Bad news for Rebekah Brooks, but good news for BSkyB’s Jeremy Darroch

July 6, 2011

Jeremy Darroch, chief executive of BSkyB, now looks in an even more powerful position to inherit the News International mantle of power (should he wish to) than when I flagged up his significance to the Murdoch empire in my last Marketing Week column.

Rebekah Brooks, NI’s current chief executive, is terminally damaged goods, in the wake of ‘Millygate’. Not to mention ‘Jessica-and-Hollygate’ and ‘7/7-gate’.

For the moment, of course, it’s Andy Coulson, ex-News of the World editor and David Cameron’s former director of communications, who has been thrown to the lions. Thanks to some NI emails which have mysteriously surfaced just in time, Coulson is now a proven liar. He procured, or authorised procurement of, paid information from the police while he was News of the World editor – something he has previously strenuously denied. And for good reason: it is quite illegal.

It’s an astute, if cynical, sacrifice, and proves the Murdochs are still thinking on their feet. Coulson’s disgrace tarnishes both Cameron (by association – after all, he picked Coulson, despite his dodgy reputation, and then backed him to the hilt in his hour of need) and Knacker of the Yard (assistant commissioner John Yates, once the officer in charge of investigating the phone-hacking scandal at the epicentre of the Murdoch crisis, who is now looking woefully ‘under-informed’ and incompetent, after previously vociferously denying the merest scintilla of police complicity in the matter).

Even so the Coulson gambit is, at best, a delaying tactic. It will make our leading politicians and policemen tread a little more carefully, but it will not prevent them from taking decisive action. Public opinion is now too inflamed for them to do anything else.

Inescapably, the smoking gun is pointing at Brooks, née Wade, and editor of News of the World when – it now emerges – NI’s private investigator of choice Glen Mulcaire was hacking into the phones of Milly Dowler’s distressed relatives. She says she knows nothing about it. Do we believe her, any more than we believed Coulson’s protestations of ignorance? I’ll leave that one hanging in the air.

Ordinarily, implicated NI and former NI executives have been able to take refuge in prevarication, in the sure and certain knowledge that rapidly abating public interest will soon allow them to emerge from their burrows relatively unscathed. This crisis is different.

It has an unprecedented commercial dimension to it. Top advertisers, led by Ford, are boycotting News of the World, and that really will hit the Murdochs where it hurts. Ford is the single biggest advertiser, contributing about £4.5m annually to NoW’s £40m display advertising revenue. Halifax (owned by Lloyds Banking Group) has now joined Ford. Other major advertisers believed to be considering their options are T-Mobile/Orange, Vodafone and nPower. The danger, from the Murdochs’ point of view, is that this commercial contagion spreads to other NI newspapers, such as the Sun – which Brooks also edited. It could easily do so, given a swelling social media campaign goading consumers to boycott advertisers who refuse to align themselves behind Ford. (There’s a useful live update on the brands boycott at Marketing Week.)

All of which may well rapidly result in Brooks becoming surplus to NI requirements.

OK, you say, but what has this got to do with Jeremy Darroch? I’m coming to that. Whatever the backwash from the phone-hacking scandal, it will not prevent culture secretary Jeremy Hunt from giving his blessing to Murdoch-vehicle NewsCorp’s acquisition of the 61% of BSkyB it does not already own. Legally, a challenge to that assent is now well-nigh impossible. Indeed, Hunt and the Government would probably be on the receiving end of a writ it they were obstructive.

Let’s assume for a moment that the deal is done, that the Murdochs have pacified BSkyB shareholders with an eye-watering amount of money and are now the proud possessors of the rest of the organisation. What are the repercussions for NewsCorp and in particular its UK-centric arm, NI, in the wake of a full takeover?

