Opinion / Columnist
Terminate licence fees to expose ZBC's failures
10 Aug 2025 at 12:13hrs | Views
A time has now come for the scrapping of television and listeners' licence fees, as they serve no purpose and are an anachronistic relic of the past.
The government and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) have proved to be intransigent to calls for reform and we cannot continue to reward this intransigence by paying licence fees.
The constitution states that all state-owned media of communication must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications, be impartial and afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.
However, ZBC is anything but. It is clear that there is no interest to reform ZBC.
For starters, TV licence fees belong to a bygone era, where state or public broadcasters had a monopoly due to infrastructure costs and the prevailing socio-political contexts.
ZBC is a relic of the past and the fiefdom of a patronage system and serves only the interests of a few rather than the entire population as envisaged by the law.
In the digital age we are in, where viewers have many platforms to get content such as streaming platforms like Netflix, YouTube and Spotify, the licence fee only serves to encourage complacency and lack of innovation from ZBC.
ZBC knows that they do not have to do anything, they do not have to innovate and above all they do not have to serve the public's interest, as they will still get money at the end of the day, thanks to the archaic licence fees.
The writing has been on the wall for the licence fees for a long time, but we are stuck in a time warp where we think because something was effective in 1980 it is still relevant today, notwithstanding the technological changes that have come.
About two decades ago, our legislature enacted the ZBC Commercialisation Act, which was in part borne by the realisation that licence fees and government grants were not a sustainable method of funding the broadcaster.
That we continue to pay licence fees yet there is a law that seeks to commercialise ZBC is oxymoronic in nature.
A public service broadcaster, which ZBC purports to be, is meant to serve the public regardless of commercial interests.
Thus, when the government enacted the ZBC Commercialisation Act in 2002, ZBC, by all intents and purposes, ceased to be a public service broadcaster and became a commercial entity and for this reason, we should not be paying licence fees.
Unfortunately, what we have now is dogmatic ideology that is rigid, inflexible and not amenable to change.
At the core of this ideology is that ZBC is critical for spreading information to farflung areas.
Unfortunately, this is not just ordinary information, specifically it is Zanu PF propaganda and thus, ZBC is important for partisan rather than national purposes.
Through ZBC, Zanu PF knows it can control and manipulate information for its narrow partisan purposes, this is why the governing party was so exercised when Studio 7 and other channels started broadcasting into Zimbabwe.
So, if ZBC is there to serve narrow interests, then there is no need for the rest of us to pick up the tab, Zanu PF, its supporters and those that are interested in propaganda should foot the bill.
Ten years ago, KPMG advised ZBC and the government that licence fees should be scrapped and instead a subscription model should be adopted.
At the time, KPMG, who had carried out an audit of the state broadcaster, said licence fees brought in US$5,7 million for the broadcaster, while a subscription model could rake in US$15 million.
While I agree with scrapping of licence fees, the subscription model, which could ideally work, will not bring in US$15 million because ZBC is caught in a time warp, with its content and operations still being stuck in the 1990s.
The problem at ZBC is one of a staid and unevolving culture, where the broadcaster is not accountable to anyone but Zanu PF.
This has killed innovation at the broadcaster and no matter how much is paid in licence fees, ZBC will not be able to perform any better than what it is doing now.
Recently, the Broadcasting Services Act came into effect, raising a lot of anger and excitement, depending on which side one is on, however, most of the debate has been mired by a lack of nous.
Of particular concern is the requirement that insurance firms should collect ZBC licences and instead of the previous set up where individuals would pay on their own volition and the state broadcaster would be responsible for enforcement.
Car radio licences have been mandatory for eons, what was weak was the enforcement mechanism and for that reason, a lot of the noise is misplaced.
It does not help that government hawks seem clueless about this requirement and are acting as if the licence fee is new and revenue collected from this levy will be shared with other broadcasters.
This is not the case, the funds collected belong to ZBC and the state broadcaster alone.
ZBC is a public asset and ideally should serve the public and should be financed by the public.
But as stated above, there is a pervasive culture of self-satisfaction at ZBC, as the powers that be know that once in a while, they will get cars and will receive their pay, whether they perform or not.
Unfortunately, ZBC's lack of innovation does not affect the public broadcaster alone, but rather it stifles private players also.
A private player has to compete with ZBC for advertising and content, yet ZBC has a leg up thanks to the licence fee that we have to pay.
In the end, ZBC has an unfair advantage and this stifles investment in the radio and television sector.
ZBC was modelled along the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). One key difference is that private players in the United Kingdom are unencumbered by competing with the BBC in terms of advertising.
The BBC, which is also facing calls for the scraping of licences, has innovated and come up with engaging streaming platforms such as the BBC iPlayer and its website, while radio stations are available on major streaming platforms, whereas ZBC is still stuck in thinking that the news at 8pm and broadcasting on Facebook are the major cashcows.
ZBC, as it is now, is not fit for purpose and licence fees only help to stifle growth and innovation, while promoting complacency and laziness.
