"In advertising, diversity is not in danger".
Carlo Schmid-Sutter on tobacco advertising, RTVA, the Internet and sponsorship
Carlo Schmid-Sutter on tobacco advertising, RTVA, the Internet and sponsorship "Diversity is not in danger in advertising".
As early as mid-May, Carlo Schmid-Sutter's initiative for advertising relief in favor of private TV operators will be discussed. The president of the Swiss Advertising Association (SW) expects the revision of the radio and TV law to take longer.
Which agenda items are the most important for you at the SW's 76th General Meeting?
Carlo Schmid-Sutter: The AGM has less of an operational mandate. It's where we give an account and hold elections. This year's agenda includes the farewell of a long-standing employee: Hanspeter Marti is leaving the association after 30 years. He was the legal conscience of Swiss advertising. And from this point of view, "personnel" is an important agenda item at this AGM.
A long-simmering legal issue is cigarette advertising. The WHO wants a total ban in two years. Switzerland did not support a total ban on advertising at the Anti-Tobacco Convention in Geneva. What is your comment on the situation?
Schmid: I'm actually happy that the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), which is now the lead agency on this issue for the federal government, has not gone for a complete ban on tobacco advertising. The FOPH says: certain restrictions on advertising in the area of youth protection are necessary. We support that as well. I am convinced that we can work well with the FOPH under such conditions. However, I clearly state that freedom of advertising must be allowed within the framework of the law and morality, as it says in Article 20 of the OR. In this context, it is our duty to make a stand for freedom of expression, freedom of information and economic freedom. I will continue to work on this issue.
You have submitted an initiative to Parliament for the authorization of interruptive advertising on private television and permission to advertise light alcoholic beverages. What is the state of play here?
Schmid: On May 17 and 18, the Commission for Transport and Telecommunications will deal with this initiative. As the initiator, I will represent it there. Its purpose is to bring forward in time, in connection with the major revision of the Radio and Television Act (RTVA), those points which I myself consider to be more or less undisputed, but which could mean an important step forward for the private broadcasters. Today, I consider the entire discussion about the RTVA to be so complex that I do not believe that this revision will be completed quickly.
The "Millionaire Show" is currently a big TV hit. RTL, with its advertising window in Switzerland, is allowed to interrupt the one-hour show several times. TV 3 is not. Isn't that unfair competitive assistance for stations from abroad?
Schmid: You said it!
You set up a group of 70 members of the National Council and the Council of States in Parliament on the subject of commercial communications. What does the political mix of this group look like?
Schmid: The majority of the group is middle-class, because the middle-class groups also have the majority in parliament. But we also have Reds and Greens in the group.
In the Council of States, you helped to ensure that the new film law would have to be dealt with again. Some producers are now angry with you. Do you understand that?
Schmid: This decision is still the right one. I can't stand up for freedom among advertisers and advocate restrictions on the other side. You have to promote, not restrict. And promotion does not mean that I demand that cinema owners tell me to the minute how many Swiss and how many foreign films they have shown - so that I can then check the balance with a state guideline and hand out fines if they fail to do so. Penalty and fine is not what I understand by cultural promotion. That's why I said this is a police bill. I am in favor of film promotion. But it's not right to levy punitive tariffs, as it were, and use them to finance film promotion.
One idea for the new RTVA would be: Swiss TV does without sponsorship money.
Schmid: I think it's tricky to distinguish between sponsorship and advertising in such a precise sense. Apart from that, many valuable shows would no longer even be possible without sponsorship. And what do we do then? Hand out notes of fines on the street so that we can finance television? Once again: I want to promote - but only if I don't have to punish for it.
Internet advertising is another chapter with an as yet unknown future. As a politician, do you see a need for action here soon?
Schmid: We have a motion in parliament from National Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga regarding spaming. That's not very sympathetic, because self-regulation, namely through fairness, would definitely have been a possibility for me as well. But what Ms. Sommaruga has raised is correct. You can't block this new medium with spaming and make it so unappetizing.
In her speech at last year's SW AGM, Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler called for more fairness in
of political advertising. Has this demand been met?
Schmid: No. Nothing has been done in that direction. I am of the opinion that it is certainly not up to us to do anything about fairness in political advertising. If we did, then that would be a matter for the Fairness Commission. But in political advertising we already have a referee, and that is the electorate. Anyone who fouls too much gets shown the yellow card. That works automatically.
The world's three biggest advertising groups have a combined market share of 38.6 percent of global advertising. In the USA, the concentration of power is even greater. What does that mean for you?
