DStv rakes it in for Multichoice

[Giarc86]

It might be overpriced, but consider they're running at a 23% profit. What would you call an acceptable profit margin? 10%? That means they're overpriced by around 13% - I wouldn't call that a "ripoff", it's just "a little overpriced".

I don't think people realise the real problem are the content makers charging so much for the broadcast rights. DSTV are just the messenger of high prices, and everyone just blames them.

I think when you compare them to overseas packages, which one shouldn't do, they are a ripoff.

 

[SeRpEnT]

"DSTV a massive hit" - Just WTF did you expect to happen in a country where DSTV have the monopoly?

 

[elvis_presley]

I think when you compare them to overseas packages, which one shouldn't do, they are a ripoff.

Actually, if you compare against Sky and US packages, they really aren't. It's not uncommon for US users to spend >$100 on their TV/Sports, and they're not THAT much better than DSTV - say what you want about them, but DSTV's content is pretty good.

 

[Bighit]

How do you downgrade the package you are on? Do you need to phone the call centre, or can you do it on the self service page?

Self Service tool does the job.

 

[JustAsk]

It might be overpriced, but consider they're running at a 23% profit. What would you call an acceptable profit margin? 10%? That means they're overpriced by around 13% - I wouldn't call that a "ripoff", it's just "a little overpriced".

I don't think people realise the real problem are the content makers charging so much for the broadcast rights. DSTV are just the messenger of high prices, and everyone just blames them.

Crap.

Dstv pays for a lot to keep others out.

1 Channels like TLC they pay a higher carriage fee per sub just to keep it from Starsat.Also ENCA got paid exclusive carriage fees. Also the R500 million bribe to the SABC to keep them off any paytv dtt offering are paid in carriage fees for a news channel and an non-existant entertainment channel.Who do you think pays that?
2 They buy tv rights for example rugby for the whole of Africa, again an unneccasary cost paid by the rugby lover in S.A.
3 In series and movies they not only pay first windows rights,they also pay second window rights for Africa, making sure broadcasters like Starsat,Zap,Zuku,Startimes will air those 1-4 years later.
4 They pay for exclusive vod rights, premium vod rights,online streaming rights for Africa.

If our goverment successfully caterogize our sport into codes just like most of the sporting world, i will forever vote for them.

 

[Necuno]

DStv rakes it in for Multichoice


Naspers’ latest results show that DStv broke the 5 million subscriber mark in South Africa

Didn't know there was that many sheep

 

[elvis_presley]

Dstv pays for a lot to keep others out.

Yup, and if their competition had half a chance to do it, they would. That's business - exclusives is how this game works. I won't defend it - I think it sucks, but that's how it's worked out. It happens in every industry, and I bet even the companies you love most participate in this practice in one form or another.

Dethroning DSTV will take years. The competition has to go to the content providers and secure those rights and break exclusives when DSTV's contracts expire. I'd rather pay a bit of a premium for my content and have the market remain free, rather than government stick their nose in and try and dictate who can buy what from whom, and when and for how long. It wouldn't bring the prices down enough to make it worth it.

 

[JustAsk]

Yup, and if their competition had half a chance to do it, they would. That's business - exclusives is how this game works. I won't defend it - I think it sucks, but that's how it's worked out. It happens in every industry, and I bet even the companies you love most participate in this practice in one form or another.

Dethroning DSTV will take years. The competition has to go to the content providers and secure those rights and break exclusives when DSTV's contracts expire. I'd rather pay a bit of a premium for my content and have the market remain free, rather than government stick their nose in and try and dictate who can buy what from whom, and when and for how long. It wouldn't bring the prices down enough to make it worth it.

I was responding to this

I don't think people realise the real problem are the content makers charging so much for the broadcast rights. DSTV are just the messenger of high prices, and everyone just blames them.

Goverment sticking their nose in is exactly why countries like UK,USA,FRANCE,CANADA, and many others have choices in sport content and there cheaper prices.

Here, have a read on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom_Code_on_Sports_and_Other_Listed_and_Designated_Events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-siphoning_laws_in_Australia

The regulation of TV sports rights has happened in Europe and now looks set to happen in South Africa.

Regulation of premium sports rights in Europe has meant that the English Premier League has had to offer more than one package of matches to Pay TV broadcasters. In the UK, Sky is compelled to offer a package of matches to its deadly rival BT. It dilutes but does not completely break the link with exclusivity that keeps rights prices so high. However, the regulation of sports rights has not seen the dire predictions of financial collapse come true and it has allowed for a greater level of competition.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201309020687.html

Due to anti-competitive laws (read goverment intervention) in the first world dstv would not even be allowed to launch a low cost package when Toptv launched.

 

[elvis_presley]

Goverment sticking their nose in is exactly why countries like UK,USA,FRANCE,CANADA, and many others have choices in sport content and there cheaper prices.

My friends in UK and USA would like to know about these cheap prices you speak of. Seriously. Pay-Tv is a "ripoff" everywhere in the world.

That's not exactly amazing regulation - it certainly isn't strong enough to break the pay-tv stronghold which would explain why it's been ineffective for my mates in those countries.

Due to anti-competitive laws (read goverment intervention) in the first world dstv would not even be allowed to launch a low cost package when Toptv launched.

Why was that bad thing? First people complain about DSTV charging too much. Now they're charging too little. Seriously, make up your mind - do you want a free market or not? DSTV's cheap offering was better than TopTV's. End of story. They won fair and square, and not allowing them to launch would clearly have not been in the interests of the consumer who wanted that price-point of package.

 

[JustAsk]

And after i disproved this...

I don't think people realise the real problem are the content makers charging so much for the broadcast rights. DSTV are just the messenger of high prices, and everyone just blames them.

...he shifting the goal post with...

I'd rather pay a bit of a premium for my content and have the market remain free, rather than government stick their nose in and try and dictate who can buy what from whom, and when and for how long. It wouldn't bring the prices down enough to make it worth it.

...after i disproved that again...

..he plays his next card...

That's not exactly amazing regulation - it certainly isn't strong enough to break the pay-tv stronghold which would explain why it's been ineffective for my mates in those countries.

Keep dancing...i'm out.

 

[elvis_presley]

Keep dancing...i'm out.

Actually no... I'm just telling you like it is. You pay a premium for premium content, which worldwide regulation hasn't addressed at all. I Haven't changed my tune at all. You keep bringing up partially relevant information (which disproved nothing, btw) without any actual numbers to demonstrate these cheap DSTV-like packages around the world.

I guess you tried to find them and decided it's best to back out the discussion gracefully