Life is just a box of chocolates

Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2010 has been good to you all so far and that you are not experiencing the New Year blues. Scientists claim that the week just gone is the most depressing of the year. Let's look at the positives, another week and most of us should have received our first pay packet of the new decade and it isn't too long now until summer comes.

Well, I trust you have all been sticking rigidly to your New Year's resolutions and have become finer citizens as a result. Me, well, I didn't make any resolutions. That way I figured that there was no expectation and I wouldn't feel guilty if I had already broken them by the time the Christmas decorations came down.

As ever quite a few things have been going on to talk about. But the blog title may give a clue as to what the main topic of discussion will be.

Cadbury's being bought by Kraft
The main talking point in the business pages over the past week or so has been the news that the Cadbury's confectionery group has been bought out by Kraft, the American foods company with a vast portfolio of brands, but which is possibly most well known for its Philadelphia cheese spread brand. Kraft had been an active suitor of Cadbury's for several months and they had made a number of "hostile" takeover bids, which Cadbury's management had previously rebuffed. However, a bid of around £12 billion ultimately proved too enticing to shareholders who voted for the takeover to be accepted, no doubt having visions of the killing they could make on their shares. One wonders whether a Wispaing campaign prompted the sudden change of heart.

The general consensus of opinion appears to be that this is a victory for cut-throat Capitalist gains but a kick in the teeth for British industry and for Cadbury's staff. Cadbury's is intrinsically linked to the West Midlands area in which it originated and its Bournville operation is one of Cadbury's strongest emblems. The Bournville name is so associated with Cadbury's that they even lended its name to one of its small chocolate bars. To this day, the firm remains one of the leading employers in the West Midlands and so this takeover by an American company, renowned for closing plants in order to improve efficiency leaves many staff pondering their job security. Just a few years after the closure of Rover, the spectre of potential unemployment hangs large over England's second city.

On first impressions, it would seem that Cadbury's were coerced into selling themselves due to the guerilla style tactics adopted by Kraft. Certainly, it would seem that the hierarchy within Cadbury's did all they could to resist the lure of their American cousins. Months of stand offs took place with the irresistible force of Kraft's intentions coming to no avail against the immovable object of Cadbury's. This begs two questions. What was it that meant Kraft kept persisting? What was in it for them, especially considering the great expense to which Kraft were prepared to go in order to snare Bournville's finest? Secondly, what was it that changed for Cadbury's? What do they get from their union with the powerful American firm?

Dealing with the first question first, Kraft know that the power of the Cadbury's brand will enable them to conquer new markets. Cadbury's has such a powerful brand identity the world over and its portfolio of chocolate bars attract loyalty in many far flung outposts. Think of chocolate and the name of Cadbury's is one of the first words that you would associate with the brown foodstuff. Kraft, by contrast, has relatively minimal presence in the confectionery markets. It acquired Terry's, the English confectioner famous for its Chocolate Orange and All Gold products, in 1993 but with due respect, Terry's is a comparatively small fish against the Leviathan prsence that Cadbury's has in the global chocolate market. Cadbury's previous acquisition of chewing gum producers also allows Kraft to enter another market it does not presently operate in.

The Cadbury's name is all powerful and the quality of its products is well renowned but the principles of the company which are ingrained in the company are what makes it special. Thomas Cadbury, like Joseph Rowntree his fellow confectioner, was a Quaker who believed in Puritan principles of giving back something to people in society who were deprived. Hence these names being given to charitable trusts that still operate to this day. Although the Rowntrees name still appears on many chocolate bars, they have been part of the Nestle empire for the past decade, a Nestle name that is much maligned due to its perceived Capitalist attitudes.

People will see that there is a danger of Cadbury's heading the same way now that it has been acquired by Kraft. However, I think Kraft should do well to remember the power of the Cadbury's brand and what it stands for. Although Cadbury's is now part of the Kraft "family", many of Cadbury's leading branded goods are just so associated with the Cadbury's name that they should adopt a standalone approach to the branding of these products. Using the Cadbury's name will enable Kraft to enter new markets and new regions and so Kraft's marketing men should ensure that they make the most of the good name they have acquired for the princely sum of £12 billion.

To go back to my questions, I asked what would be in it for Cadbury's by them entering into this marriage of convenience with Kraft. Well, it would seem that although Cadbury's is largely the market leader for confectionery in the UK and a fair chunk of continental Europe, in other parts of the world, such as the Americas and the Far East, it finds itself lagging behind Mars in terms of market share. Although Kraft does not have much experience in the confectionery markets, it has good background knowledge of these regions due to the success of some of its other food products. This knowledge appears to be the vote swinger and could present a number of new opportunities for Cadbury's and for the diversification of the brand into new products.

