"You have opened your mouth, and the law has already been adopted"

Tomorrow, on Friday, the State Duma may be adopted by a law that limits the share of foreign capital in the Russian media up to 20%. Yesterday he successfully passed the first reading. Such a measure, deputies say, is necessary in the conditions of the information war, in which, in their opinion, Russia is involved. What actually means a new law, to which it will lead to and why it is adopted in such a hurry, Colta.ru discussed with the famous media manager, vice president of the Media Group of RBC Elena Myasnikova.

- Did this bill become a surprise for you?

- In general - yes. Although ideas about such restrictions arose earlier, these proposals were discussed periodically over the years. There was a very stormy discussion in 2001, when the current restriction of 50% of foreign capital for television channels and radio was accepted. Then a 50% restriction was discussed for print media. The print media then managed to get out of this law. That is, this topic, in principle, is not new. But then it was a violent discussion, then an industrial committee was created, which discussed this topic for a long time, amendments, changes were made, and arguments sounded. For me, of course, it was a surprise that the bill arose now in such a tight form and that it was not discussed with the media community, with publishers in no way. I understand that recently a number of laws have been adopted exactly like this-from making a proposal to the Duma to the adoption of the law passes for seven to ten days, and it seems that you can no longer be surprised, but it still became a kind of surprise.

- What is the reason for such a speed of its adoption? And what do you think, will they accept him, as expected, this Friday?

“Yes, I'm sure he will be accepted tomorrow.” The speed of acceptance is associated, in my opinion, with the fact that the lawmakers now simply realized that the curtsy system before public opinion, before the industry, is extra troubles. It’s easier and faster. Well, then, such a speed does not allow any violent discussion, no objections. You have opened your mouth, and the law has already been adopted, and why now to wave wings.

- Why, in your opinion, does the law provide for such a long -term delayed effect of new amendments? In fact, the new norm will work since 2017.

- The fact is that this law affects the largest publishing houses. It also affects television, but there were already restrictions, in the print media there were no. That is, foreign ownership in print media could be 100%. This means that there are a lot of publishing houses on the market that have no partners here at all. For example, Axel Springer , Conde Nast , Burda , Bauer and, by the way, Sanoma Independent Media , which belongs to several participants and all of them are foreign. These largest players will not only have to reorganize or re-register. If they want to stay in the market, they will have to look for a buyer to their share. This, you know, you won’t do it in a month or two. Sanoma has been selling its share in Independent Media for a year and a half. That is, the introduction of this law from January 1, 2015 would mean the closure of publishing houses. Maybe some of them will leave the market, but if there had been no delayed action, these publishing houses would not have options at all, only closing. Because here there is, for example, the Hearst Shkulev Media publishing house, there is 50 to 50 cooperation. Hearst has a partner, proven, to whom he trusts, there you can make the transfer of shares quickly enough. And what to do for those who do not have partners at all? Therefore, the action is postponed. I believe that this is already a blow to the publishing market, but without the deferred action of the law, the market would instantly collapse.

- There are two interpretations of the law - political pressure on Vedomosti and Forbes and the redistribution of the market. What, in your opinion, is more here?

- I am convinced that this is a combination of factors. This is someone's business interest, which will manifest over time, and, of course, the desire to take control of the media. But the political moment concerns a rather narrow circle of publications, and he worked for acceleration - publications that are annoying, I would like to take control of as quickly as possible. The business interest, I think, did not require such speed, not this determined such swiftness. In addition, I have the feeling that even the poor, unfortunate, who fell under the distribution of glossy media - Cosmopolitan , Vogue and others - were very popular and corresponded to the ideological moment fifteen years ago, when consumerism was partly even state policy. The economy grew rapidly, the fragrance grew rapidly, and there was a clear orientation to the European vector - we want to be just as beautiful, to smell like well, to consume as well. Now there is a clear shift of an ideological emphasis with openness to the West and consumption as a good and as a new achievement of a new government - for spiritual reproaches. Therefore, in fact, glossy magazines are now also not very in the stream. And thoughts on the topic “Oh, what will happen to Cosmopolitan , Vogue , GQ ” no one sets.

Legislators now simply realized that the curtsy system before public opinion, before the industry, is unnecessary troubles.

- Can you assume in favor of whom the alleged redistribution of the market will occur?

-Of course, there are several alleged interests, two or three, but I do not like to guess on coffee grounds. This is just not fundamental from the point of view of the development of the media. We will recognize this soon, the year will not pass.

