For a third of users under 25, turning on the television means opening YouTube first, according to Arcom. The living-room screen is still there; broadcasters are no longer the only way in. It is in this competitive landscape that Nicolas de Tavernost is making the case for bringing back major live events.
A broadcaster born in the era of fixed schedules
M6 began broadcasting in 1987. Having joined that year as deputy managing director, Nicolas de Tavernost became chairman of the management board in 2000, before stepping down in 2024. These successive roles are traced in the group’s reference document. His career highlights the difficult balance underpinning commercial television: producing or buying programmes capable of attracting an audience, then financing this spending, notably through advertising.
When he stepped down on 23 April 2024, David Larramendy succeeded him as chairman of M6’s management board. Le Monde charted this transition, highlighting an already central shift: on-demand viewing is growing, while the traditional model based on a shared schedule needs to change. At that point, the group had, among other things, set out its ambition to significantly expand its digital catalogue by 2028. These were announced targets, not results already achieved.
Why television has not disappeared, but the way it is used is changing
The 2026 edition of Arcom’s Audio-Video Trends study, published on 31 March, qualifies the idea that television is disappearing. The television set remains the most widely used device for watching videos in France. However, younger people prefer smartphones, while platforms are becoming part of how people use their living-room screens.
One figure sums up this shift: for a third of users under 25, YouTube is the first thing they turn to when switching on their television, according to the study. This does not mean that a third of all young people in France no longer watch television channels at all. The measure relates specifically to the reported behaviour of a group of users on a particular device. Arcom presents the data and methodology.
Arcom also notes that clips or videos from linear television programmes are among the content watched on YouTube. The two worlds are therefore not entirely separate: a programme can begin on a channel and continue its life on a platform. For a producer, this circulation creates opportunities to reach other audiences, but it also raises questions about control over distribution and the associated revenue.
‘Turning programmes into events’: a possible response, not a magic formula
Speaking on France Inter on 23 September 2026, Nicolas de Tavernost made the case for making linear television more event-driven. The idea behind the term is simple: offer programmes whose appeal depends on a shared moment, such as a sporting event, a final or a major live show. The France Inter interview is listed in its podcast feed.
This strategy makes economic sense. A shared event can concentrate the audience’s attention and allow advertisers to reach many viewers at the same time. But it also has limitations: sports rights can be expensive, the audience for an event is uncertain, and viewers continue to choose on-demand programmes the rest of the time.
It would therefore be excessive to present live broadcasting as the only way for channels to survive. Fiction available on catch-up, verified news, local programmes and catalogues accessible on several screens can also contribute to a broadcaster’s value. It all depends on the audience, the funding, the rights held and the ability to make this content readily accessible.
Advertising and public service do not perform exactly the same function
During the same interview, the former head of a private broadcaster also defended maintaining public-service broadcasting funded by public resources. The position is significant, but it remains his own: it does not put an end to debates about the remit of public media, their resources and the role of advertising.
A commercial broadcaster must seek revenue that is compatible with its programming costs. A public-service media organisation, by contrast, has specific obligations that cannot be reduced to simply seeking an audience. This does not exempt any organisation from having to justify its spending, governance or editorial independence.
What M6’s story helps us understand
Nicolas de Tavernost’s story is not just one of individual success. It shows how a television company has had to move from an economy centred on frequencies, schedules and advertising slots to a competitive landscape in which users have more choice over when, where and through which service they watch.
The future is probably neither a complete return to scheduled television events nor the disappearance of traditional channels. The same audience can watch a match live, catch up on a documentary the next day and discover a clip on their phone. The decisive question now is who funds programmes, who controls access to them and what safeguards accompany their distribution. The debate about the television of tomorrow should focus on these mechanisms, rather than nostalgia for a bygone era.
Photograph: Illustrative photograph: Borta / Pexels, Pexels licence. The scene depicts neither Nicolas de Tavernost nor a specific television studio. Source and terms of reuse.
