MultiChoice says SABC rejected Cricket World Cup sub-licensing proposal

[notinterested]

Hilarious that super sport complained about the ipl fees being too high because the rights are controlled by a 3rd party. Yet they do the exact same thing when sabc try to buy rights from them.

Sabc is full of mismanagement and corruption, but multichoice are massive hypocrites when it comes to dealing with sports rights imo. Both parties are to blame.

 

[Brian_G]

Not really. Totally irrational decision by DSTV, bullies that they are.

eMedia started it, trying to bully MC to keep their extra 4 channels on DStv too, via authorities.

 

[BCR]

Also only use SuperSport, but doesn't cost me.

Lucky / fortunate !

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

What was the price of the cricket, was it more than rugby

 

[rh1]

maybe so, but it also doesn't help that 87% of tv licenced people not paying their licences. Being owed R44 billion will affect most companies. Having said that, dropping the ball on especially sports rights and sitting on their hands for too long, they only have themselves to blame.

Why should people pay? I dont watch traditional tv or listen to any SABC radio channel.

SABC and DSTV are a dinosaurs from a bygone era.

 

[naughty001]

The SABC can just put one thumb up it's bum and the other thumb in its mouth and then alternate every those thumbs every five minutes

 

[Jan]

Update — SABC won’t broadcast Cricket World Cup​

In a statement at noon on Tuesday, 3 October 2023, the SABC said its failure to secure the sub-licencing rights meant it would not broadcast the tournament.

“The SABC has once again been disadvantaged in securing the broadcasting rights of one of the sporting codes classified as a sport of national interest by Icasadue to the non-affordable sub-licensing fees and restrictive conditions imposed by Multichoice,” the broadcaster said.

“This development is regrettable, and the corporation would like to apologise to all cricket fans and all South Africans.”

The SABC said although it remained committed to broadcasting sports of national interest as mandated, it could not do so in a manner that was detrimental to the organisation but needed to provide a positive return on investment.

 

[Gudnews]

Here's a novel idea... why not get half decent content and make money on advertising....

With what money? I think understand why folks don't pay the license, but let's not act like it doesn't seriously hamper the SABC.

 

[Brian_G]

Update — SABC won’t broadcast Cricket World Cup​

In a statement at noon on Tuesday, 3 October 2023, the SABC said its failure to secure the sub-licencing rights meant it would not broadcast the tournament.

“The SABC has once again been disadvantaged in securing the broadcasting rights of one of the sporting codes classified as a sport of national interest by Icasadue to the non-affordable sub-licensing fees and restrictive conditions imposed by Multichoice,” the broadcaster said.

“This development is regrettable, and the corporation would like to apologise to all cricket fans and all South Africans.”

The SABC said although it remained committed to broadcasting sports of national interest as mandated, it could not do so in a manner that was detrimental to the organisation but needed to provide a positive return on investment.

Rhetoric krap, more of the blame game..

 

[lkpat]

With what money? I think understand why folks don't pay the license, but let's not act like it doesn't seriously hamper the SABC.

What the heck do you mean with what money? If government stopped this nonsense of dictating and let the SOE be run like a private enterprise with content that makes commercial sense, the problem will be solved. TV Licenses are for PBS crap.

https://openscholar.dut.ac.za/bitstream/10321/2598/1/PILLAY_A_2017.pdf

The aforementioned SABC public broadcasting radio stations are funded by a number of revenue sources. The model is a unique hybrid of public funds (government or public funds), TV license fees, sponsorships and commercial advertising income. The SABC's mandate focuses on public broadcasting in the interest of the citizens of South Africa, whereas funding the mandate is predominantly from sources other than public funds (SABC, 2014b). This makes it difficult for the Corporation to be sustainable and competitive, since not all public broadcasting mandated content attracts commercial revenue from advertising and/or sponsorship.

Commercial revenue is the primary enabler of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to meet its mandate to deliver widespread public value. Revenue is generated through the sale of classic advertising, programme and sports sponsorships across SABC Television, radio and website platforms. Television licence fee collection is controlled by the S.A. Broadcasting Act, No 4 of 1999 (Section 27) as amended. The Act indicates that Television licence fees should be used to provide funding for SABC‟s PBS mandate.

 

[Brian_G]

So.... looking for 3 to 1 odds or better that SABC will change their mind again, time to make some serious bucks

 

[BCR]

Update — SABC won’t broadcast Cricket World Cup​

In a statement at noon on Tuesday, 3 October 2023, the SABC said its failure to secure the sub-licencing rights meant it would not broadcast the tournament.

