Who's running Virgin Media?

quocunque · 08-02-2007, 15:48

As I understand it, ntl Telewest took over Virgin Mobile and rebranded itself as Virgin Media, with Richard Branson as the largest shareholder. Why then is his cheesy grin plastered all over VM's promotional material, why are people talking about "his new empire", and why does the VM website refer to him "the Boss"? Is he? Or is his image considered a benefit to the new company? If so I think it's a misguided view. Am I missing something?

Locky · 08-02-2007, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by quocunque

As I understand it, ntl Telewest took over Virgin Mobile and rebranded itself as Virgin Media, with Richard Branson as the largest shareholder. Why then is his cheesy grin plastered all over VM's promotional material, why are people talking about "his new empire", and why does the VM website refer to him "the Boss"? Is he? Or is his image considered a benefit to the new company? If so I think it's a misguided view. Am I missing something?

well mr b being the biggest shareholder, yeah that makes him top man

v0id · 08-02-2007, 16:55

Virgin is his brand

**Chris** · 08-02-2007, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by quocunque

As I understand it, ntl Telewest took over Virgin Mobile and rebranded itself as Virgin Media, with Richard Branson as the largest shareholder. Why then is his cheesy grin plastered all over VM's promotional material, why are people talking about "his new empire", and why does the VM website refer to him "the Boss"? Is he? Or is his image considered a benefit to the new company? If so I think it's a misguided view. Am I missing something?

Because people trust him and they trust his brand. They don't trust NTL. Makes sense to plaster his mug all over the place as much as they can.

shugdot · 09-02-2007, 07:36

I agree with ChrisT (Are you the ChrisT?

you know what happened to the last man who claimed that title?) The name Virgin brings respectablity to ntl.telewest.

Salu · 09-02-2007, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by shugdot

I agree with ChrisT (Are you the ChrisT?

you know what happened to the last man who claimed that title?) The name Virgin brings respectablity to ntl.telewest.

It's David Icke really.....shh

King Of Fools · 09-02-2007, 10:18

quocunque!

You are right that RB is not technically the boss of Virgin Media and he does not control the day-to-day running of the company. However, he has licensed the Virgin brand to be used and so effectively is in ultimate control of the direction the company follows. If the company does not do what he wants he can withdraw his licence and the company would have to go it alone without the backing of the global Virgin brand.

georgepomone · 09-02-2007, 13:11

Hi KoF,
you have hit the nail right on the head. How long before there will be disagreemments on direction. It's all so much hype. The ultimate control in my humble opinion still lies with ntl controlling the purse strings. We'll see which point of view will be on the surface after a few months.
George.

Martyn · 09-02-2007, 13:25

people might think, wow its owned by one of the richest people in the world, lets go with virgin, they wont cut back on any thing! - yeah right. lol

Toto · 09-02-2007, 13:29

Virgin did not get where it is today by spending, spending and more spending. It focuses on brand, innovation and an in your face attitude. Virgin Media does not have a bottemless money pit, it still needs to meet financial obligations.

awibble · 09-02-2007, 15:47

Im sure RB will sort it out, from people i know that have worked for virgin brands, the way they always work is to look after the staff... happy staff = happy people.

Although nothing can happen at once, im sure budgets have been layed out to improve the working enviroment for staff in and out of the offices. Once the staff are happier, then the customers will start to say that.

I wouldnt expect anything to change over night, but it would be worth comparing it in say 6-12 months

Rik · 09-02-2007, 16:38

Rupert Murdoch?

Horizon · 09-02-2007, 21:38

...that's not as silly as it might sound.

Rupert Murdoch sold out his US satellite interests to US "cable" king John Malone last year. Murdoch has spent decades trying to build a global satellite venture and when he eventually succeeded, soon after he sold the US Dish Network to Malone. Although the only reason given was that Murdoch didn't want Malone to get a controlling interest in his parent News Corp company. There was, I think, another reason too.

There have been various articles over the years that Murdoch's kids, especially James, have told Daddy that the internet is the future. Which I agree with. Satellite TV will always be (with current technology) primarily a one way medium. Rupert Mudoch has seen how the internet has eaten into his various ventures, ie people look at newspapers on the net, rather than buying them from shops.

Rupert Murdoch likes to control everything. A reason why he set up Sky using encryption technology from one of his other companies and moved all his channels to "his" own satellites. Eventually, Murdoch was told that Sky had to be an open platform. As long as a broadcaster has the money to pay Sky's EPG fees, anyone can broadcast on Sky. So, we have the situation today where there are now 100s of shopping, ethnic, quiz, god, dating and other rubbish channels on Sky. Not what Murdoch wanted. Virgin Media, on the other had, is a private network and clearly doesn't want all of these rubbish channels on its service. They recently got rid of all the quiz channels as an example of this.

I would not be surprised if Rupert Mudoch and family, at some point, don't get involved in cable and the telecoms industry. Perhaps a bid for AT&T at some point? As for Virgin Media, it's in so much debt that if Murdoch did go to all the other main VM shareholders (other than Branson) with a proposal. I think they'd be interested. If Murdoch doesn't adapt, he'll be left with an old fashioned, one way satellite business when most people in the near future will be "viewing" tv/films via the internet......

As for Richard Branson, HE is Virgin. HE is the brand. No matter what people think of Sky (I think they're great) it's a powerful brand. Now cable has one too, but is it too late...?

Isn't it curious that Branson launched his biggest Virgin company this week and he's on telly constantly talking about stem cells and saving the climate too. What a coincidence

Finally, onto the OP's question....

Branson is the largest shareholder in Virgin Media and the company is using Branson's brand, which is himself!! This combination, I think, gives Branson a material influence over Virgin Media. Although he doesn't run day-to-day affairs, I believe he now makes the big deccisions in the company. Thus, it's Branson who is running Virgin Media. A bit like the ITV situation with Murdoch...

ian@huth · 09-02-2007, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neptune

As long as a broadcaster has the money to pay Sky's EPG fees, anyone can broadcast on Sky. So, we have the situation today where there are now 100s of shopping, ethnic, quiz, god, dating and other rubbish channels on Sky. Not what Murdoch wanted. Virgin Media, on the other had, is a private network and clearly doesn't want all of these rubbish channels on its service. They recently got rid of all the quiz channels as an example of this.

The 100's of shopping, ethnic, quiz, god, dating and other rubbish channels pay Sky for EPG space so are very welcome to Rupert. I can't see that Virgin Media will want to get rid of all those rubbish channels as some of the most popular of the shopping channels (Bid.tv, price-drop.tv, speedauctions.tv and screenshop) are run by Sit-Up Ltd which is wholly owned by them.

Horizon · 09-02-2007, 22:03

....if they're so great for VM, why aren't most of them on cable?