BSkyB is one of the UK’s most powerful companies with, just to give the flavour, a marketing communications budget of £1.2bn a year. It is phenomenally cash rich. One estimate reckons that, once acquired, it would contribute 30% of NewsCorp’s cashflow. Like the Murdochs’ newspapers, it is UK-centric. Unlike the newspapers, it is highly profitable. Unlike the newspapers again, it is still a dynamic growth business, which has made good use of product innovation.

In short, it would be the jewel in NI’s crown. Who better to manage that jewel in the new, enlarged organisation – a man of untarnished reputation who intimately understands subscription TV; or Brooks, with her yesterday’s tabloids background?

Of course, I have no idea whether Darroch would actually be interested in such a proposition. He may well take his money and run. But it’s worth thinking about, isn’t it?

UPDATE 17.30 – 7/7/11: So, The News of the World is no more. The Sunday edition, shorn of advertising, will be the last in the newspaper’s 168-year history. Nothing could more graphically illustrate the gravity of the crisis engulfing NewsCorp than that its chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch should take the drastic step of closing his most profitable newspaper and the one – to boot – he started out with back in 1969. The suspicion lingers that a skeleton NoW staff will be retained to flesh out a 7-day version of The Sun. “The Sun on Sunday” has long been rumoured as a cost-cutting project. How typical of Murdoch that he should turn a disaster into a publishing opportunity.

UPDATE 7/7/11: Determination not to be the last advertiser at the News of the World has now reached frenzied proportions, as Vauxhall, Virgin Holidays, O2 (£1m), Boots (£800,000) and  Sainsbury’s stampede to the exit with Ford, nPower and Lloyds Banking Group. Morrisons next, I suspect. Will anyone be buying the paper anyway? Newsagents expect a boycott on Sunday.


Ofcom ‘double standards’ in BT pension investigation

December 4, 2009

If I were Jeremy Darroch, chief executive of BSkyB, I would be incandescent at Ofcom giving BT a sympathetic hearing over its proposal to cane consumers with extra broadband charges so it can stuff its depleted pension fund.

Here’s why.  Ofcom appears to be operating a set of dual standards when it comes to regulatory investigation. On the one hand, it is perfectly prepared to consider lowering the wholesale prices that BSkyB charges its rivals for pay-TV programme rights. Principal beneficiaries? Virgin Media, Top Up TV and, er, BT Vision.

On the other hand, it is equally prepared to consider raising wholesale prices when such an action would benefit BT. As for example, with the line rental charged by BT wholesale subsidiary Openreach to third party broadband customers, such as TalkTalk  – and BSkyB. Ofcom says it wants to benefit the end-user of pay-TV by lowering prices; yet contradictorily it implies end-users generally may have to carry the passed-on burden of raised broadband tariff prices should BT’s pension stuffing be deemed ‘in the public interest’.

There’s more. The ostensible reason for an investigation into the pay-TV market is that BSkyB operates a complex monopoly, which may need to be moderated by introducing an independent pricing structure monitored by Ofcom. Wait a minute, though. Doesn’t BT also operate a complex monopoly – in the supply of broadband (copper-wire-based) infrastructure? And isn’t Ofcom opening itself to the charge of propping up that monopoly if it let’s BT’s proposal through?

The crux of the BT rationale is that it provides a vital public service, at a loss. In other words, it has had to run a pension deficit as a result of conditions (the regulatory framework; the rising longevity of its employees etc) beyond its reasonable control.

Yet it is far from evident that these are the only, or even the major, preconditions which have led to BT’s pension deficit. After all, isn’t this the same BT that for some years declined to pay money into its pension fund, to the more or less exclusive benefit of shareholders? And which wilfully embarked on a high-risk global expansion strategy that eventually boomeranged on all its stakeholders disastrously?

Ofcom, which has no doubt employed entirely objective criteria in investigating these separate yet related issues, nonetheless risks accusations of conflict of interest if it finds in favour of BT. All the more so because it has now become a football in the increasingly acrimonious war between HMG and Rupert Murdoch. If the NewsCorp-backed Tories get in next year, Ofcom will most likely find itself history.


%d bloggers like this: