Seven months after French President Emmanuel Macron praised the success of Emily in Paris, but bemoaned the lack of homegrown European broadcasters and distributors on par with series creator Netflix Inc. Germany’s Friedrich Merz — whose road to becoming chancellor is proving rockier than expected — has made a similar proposal for “the establishment of a European media platform.”
European media platforms already exist, in a way: They are called Walt Disney Co, Apple Inc and Netflix. Their deep pockets and global reach have made them the go-to places for continental content from Emily in Paris to Banijay Group NV’s show Careme, about the great chef Antonin Careme.
With nascent European rivals struggling in the streaming wars — recent casualties include France’s Salto and Italy’s government-funded ITsART — politicians like Macron have been instead pushing US platforms to fund more local content.
If Merz is ready to heed Macron’s call for more ambitious action, it suggests that US President Donald Trump’s trade war has really raised the stakes — especially now with threats of 100 percent tariffs on films produced overseas.
Information is power and so is entertainment: Many Germans realized that when Elon Musk endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and interviewed its head on X, where Musk has more followers than the population of France and Germany combined.
Now France is bracing for a direct attack on local-content rules as part of American arm-twisting over trade tariffs. If Europeans are serious about defending democratic and cultural values — and Merz’s government suggests they are — an Airbus of streaming might help.
What might such a project look like?
Macron and Merz cite the need to boost Franco-German broadcaster ARTE — launched by their predecessors Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl. While usually associated with high-brow content like opera, the station has proven able to draw millions of views with heavy-metal concerts online. Beyond culture, the platform could also be a useful geopolitical hedge if tariff talks turn sour.
Yet there would also be value in using it to send a broader industry signal in favor of more consolidation. European broadcasters look like a collection of Asterix villages, fragmented along national borders and slow to adapt to technological disruption, yet competition regulators continue to show hostility to building champions. In 2022, Macron’s dream of a TF1-M6 merger to counter Big Tech was blocked, given that it would have controlled 70 percent of the national TV advertising market.
The flip side is that local companies’ spending on content in France has stayed at about 6.2 billion euros (US$7 billion) since 2016, while the US streaming giants have increased spending on top European markets 26-fold to 11.6 billion euros, according to Ampere Analysis.
Antitrust concerns will not go away overnight, yet geopolitics will add new impetus to shifting the debate or finding new ways to team up.
Media analyst Ian Whittaker points to RTL Group SA as one example: In 2024, the Luxembourg-based firm announced an advertising-technology partnership with ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE to make German advertising and the companies themselves less dependent on US tech. On the content side, recent deal activity includes the Berlusconi family’s MediaForEurope NV takeover offer for ProSiebenSat.1, valuing it at about 1.3 billion euros.
The real question, as in many industries from banking to defense, is just how committed Europeans themselves are to overcoming national borders.
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tom Ward still sees obstacles from regulation to language barriers and consumer tastes. There was a revealing moment in Macron’s comments to Variety magazine last year, when having called for a European Netflix, he promised to “fight hard” to keep Emily in Paris from moving to Rome.
The national interest dies hard: Even if artificial intelligence helps French viewers understand the Portuguese and vice versa, it will not suddenly unify different legal, regulatory or political systems that favor their own media moguls. America’s hegemonic power has been driven by having one currency, one national audience and one language — and one capital market willing to spread the Netflix wealth.
The odds are long, therefore, on a true Netflix slayer emerging from the trade war.
However, perhaps like the great auteurs of European cinema, maybe the opportunity comes from experimentation. That could include an Airbus-style project centered around ARTE and an encouragement of more private-sector partnerships. The democratic, cultural and corporate damage of sitting back and doing nothing could be big: In the 20 years since YouTube was launched, online advertising has ballooned 38-fold to become a US$722 billion market, while TV has grown about 25 percent. Emily may still be in Paris, but Macron is probably more excited about what Friedrich can bring.
Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS