Cost of Re-branding ESB Customer Supply and Bord Gais Energy

Fnergg

ESBCS and BGE have been instructed by the CER to re-brand themselves in the interests of avoiding confusion with the Networks arms of their respective parent companies.

The Regulator claims this has to be done because of an EU directive (although Liz McManus TD maintains that is not so).

(You can see the full meeting of the relevant Oireachtas Joint Committee here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=16195&&CatID=127)

John Mullins of BGE stated the initial cost for them would be €20 million followed by a further €20 million over time in order to build brand awareness. The ESB costs presumably would be similar, if not more.

The Regulator responded by saying that he didn't think it would cost that much and that it could be delivered for a lesser amount. But he didn't know.

So, we the customers could be faced with a bill for upwards of €80 million.

For what end?

Where is the confusion in customers' minds? Competition in the domestic market has been very successful - the highest rate of switching per capita in Europe - and, as Liz McManus pointed out, Irish customers are intelligent enough to appreciate the difference between the supply and networks companies.

And as John Mullins of Bord Gais reminded everyone, the UK utilities have not re-branded.

And here we are, the poor man of Europe, about to embark on a very expensive re-branding operation that will cost us all dearly.

This is plainly nuts.

Yet another example of regulation not looking after the interests of ordinary customers.

Regards,

Fnergg

moceri

ESB is sitting on a mountain of cash, in part due to the super-profits from the last few years on inflated prices set by the regulator. Thanks to them we have the most expensive electricity (when standing Charges are factored in) in Europe.

I think the Government should demand the excess profts be paid to them by way of dividend, as a majority shareholder, particularly at this time when the Governement is badly strapped for Cash.

foggy_lad

Complete madness to even suggest this rebranding! EVeryone knows that the esb networks makes the electricity and sells to customer supply as well as bord gais energy. MOst people don't even care as long as the regulator does not insist on price increases!

Cabaal

Rebranding makes sense, alot of consumers still think ESB is the big owner of everything and this is due to the confusion between ESB customer supply and networks most people don;'t know they are seperate.

The ESB have plenty of money for such a change.

I honestly don't see how this is a consumer issue

Fnergg

Cabaal wrote: »

Rebranding makes sense, alot of consumers still think ESB is the big owner of everything and this is due to the confusion between ESB customer supply and networks most people don;'t know they are seperate.

The ESB have plenty of money for such a change.

I honestly don't see how this is a consumer issue

It's very much a consumer issue because the costs of such re-branding will be passed on to customers via higher gas and electricity prices. Who do you think is going to pay for it?

"The ESB have plenty of money": the costs will have to be borne by ESB Customer Supply - not the larger ESB Group (that wouldn't be allowed by the Regulator). Neither ESBCS nor BGE have "plenty of money" and in fact are operating on profit margins of approx 1% to 2 % .

Have no doubt: the customer WILL pay for it .

Regards,

Fnergg

Cabaal

Fnergg wrote: »

It's very much a consumer issue because the costs of such re-branding will be passed on to customers via higher gas and electricity prices. Who do you think is going to pay for it?

Its ESB Customer Supply that would be changing the name, if you don't like ESBCS extra prices (thats IF they even did pass on such charges) then move to another company.

You are not restricted to only using customer supply anymore,

Essentially your complaining about a hypothetical situation that
1. Hasn't happened yet and may not even happen
2. You are not forced to remain their customer

ESB Customer supply like any company can make a company decision, in much the same way as Eircom can but you as a consumer has choice.

Would you also company if Tesco decided to change its name in the morning?

And as John Mullins of Bord Gais reminded everyone, the UK utilities have not re-branded.

As somebody who has day to day experience with dealing with BT Openreach in the UK I can tell you for a fact that customers are confused and Mr Mullins "defense" is a laugh.

Most end users in the UK do not understand that BT Openreach and BT Retail operate as separate company's, yet BT Openreach does not deal with end users directly unless instructed by the end users ISP be it Virgin, TalkTalk or BT Retail.