-In addition to the search for Russian partners, are there any other options for foreign owners?

- I am not a lawyer by education and did not consult on this topic, since this does not directly concern the publishing house where I work. But I admit that those publishers who concern this, sat and worked out some options, some kind of bypass; Perhaps they are, they are unknown to me. Maybe they will be developed in the near future; After all, there wasn’t much time to think about this topic, they did not give this time. But the most obvious is still selling extra shares. This is the option that is supposed to be law. Theoretically, among publications, not among publishers (there the structure of ownership will completely change), the ability to stay in the market will be through licenses, franchises. To compensate for the loss of shares, the owners can increase license deductions. There is such a nuance - this law in one way or another prohibits any influence and control by the Western partner. This is a problem, because when a Western partner gives a license for an international brand, be it Cosmopolitan , Vogue or Forbes , In any license agreement, control over the quality of the brand is prescribed, the formula of the publication is prescribed. And the Western partner, even if he does not have a single percent, cannot but control the license - otherwise he loses the integrity of the brand. But this practice contradicts what is written in the law. Perhaps this will be possible to work with the help of by -laws, but in general, of course, this is a complete redistribution of the market, which, of course, will go to the detriment, in my opinion. I am now talking from the point of view of journalism and the quality of publications, I am now not talking about the political or economic component. It will just be somewhat worse. If the control of the brand holders weaken, then the quality may swim. Well, of course, if political and ideological influence intensifies, it rarely benefits journalism.

- RBC also falls under a new law? What does the holding intend to do in this connection?

- RBC falls purely formally. The owner of RBC is still Russian, so there should not be big problems here. This is not a forced sale of a business or something like that, it will be just some legal procedures.

-Can the law lead to the fact that some media brands will simply cease their existence in Russia?

- I do not exclude this. Again, you need to watch how everything will happen. The market was given a year and a half to deal with this issue. Maybe some by-laws will be adopted, maybe there will be concessions to some socially significant projects. But if the publication is purely economic, political and economic, and if it has Western partners, who suggest that their brand will be completely independent and will not be exposed to any influence, then they can decide that it is better not to risk a name. So I do not exclude that someone will leave.

- And how much is the Russian media market interesting and significant for Western investors?

- It is very interesting and very significant, for example, for the Hearst publishing house, in which I have worked for 20 years. In Independent Media , as far as I know, the Russian was the second foreign market after China, and at some times even the best market. In any case, when I worked with Western publishers. For them, Russia was very important. Not even from a strategic point of view - the presence of such a vast territory, namely financially. Huge profits, a huge margin were at that time. Now, I think, of course, it is reduced in all print media in connection with some market fall and a deterioration in the general economic situation. Now, of course, margin in 30-40% is unlikely to be possible there.

- Is it necessary, in your opinion, to regulate the share of foreign capital in the Russian media? Do you need restrictions?

- I would not even want to talk on this topic, because there are countries where there are no restrictions, there are countries where there are restrictions, and countries where restrictions were and are, but gradually removed. This, by the way, is the world trend-at some stage there were restrictions, but gradually they are softened. That is, in principle, this idea does not seem to me some particularly terrible. It is very deplorable at the moment that this is a complete redistribution of the market and that there is probably also someone’s financial interest. Of course, it is unpleasant for me that we are now comparing ourselves with China all the time, but there are restrictions in China, and when the international players of Hearst , Conde Nast entered this market, they had the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons, think how they would monitor the quality and standard of their publications there, had time and the opportunity to choose tenders. They knew where they were going. Now for many publishers this is shock, from today for tomorrow the rules of the game are completely changing. I am not saying that these are bad rules, it’s just a very unexpected coup for the market. Not the quality of the rules is a problem, but their surprise, change on the go. But you need to take into account the economic crisis. You understand that if the only opportunity for publishers will sell a share, then the market, especially printed, is not on take-off, but on a reserve and a huge number of players will have to sell their shares at some kind of frozen price. This also needs to be borne in mind. If this law were adopted in the mid-2000s, selling your assets would be more expensive and profitable.

- How will this all affect the personnel side of the issue? Does this threaten with mass layouts, for example?

- I think it will be very situationally. This will depend on what specific output that each publisher has found and if he changes the owner, then who is this owner. We know cases when the change of owner led to a massive outcome of employees, and this, as a rule, is associated with the personality and character of the person, which came to possession and leadership. There may be some perfect configuration. For example, if Hearst Shkulev will not have 50 to 50, but 20 by 80 at the same Viktor Mikhailovich Shkulev, who guides this publishing house, I do not see why the journalists get up and go somewhere.