There are concerns though, both for those directly affected by this deal and those indirectly so. Kraft have shown in the past that they are quite willing to make efficiency cuts and relocations in order to save money. Terry's chocolates for example are no longer produced in the original home town of the confectioner, York, but instead they are produced in the world's very hotbed of chocolate products, Poland. Rumour has it that Kraft agreed a deal to set up chocolate factories in downtown Krakow in exchange for 100 plumbers to be dispatched to the West Midlands, although this may just be a myth. Job cuts are likely to occur at some point, but there must be particular concern that the iconic Bournville could be closed down. Personally, I doubt this will happen, certainly not in the short term. Bournville is an important part of the Cadbury's brand and so if the plant is to be phased out, it will be done over time. That doesn't mean to say there won't be redundancies there. I expect this will be inevitable. What I do envisage happening is that other factories could be closed and it is certainly feasible that some relocations to Eastern Europe or Asia could be part of the strategy.

On a wider point, it is a sad reality that there are very few British companies with a global profile that still exist due to their swallowing up by foreign direct investment. The British car market ceased to be some time ago, but within the banking and utility sectors there are very few major players that are wholly British owned now. This is something that we bemoan, after all Britain invented all of these things, didn't they? Chocolate? Tick. Banks? Ah yes. Cars? Of course, that Henry Ford was Dagenham born and bred. Ah, hang on.

Speaking of banks, the news that Kraft had been lent some money by the Royal Bank of Scotland to part finance their takeover was greeted with uproar in some quarters because of RBS being in Government hands and this deal seemingly not being in the national interest. Realistically though, the RBS would have had no business vetoing this deal. Regardless of whether a bank is privately or publicly owned, its only consideration when lending money should be whether the transaction poses too great a risk to them. So long as Kraft showed concrete evidence that its adoption of Cadbury's posed no major risk to its long term financial sustainability then RBS were perfectly entitled to lend its customer the money it needed. Once banks start getting involved in ethical concerns and not on what is a financially viable project then you get problems and that is why banks failed in the first place, hence some of them being put up for public ownership.

While it is sad that Cadbury's employees face an uncertain future due to the corporate muscle that Kraft have exercised, it does not need to be the end of the Cadbury's story. There are too many identifiable products that are so intrinsically part of the Cadbury's family and the fabric and ethos that added up to the Cadbury's name is too powerful for Kraft to shed after 200 years of heritage. Sadly there are casualties in every war, but it would be counter-productive for Kraft to be too gung-ho in its approach. Apart from the not inconsiderable financial motivations, it was for reasons of synergy that this union came to pass and the knowledge of markets that Kraft and Cadbury's can both impart is likely to ensure that both names continue to flourish for the foreseeable future, even if the ownership is no longer in British hands.

Jonathan Ross leaving the BBC
The news of Jonathan Ross's departure from the BBC did not elicit a great deal of surprise, although it did receive plenty of press and Internet message board scrutiny in the days that followed the announcement. The main question was whether Ross chose to leave before he was pushed in order to pursue greater autonomy and possibly far greater riches in pastures new, or alternatively, whether the BBC chose not to renew Ross's contract beyond the summer because they felt Ross's continued presence left them with a permanent souvenir, a millstone around the neck, from the absurdly overblown Sachsgate affair.

Whilst we can only speculate on the conversations and events that led to this privately conducted parting of the ways that was so paradoxically played out in the public eye, it would seem reasonable to conclude that Ross took his decision to leave before he was pushed, or before he was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no deal. By commenting that he never negotiated a new deal, this makes it appear that Ross made the decision to leave and that the BBC were willing to let their most prosperously remunerated employee move on to more creative freedom with no hard feelings.

The truth of course, is somewhat different to the euphemistic and cordial ending that Ross and the BBC execs would like to pass off as the gospel. From the BBC point of view, Ross's continued stay at the BBC after so many other names implicated in the Sachs affair sacrificed themselves has meant that the one time TV researcher has become a continual elephant in the room and it has been becoming increasingly apparent from the media coverage amongst the BBC's most hostile enemies that Ross would have remained so for as long as he was on the BBC payroll and appearing across their network.

From Ross's end, the aftermath of Sachsgate and the culture of compliance that it created is that he has been stifled of creative freedom. In short, he has been muzzled and an off-the-cuff performer like Ross is not going to work well in such conditions. Firstly, his chat show was heavily edited upon Ross's return from suspension at the beginning of last year, with neither Ross or his guests allowed to swear even mildly on the show. Although there have still been some very interesting and amusing interviews conducted, Ross's interview style has suffered a little for becoming too stiff, with Ross not always able to relax and be himself.

Furthermore, it is likely that the straw that broke the camel's back was the decision to pre-record Ross's Saturday morning Radio 2 show. Personally, I thought this was a big mistake and it was a decision that neither Ross nor his radio show have recovered from. The great selling point of Ross's show was the spontaneity and energy that his live radio programme offered. Yes, at times there were caustic comments and banter that would have upset the type of people that go out of their way to look for offence. But the show was the perfect way to lie in on a Saturday morning and get you in the mood for the weekend. Once the show became pre-recorded, the edginess and spontaneity associated with the show was drained out.

In public, Ross seemed unabashed so far as this was concerned and even said that it was good that he could pre-record the show as he could spend more time with his children at the weekend. In private though, you somewhat suspect that Ross knew this arrangement could not be sustained. There was no comeback and the longer he stayed at the BBC, the more he would be muzzled. A parting was to be inevitable, the question would just be when.

This is not a bad time for Jonathan Ross to make a career change. Ross is 50 years old this year and he can look upon himself as one of television's great survivors, given that he first appeared on our screens over 20 years ago as the host of Channel 4's late night chat show "The Last Resort". Ross is sometimes perceived as an arrogant man by some sections of the public, but the name of his first television project is actually a prime example of his self-depracating nature, given that he only stepped in front of the camera when everyone else who had been asked had said no.

Due to the current economic situation that is being faced the world over, I think you will see a shift from the days when top light entertainment and comedy stars will enter in to "golden handcuffs" arrangements with networks and you will see more performers wanting the autonomy to pick and choose what projects they take on with whom without being tied to a contract. The BBC continues to have some performers that are in a tied arrangement, most notably Graham Norton, but I would anticipate there being a reduction in these arrangements over the course of time.

There has been some talk that Jonathan Ross's future may be outside of this country and that he may particularly be courted Stateside. After all, Ross has interviewed many of Hollywood's A-listers on both his chat show and on the Film programme and appears to have a good rapport with his subjects. I can see this school of thought, especially as the template for Ross's chat show is far closer to the type of talk show that David Letterman and Jay Leno have presented over the pond than it is to the more conventional, stiff Parky-esque British template of chat. However, Ross is a huge animal lover who owns three dogs as well as a number of other exotic pets and so I doubt he would want to contemplate putting pets in quarantine in order to crack America for a sustained period. Maybe like Cat Deeley he could divide his time between both countries, but I think there will be other projects to occupy his time closer to home.

From looking around the message boards, it seems that Ross has made a lot of enemies with the British public and it may take time for him to rebuild his reputation. Perhaps with that in mind, his best approach may be to avoid ubiquity in the months after his BBC contract expires in the summer but instead to pick and choose his projects carefully. There are certain types of show that Ross has not really ventured into before, such as travel programmes and game shows (apart from the famous Only Fools & Horses Christmas special) and I could see his agent being approached to ask for Ross's involvement in these types of show. The programme that Ross did on Japanese culture for BBC3 a few years ago was both informative and entertaining and I could see him using his wit and irreverence to good effect in travelog type programmes in the way Clive James used to.

Ross's main passions though are the movies and comics and so you would expect his future career projects to have a focus on these subjects. The BBC may have dumped Ross for now, but there is definitely a market for other networks to approach Ross with a view to him presenting a film interview type programme. Some of Ross's best interviews have been with film stars and his knowledge of the big screen is exceptional. Just because the door at the BBC has closed, I very much doubt that we have seen the end of the Jonathan Ross story. It might just be that like Noel Edmonds, he spends some time in the wilderness before enjoying a renaissance in his mid-50s as a result of landing a project that is a hit with the British public, as Edmonds managed with Deal Or No Deal.

At the moment, Ross is a convenient emblem for what is wrong with the country among people who are down on their luck. Just as the bankers are despised for being paid obscene bonuses when their investments have failed, so Ross's stock has dropped because he has been identified as overpaid, overrated and over here. Overexposure is more of an issue now than in the past due to the intense cult of celebrity that exists in the media. But you do not just become a bad performer overnight and a change of environment with greater licence to be himself again might just give the great JR the kickstart his career is in need of.