The questions DStv must answer

What are your views on a la carte vs bouquet model in payTV?

ICASA is asking what stakeholders think of being able to choose their own channels, rather than buying fixed packages of channels.
Click to expand...

This would be what most people would go for but I fear that those who would opt for a sports only package would be in for a shock as I don't foresee the cost being much less than it is now. It might be a case of "might as well spend the extra R100 per month (or whatever it is) and get the full Premium package". And for those thinking, 'but the more people that sign up, the cheaper it will be', I don't think it works that way. The higher the demand, the more it costs to provide (at least that's what I read from a DSTV mouthpiece in an article a while ago).
 
The questions would be better posed to those responsible for awarding exclusive 10 year sports broadcasting rights to Monochoice.

Live sport and a lack package flexibility sells the Premium subscriptions.
 
Agent_Smith said:
This would be what most people would go for but I fear that those who would opt for a sports only package would be in for a shock as I don't foresee the cost being much less than it is now. It might be a case of "might as well spend the extra R100 per month (or whatever it is) and get the full Premium package". And for those thinking, 'but the more people that sign up, the cheaper it will be', I don't think it works that way. The higher the demand, the more it costs to provide (at least that's what I read from a DSTV mouthpiece in an article a while ago).
Click to expand...

Majority of the price are the rights to the content I assume, not sure what influence the viewer number has on it and the adds they show should cover the cost for that. The satellite provisioning costs should be pretty fixed.
 
Agent_Smith said:
This would be what most people would go for but I fear that those who would opt for a sports only package would be in for a shock as I don't foresee the cost being much less than it is now. It might be a case of "might as well spend the extra R100 per month (or whatever it is) and get the full Premium package". And for those thinking, 'but the more people that sign up, the cheaper it will be', I don't think it works that way. The higher the demand, the more it costs to provide (at least that's what I read from a DSTV mouthpiece in an article a while ago).
Click to expand...

That is not how technology (well at least modern technology works).

DSTV could literally flick a switch and make an online only sports package. This type of thing is always hosted on cloud infrastructure which happens to adapt very well to scaling.
Since internet connectivity is still a limiting factor in this country, they wouldn't see too much of a drop in their usual subscribers.
 
No way Monochoice can defend the no sport package based on the premise that a Sports only package will cost almost as much as the full premium package. Bull****.

The latest movies (DSTV Premier movies channel) is rather costly. Showmax and Netflix does not include this and if they would their price would be much higher than the current R100-R150 price range.

The same thing holds true for the latest tv series. Streaming companies and other broadcasters simply do not include these in their offerings as this is too much for their targer market to pay for.

My guess is that the cost of a premium subscription is probably something like this:
Sport: 30% of the cost
Movies: 30% of the cost
TV series: 20% of the cost
All other: 20%
Just my estimates. Which would probably mean that a sports package would cost something in the region of R200-R250. And that could even be broken down into different sports where a rugby only channel would cost R150 with rugby being one of the biggest costs.
Your thoughts?
 
Why soccer on SABC/other and DSTV but Rugby only on DSTV - because they structure their packages so a certain sector has to pay the full amount.
 
Agent_Smith said:
This would be what most people would go for but I fear that those who would opt for a sports only package would be in for a shock as I don't foresee the cost being much less than it is now. It might be a case of "might as well spend the extra R100 per month (or whatever it is) and get the full Premium package". And for those thinking, 'but the more people that sign up, the cheaper it will be', I don't think it works that way. The higher the demand, the more it costs to provide (at least that's what I read from a DSTV mouthpiece in an article a while ago).
Click to expand...

EPL is viewable on the cheaper packages. The price DStv had to pay for this was stated to be over a billion Rand per season, for each of the seasons from 2016-19. Surely every other sport doesn't cost even more than that.

There's no excuse, really. They're just not arsed to enable everyone to watch their preferred sports at reasonable prices. Premium viewers are subsidising the cheaper packages.
 
Hemi300c said:
Why soccer on SABC/other and DSTV but Rugby only on DSTV - because they structure their packages so a certain sector has to pay the full amount.
Click to expand...

They are well aware that the average rugby supporter have a higher income than the average soccer supporter. And they are taking full advantage of this.
 
The objective of Monochoice is to optimise the return on investment (ROI) for shareholders before all else.

The subscription services are then tailored around this.

In places like Thailand (and I'm sure many others) packages are available for specific sports even down to specific events.
 
Johnatan56 said:
Majority of the price are the rights to the content I assume, not sure what influence the viewer number has on it and the adds they show should cover the cost for that. The satellite provisioning costs should be pretty fixed.
Click to expand...

it is, I know that back in 2010 they paid something like R1.5bn for the rights to rugby only. Most of the money of the premium packagage goes to sport. Excuse , but my memory sucks, weren't DSTV cleared by the competition commission earlier this year, wasn't there something about it?
 
If the content is so expensive for MC that they have to charge R800 or whatever, why can they charge R100 for Showmax and how can Netflix also do that? :)
 
Why should Multichoice or any other broadcaster even have to explain anything to ICASA.
When you run a business on sound economic policies then you will grow.
Also they have to compete with a company that has grown over 30 odd years and that will always be difficult.
You cant purely throw money at something and hope that it will survive.
Look at SABC. From a thriving business to a dying business due to extremely bad management and Government policies .
 
Exclusive rights are the big problem because would you really want DSTV for rugby, Sky for cricket and Telstra for tennis?

ICASA should focus on creating competition by not allowing exclusive rights.
 
YingYang said:
Exclusive rights are the big problem because would you really want DSTV for rugby, Sky for cricket and Telstra for tennis?

ICASA should focus on creating competition by not allowing exclusive rights.
Click to expand...

this is the thing.
 
The problem is not exclusive rights per se but exclusive rights to the exclusion of others. For those that don't understand it in most other countries you can have all your sports from a single provider. The reason for that is sub-licensing. Since the platforms are so equally distributed no provider can exercise a monopoly stance so they are perfectly content to license it for a fraction of what they paid in order to make some extra money.

Johnfpro said:
The objective of Monochoice is to optimise the return on investment (ROI) for shareholders before all else.

The subscription services are then tailored around this.

In places like Thailand (and I'm sure many others) packages are available for specific sports even down to specific events.
Click to expand...
Not always the case. MC is a monopoly and monopolies don't always behave according to sound economic principles. Dstv is bleeding higher end subscribers. The way to keep those subscribers would be to offer them packages they want at a lower cost.

What's left out of the equation is perceived value. Canon for instance sells a lot of lower end cameras for R5k and then higher end cameras for R20k. It doesn't cost much more to make them and the software is nearly the same with all models requiring the same research and development. So why do they sell them at higher prices than what they're worth? The reason is perceived value. Canon sees their product as worth more so they charge more. MC sees their product as worth what they charge so they won't charge less even if it costs them money.
 
Last edited:
YingYang said:
Exclusive rights are the big problem because would you really want DSTV for rugby, Sky for cricket and Telstra for tennis?

ICASA should focus on creating competition by not allowing exclusive rights.
Click to expand...

they pay premium rates to have it exclusive, to kill the competition...and when you support them, you support that... If they hadn't been so greedy, typical business, then we'd probably pay 20% less for DSTV premium. And they may have a bigger market.
 
Why are the questions being posed to the monopoly rather than those who are affected by it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X