For many publishers, this is a shock, from today for tomorrow the rules of the game are completely changing.

- Do you agree with the commentary of Anton Nosik, who says that this law actually cancel the market model of the media existing?

- Yes. You see, the media can exist not only within the framework of market laws or completely market laws. Because the media exist in the same China. However, I do not mean the media of North Korea. I mean quite international brands in China, where, in general, no one exists within the framework of a completely free market. But, of course, this law will negatively affect the market. We are talking about this. Both in the market and in competition. And if, as I think, control over paper gloss will be consolidated in one hand, then there will be no even the slightest competition. Therefore, I ultimately see a drop in quality. Still, no one has canceled the fact that competition leads to an increase in quality.

-Does the market players have opportunities and chances to somehow resist this initiative?

- Look: by and large, there was nothing at all to the reaction. In the first reading, the bill was adopted on Tuesday. In the second and third, as I understand it, it will be accepted on Friday. There is not enough time for the maneuver, although I know that the opinion of the industry was brought to the specialized Duma committee. It is obvious, one could not even voice it, it is a priori understandable, it was expressed, and I know that there were meetings. It didn't work. The determination to adopt this law quickly, it seems to me, is very great. This is a political decision - and it was made immediately. Maybe there will be some opportunities for adjustments in the future, there are still one and a half years. There is a lot of incomprehensible in this law. For example, what about publishing houses that are joint -stock companies? The company that is trading in the market does not know who its owner is. She recognizes this at a meeting of shareholders once a year. There is a lot of this in the law. So it always happens with hasty laws that are adopted without a wide discussion in the industry. There are ambiguities and overlays, there are things that need to be edited and discussed. I think that during these year and a half, some kind of clarifications will be made to this law. Not global, maybe, but they will be. Otherwise, it is impossible, otherwise it is not clear how to interpret a number of things.

- Why, in your opinion, our media community - people are mostly thinking, with an active life position and a clear civil temperament - so passive? Why is no one trying to protest against this law - as well as other restrictions and oppression on the media?

- I see indignation and protests. All the media wrote about this law, the publishers spoke of it. I believe that Viktor Shkulev, Tatyana Lysova (Vedomosti editor. - Ed. ) Speaking perfectly about him, the publishers' guild reacted - not publicly and not noisy, but held a meeting with the relevant State Duma Committee. Do you mean that journalists did not go out with a demonstration to the city center? In the legal framework and within their profession, journalists and publishers spoke out. My Facebook tape is full of a huge number of links to the publication, which lit up this in one way or another.

-Maybe this is not enough and the demonstrations do not need demonstrations, but some other forms of protest?

- Protest against industrial laws with the help of demonstrations? Well, I don't know. If any law that causes some bewilderment and incomplete understanding among journalists, they met with access to Bolotnaya Square, then there would have no time to work for reporters, because there are a lot of such initiatives. Not to mention the fact that journalists are an environment that is very often unhappy with something. They would not leave the demonstrations then.

- What will the new rules lead to in the long term?

- I think that if no maneuvers are undertaken, publishers will have to sell those shares that turn out to be superfluous according to this law. I think that they will be bought by one, two, three, four people, or structures, or the holding, and in the coming years they will obviously be consolidated in one way or another - towards enlargement. Therefore, they will either immediately buy the same owners, or they will buy different owners for various reasons and consolidate for a year-semi. The situation when we have one large publishing house, where Glamor , and Cosmopolitan , Vogue , and Harper's Bazaar are adjacent, I do not exclude. There is such, of course, the moment that most of the license brands are spelled out for the so -called non compete , according to which the publishing house, which emits Glamor , cannot publish Cosmopolitan . As they will do here, I don’t know, we are essentially writing a science fiction novel.

-By the way, about the science fiction novel. Do you think our lawmakers will stop at such measures or will go further?

- You know, these lawmakers are going further and further all the time. Among my friends, there was just a conversation that every time you think “well”, and then some more “well” happens. Of course, I do not know what could be further, but I have a poor fantasy. There will be something.

-Here, for example, the ban on foreign media in general, as one deputy communist proposed. Or actively under discussion of the Internet. Do you believe in this?

- I am unpleasant to talk about this topic, I do not want to.