Business
Streaming Tax Warning in South Africa: Could It Backfire on Consumers?
As the South African government explores ways to replace the failing TV licence system, a proposed streaming tax has sparked widespread concern. Industry experts warn that imposing such a levy on platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime could backfire, leading to higher subscription fees and further straining already burdened consumers.
The Failure of the TV Licence System
The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has struggled with its TV licence regime, with less than 20% of South Africans paying the annual fee. The cost of chasing non-payers often exceeds the revenue collected, making the system unsustainable. This has prompted the government to seek alternative funding models for the public broadcaster.
Communications Minister Solly Malatsi has emphasized the need for a solution that does not further burden households. However, one proposal gaining traction is a streaming levy, which would shift the funding responsibility to local and international streaming platforms, as well as private broadcasters like MultiChoice and eMedia.
The Risks of a Streaming Tax
While the idea of a streaming levy may seem like a viable solution, industry experts caution that it could have unintended consequences. Leslie Adams, Sales Director at Reach Africa, highlighted that streaming services are unlikely to absorb the cost of such a tax. Instead, they would likely pass it on to consumers through higher subscription fees.
“We’ve already seen Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ increase their prices multiple times in the past few years,” Adams said. “If this levy goes ahead, chances are high that South Africans will be the ones covering the cost through higher subscription fees.”
Impact on Consumers
South African households are already under significant financial pressure, with many cutting back on non-essential expenses like entertainment. Surveys such as the NedFinHealth and Old Mutual Savings & Investment Monitor (OMSIM) for 2024 show that streaming services are often the first to go when families look to save money.
| Cost Saver | NedFinHealth | OMSIM |
|---|---|---|
| Switch to cheaper streaming | 30% | 32% |
| Switch to cheaper supermarket brands | 30% | 30% |
| Cutting down domestic help | 11% | 29% |
| Cutting down cellphone and data | 30% | 27% |
| Cutting gym subscriptions | 30% | 26% |
| Putting major purchases on hold | 25% | 22% |
| Maintain rather than replace big items | 25% | 22% |
| Cashing in investments/saving early | 28% | 15% |
| Downgrade rented property | – | 14% |
| Moving children to cheaper school | – | 13% |
| Switching or trading down vehicle | – | 12% |
Adams warned that if subscription fees rise further, more consumers may turn to illegal streaming, free ad-supported content, or abandon paid services altogether. This could hurt both the streaming industry and local content producers.
A Balanced Approach
For a streaming tax to work, Adams argued, it must be reasonable and not make streaming unaffordable. “The levy must be reasonable. If it’s too high, streaming platforms will pass the cost onto consumers or cut local investments, hurting viewers and the industry,” he said.
He also suggested that private broadcasters like MultiChoice and eMedia should contribute to the funding pool. A local content levy for these broadcasters would ensure a more equitable distribution of the financial burden, rather than placing it solely on global streaming platforms.
Transparency and Accountability
Before implementing any new tax, Adams stressed the importance of addressing the SABC’s inefficiencies and ensuring transparency in how funds are managed. “The SABC fell into financial trouble because of the failed TV licence regime, its own mismanagement, and political interference over the years,” he said. “The broadcaster must prove it can manage funds responsibly.”
Adams added that any revenue generated from a streaming tax should be reinvested into the local content industry, rather than disappearing into government coffers. This would help build trust and ensure that the funds benefit South African producers and creators.
While the proposed streaming tax aims to provide stable funding for the SABC, it carries significant risks for consumers and the broader entertainment industry. Higher subscription fees could drive users away from legal streaming platforms, while a lack of transparency could undermine public trust. For the levy to succeed, it must strike a balance between generating revenue and protecting consumers, ensuring that South Africa’s vibrant content industry continues to thrive.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