“The SABC has once again been disadvantaged in securing the broadcasting rights of one of the sporting codes classified as a sport of national interest by Icasadue to the non-affordable sub-licensing fees and restrictive conditions imposed by Multichoice,” the broadcaster said.

“This development is regrettable, and the corporation would like to apologise to all cricket fans and all South Africans.”

The SABC said although it remained committed to broadcasting sports of national interest as mandated, it could not do so in a manner that was detrimental to the organisation but needed to provide a positive return on investment.

This will be the test for Multichoice / DStv - whenever SABC are given the rights to matches, DStv broadcast them on the Access package, channel 209 for a reason I can't fathom ; that package costs R129 per month.

Happened with the most recent rugby game vs Tonga, so viewers could watch on either that channel or SABC on the DStv platform.

However, with the upcoming cricket, DStv presumably won't show it on ch. 209 so viewers between Access and Compact Plus can also see it live - because SABC this time haven't got the rights (at time of writing this).

Or will I be proven wrong in this assumption ?

 

[Brian_G]

What was the price of the cricket, was it more than rugby

Still undisclosed

 

[Brian_G]

This will be the test for Multichoice / DStv - whenever SABC are given the rights to matches, DStv broadcast them on the Access package, channel 209 for a reason I can't fathom ; that package costs R129 per month.

Happened with the most recent rugby game vs Tonga, so viewers could watch on either that channel or SABC on the DStv platform.

However, with the upcoming cricket, DStv presumably won't show it on ch. 209 so viewers between Access and Compact Plus can also see it live.

Or will I be proven wrong in this assumption ?

I think they might have done that to try find balance for their own viewers, agree it's unlikely for the cricket.

Unless they're cleva enough to score points here, but current management seem hopeless. And Premium peeps would moan like hell.

 

[BCR]

I think they might have done that to try find balance for their own viewers, agree it's unlikely for the cricket.

Unless they're cleva enough to score points here, but current management seem hopeless. And Premium peeps would moan like hell.

But surely they don't need to balance anything out, as their own viewers can just as easily watch on the relevant SABC channel with the same primary commentary (only English on SABC vs 3 language choices when shown on DStv dedicated channel/s ?), just different presenters.

 

[Shadowchaser1]

Question is will MC come again with the treat to sue people & take them to court, if they stream? By the time they get to court, all is over again. Scary to think SA has 20-30%ters who doesn't know how business works. Just saying.

 

[Brian_G]

But surely they don't need to balance anything out, as their own viewers can just as easily watch on the relevant SABC channel with the same primary commentary, just different presenters.

idk but my guess would be a PRO exercise, or to look good re the eMedia issues, and neighbouring countries can't get SABC so maybe about that (that's a complicated one BTW).

 

[akescpt]

Update — SABC won’t broadcast Cricket World Cup​

In a statement at noon on Tuesday, 3 October 2023, the SABC said its failure to secure the sub-licencing rights meant it would not broadcast the tournament.

“The SABC has once again been disadvantaged in securing the broadcasting rights of one of the sporting codes classified as a sport of national interest by Icasadue to the non-affordable sub-licensing fees and restrictive conditions imposed by Multichoice,” the broadcaster said.

“This development is regrettable, and the corporation would like to apologise to all cricket fans and all South Africans.”

The SABC said although it remained committed to broadcasting sports of national interest as mandated, it could not do so in a manner that was detrimental to the organisation but needed to provide a positive return on investment.

so if dstv didn't acquire the rights would the SABC be able to get it on their own?

 

[BCR]

idk but my guess would be a PRO exercise, or to look good re the eMedia issues, and neighbouring countries can't get SABC so maybe about that (that's a complicated one BTW).

I edited my post slightly btw, wrt "primary language".

Generally I don't think these huge companies worry about looking good & doing the right thing, or being seen to be in the media, except when it comes to community upliftment and things they sponsor.

I don't get the impression they care about goodwill from their viewers, though they should, but I'm sure you'll know more on that front.

 

[Brian_G]

I edited my post slightly btw, wrt "primary language".

Yep, I saw. Could even be about that, giving their lower tiers a slight language advantage.

Generally I don't think these huge companies worry about looking good & doing the right thing, or being seen to be in the media, except when it comes to community upliftment and things they sponsor.

I don't get the impression they care about goodwill from their viewers, though they should, but I'm sure you'll know more on that front.

Just generally. They do do PR exercises, just not as much as they used to and most seem bland these days for our kind of viewing.