The cost of watching television in Kenya is outrageously high. A DSTV Premium subscriber in Nairobi pays $85 per month, while their counterpart in Lagos pays only $30.
A customer in Johannesburg enjoys the same package for just $38, and in Angola, it costs a mere $25. Why do Kenyans—already struggling under a heavy tax burden, high inflation, and a weakening currency—have to pay so much more for the same service? This question is not just about business strategy; it is a case study of corporate exploitation, market manipulation, and the failure of regulatory oversight.
The disparity in DSTV pricing across Africa exposes a deliberate strategy by MultiChoice, the South African company behind DSTV, to milk maximum revenue from specific markets while keeping others subsidized. Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy and most populous nation, pays the least for DSTV, while Kenya, a smaller but economically vibrant market, pays nearly three times more. If subscription fees were purely based on operational costs, market size, or economic stability, then South Africa—the headquarters of DSTV—should have the lowest fees, not Nigeria. So, why does Nigeria pay the least?
Nigeria’s pricing model is dictated by fierce competition and strict consumer resistance. Nigerians do not tolerate price exploitation, and MultiChoice has learned that the hard way. Every time DSTV tries to increase fees, Nigerian courts intervene, consumer groups protest, and the government steps in. The result? DSTV is forced to keep prices low, fearing mass cancellations and potential regulatory action. Kenya, on the other hand, has a more passive consumer market. Complaints about DSTV pricing are numerous, but there is no real organized resistance. No government intervention. No lawsuits. MultiChoice exploits this silence.
Read Also: DStv Subscription Charges To Go Up By 6% Effective April
Yet, the size of the Kenyan market does not justify the absurd fees. Kenya has an estimated 1.7 million DSTV subscribers, far fewer than Nigeria’s 25 million potential households but still a significant customer base. In an ideal world, economies of scale should lower costs—more subscribers should mean lower prices. But in Kenya, DSTV’s logic is the opposite: fewer subscribers mean each one must pay more. This outdated pricing model fails to recognize the shift in consumer behavior, where Kenyans are increasingly abandoning satellite television for streaming platforms.
Netflix, Showmax, and YouTube have disrupted Kenya’s TV market. A Netflix premium subscription in Kenya costs $9.99 per month—nearly a tenth of DSTV’s Premium package. Showmax, owned by MultiChoice itself, costs just $7.99, and YouTube offers an endless variety of content for free. The rise of fast, affordable internet and mobile data bundles has fueled the streaming revolution, making DSTV’s rigid pricing model obsolete. While DSTV clings to its expensive satellite-based model, Kenyans are moving on.
MultiChoice justifies its high prices by citing content acquisition costs, operational expenses, and licensing fees. But these costs are not unique to Kenya. If DSTV can operate in Nigeria, South Africa, and Angola with lower fees, why can’t it do the same in Kenya? Sports rights—one of DSTV’s main selling points—are bought for the entire African market, meaning the cost per country should be relatively equal. Yet, Kenyans pay almost three times more for English Premier League matches than Nigerians. The numbers simply don’t add up.
One could argue that Kenya’s tax regime contributes to higher costs. The government imposes a 15% VAT on pay TV services, along with additional levies on broadcasting. However, even after accounting for taxes, Kenya’s DSTV fees remain disproportionately high. Other African nations also have taxes, yet their subscription fees are significantly lower. This suggests that MultiChoice is inflating prices in Kenya beyond just tax adjustments.
The push for equal pricing across Africa is not just about fairness; it is about sustainability. DSTV is already losing customers in Kenya, with many opting for cheaper, more flexible streaming options. If MultiChoice continues this exploitative pricing strategy, it risks mass cancellations and an accelerated decline. In contrast, Netflix and other online streaming platforms offer a universal pricing model, charging the same subscription fee in every country regardless of market conditions. This transparency and fairness have earned them consumer trust and loyalty.
Kenyan regulators must step up and take action. The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) has the power to investigate price discrimination and force DSTV to justify its fees. Consumer groups must also become more vocal, pushing for legal action if necessary. If Nigerians can pressure DSTV into reducing its fees, why can’t Kenyans?
Moreover, Kenya’s media landscape is evolving. Local broadcasters like KTN, Citizen TV, and NTV are increasingly moving to digital platforms, reducing reliance on DSTV’s dominance. The future of television is online, and DSTV’s refusal to adapt will be its downfall. The company must realize that its archaic pricing strategy is pushing Kenyan consumers away, and unless it reforms, it will become irrelevant in a rapidly digitizing market.
It is time for MultiChoice to implement a standardized, fair pricing model across Africa. Whether a subscriber is in Nairobi, Lagos, or Johannesburg, the cost of DSTV should be the same. If Netflix can do it, if Spotify can do it, if Amazon Prime can do it, then DSTV has no excuse. The era of exploiting Kenyan consumers must end.
For too long, Kenyans have been paying for MultiChoice’s greed. The reality is that DSTV’s pricing is not about business sustainability; it is about maximizing profits from a market that does not resist. Kenyans must wake up and demand fairness. Cancel subscriptions. Move to Netflix. Support alternative platforms. If DSTV wants to survive in this market, it must treat Kenyans with the same respect it gives Nigerians, South Africans, and Angolans.
The message is clear: equal service, equal price. Anything less is daylight robbery.