Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

Collaborators

In selling out to the French, is Edgar Bronfman surrendering American media hegemony to yet another European media supremo? Or has he just found a greater fool?

ShareThis

Say you pitched a movie about a young man living in France, or a book or magazine article or television show about anything to do with a foreign country, or anyone associated with a foreign country: You would, in the American media business, instantly have marginalized yourself. Even England has to be played for laughs if it's going to play at all.

So ha ha: The American media is now dominated by foreign companies.

But that's a reductive irony, whereas the takeover is really quite a complex and compounded one. Because many of these foreign media companies have been built on distributing the lowest common denominator of American media -- Starsky & Hutch, Magnum P.I. lowest common denominator -- to European audiences.

On the one hand, there is the European ill temper about American cultural and perceptual imperialism (the end of foreign cinema and the complete dominance of Hollywood movies); on the other hand, there are the realities of syndication and licensing deals (Canal+ is in the business of selling The A-Team to the French) that have provided the economic wherewithal for the takeover of American media companies by foreign upstarts.

And there's the Internet, which, briefly, was going to be the ultimate instrument of the exportation of American innovation and hegemony, until, shit, it turned out America had screwed up its cell phones, fallen way behind on wireless stuff. So here we are, having to sell the Internet, too, to the Euros. There isn't a U.S. dot-com company that isn't hustling around right now for European dough.

European media moguls have tried to ape American media moguls. But they have achieved even more outsize egos and a greater sense of entitlement than their American mogul counterparts.

But this is not just simple reverse imperialism, or it is, except you have to couple it with the well-established tradition of being a foreigner who owns a media company in the U.S., i.e., the likelihood that you the foreigner are going to be stripped naked and plundered and held up to public ridicule for your American media adventure.

This, the plundering part, is probably a good place to start in considering the proposed creation of Vivendi-Universal, a three-way merger of Vivendi, the former Générale des Eaux, a 150-year-old French water company that also owns waste-management systems, lots of publishing properties, and a global ad-agency business; Canal+ (say ploos), Europe's largest pay-TV channel, in which Vivendi is a minority holder; and Seagram, the world's largest liquor distributor, which owns, for reasons too ridiculous to recount, a major movie studio and the world's largest music company. (After the combination of those three entities, the new entity will become the second-largest media company in the world after the combination of AOL Time Warner.)

My wife, a media attorney who has had her share of dealings with foreign media barons, believes that, partly as a result of language barriers and compensatory arrogance (with the French, of course, being among the most compensatorily arrogant), foreigners are incapable of doing a proper due diligence. Therefore you can sell them anything. This was true of the Japanese when they bought Hollywood studios. The Germans when they bought book companies. The English (who have their own linguistic -- and emotional -- issues) and the Dutch (and French) when they bought magazines. And the French (and English) when they bought ad agencies. (Murdoch is the exception to the foreigners-get-brutalized-and-robbed paradigm. But then, he did what most foreigners would never do: He became an American -- a role that neither Vivendi CEO Jean-Marie Messier or Canal+ chief Pierre Lescure seems suited for.) Foreigners just don't know the questions to ask and are, relatively speaking, too embarrassed to ask anyone who might know the questions. Such embarrassment, my wife believes, translates into a dismissive attitude about the silly American obsession with details (like leases, and contracts, and trademarks, and, in general, who owns what, and what moneys are reliably due), and often results in a bonanza for American media sellers -- in this case, allowing the Bronfmans to sell the French a probable pig in a poke. (God knows, you haven't seen other bidders lining up.)

"Everybody makes a lot of money when the French come to town," says Jerry Della Femina, who made a lot of money when the French (from the same company that is now buying Seagram) bought his advertising agency.

It is, though, not just a case of American media people taking advantage of foreign media people. Many students of this art, including Della Femina, would argue that it is American media people taking advantage of people trying to take advantage of them. (Della Femina has also sold his agency to the English -- indeed, he sold it first to the English, and then managed to get the French to buy it again from him; in addition, his book From Those Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Pearl Harbor is an early classic of the global economy.)

Certainly the Europeans can be difficult to deal with. (Let us not forget Gian Carlo Paretti, who bought MGM, took the French bank Crédit Lyonnais, which financed the deal, for nearly all it was worth, and has been on the lam pretty much ever since.)

My wife's analysis is that European media moguls have tried to ape (or out-ape) American media moguls. But they have achieved even more outsize egos and a greater sense of entitlement than their American mogul counterparts, because in Europe, there is a greater tradition of the one true strutting supremo (together with milder accounting rules and securities oversight).

My favorite Euro-media supremo is Berlusconi, the Italian in the guise of the very American figure of a smiling, affable salesman (the usual European big-cheese affect is of an intellectual, or aristocrat, or bureaucrat). He has managed to monopolize his nation's media (half of its television, its largest magazine publisher, its leading news magazine, a major national newspaper, and the biggest book publishers) as well as to be headed for a second term as its prime minister.

Indeed, it is this connection between the government and the media, a deeply incestuous relationship in almost every European country, that suggests, not unreasonably, a lot of self-dealing and tends to create a culture of people saying things with the assumption that other people know they are saying something else.

"The French," Della Femina declares, "are simply incapable of telling the truth."

The Europeans, of course, accuse the Americans of small-time literal-mindedness, hypocritical moralism, and intellectual dishonesty. Life and business, the Europeans argue, are complex, shaded, many-layered.

As it happens, the result of this live-and-let-live, you-scratch-me-I'll-scratch-you attitude is a national web of interlocking companies so tight that all companies become one, and monopoly is truly complete (or else unnecessary).

On the other hand, the Euros would argue that this is exactly what AOL Time Warner is about, so shut up.


Advertising
Current Issue
Subscribe to New York
Subscribe

Give a Gift

Advertising