1. The author, a former CEO of SABC, writes an open letter urging stakeholders to save the SABC and review its funding model. 2. The SABC's reliance on advertising revenue has led it to prioritize light entertainment over public service programming. 3. The author argues the SABC's funding model is outdated and no longer supports its mission as a public broadcaster. A new approach is needed, including potentially increasing license fees which are currently very low. 4. A committee should investigate the SABC's future role and develop a sustainable funding model to allow it to better serve the South African public.

1. Open letter—with ‘saving’ in mind: Back to basics.
SABC and a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
I am writing this message (or input) as a concerned SABCer of ‘yesteryear’ who loves the
place and who believes that the public broadcaster has a key role to play in building a future
“healthy” South Africa.
I feel like shouting loud on street corners: Save the SABC!! South Africa—a country in crisis--
will NOT survive with a crippled public broadcaster!!
The extreme tension caused by Management’s intended retrenchments has prompted me
to pen down some relevant remarks and views expressed in my book on the SABC referred
to below, and to send these to stakeholders. The issue is much deeper than the present one.
(My inspiration in doing so should be judged against the background that I worked in
the broadcasting environment for many decades; that I managed the SABC’s finances
for almost three decades; and ended up managing the organization for about seven
years during a most challenging transitional period. It should not be seen as an
attempt by a ‘has been’ who thinks he can rule from the grave. Although I retired
end of 1994, I published a comprehensive book on the SABC about two years ago,
which had required extensive research and mind-application. (“SABC 1936—1995:
Still a key player … or an endangered species?”) Broadcasting (or rather the SABC)
was indeed uppermost in and occupied my mind for some five years since 2013. In
the Epilogue several contemporary issues are discussed including the financial
model, which in my opinion should be reviewed.)
One hard reality should be recognized: Pruning expenses when an organization finds itself in
a serious financial dillemma is unavoidable and reduction of staff numbers is part and parcel
thereof. If over-staffed, it can certainly not be questioned by anybody. Even stretching it
within certain boundaries and reasonableness is not out of order. However, if living
(upkeeping) the organization’s mission and vision comes under serious threat, and the
public at large are the ‘clients’ and stand to suffer as a result thereof, then an alternative
approach seems to be the way to go. The right of existence of any public institution is to be
justified and this ‘right’ comes under scrutiny when vision and goals can not be met.
I do not know which of the above three scenarios is the applicable and correct one.
But am I right in my observation that staff are working under tremendous pressure
in order to uphold the ideals of PBS?
I certainly do not envy the Board’s and Management’s extraordinary difficult task to run an
effective organization on the basis of a funding model which, in my view, is not appropriate
in a competitive environment.
Therefore my urgent plea, as discussed in more detail in my book:
1. The funding model should be reviewed. It is outdated. The reliance on advertising
worked well in the days when SABC was the only player of the electronic media but

2. in today’s competitive environment the whole PBS-concept comes under severe
pressure as audience sizes need to be maximised during peak viewing hours (TV).
Result: light entertainment tops the list. Where does licence fees fit in? The main
source of revenue for other PBS-broadcasters is negligible in the case of the SABC.
2. The future role--the real justification of PBS in today’s divided South Africa with an
abundance of alternative radio and TV services--should actually be redefined. What
are the real needs which could be addressed via the electronic media? Vision and
goals should be spelled out clearly and need to be quantified in terms of finances
and staff. (The SABC is not merely one of the group of broadcasters.) Such an
exercise may require a content-audit of existing services in order to compare with
the real needs. Upward adjustment in terms of financial needs is a probability. It is
essential that the public broadcaster, in the case of television, should be in a position
to broadcast a variety of PBS-programs during peak viewing hours.
Concerning the SABC’s role and programming:
The SABC’s product is different from say Escom’s in which case power is either on or off,
available or not available, but is rather comparable to the human body’s needs. A variety
of food is essential for a healthy physical human body (food may be good or bad, or
insufficient in nutritive value, etc,). The public broadcaster’s duty is to provide a proper
menu of food for soul and brain: knowledge enrichment over the wide spectrum of life
and environment; fostering of values (incl. respect); promoting an informed society, not
only in terms of ‘what happened’ but also providing background and perspective and
knowledge about issues and about the needs of different peoples; … and more.
This is the only way positive-minded South Africans can address—on mass scale—values:
racism, corruption, crime, economic growth, disrespect, unity. And to provide quality
entertainment and promote & develop SA-talent in many segments of life. I do not for
one moment suggest that the SABC is not doing whatever is possible within its means,
but rather want to emphasize the importance of a public broadscaster’s role—and that
it needs to be exercised especially during peak hours of viewing/listening. However, not
to lose mass audience numbers, creativity in PBS-programming is a pre-requisite. The
required finances? A sustainable funding model is likewise a pre-requisite as enabler.
The SABC is the major communication media in SA and the only medium capable to
communicate daily on a mass scale with people in their home languages—especially via
radio. The lack of a reading culture (because of circumstances) amongst a large segment
of our country’s people, accentuates the importance of affordable electronic media. But
all of us—rich and poor—benefit from quality PBS. It needs to be said: many (most?)
white people underestimate the importance of the SABC—especially as far as TV is
concerned, because of their access to DStv—a service for mainly the privileged. The
reality is that the SABC’s viewership still exceeds that of DStv. Pres. Mandela more than
once emphasized the role of the media in a democracy.

