What Is It With Virgin?

I'm hot, unhappy and feel the need to go 'off piste' again whilst we supposedly await a 'big statement' from the MoJ. Why am I unhappy? Because Virgin Media have seen fit to remove some of my favourite TV channels. This from the Independent:- 

Virgin Media angers viewers as dispute with UKTV wipes popular shows like Porridge and Red Dwarf

Virgin Media customers are up in arms after being deprived of their favourite shows such as Porridge, Red Dwarf, Only Fools and Horses and The Vicar of Dibley. Some viewers said they were cancelling their subscriptions after popular channels Dave and Gold were wiped from their boxes in a business dispute with UKTV. Other customers pledged to abandon the digital cable TV provider if the services were not restored.

UKTV, which owns Dave and Gold, has been locked in negotiations for days with Virgin Media over fees for its 10 channels, including five that are free-to-air. As they disappeared from about 4 million subscribers' televisions at midnight, viewers were also left unable to access UKTV on-demand services via their Virgin Media sets.

Free-to-air channels Dave, Yesterday, Home, Drama and Really, as well as paid-for channels Gold, Alibi, Eden, Good Food and W were replaced this morning. Gold features classic comedies such as Only Fools and Horses, and Australian crime drama Harrow is on Alibi. A revival of sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf has boosted Dave's viewing figures after it commissioned four new series.

One Twitter user wrote: "Will be cancelling TV, broadband & all phones as soon as we can get through to someone at Virgin! Think they might be busy with a lot of angry customers." Another warned Virgin Media: “So this looks like the end. 15 years a customer and you've messed up big-time. Sky shop Wednesday unless you fix it. #SaveDave" The stalemate also leaves fans of shows including Taskmaster and Judge Romesh unable to see their favourites.

Virgin Media has accused UKTV, which is co-owned by BBC Studios and US broadcaster Discovery, of seeking "inflated sums" for its paid channels. David Bouchier, of Virgin Media, said they were ready to restore UKTV's free channels, such as Dave, immediately with its permission.

"We have been in extensive discussions with UKTV but we have not been able to reach an agreement which reflects the reality of how people are watching television in the 21st century,” he said. "UKTV is insisting on holding back its channels, like Dave, which are freely available over the air and online, unless we pay inflated sums of money for its paid channels like Gold. On top of this, UKTV is unable to provide the extensive on-demand programming which is expected of a modern-day broadcaster."

But UKTV chief executive Darren Childs said the company could not accept the "drastic" cut in price that Virgin was seeking to show its paid-for channels on its pay-to-view service. "We're hugely disappointed for the many customers who are losing out because our channels are no longer available through Virgin Media," he said.

"We completely understand their frustration and would love to continue to bring them the shows and channels that they're so passionate about, but we need a fair price to support our growing investment in programmes."

--oo00oo--

This very annoying spat, involving as it does a very annoying brand run by a similarly very annoying and arrogant man intrigues me because we hear that Virgin is a hugely trusted brand. This on the sycophantic Inc website:- 

Richard Branson reveals why Virgin will never seek bankruptcy protection 

While many large companies choose to operate their various businesses under different names with their own unique identity (think, Pepsi and Pizza Hut or Apple and Beats), Virgin has opted to label all its operations under its signature brand. It's a decision Virgin founder Richard Branson admits has its own set of both advantages and challenges.

"Because the Virgin brand is well-trusted globally, if we set up a new venture and put the Virgin brand to it, it gives it a leg up," Branson said in an interview with Inc. president and editor-in-chief Eric Schurenberg.

On the other hand, if a Virgin business is ever in trouble, like the Virgin Megastores that were shut down in Europe and North America, Branson can't just file for bankruptcy. Instead he has to spend millions to make sure they bow out gracefully from the market. "We would never let a Virgin company go bust," Branson said. "We have to stand by all of our companies, and it costs us a lot more."

This committed investment into all the Virgin arms is well worth the risk, according to Branson. He revealed that "when music retailing was on its knees," the company spent tens of millions of pounds to prevent the collapse from destroying the rest of the Virgin brands. 

"Reputation is all you have in life, and I think it's worth spending that money," he said. 