As end users don't understand this it is extremely common for other ISP's customer to ring BT Retail looking for engineers etc thinking that they can fix a Broadband fault for a service that they (BT Retail) are not supplying them (the customer).

Rebranding is very much a good idea in this respect and it should have happened years ago in the UK so lets not make the same mistake here.

MJordan

Cabaal wrote: »

Most end users in the UK do not understand that BT Openreach and BT Retail operate as separate company's, yet BT Openreach does not deal with end users directly unless instructed by the end users ISP be it Virgin, TalkTalk or BT Retail.

As end users don't understand this it is extremely common for other ISP's customer to ring BT Retail looking for engineers etc thinking that they can fix a Broadband fault for a service that they (BT Retail) are not supplying them (the customer).

I disagree with re-branding and think it is a total waste of cash. A simple phone call or email is enough for the end-user to realize that they are onto the wrong person / company.

I would assume (not knowing anything about) and automated message system / separate link on a website would be cheaper than the crazy figures mentioned previously.

Make no mistake this cash isn't just lying around and needs to come from somewhere. That somewhere will rent them the cash and the associated cost will need to be passed onto, guess who?

Cabaal

MJordan wrote: »

I disagree with re-branding and think it is a total waste of cash. A simple phone call or email is enough for the end-user to realize that they are onto the wrong person / company.

Again from experience this won't work, you can explain but unless you sit down everyone and explain the differences it won't be 100%.

If you call people you'll annoy them, if you e-mail people first off you need to obtain their e-mail addy and see below point and second you have to ensure the actually get off their arse and read it.

Rebranding is the only sure way to stop ongoing confusion.

I would assume (not knowing anything about) and automated message system / separate link on a website would be cheaper than the crazy figures mentioned previously.

Given the amount of people with no internet or Broadband access in this country I wouldn't be too sure.

Make no mistake this cash isn't just lying around and needs to come from somewhere. That somewhere will rent them the cash and the associated cost will need to be passed onto, guess who?

So who's forcing you to pay them any extra cash IF they did decided to pass it on? Again its speculation that they would do such a thing.

Again would you complain if Tesco decided to change its name, or Lidl?

Nobody's forcing you to do business with ESB Customer supply.
If you believe you must then this in itself likely shows that you are confused by the two company names.

MJordan

Nobody forcing me but that doesn't remove the fact that it is a waste of cash.

Perhaps those resources more wisely invested would introduce a less expensive and more competitive energy unit into the marketplace. Having the usual knock-on effect.

Whether you get your energy from a, b, c, or d is irrelevant as most likely at that stage you are basing your decision on cost and the name is irrelevant.

Although......... The company who you would decide to go with might disagree, looking at it being a lost opportunity for brand awareness, if you were walking around the place happy with your energy unit cost but not entirely sure who was suppling it to you.

As per usual there is a Company / Customer contrasting perspective.

dudara

Moved to Irish Economy

dudara

parsi

Cabaal wrote: »

.

Again would you complain if Tesco decided to change its name, or Lidl?

Actually a more valid comparison would be if Tesco was _forced_ to rebrand. It doe seem strange that a company would be forced to undergo a potentially expensive and unwanted rebranding exercise.

What if it was decided that airtricity had to rebrand to "coalgasandabitofair-tricity" ?

Cabaal

parsi wrote: »

Actually a more valid comparison would be if Tesco was _forced_ to rebrand. It doe seem strange that a company would be forced to undergo a potentially expensive and unwanted rebranding exercise.

But again the rebrand is for a reason as the ESB brand is not seen as two seperate companys by the vast majority of consumers, we've seen numerous times on this message board alone that this needs to be explained to users time and time again.

Same goes for BG which will become more of a issue as time goes by.

Red Alert

This is the same CER that refuses to allow ESBCS to reduce prices to customer in the interests of foreign generating companies. Another quango that should be flushed down the toilet.