[OPINION] Never before has freedom of the press been so demonstrably relevant as it is in South Africa right now with the tsunami of disclosures laid bare by the Gupta e-mails.
Latest in the firing line is MultiChoice.
To be frank, I am still trying to understand what it is all about. And all MultiChoice has said is: “We have done nothing illegal.”
This sort of instant denial seems to be the trend among corporations accused of being tainted by the Guptas. KPMG did it and so did all the others.
Deny, deny, deny and hope it all goes away.
Well it hasn’t gone away for KPMG, McKinsey, SAP and all the others.
Whether MultiChoice has done anything illegal or not is beside the point because the powerful force at play here is perception. And anyone with an IQ above that of a brain-dead gerbil will know that perception often far outweighs reality.
Perceptions damage brands. Perceptions create problems that cost a lot of money to fix. Perceptions can be hugely distracting to corporate management.
As it is, MultiChoice is not the most popular brand in South Africa. It has a lot of haters. All of whom are probably motivated by perception and not reality.
Gnashing of teeth if sports channels discontinued
Particularly those MultiChoice haters who love their sport.
As I have pointed out time and again, the subscription price one pays for the DStv Premium service is minimal compared to actually having to watch those sports from a seat in the stadium.
If DStv suddenly decided to drop its dozen or so dedicated sports channels, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth like this country has never experienced.
And SABC could not possibly provide so much sport. On any given night DStv has at least six or seven channels devoted to football alone. Nobody can match that.
And even those haters who are not sport’s aficionados would scream blue murder if DStv just shut down overnight.
The perception of the consumer is that DStv is grossly expensive and just survives on repeats all the time. The reality is that DStv is about the cheapest form of entertainment any family can enjoy.
Don’t ignore consumers
But, MultiChoice doesn’t seem to even try to make that point. Just as they don’t seem to want to expand on why they have done nothing illegal with regard to the Guptas.
I like MuitiChoice. I like the fact that they have become one of the world’s great television companies. I like the fact that they have a global footprint. It’s just a pity that arrogance has crept into their relationship with their consumers. They seem to bank on the idea that no matter how many people complain about costs and repeats; no matter how much the media might harp on about their Gupta links, subscriber numbers will continue to climb.
The thing is, it is never a good idea to ignore consumers. Because being transparent and honest and taking the trouble to quash perceptions by demonstrating reality, will increase revenue and profits.
Transparency is not about having to fall upon swords or humiliate oneself, it is about genuinely great marketing.
And great marketing, as even that brain-dead gerbil will know, has nothing to do with what you want to say but what your customer wants to hear.
DA spokesperson Phumzile van Damme has spent a long time sifting through papers supplied by the SABC to last year’s parliamentary inquiry into the goings-on at the public broadcaster. And this weekend, she found a ‘smoking gun’: minutes of a meeting held between top executives from MultiChoice and the SABC held in June 2013.
The meeting was attended by SABC executives such as then CEO Lulama Mokhobo, Ellen Tshabalala, Hlaudi Motsoeneng and head of news, Jimi Matthews.
At that meeting, minutes reveal that (former) MultiChoice CEO (now Video Entertainment chief executive) Imtiaz Patel said, “We would not normally pay for a news channel … our understanding is the SABC requires a new revenue source … we want to have a deeper relationship with you … how do we find each other … often in finding each other you need an excuse. OK, so the excuse is the proposal we put on the table.”
Of course, MultiChoice, under fire for paying ANN7 to be on the channel, told media it DID in fact pay for news channels. Around R141 million, at that.
At the heart of the deal appears to be the encryption, or not, of the set-top boxes required when South Africa finally introduces Digital Terrestrial Television. The ANC and its alliance partners have always favoured encrypted STBs that will ultimately allow new players in the pay-TV market, internet for all and vast choice for all South Africans.
Former communications minister Faith Muthambi scuppered that dream, and going over the head of the party, put forward non-encrypted STBs. Legal action, lots of it, ensued leading to further delays in introducing DTT.
Now the minutes show the genesis of the non-encryption stance go back to disgraced communications minister Dina Pule. Motsoeneng, in the minutes, is recorded saying, “As far as I’m concerned this is not an issue anymore,” claiming the communications department was going to review the policy.
Shortly afterwards, Pule was fired for other reasons and Yunus Carriem came in. He only lasted a year – but he did insist on encrypted boxes. Enter Muthambi, and once more, non-encrypted STBs were back on the table.
Patel in the minutes says to Mokhobo: “But I must say though, Lulama, that this is the very important point for us. It’s a dealbreaker point, I’ll be honest. And I have reiterated it. I have said this to you before.”
And Motsoeneng answers, “Thank you, Chair. As far as I’m concerned, this is not an issue, anymore from where I’m sitting, because the minister pronounced herself about this matter.”
The minutes of this meeting are a smoking gun, and demand investigation at the highest level. ~ Editor
