The DStv myth

[GreGorGy]

DStv Myth – Response

We found an article from David Kop in Finweek titled “As a rule of thumb” with a subsection which explained the scenario below:

MyBroadband subsequently wrote an article using this part of David Kop’s article, but mistakenly assumed his client referenced was in financial distress – and that it was a recent consultation.

Some questions:
(1) Where did you find this article?
(2) Does the full context of the article not clear up that the client was not in distress?
(3) Was the article not dated?
(4) Did the writer not realise he is dispensing financial advise that was very, very wrong and very dangerous?
(5) How many of your other articles quote things completely out of context?

 

[Gaz{M}]

Triumph the Insult Comic Dog:

"The correct answer is.....who gives a Sh%t".

 

[supersunbird]

DStv Myth – Response

MyBroadband recently wrote an article titled “The DStv Myth” which looked at the reasons why cancelling DStv is not always an option for people who want to save money.

This followed news that MultiChoice will increase its DStv Premium and Compact Plus subscription fees on 1 April 2020.

With a struggling economy and consumers under pressure, it surprised many people that MultiChoice increased its prices.

This raised the question: Why does MultiChoice feel confident to increase prices when it is losing DStv Premium subscribers and when consumers are struggling to make ends meet?

We found an article from David Kop in Finweek titled “As a rule of thumb” with a subsection which explained the scenario below:



We felt this explained the scenario well for many sport-loving South Africans and also potentially explained in part why MultiChoice felt comfortable to increase prices.

MyBroadband subsequently wrote an article using this part of David Kop’s article, but mistakenly assumed his client referenced was in financial distress – and that it was a recent consultation.

We were alerted by Kop that the client was not in financial distress and that the consultation took place years ago.

He added that the intention of the article was to highlight the fact that financial decisions should be considered based on a person’s personal circumstances and one should not blindly follow general advice.

MyBroadband subsequently amended the article to remove all reference to Kop’s comments as requested.

It was certainly not our intention to misrepresent any information or put Kop in a difficult position, and we apologise to Kop for the wrongful assumptions about the original article.

We have also agreed to publish a statement by Kop on the matter. This is published below:

What was the publication date of the Finweek article used?

 

[Jola]

The only reason to have DSTV is :

1) You live on a farm, or otherwise do not have fixed internet (sometimes mobile will work).

2) You are a Sports nut, and watch a lot of Sport.

I cancelled my DSTV because I have FTTP, and don't watch that much Sport. The little that I do watch, I can watch elsewhere.

I don't see the value in paying about R1000 per month for Sport, the rest has no value to me.

Disclosure : I did buy the one year special ShowMax deal, and also have Netflix. So I pay just over R200 per month for my video entertainment. I don't include the FTTP subscription, because I would have that regardless.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

9 Days for an official statement from publication (25 February 2020)?

 

[rpm]

What was the publication date of the Finweek article used?

It was the Finweek from the week in which the article was done (Hence in mid to late February). It was therefore a recent Finweek and a recent article.

 

[rpm]

Some questions:
(1) Where did you find this article?
(2) Does the full context of the article not clear up that the client was not in distress?
(3) Was the article not dated?

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the date of publication. It was a recent article in Finweek (February 2020). I quoted the part which we based the article on to remove ambiguity.

We made an assumption that it was a recent consultation because the article was published recently, which was incorrect.

 

[rpm]

David said he wrote it 10 years ago though...

The article was published in a February 2020 edition of Finweek.

 

[Enzo Matrix]

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the date of publication. It was a recent article in Finweek (February 2020). I quoted the part which we based the article on.

We made an assumption that it was a recent consultation because the article was published recently, which was incorrect.

Yeah all i can say is stop publishing garbage. Anybody with half a brain cell could have told you its garbage. And you can see the result of publishing garbage.

A lot of people on mybb are calling you out on this kinda rubbish, but its mostly ignored.

 

[SlinkyMike]

Or let's paint a word picture.

Wiping away tears of laughter after this comment!

 

[rpm]

Your article writer isn't great at maths. Looking at this sentence and saying that DStv lost 3% of its premium subscribers is wrong.

Those two percentages are based on the total number of DStv subscribers in two different years, you can't just subtract them.

The article is correct - DStv lost 3% of its Premium customers, which translated into a decline of 2% in DStv's total subscriber base portfolio. Both these figures come from MultiChoice's financial statements.

 

[supersunbird]

It was the Finweek from the week in which the article was done (Hence in mid to late February). It was therefore a recent Finweek and a recent article.

So I was right with this:

But you recently wrote about it perhaps? Since I am not a Finweek subscriber I cannot read the whole of this:

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

View attachment 790817

David said he wrote it 10 years ago though...

I guess David either misspoke or made a mistake, or else Finweek republished something old.

 

[GreGorGy]

I am lost. You said:

MyBroadband subsequently wrote an article using this part of David Kop’s article, but mistakenly assumed his client referenced was in financial distress – and that it was a recent consultation.

And then you said:

I quoted the part which we based the article on to remove ambiguity.

You introduced ambiguity. You claim to have removed it then to have made a mistaken assumption. RPM - I am sure you can see that this is not good enough. The simple fact is, you guys messed up big time and your spin is conflict with itself. I also noticed that you did not answer my last two questions. The harder questions to answer I am sure. That is why you see statements like this:

A lot of people on mybb are calling you out on this kinda rubbish, but its mostly ignored.

I hate to say it, but this erodes confidence in MyBB and it steals from your credentials. Perhaps you need to take proper action and take accountability for this balls up and maybe consider taking a hard line with advertorial - do it, but maintain some integrity.

We all know (as does Multichoice) that this members of this forum can generally be accused of being anti-DSTV. We're the haters. Even if DSTV does something positive, the hoards here will still find the negative. That does not mean though that contempt for their views needs to reflect in every editorial decision. Before MyBB was anything, it was just these members. Trust me - the last thing you want is for MyBB to become more and more regarded as fake news. And this kind of crap is what will do it.

 

[Swa]

Glad that mybb took ownership of this but it's left bigger questions. How can someone take content from another article and base their article on it? Context is necessarily lost and to me that amounts to plagiarism. It also begs the question how many articles are second hand. It's better to have original content no matter how poor or publish articles in entirety. Mybb's reputation has been tarnished by this.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Glad that mybb took ownership of this but it's left bigger questions. How can someone take content from another article and base their article on it? Context is necessarily lost and to me that amounts to plagiarism. It also begs the question how many articles are second hand. It's better to have original content no matter how poor or publish articles in entirety. Mybb's reputation has been tarnished by this.

Context wasn't lost... The point of the original article was actively ignored to make a completely bullshyte point.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Context wasn't lost... The point of the original article was actively ignored to make a completely bullshyte point.

You mean, to resell DSTV as per mandate/request