Thank you for your response.
I would like to raise the fact that although the information provided was factual in that the feed was provided to yourselves by the SABC, that does not detract from the fact that firstly, the Supersport logo itself was also of equally bad quality (I assume the logo was not also provided by the SABC?) and secondly, it is bad business practice to inform your customers to go to your content suppliers for answers. As consumers, we pay you for a service and therefore the onus is on you to answer any questions raised about said service.
If I called Telkom to ask why I was have telephone problems, they wouldn’t refer me to Cisco if their exchange hardware was at fault. Surely this logic must make sense to you.
Although I understand that the Supersport HD channel is still within a test phase, this information was never made available to the public prior to Clinton’s post. As per the official DSTV website, the channel has already been officially launched. Your website only stipulates that it will soon become a 24 hour channel, not that it is currently still being tested.
Had Clinton mentioned upfront that the channel was still being tested and that he would look into resolving the issue surrounding the reasons why the feed provided to yourselves was of a low quality, there would not have been this much of an issue.
I am not the only person who feels that his candour was dismissive initially and subsequently sarcastic as can be seen by the excessive number of posts/complaints on multiple forums online.
The only difference is that although many people are unhappy with his demeanour, I am the only person who lodged a formal complaint, which I did on request of multiple forum users.
The DSTV forum may be a less formal means of communication and this is always taken into account when posting ourselves and when regarding the posts of Multichoice representatives but Clinton did not simply use casual speech when responding but was altogether too flippant and outright rude in his response. He has used casual means of communication in the past and this is the first time that his responses have created this kind of outcry so that alone clarifies that there was something wrong with the manner in which the information was provided.
I do understand that Multichoice consists of a close-knit group of people and has a family atmosphere amongst its staff as my company has a similar approach to employee interaction. It makes sense that as such, Multichoice feels the need to protect their own and stand by the actions of their employees. We, the forum members simply want some form of apology from Clinton for his blatantly obvious lack of etiquette regarding the incident. We understand that occasionally some people have off days and say things that come across the wrong way but on those occasions, it’s only ethical to admit to the above and make an apology for the way it was perceived, whether done intentionally or inadvertently.
This is an incident that should never have escalated to the level at which it currently has. Surely Multichoice as a company can understand our frustration that not only was an apology not offered up but a secondary post was made inviting your unhappy customers to come and show you how it should be done. Although the invitation may have been made in all sincerity, the tone in which it was delivered felt sarcastic and undermining, a fact which is clear, if you read the post yourself along with the multitude of responses thereafter.
I think a sincere apology on the forum is a small price to pay, considering the current status of this incident. This is all the users really want and I feel we at the very least deserve it.
Is it not rather what you saw or envisaged in Your mind? Your "tone" did not go across that well either! If I was Clinton I would have banned you the first day.
Although I thought Clintons response was wrong, It definitely didn't merit some of the replies it received.