--oo00oo--

But Virgin can't run a railway and handed the East Coast Main Line keys back only a few weeks ago; it keeps gobbling up large chunks of the NHS and has the effrontery to sue when they don't win a contract. So, why on earth would a company that owns Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank agree to buy Virgin Money, ditch both long-standing names and pay £12 million per year to re-badge everything bloody Virgin - a brand you have absolutely no control over? Not only do you mightily piss-off a huge number of your current customers, every time a negative Virgin story appears it hits the brand you have hitched your wagon to. Remember this from last year:-

Virgin’s decision to ban the Daily Mail on its trains is a PR disaster

On a train recently, I was able to see what the other people around me were reading. We were sitting at a table, four of us, all with laptops or tablets. In the window, in the reflection, I could look at their screens. We were all on Mail Online. Apart from my sheer nosiness, what else could be gleaned from this observation? That dailymail.co.uk is an extremely alluring beast, such that people from different walks of life are attracted to it. And if I wanted an illustration of the power of digital over print here it was. None of us was studying a newspaper, magazine or book.

It was a Virgin train going north on the West Coast line. Now, Virgin has decided to stop selling the Daily Mail on board its trains along the same route. The train company’s staff object, apparently, to the newspaper’s coverage of various issues, and a ban has therefore been imposed. Not only is this bizarre – given that anyone can purchase a copy elsewhere before boarding a Virgin train, or as I found they can peruse the paper’s sister website to their heart’s content – but it is public relations suicide.

Virgin workers may not share the paper’s stance on a range of causes, from the EU to immigration to LGBT rights to unemployment, but to ban the sale of the paper? What are they thinking? More to the point, what is Sir Richard Branson, the firm’s boss, thinking?

No one is more PR-savvy than Branson, nobody in the past has exhibited a surer touch when it comes to promoting themselves or their brand. Branson has been telling us for years that he is Virgin, that the company and founder are inseparable, their values identical. He promotes himself to promote Virgin. Now we know that those standards he so aspires to include restricting choice and controlling freedom of expression.

For once, Branson’s deftness has deserted him. Free speech, and that includes a free press, is one of the tenets we hold dear. It’s something we cite whenever asked why we fought world wars, and what it is we regard as special about the UK, about our democracy.

The Daily Mail may not be to all tastes. But that can be said of any newspaper, any publication. If you don’t like it, you have the licence not to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to digest it, let alone agree with its contents.

Some of Branson’s workers were annoyed by the Daily Mail. So what? As I say, no one was requiring them to read it. Could it be that Branson himself, the hippy billionaire and Remainer, does not approve of the Brexit-supporting Daily Mail? Almost certainly. But to allow that opposition to get in the way of something as precious as press freedom – something he also, surely, agrees passionately about – is hysterical.

Thanks to Virgin’s move, a sale of just 70 papers a day on its West Coast line has now become a cause celebre, with Branson and his company accused by politicians of every hue, of censorship. Even Labour, no friend of the Daily Mail, has voiced its support for the paper. The party will not restrict sales of the Daily Mail, if it succeeded in renationalising the railways. A spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn said the Labour leader was an "enthusiastic supporter of a free press and the pluralism of the press. Obviously, private companies will decide what they want to stock on their trains."

Downing Street said the move was ultimately a decision for Virgin Trains but Prime Minister Theresa May had "always been clear on the importance of a free press to our democracy".

And Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, a former journalist, tweeted: "Absurd ban on Daily Mail by Virgin! Pompous, censorious and wrong #virginontheridiculous". The Society of Editors, that counts many editors among its members, voiced its opposition, saying the decision taken by Virgin Trains "smacks of censorship". Virgin has managed to stir up political leaders, and antagonised the rest of the press as well. Well done.

What Branson, the PR-master, has failed to do is to keep things in perspective. He’s created a major issue, one that was bound to see a rallying round of support for the Daily Mail, and one, inevitably, that has inserted him into the centre of it.

The slippery slope towards a boycott of all Virgin products because the company abhors freedom beckons. From irritation, possibly anger, at one newspaper Branson faces the very real prospect of a public relations crisis. It’s extraordinary that one normally so smart should have committed such a grave error. Branson should extricate himself from this particular hole, and restore the Daily Mail, before it is too late.

Although, perhaps he intends to go further. After all, why stop at the Daily Mail? At present Virgin’s West Coast trains stock alternative titles, but presumably, if they step out of line they too will be struck off. Or next, Virgin’s cabin attendants and ticket inspectors disapprove of what we’re reading on our screens and we’re ordered to switch sites or to turn them off completely. Branson and co have started something that has an unpleasant odour about it and will not have a happy ending.

Chris Blackhurst is a former editor of The Independent, and executive director of C|T|F Partners, the campaigns and strategic communications advisory firm.

--oo00oo--

He back-tracked of course:- 

Sir Richard Branson tells Virgin Trains to lift ban on Daily Mail