberg: The decline is already becoming apparent - most recently with "Girls Camp", but also with other "Big Brother" copies. They are not successful enough. This also has to do with the central characteristic of these formats, voyeurism. It only works as long as you haven't seen enough of something. But if you have seen something a hundred times, you can no longer use it for voyeurism. It's exactly the same with breaking taboos. Once a taboo has been broken, it is no longer a taboo. And this is exactly where the weaknesses of these programs lie.
But TV 3 has at least managed to be successful with teenagers and young adults. A target group that is under-represented on SF DRS and for which an offensive is actually called for. What are you planning in this direction?
Schellenberg: With "Nickelodeon", we are among the top three channels in the relevant target group, with a very small gap to the two leaders. So we are right there with them. However, we do have a problem in terms of our appeal to young viewers. After all, young people want one thing above all: American series and feature films.
And why can't SF DRS keep up?
Schellenberg: Because of the first broadcasting rights. We'll never have them because they're far too expensive for us. We're at a huge market disadvantage compared to the German TV billionaires, and I don't see how we can get them.
could make up for that. Another way to be successful with young people would of course be a daily soap. That would be a huge success. But we'll never be able to afford a daily soap, we're simply too small for that. That's the point where the German channels will always be superior to us. That's why I don't see our really big competition coming from Switzerland, but from the TV billionaires in Germany. We have to hold our own against them. We need the Swiss commercials to complement the public service.
Let's stay with the public service: What are the trump cards with the coveted young audience?
Schellenberg: We play them every day, but in a slightly different way to the commercials. It's not always about high viewer numbers. That's why we deliberately include some information in the show "Oops". Nobody would do that with the commercials, you can't get a big audience with that. But information is part of our mission, even with young people. That's why we will continue to do this. At the same time, of course, we are constantly putting out feelers for new programs. But that's nothing new. Our children and youth department is constantly thinking about optimizations and new programmes. That's part of their job.
And will formats such as "Big Brother" and co. not be available on SF DRS for ever? The young audience that likes to watch them is already a large part of the fee payers. And the interests of fee-payers should be taken into account by the program managers in accordance with their mandate. Why doesn't this apply to "Big Brother" and co.
Schellenberg: This is a question of ethics and responsibility. The statement that the participants in "Big Brother" take part voluntarily is not nearly enough. The broadcaster is responsible for what happens in its programs. This has been established by the Federal Supreme Court and applies to every medium. In such voyeuristic programs, things can happen that will cause damage to the people involved that they have no idea about today. We want to be able to assess the impact of TV. And sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.
Interview: Daniel Schifferle
