MULTI CHOICE AT IT AGAIN

READING a statement circulating on social media authored by Multichoice Africa Holdings (MAH) announcing its decision to pull out of neighbouring Malawi is somewhat shocking and interesting at the same time.

We only hope this is not a mickey mouse game or those that are played at funerals and traditional ceremonies where tribal cousins demand for money with a bottle of powder in their hands ready to paint a mourner white, should they fail to produce any little they have.

There is no way South African businesses like Multichoice can continue imposing subscription fees that do not reflect with what they spend to keep the business running, countries in Africa have large populations in rural areas and if a business just wants to serve the elite, then it is a wrong one, especially if it deals in sensitive issues like informing, educating and entertaining the masses.

We at The Scoop support the step taken by the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) to protect the citizens of Malawi by obtaining an injunction or court order stopping the capitalist South African entertainment firm from imposing on citizens an increment on their services without proper justification.

The withdrawal of DStv services by MultiChoice Africa from Malawi has reignited discussions about the company’s business practices and their potential impact on fair competition within the pay TV industry. While MultiChoice undeniably holds a prominent position in the digital entertainment realm, mounting concerns over its exclusivity agreements and their consequences for consumer choice and content diversity cannot be ignored.

Central to this debate is the issue of content exclusivity. MultiChoice’s aggressive pursuit of exclusive content rights often entails significant financial investments to secure a competitive edge. However, this strategy raises a crucial question: Where does the line between fair competition and monopolistic tendencies lie? By monopolizing a broad spectrum of content, MultiChoice inadvertently curtails consumer options, potentially depriving them of a varied content palette.

The implications of exclusivity extend beyond content itself. Notably, MultiChoice’s practice of charging for access to free-to-air channels is at odds with the principles underpinning digital migration policies. An example emerges with Gotv’s charge for accessing channels like ZNBC TV1 and Parliament TV, contradicting the ethos of ensuring cost-free access to essential channels for the public. In contrast, Topstar adheres to this mandate, offering essential free-to-air channels without financial barriers.

The crux of the matter emerges during marquee events, such as the World Cup. MultiChoice’s exclusive acquisition of pay-per-view rights for Sub-Saharan Africa restricts other pay TV providers from broadcasting these events. While such exclusivity may be strategic for MultiChoice, it tips the scales, creating an uneven playing field, potentially stifling competition, and undermining innovation.

However, this issue transcends the boundaries of exclusivity. The industry’s challenges encompass a broader spectrum, including the lack of professionalism among content service providers and TV channels. To achieve a comprehensive resolution, collaboration among stakeholders — regulatory bodies, content creators, and pay TV service providers — becomes paramount.

In essence, while MultiChoice’s dominance and success in the market are undeniable, a balanced analysis necessitates scrutinizing the ramifications of its exclusive content agreements and pricing models. In striving for a competitive and equitable entertainment landscape, the onus falls on all industry stakeholders to engage in meaningful dialogue. This approach ensures not only the protection of consumer interests but also the fostering of innovation, diversity, and the growth of local content creators.

To propel the pay TV landscape forward, a multipronged approach is imperative. Regulatory bodies must actively address monopolistic tendencies, creating an environment where competition can thrive without compromising consumer access. Simultaneously, content creators need to embrace professionalism, ensuring that the quality of their offerings remains high.

Additionally, industry players must collectively reevaluate pricing strategies. While profitability is a legitimate pursuit, it must be aligned with the broader goal of offering affordable and accessible entertainment to the masses. Collaborative partnerships that prioritize consumer welfare can potentially reshape the industry’s landscape.

In Zambia, we only hope regulatory bodies like the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) and the Consumer Competition and Protection Commission (CCPC) wake up and pull up their socks and do what is right especially when it comes to protecting the Zambian citizens from exploitation.

We maintain our position that the withdrawal of DStv services in Malawi serves as a catalyst for re- evaluating the pay TV industry’s dynamics. While MultiChoice’s role is pivotal, it is paramount to analyse the multifaceted consequences of its exclusivity agreements. By fostering an environment of fair play, competition, and inclusivity, stakeholders can collectively pave the way for an entertainment landscape that thrives on diversity, innovation, and accessible content.