3. Pippa Green, Press-Ombud, said (in an interview (shortly after her appointment) that the
destruction of the SABC is one of the biggest tragedies suffered by the media in SA.
• Already in the mid-nineties, when digital and satellite technology were responsible
for the opening of the airwaves and consequently a paradigm leap in competition, W
Rowlands, Dean of Journalism at the University of Colorado, warned: “PBS faces not
only the danger of slow assassination… but the threat of suicide.” Television Business
International warned that by merely mirroring rivals—in order to protect audience
sizes and revenue—PBS runs the unavoidable risk “of not living up to its mission”.
This is precisely the problem that SABC has—because of its reliance on advertising.
• Some experts referred to PBS as future media-dinosaurs and nothing more than a
political nuisance. The sub-title of my recently-published book puts the essential
question: “SABC—still a key player… or an endangered species?” High-level, out-of-
the-box, strategic thinking is a necessity.
The truth is that the SABC has a key role to play in a divided country—a country not living its
full potential, to the detriment of (especially) the poor.
Funding model.
But whatever good is expected of the SABC, its funding structure no longer supports the
vision. Dependence on advertising to the tune of 85% is unique and a definite hurdle in the
production of quality PBS-programming of relevance referred to above. Peak viewing time is
taken up, to a large extent, by light entertainment because income and therefore survival, is
at stake. A new approach is essential, especially in respect of license fees—which
contribution to the income pool is totally out of line. Some comparisons:
o Having the same order of population numbers, Britain boasts 23-million paid
licenses compared to SA’s 3-million. (Family size and access to television should
be factored into any comparison, but still: difference is huge.) The extremely high
level of pirate viewing in SA questions the moral justification of a licence fee.
o The licence fee in South Africa is less than one-tenth (<10%) of that in the
UK/Britain and some major European countries. (A comparison can be misleading
because of exchange rates and other factors, but still: difference is enormous.)
o Let us side-step exchange rates. The current licence fee equals 73 cents per day
or on average 8% to10% of the cost of a local daily newspaper. Ratio is like 1:12.
Based on the price of 3 large daily newspapers in the UK the ratio is totally
different: 1: 3,25.
The level of the licence fee has been kept at a ridiculously low level (through all the
years)—to keep it ‘affordable’, but the piracy rate does not support this approach.
Conclusion: the combination of an absurd level of pirate viewing and the level of the
licence fee, leaves South Africa (SABC) in a precarious and unenviable position with
regard to the exploitation of what the main source of financing is for other public
broadcasters not linked to State finance (which is not desirable for obvious reasons).

4. One solution might be a sizeable (even fourfold) increase in the fee (and still be fair)
and to offficially exempt the poor. Or/and the Government must take responsibilty
for the current loss due to piracy and compensate the SABC accordingly. A
calculation in this respect would be fairly simple. (It should not be treated as a
subsidy to SABC but a genuine reimbursement. But even a ‘subsidy’ for identified
programs is an additional option and can be compared to subsidies for water,
electricity, housing and also basic food (through exclusion from VAT)). One could also
argue that if free tersiary education is considered to be a right of some, why not
PBS’s “food for soul and brain” (inform, educate, knowledge enrichment, quality
entertainment) to ALL the people? The poor who cannot afford it, should be
assisted. Whatever, a sizeable upward adjustment of the fee is, in my view, a must.
A sizeable increase in licence revenue should be “handled with care”. It should not
go into a pool. Allocation should be fair and reasonable to all the various PBS-
channels (radio and TV) on a formula-basis. Such an approach and appropriate
programs meant to uplift and to bring people together will probably justify fee-
increases in the eyes of the public.
Collection of fees is a problem on its own. The SABC has already referred to
subscription services and program streaming, etc.. Some countries run a levy on
electricity but I would not even dare proposing it in our environment. But exemting
the poor and making a licence compulsory for subscription and other means of
electronic access to programs, should leave a relative easy-manageable data base.
Following ‘bail-out lane’ could never be a romantic stroll. How can an institution
preserve its pride under such dark circumstances? If bail-outs are not the result of
poor operational management or lack of strategic thinking, then obviously the
problem lies with a sustainable financial model.
The concept of PBS was initiated and meant to be independent from political control. It
serves the people and their well-being. The positioning of the SABC needs to be affirmed as
such. Even as only shareholder, the Government has no right to intervene or interfere.
South Africa needs a strong SABC as our public broadcaster. One cannot over-accentuate
this statement.
A committee or even a commission to investigate the future role and funding model could
add extra credibility to any major revisions.
My best wishes to all parties involved. May you be blessed with wisdom.
Thank you and regards,
Wynand Harmse (CEO of SABC 1988 to end 1994).
(Note: Funding is discussed in more detail in chapter 11 of my SABC-book and other issues in
the Epilogue).