Challenges Faced by Swiss Broadcasters and the Need for Fair Book Pricing

For our broadcasters, Switzerland represents around 3% of turnover, but, according to our estimates, from 6 to 9% (depending on the cases and their organization) of their results. We understand better in these conditions the resistance they put up (Madrigall is just one among others) in the face of our demands, which are either to improve our conditions locally, in the current system (by a reduction of our purchase prices), or to agree to supply ourselves in France at the “market price” and “usual conditions of the sector”, as art clearly specifies. 7 para. 2g of the law on cartels (LCart). As Madrigall’s commercial director rightly pointed out during one of our discussions, what we are aiming for is indeed a “margin transfer”.

No, broadcasters are not philanthropists whose only concern is the balance of the Swiss market. The continuation of the current model would imply a continuation of their excess profits made at the expense of Switzerland (booksellers initially and consequently readers). What exactly are we talking about? According to our calculations, the extra profit made each year by French broadcasters on Payot’s account alone amounts to between 4 and 5 million francs (including a little over 1 million for Madrigall). Extrapolated to the French-speaking Swiss market as a whole, this represents more than double, or at least 10 million.

Accuse us of being “dominant”, with one in two books sold by Payot for Madrigall in Switzerland while the purchases of Fnac (20% market share) and the sales made by Amazon (around 15% market share ) are excluded from the scope, is due to a cognitive bias. About Fnac Suisse: the argument of not dealing directly with Fnac Suisse but only with Fnac France (which then resells to Fnac Suisse with French purchase prices) does not prevent the proven existence of a situation of distortion of competition on the Swiss market (illicit practice according to art. 7 al. 2b of the LCart), Fnac Suisse benefiting from purchase prices significantly lower than those available to Payot, while we “weigh” double in turnover. They are indeed the same books, which have the same origin, and, at the source, the same supplier.

I was surprised that following the announcement of the filing of our complaint, Madrigall chose to break off all negotiations and no longer respond to our requests, for example to sign a trade agreement for the year 2023 like this is done every year. Beyond these occasional discussions, I was also surprised that Madrigall did not seek an amicable solution with us, rather than finding himself involved in a procedure which could lead, as in 2013, to a conviction, with two illegal practices of the LCart in the viewfinder, a condemnation which would then set a precedent vis-à-vis our other suppliers.

Contrary to what Antoine Gallimard says, we did not “set a trap” for Madrigall, but for all of our suppliers, and it turns out that Madrigall was the first to set foot in it. But our complaint approach would have been strictly the same if another broadcaster (including one of the two “big ones”, Hachette or Editis) had made the same error. If I understand that this could have annoyed Antoine Gallimard, I do not, for my part, make it a personal matter. In any case, the current blockage harms both, which I regret.