On the hamster wheel in Zurich
The average reader doesn't really care who owns what percentage of a regional newspaper—as long as it fulfills its unofficial public service role.
Column The average reader doesn't really care what percentage of a regional newspaper is owned by whom - as long as it fulfills its unofficial public service function. What has kept the communications world in the Greater Zurich Area busy in recent weeks seems to have left the general public quite cold. Large publishers from the city have acquired stakes in four out of five regional daily newspapers in the canton of Zurich. Only the brave Neue Bülacher Tagblatt, owned by the Graf family, is still independent of "minority shareholdings" by larger publishers.what sense do such minority shareholdings actually make? It's always interesting to see what is written in the documents prepared by lawyers and fiduciaries.
is not said in carefully worded communiqués. In the case of Landbote, for example, one would like to know where the 20 percent of shares that went to Tamedia came from. According to reports, the share capital was distributed among around three dozen individual owners before the trade. Has an important shareholder dropped out completely? In this case, however, the official statement may well be taken at face value: The web printing orders from Tamedia are indeed a strong argument in favor of the deal. Without such reinsurance, the solid Winterthur-based company would hardly have dared to make the major investment that was due - at a time when Ringier and NZZ are making common cause to dominate the web offset market in Switzerland.
The situation is quite different when it comes to NZZ's minority stake of 37.5 percent in Zürcher Oberländer. The remaining 62.5 percent is distributed among around 400 owners. In economic terms, this will sooner or later amount to a de facto takeover. This is because a knowledgeable major shareholder is faced with a patchwork of regionally and/or family-motivated shareholders who may hold a few shares in their newspaper out of loyalty and interest, but are unlikely to be persuaded to make massive new investments. It's hard to predict who will be in charge!
And then there is this clever asset management company Albin, Kistler & Partner (AKP). It will never voluntarily explain whether it has patiently hoarded the ZO shares on its own initiative or on behalf of a third party over the years. It will be remembered that AKP also bought shares in Neue Luzerner Zeitung from 1997 and passed them on to NZZ - allegedly with profit margins of up to five times the purchase price. And wasn't it the same AKP that also sought shares in Dietschi in Olten (Oltner Tagblatt), the Aargauer Zeitung and the Zofinger Tagblatt with aggressive advertising?
At some point, the NZZ or its "Freie Presse Holding" will probably explain to the reading public what it intends to do with its crown of shareholdings. What does the vision look like, for the sake of which it has given up its own management of the advertising business? We are now dealing with the largest regional newspaper group in Switzerland - when minority shareholdings are viewed from the necessary economic perspective. Behind the flagship NZZ is an impressive business.
who made his way: St. Galler Tagblatt, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Bund, Zürcher Oberländer, Zürcher Unterländer, Zürichsee newspapers ...
The famous synergy effects are particularly exciting. Experience shows that they are regularly overestimated in the editorial field. And another experience should not be concealed either; it puts the public (or published) fuss about changes in ownership into perspective:
Regional daily newspapers are perceived by the majority of their readers less as companies than as quasi-public utilities. As the recent dispute
of the Basler Zeitung with local cultural institutions, this shapes mentalities. As long as a regional daily newspaper fulfills its "public task" well, i.e. with a sense of proportion and respect for minorities, the majority of people don't really care who owns it.
> Karl Lüönd is a journalist and head of the Media Institute of the Swiss Press Association.
is not said in carefully worded communiqués. In the case of Landbote, for example, one would like to know where the 20 percent of shares that went to Tamedia came from. According to reports, the share capital was distributed among around three dozen individual owners before the trade. Has an important shareholder dropped out completely? In this case, however, the official statement may well be taken at face value: The web printing orders from Tamedia are indeed a strong argument in favor of the deal. Without such reinsurance, the solid Winterthur-based company would hardly have dared to make the major investment that was due - at a time when Ringier and NZZ are making common cause to dominate the web offset market in Switzerland.
The situation is quite different when it comes to NZZ's minority stake of 37.5 percent in Zürcher Oberländer. The remaining 62.5 percent is distributed among around 400 owners. In economic terms, this will sooner or later amount to a de facto takeover. This is because a knowledgeable major shareholder is faced with a patchwork of regionally and/or family-motivated shareholders who may hold a few shares in their newspaper out of loyalty and interest, but are unlikely to be persuaded to make massive new investments. It's hard to predict who will be in charge!
And then there is this clever asset management company Albin, Kistler & Partner (AKP). It will never voluntarily explain whether it has patiently hoarded the ZO shares on its own initiative or on behalf of a third party over the years. It will be remembered that AKP also bought shares in Neue Luzerner Zeitung from 1997 and passed them on to NZZ - allegedly with profit margins of up to five times the purchase price. And wasn't it the same AKP that also sought shares in Dietschi in Olten (Oltner Tagblatt), the Aargauer Zeitung and the Zofinger Tagblatt with aggressive advertising?
At some point, the NZZ or its "Freie Presse Holding" will probably explain to the reading public what it intends to do with its crown of shareholdings. What does the vision look like, for the sake of which it has given up its own management of the advertising business? We are now dealing with the largest regional newspaper group in Switzerland - when minority shareholdings are viewed from the necessary economic perspective. Behind the flagship NZZ is an impressive business.
who made his way: St. Galler Tagblatt, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Bund, Zürcher Oberländer, Zürcher Unterländer, Zürichsee newspapers ...
The famous synergy effects are particularly exciting. Experience shows that they are regularly overestimated in the editorial field. And another experience should not be concealed either; it puts the public (or published) fuss about changes in ownership into perspective:
Regional daily newspapers are perceived by the majority of their readers less as companies than as quasi-public utilities. As the recent dispute
of the Basler Zeitung with local cultural institutions, this shapes mentalities. As long as a regional daily newspaper fulfills its "public task" well, i.e. with a sense of proportion and respect for minorities, the majority of people don't really care who owns it.
> Karl Lüönd is a journalist and head of the Media Institute of the Swiss Press Association.