Schmid: That means that the advertising business is of course structured similarly to other industries. In the food sector, too, we have two huge players in Switzerland who divide up the field among themselves. But everywhere there are opportunities for others to get into the business and to assert themselves creatively. In the same way, diversity is not in danger in advertising. The competition will look to the right. Interview: Andreas Panzeri
As early as mid-May, Carlo Schmid-Sutter's initiative for advertising relief in favor of private TV operators will be discussed. The president of the Swiss Advertising Association (SW) expects the revision of the radio and TV law to take longer.
Which agenda items are the most important for you at the SW's 76th General Meeting?
Carlo Schmid-Sutter: The AGM has less of an operational mandate. It's where we give an account and hold elections. This year's agenda includes the farewell of a long-standing employee: Hanspeter Marti is leaving the association after 30 years. He was the legal conscience of Swiss advertising. And from this point of view, "personnel" is an important agenda item at this AGM.
A long-simmering legal issue is cigarette advertising. The WHO wants a total ban in two years. Switzerland did not support a total ban on advertising at the Anti-Tobacco Convention in Geneva. What is your comment on the situation?
Schmid: I'm actually happy that the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), which is now the lead agency on this issue for the federal government, has not gone for a complete ban on tobacco advertising. The FOPH says: certain restrictions on advertising in the area of youth protection are necessary. We support that as well. I am convinced that we can work well with the FOPH under such conditions. However, I clearly state that freedom of advertising must be allowed within the framework of the law and morality, as it says in Article 20 of the OR. In this context, it is our duty to make a stand for freedom of expression, freedom of information and economic freedom. I will continue to work on this issue.
You have submitted an initiative to Parliament for the authorization of interruptive advertising on private television and permission to advertise light alcoholic beverages. What is the state of play here?
Schmid: On May 17 and 18, the Commission for Transport and Telecommunications will deal with this initiative. As the initiator, I will represent it there. Its purpose is to bring forward in time, in connection with the major revision of the Radio and Television Act (RTVA), those points which I myself consider to be more or less undisputed, but which could mean an important step forward for the private broadcasters. Today, I consider the entire discussion about the RTVA to be so complex that I do not believe that this revision will be completed quickly.
The "Millionaire Show" is currently a big TV hit. RTL, with its advertising window in Switzerland, is allowed to interrupt the one-hour show several times. TV 3 is not. Isn't that unfair competitive assistance for stations from abroad?
Schmid: You said it!
You set up a group of 70 members of the National Council and the Council of States in Parliament on the subject of commercial communications. What does the political mix of this group look like?
Schmid: The majority of the group is middle-class, because the middle-class groups also have the majority in parliament. But we also have Reds and Greens in the group.
In the Council of States, you helped to ensure that the new film law would have to be dealt with again. Some producers are now angry with you. Do you understand that?
Schmid: This decision is still the right one. I can't stand up for freedom among advertisers and advocate restrictions on the other side. You have to promote, not restrict. And promotion does not mean that I demand that cinema owners tell me to the minute how many Swiss and how many foreign films they have shown - so that I can then check the balance with a state guideline and hand out fines if they fail to do so. Penalty and fine is not what I understand by cultural promotion. That's why I said this is a police bill. I am in favor of film promotion. But it's not right to levy punitive tariffs, as it were, and use them to finance film promotion.
One idea for the new RTVA would be: Swiss TV does without sponsorship money.
Schmid: I think it's tricky to distinguish between sponsorship and advertising in such a precise sense. Apart from that, many valuable shows would no longer even be possible without sponsorship. And what do we do then? Hand out notes of fines on the street so that we can finance television? Once again: I want to promote - but only if I don't have to punish for it.
Internet advertising is another chapter with an as yet unknown future. As a politician, do you see a need for action here soon?
Schmid: We have a motion in parliament from National Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga regarding spaming. That's not very sympathetic, because self-regulation, namely through fairness, would definitely have been a possibility for me as well. But what Ms. Sommaruga has raised is correct. You can't block this new medium with spaming and make it so unappetizing.
In her speech at last year's SW AGM, Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler called for more fairness in
of political advertising. Has this demand been met?
Schmid: No. Nothing has been done in that direction. I am of the opinion that it is certainly not up to us to do anything about fairness in political advertising. If we did, then that would be a matter for the Fairness Commission. But in political advertising we already have a referee, and that is the electorate. Anyone who fouls too much gets shown the yellow card. That works automatically.
The world's three biggest advertising groups have a combined market share of 38.6 percent of global advertising. In the USA, the concentration of power is even greater. What does that mean for you?
Schmid: That means that the advertising business is of course structured similarly to other industries. In the food sector, too, we have two huge players in Switzerland who divide up the field among themselves. But everywhere there are opportunities for others to get into the business and to assert themselves creatively. In the same way, diversity is not in danger in advertising. The competition will look to the right. Interview: Andreas Panzeri