So, this leaves us with one possible course of action; it is time to cancel the licence fee requirement and allow ZBC to find ways to fund itself.
The government and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) have proved to be intransigent to calls for reform and we cannot continue to reward this intransigence by paying licence fees.
The constitution states that all state-owned media of communication must be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications, be impartial and afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.
However, ZBC is anything but. It is clear that there is no interest to reform ZBC.
For starters, TV licence fees belong to a bygone era, where state or public broadcasters had a monopoly due to infrastructure costs and the prevailing socio-political contexts.
ZBC is a relic of the past and the fiefdom of a patronage system and serves only the interests of a few rather than the entire population as envisaged by the law.
In the digital age we are in, where viewers have many platforms to get content such as streaming platforms like Netflix, YouTube and Spotify, the licence fee only serves to encourage complacency and lack of innovation from ZBC.
ZBC knows that they do not have to do anything, they do not have to innovate and above all they do not have to serve the public's interest, as they will still get money at the end of the day, thanks to the archaic licence fees.
The writing has been on the wall for the licence fees for a long time, but we are stuck in a time warp where we think because something was effective in 1980 it is still relevant today, notwithstanding the technological changes that have come.
About two decades ago, our legislature enacted the ZBC Commercialisation Act, which was in part borne by the realisation that licence fees and government grants were not a sustainable method of funding the broadcaster.
That we continue to pay licence fees yet there is a law that seeks to commercialise ZBC is oxymoronic in nature.
A public service broadcaster, which ZBC purports to be, is meant to serve the public regardless of commercial interests.
Thus, when the government enacted the ZBC Commercialisation Act in 2002, ZBC, by all intents and purposes, ceased to be a public service broadcaster and became a commercial entity and for this reason, we should not be paying licence fees.
Unfortunately, what we have now is dogmatic ideology that is rigid, inflexible and not amenable to change.
At the core of this ideology is that ZBC is critical for spreading information to farflung areas.
Unfortunately, this is not just ordinary information, specifically it is Zanu PF propaganda and thus, ZBC is important for partisan rather than national purposes.
Through ZBC, Zanu PF knows it can control and manipulate information for its narrow partisan purposes, this is why the governing party was so exercised when Studio 7 and other channels started broadcasting into Zimbabwe.
So, if ZBC is there to serve narrow interests, then there is no need for the rest of us to pick up the tab, Zanu PF, its supporters and those that are interested in propaganda should foot the bill.
At the time, KPMG, who had carried out an audit of the state broadcaster, said licence fees brought in US$5,7 million for the broadcaster, while a subscription model could rake in US$15 million.
While I agree with scrapping of licence fees, the subscription model, which could ideally work, will not bring in US$15 million because ZBC is caught in a time warp, with its content and operations still being stuck in the 1990s.
The problem at ZBC is one of a staid and unevolving culture, where the broadcaster is not accountable to anyone but Zanu PF.
This has killed innovation at the broadcaster and no matter how much is paid in licence fees, ZBC will not be able to perform any better than what it is doing now.
Recently, the Broadcasting Services Act came into effect, raising a lot of anger and excitement, depending on which side one is on, however, most of the debate has been mired by a lack of nous.
Of particular concern is the requirement that insurance firms should collect ZBC licences and instead of the previous set up where individuals would pay on their own volition and the state broadcaster would be responsible for enforcement.
Car radio licences have been mandatory for eons, what was weak was the enforcement mechanism and for that reason, a lot of the noise is misplaced.
It does not help that government hawks seem clueless about this requirement and are acting as if the licence fee is new and revenue collected from this levy will be shared with other broadcasters.
This is not the case, the funds collected belong to ZBC and the state broadcaster alone.
ZBC is a public asset and ideally should serve the public and should be financed by the public.
But as stated above, there is a pervasive culture of self-satisfaction at ZBC, as the powers that be know that once in a while, they will get cars and will receive their pay, whether they perform or not.
Unfortunately, ZBC's lack of innovation does not affect the public broadcaster alone, but rather it stifles private players also.
A private player has to compete with ZBC for advertising and content, yet ZBC has a leg up thanks to the licence fee that we have to pay.
In the end, ZBC has an unfair advantage and this stifles investment in the radio and television sector.
ZBC was modelled along the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). One key difference is that private players in the United Kingdom are unencumbered by competing with the BBC in terms of advertising.
The BBC, which is also facing calls for the scraping of licences, has innovated and come up with engaging streaming platforms such as the BBC iPlayer and its website, while radio stations are available on major streaming platforms, whereas ZBC is still stuck in thinking that the news at 8pm and broadcasting on Facebook are the major cashcows.
ZBC, as it is now, is not fit for purpose and licence fees only help to stifle growth and innovation, while promoting complacency and laziness.
So, this leaves us with one possible course of action; it is time to cancel the licence fee requirement and allow ZBC to find ways to fund itself.
Source - The Standard
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
