SABC Ripping people off so that they can show a profit

[Jarrod]

Hi All.

A few days back there was an article about SABC and they boasting that they made a few hundred million rand profit this year. This weekend it dawned on me that SABC no longer shows live sport ( rugby or F1 ). So it is not really the SABC making a profit its more a game of we show u less and we charge u the same.

Seems like the SABC and Telkom are doing the same thing , Ripping the public off.

[Raithlin]

I believe F1 will be coming back live next year, and they do still show it - it's just delayed. <rant>Sport is more a case of Multichoice getting exclusive rights - which is pointless IMO, because how many people (relative to population) can actually afford it...</rant>

[craigsa]

Exactly !!!

[killadoob]

ummm well sabc costs around 20 rand a month

yes its not the best but i mean its 20 rand month

thats ripping us off big time phew imagine how much more money i would have if i didnt have a tv licence. maybe a new merc or bmw in about 20000 years

[werner]

and that is why sabc should be part of the bidding, and try ensure that THEY get the contract and not multichoice, as every citizen with a tv license pays the sabc to do just that.

I am sure they say they do already, but DO they? Do they have your best interests at heart when spending your license fee?

In the previous thread I mentioned similar views, but it is good to see that I am not alone in my thinking.

If most of the population do nto have multichoice, and most of the population wants to watch rugby, then that means sabc has a very good reason to ensure they have rugby coverage, or F1, or motogp, or arctic-seal tossing or whatever sport is most popular.

[Raithlin]

Arctic seal tossing. Riveting stuff. :D

[Jarrod]

I believe F1 will be coming back live next year, and they do still show it - it's just delayed. <rant>Sport is more a case of Multichoice getting exclusive rights - which is pointless IMO, because how many people (relative to population) can actually afford it...</rant>

But Multichoice does not force u to pay them its a matter of choice. But SABC forces you to pay them even if u only use DSTV and as for radio stations they all suck nowaday :P
My point was not what they show but them not buying exclusive rites to programs anymore then they brag to the public that they have made one big profit. They do not have their viewers at heart only thier pockets.

[killadoob]

thats business

but what i can say is that its costs alot to have have the rugby the soccer f1 i dont think that your 20 rand a month should mean them spending millions on formula1 it is only 20 rand.

i know the adverts cover the cost of the f1 or soccer etc but how could you out bid supersport?

and so many ppl have SS these days if they did have f1 they have a small %age of ppl that would watch it because out of 100 ppl who watch f1i would say 50% of those have dstv and would rather watch dstv because of adverts, which in turn means their advertising has to be cheaper and then my question is does that cover the cost?

[werner]

thats business

but what i can say is that its costs alot to have have the rugby the soccer f1 i dont think that your 20 rand a month should mean them spending millions on formula1 it is only 20 rand.

multiplied that by however million tv licenses in existence.



i know the adverts cover the cost of the f1 or soccer etc but how could you out bid supersport?

you can outbid them easily, seeing as you made Rmillions profit, that was obviously "spare" money you had available which should be spent in the best interests of your consumers. Not "pocketed".

[Debbie]

Well the difference here is that the money SABC makes is not going into shareholder's pockets.

[pookfuzz]

R20 a month is not a lot, however it still more than you should be paying. Almost all our big industries here desperately need deregulation.

eTV proves that free television is possible, even when forced to adopt social responsibilities. We are beyond the point where a state sponsored station is needed, the industry can sustain itself now. The market should be opened up to allow additional stations, more stations = more content = more jobs = more happy consumers.

Regional radio works, so no reason why regional TV can't do the same, customise the content to the audience of the area or a particular demographic. This leads to cheaper operational costs and a more loyal viewer.

Satellite would be the cheapest route for broadcasting and I am sure the PanAm would love to get additional usage out of their satellites. If religious groups and Jet Clothing Stores can afford to push out a channel I am sure it must be very affordable.

[werner]

cmon, dont leave me waiting in agony:-), where does the extra money go? why cant they spend that cash on getting some sporting licenses, or making better/more sitcoms/investigative reports?

[RoosTa]

I believe F1 will be coming back live next year, and they do still show it - it's just delayed. <rant>Sport is more a case of Multichoice getting exclusive rights - which is pointless IMO, because how many people (relative to population) can actually afford it...</rant>

F1 was on SABC2 last night, though it wasn't live which is understandable since there are only 3 channels compared to 7-8 channels dedicated to sport on DSTV. Also Multichoice have much deeper pockets.

SABC have been showing much better sitcom series than mnet or even the series channel. I think that where their money is going to.

[killadoob]

well firsly etv is one channel

sabc is 3 which shouldnt make a difference

dstv 1 million 400 million a month
they dont make much money from advertising because all they is shove their own channel advertising

20 x prolly 15 million that actually pay it

300 million a month
comedy's on sabc 3? they not cheap i doubt the advertising covers the cost

but to be honest i dont watch tv the only reason im still a dstv subscriber is purely sport, mainly soccer

bf 2 is all the entertainment i need o yes i also love E channel 41

laroosta why u not playin bf 2? i see you no more