When media turn against each other… value quietly shifts to platform

In recent weeks, the debate around television advertising—reignited by the Lidl case and the French government’s proposed decree—has exposed deep tensions within the French media ecosystem. Television, press, radio, and outdoor media are taking firmer positions, voicing growing concerns, and drawing sharper lines. Yet beyond this apparent confrontation, one reality stands out: this is a struggle between actors who are all facing the same structural pressure.

Stéphane LE BRETON

1/24/20264 min read

The Lidl case: a trigger, not the root cause

Let us restate the facts clearly. Lidl France was convicted of misleading advertising after products featured in its TV campaigns were not available for several weeks following their broadcast. The brand subsequently announced its withdrawal from television advertising starting in 2026, judging the regulatory framework to be overly restrictive.

This decision was immediately interpreted as a warning signal for television. But this reading is reductive. Lidl is not questioning the effectiveness of TV advertising.

The brand was sanctioned because a promise broadcast on a trusted medium carries legal responsibility when it cannot be fulfilled. This is not a question of media power. It is a question of demonstrating the promise.

A political response that crystallizes tensions

Following this decision, the French government is preparing a draft decree aimed at easing the regulations governing television advertising for large-scale retail. The text, led by the Ministry of Culture, is expected to be submitted to Arcom, while an impact assessment is currently underway.

This initiative immediately triggered strong and widespread opposition from part of the media ecosystem. In two letters addressed to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Culture, APIG, SEPM, FNPS, Lagardère Radio, NRJ Group, Skyrock, Radio Classique, SIRTI and UPE expressed their “deep concern.”

Their argument is clear: the current regulatory framework, stemming from the 1992 decree, represents a cornerstone of the balance between media financing and the pluralism of information. They point to figures that are difficult to ignore:

the advertising market share of the press has been divided by four over the past fifteen years
radio advertising revenues have fallen by nearly half,
out-of-home advertising is also facing sustained pressure on its traditional revenues.

In this context, further weakening these balances would pose a direct risk to:

the financing of professional journalism,
local investissement,
cultural diversity,
and the democratic role of the media.

A fratricidal war… in a market already lost

A deeper discomfort runs through this debate. What we are witnessing today is:

the press fighting for its survival,
radio defending its funding,
out-of-home media warning about the fragility of their local investments,
television being forced to justify itself.

Meanwhile, another player continues to advance largely unchecked. For the past fifteen years, digital platforms have been capturing an ever-growing share of global advertising value.

In France, as elsewhere:

Google, Meta, Amazon, TikTok and others now account for nearly 70% of the growth of the advertising market,
and around 20% of total global digital advertising budgets are absorbed by a handful of global actors, outside any logic of financing media pluralism or information.

In other words: while traditional media oppose one another, value is quietly leaking away.

The troubling asymmetry: strict rules here, looser ones elsewhere

Another reality must be faced head-on. When some advertisers shift toward digital platforms, it is not only for reasons of efficiency or targeting.

It is also because:

the rules are more flexible,
promises are more implicit,
responsibility is more diffuse,
and proof of message accuracy is rarely required ex ante.

Television remains one of the most tightly regulated media — precisely because it continues to be one of the most trusted.

This asymmetry is striking. But it should not lead to a simplistic conclusion. Easing regulations without addressing the root of the problem would merely shift the risk, not resolve it.

The real issue the debate still avoids

The core problem is neither television, nor press, nor radio, nor out-of-home media.

The deeper issue is this: advertising has long relied on the authority of the medium itself.

That authority is no longer sufficient. Audiences still exist, attention is still there — but automatic trust has disappeared.

People want to understand, verify, cross-check and confirm. They are not rejecting media. They are rejecting promises that are not demonstrated.

A way forward is possible

Pitting media against one another leads to a dead end. The real challenge is to reconcile reach, credibility and demonstration, regardless of the channel.

This implies:

not reducing advertising to a simple message,
not locking it into a short-term logic,
but rethinking it as a verifiable commitment.

This debate goes far beyond the question of a decree. It touches on the ability of media to remain:

credible,
financially sustainable,
useful,
and respected.

Innovation as a condition for survival — and for new revenue streams

In a context of mounting tensions and fragile economic models, one thing is becoming clear: media cannot limit themselves to defending the status quo. Those who have managed to preserve — or recreate — value in recent years have not done so by lowering their standards, but by innovating in how trust is monetised. Audiences still exist, credibility still matters, but value is no longer captured according to yesterday’s rules.

The challenge, therefore, is not to oppose performance and credibility, nor regulation and attractiveness. It is to reconcile these dimensions by inventing advertising formats that are more demonstrative, more transparent and more useful for audiences, while remaining measurable for advertisers. In other words, formats capable of generating new revenues without undermining what constitutes the fundamental value of media: trust.

A deeper trend is emerging. Advertising value no longer rests solely on the message delivered, but on proof of use, real experience and embodied testimony. Consumers are no longer passive targets; they become active contributors who can reinforce message credibility when integrated in a transparent and structured way. In this context, innovation is neither a luxury nor an option — it has become a core condition for media sustainability.

Conclusion

This text is neither a defence of one medium against another, nor a critique of regulation, nor a plea for vested interests. It is an invitation to step back, to look at the ecosystem as a whole, to move beyond sterile oppositions, and to consider innovation as a path toward collective reconstruction.

When media turn against one another, they rarely win — they weaken themselves. When proof becomes central, the entire ecosystem can rebuild and reinvent itself.

The question is not which medium will survive. It is how to restore weight and credibility to advertising in a world of widespread distrust.