« Topics
1234...8910
steddenm1,291 posts since 11 Oct 2004
Central (West) Midlands Today
Correct. Daily Milk Turkish didn't replace Fry's Turkish Delight, unlike Bubbly replacing Wispa, which was later reverted. Caramel was just a name change.


A change of outfit, you mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUxzQCzYQlI

Although since then they have reverted back to larger Caramel branding.


Wispa was actually retired by Cadbury a long while before Cadbury Dairy Milk Bubbly was launched and was a completely separate brand.

A Wispa doesn't use the Dairy Milk recipe at all, it's the same recipe that is used for Flake, Double Decker etc.

Both Wispa and Cadbury Dairy Milk Bubbly are still available at retailers.

Cadbury Ireland however have recently upset Irish residents by rebranding the Cadbury Moro to Cadbury Boost. Although both the same bars, Moro was a bigger brand in Ireland as Cadbury Dairy Milk Tiffin, Mint Crisp and Caramello are.

Cadbury Ireland actually use milk in their recipe for bars made in Dublin, whereas Cadbury UK use milk powder in there's and they aren't shy of telling people. The glass-and-a-half of Milk in every bar slogan has long gone in the UK but is still widely used on adverts in Ireland.
"Stop touching Dot's pussy - you don't know where it's been!" (Honey Mitchell, EastEnders)
DJGM2,498 posts since 4 Jan 2003
Granada North West Today
Well, the chocolate talk continues, despite an attempt to bring the thread back on . . .

*

Laughing
Tune in to "The Not-So-Late-Show with Greg Mitchell" Thursday afternoons at 1pm on Roch Valley Radio!
rochvalleyradio.org.uk
2
davidhorman and Austin Tatious gave kudos
Mouseboy331,730 posts since 10 Feb 2014
My attempt at getting back on topic...

Well if they indeed spin off, whats been described as the "loss-making' SkyNews, that is probably going to be the most interesting development, IMO, out all this mess. If SkyNews cant make money, it will be interesting to see how they can continue operating with no profit coming in after years of being propped up by SkyTv. The channel has been run as virtually a vanity project since its creation without fear of serious repercussions financially. Does that mean they will continue to make, IMO, bone-headed creative decisions? Right now they know the money is there to do basically what they want, within reason (of course they have a budget) without any thought to the channel folding or closing because Sky's got deep pockets. If they are spun-off, they will have to consider any changes very carefully and the whole thinking of the channel (From management down) will need to change from being a virtually "corporate funded" channel to one that has to turn a profit to survive.

How do they monetize their product with-out having a sugar daddy bank-rolling their operation? Before the consolidations and take-overs and such, CNN successfully came up with a formula for a large global commercial news channel to operate successfully without being bankrolled like the BBC, Sky or AJE. (Affiliation deals, CNNewsource, etc. http://www.cnnnewsource.com/) After losing money for years, Sky News, operational mentality will need a major overhaul to making a profit if its spun off. How could this affect their product? Thats the big question.
I said what I said!
62305818,549 posts since 19 Aug 2005
STV Central Reporting Scotland
You have misunderstand, current 39% stake 21st Century has will remain for sky news, I bet there be a clause somewhere it cant get rid if this deal goes ahead. its the other 61% which will be spined off to others. Sky news will still be propped up by Sky.
Is the next post dreaded?
London Lite6,934 posts since 4 Jan 2003
London London
You have misunderstand, current 39% stake 21st Century has will remain for sky news, I bet there be a clause somewhere it cant get rid if this deal goes ahead. its the other 61% which will be spined off to others. Sky news will still be propped up by Sky.


At most, Sky will franchise the 'Sky News' brand to another company, with Sky providing facilities in a similar arrangement to how Global have franchise operations for Heart FM operated by Communicorp UK and Adventure Radio. Under this arrangement Global provide access to buildings with office and studio space to the franchisee along with technical assistance.

Sky would also provide sales for the channel under contract with the new owner in the same way Viacom allow them to sell ads on their behalf.
Stuart6,503 posts since 13 Oct 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
I appreciate that Murdoch is the owner of both 21CFox and NewsCorp, but they are now entirely separate companies.

His newspaper publishing businesses are now totally within NewsCorp, which won't have anything to do with Sky, or any shares in it. The takeover bid is just by 21CFox.

Can Ofcom even object to the takeover, or insist on any internal reorganisations (such as with Sky News), on the basis that the new company has a major shareholder who happens to have the majority share in another separate media company?
1
Inspector Sands gave kudos
Mouseboy331,730 posts since 10 Feb 2014
If Rupert & Co were even considering dumping SkyNews back in 2011, they probably wouldnt hesitate to do it again if it meant they can secure ownership of Sky. NewsCorp and 21CFox "separation" aside....everyone knows is all Rupert all the time. These huge companies are full of it, especially NewsCorp/21CFox. This whole transaction will be interesting to watch.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/news-corp-to-spin-off-sky-news/
I said what I said!
Stuart6,503 posts since 13 Oct 2003
Westcountry Spotlight
If Rupert & Co were even considering dumping SkyNews back in 2011, they probably wouldnt hesitate to do it again if it meant they can secure ownership of Sky.

But the reasoning at the time was that the prospective purchaser of BSkyB in 2011 was the 'old' News Corporation, and there was a question of a single company having too much control of both broadcast and published media in the UK.


Technically, that's no longer the case with the new bidder.
Mouseboy331,730 posts since 10 Feb 2014
If Rupert & Co were even considering dumping SkyNews back in 2011, they probably wouldnt hesitate to do it again if it meant they can secure ownership of Sky.

But the reasoning at the time was that the prospective purchaser of BSkyB in 2011 was the 'old' News Corporation, and there was a question of a single company having too much control of both broadcast and published media in the UK.


Technically, that's no longer the case with the new bidder.


"Technically" being the key word.
I said what I said!
62305818,549 posts since 19 Aug 2005
STV Central Reporting Scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/13/rupert-murdoch-unlikely-to-spin-off-sky-news-in-takeover-battle

Quote:

Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox is not expected to offer Sky News as a regulatory pawn to secure an £11.2bn takeover of Britain’s largest pay-TV broadcaster.

Under a previous acquisition attempt in 2011, Murdoch struck a deal to spin off the loss-making Sky News in a bid to appease concerns raised by Ofcom, the media industry watchdog. However, it is understood that Fox believes that the industry landscape has changed significantly since then and that there should be less concern over the impact of a deal on the diversity of viewpoints across the media.

Murdoch’s stance emerged as a group of Sky shareholders called for “robust” safeguards to protect the broadcaster’s “future probity” if Fox takes full control of the business. Alongside its call for safeguards, the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, an association of 71 funds that control about 0.7% of Sky, also called for Ofcom to scrutinise the deal. Fox, which already owns 39% of Sky, is seeking to buy the remaining 61%.

Referring to the phone-hacking scandal that derailed the previous Murdoch bid for Sky, the LAPFF said: “Any recommendation by the board in favour would have to be based on an appropriate premium as well as safeguards for future probity given the past track records of the businesses controlled by the Murdochs.

“Further clarity may also be needed so that public shareholders have full confidence that proposals are not being unduly influenced by the well-known relationships between Sky and 21st Century Fox.”...........................................
Is the next post dreaded?