A year ago, while observing the socio-political landscape, I drafted an article exploring the impact of corporate inaction on stakeholder safety and trust. Though timely, I never published it - until Sunday’s headlines reignited those thoughts.
MacG hosts the number one podcast show in South Africa. Source: YouTube
In a country where women are killed for saying “no”, giving a platform to someone who normalises the public degradation of women is not just an oversight; it is an endorsement. Today, people are increasingly turned off by organisations that lack clear purpose and integrity. Stakeholders across the spectrum now expect ethical practices and responsible behaviour from their employers and the businesses that operate in our society.
This change brings to light an important feature of contemporary corporate-social culture where companies are no longer evaluated exclusively on the basis of their market share or financial performance. Instead, their dedication to moral behaviour and social duty is closely examined.
Most of us are familiar with controversial shock-jock MacG and his provocative brand of entertainment. After being “blackballed by the industry” as he asserts for making repeated offensive remarks, he has resurged on a platform that imposes no ethical boundaries and makes no demands to align with broader societal norms. Despite being deplatformed, he pivoted and found a home and an eco-system where podcasts like his thrive, often under the guise of “freedom of speech.” This space has cultivated and normalised a strain of toxic masculinity and misogyny, cleverly repackaged as uncensored commentary, and in doing so, has amassed a disturbingly loyal following. But more insidiously, this shows that deplatforming without systematic accountability just shifts the problem elsewhere.
Bringing us to the misunderstood power of “cancellation.” As MacG’s platform continues to grow, complete with live events, merchandise, drinks, and even a book deal, you start to realise that what we are witnessing isn’t obscurity or exile, but a rebranding of popularity. It's influence dressed up as redemption, and because “the kids love it” or “he’s changing the game,” even those who once distanced themselves are now eager to jump on the bandwagon.
Enter Multichoice
It’s no secret that the company has been experiencing a sharp decline in subscriber numbers, with the total subscriber base dropping by approximately 10.57%. Between economic pressures, fierce competition from streaming giants and the surge of low cost, uncensored online content, the broadcaster finds itself at a crossroads. In a bid to remain relevant and recapture market share, it makes strategic sense that MultiChoice would turn to popular culture, adapting its offering to meet audience demand by investing in local content and creators and by banking on the loyalty of growing fanbases like MacG’s to convert views into subscriptions of a market traditional broadcasters have been struggling to reach.
But there’s a catch; this was more than a business decision, it's a moral decision. For a company that proudly positions itself as a champion of African excellence, social responsibility and inclusivity, the partnership with him presents a complicated contradiction. On the surface, it’s a savvy move that aligns with a voice that has cultural currency. But MultiChoice’s brand promise also hinges on accountability. When platforms amplify content that degrades women, mocks the marginalised or normalises toxicity, they send a clear message that profit takes precedence over principle.
A happenstance that no company ever wants to be associated with. What looked like a win quickly spun into a reputational tightrope, raising tough questions. And so, we must look at what whether the decision to sever ties with the controversial figure was a signal of maturing corporate responsibility or if it was a calculated move to protect itself from public regulatory backlash. Either way, this moment forces us to examine what values we expect media platforms to uphold especially in a society with a deep legacy of gender-based violence.
Reactive or proactive break-up?
Both! The cost of a dented reputation from values-based issues bankrupts the business more than a subset of subscribers unsubscribing from the platform. We can only infer that a calculated decision was made regarding how representative of the population his audience is.Cleverly, MultiChoice has decoded not to renew his platform and for equality's sake, one other channel, so it's not an unjust removal of content from his network. This is great, but it begs the question, what due diligence was done prior to signing the deal?
The integrity test
Statistics paint a chilling picture: one in five women will experience violence in her lifetime, and every three hours a woman is murdered. In such a grim reality, corporate silence or inconsistency is not neutral – it’s complicit. The responsibility to respond to gender-based violence (GBV) extends far beyond crisis communication or once off campaigns. According to KPMG, GBV costs the South Africa economy between R28.4bn and R42.4bn per year – or between 0.9% and 1.3% of GDP.
These costs include lost productivity, absenteeism, employee turnover, and second generation trauma, such as lower educational outcomes, increased criminality and reduced earnings among children in violent homes. In essence, GBV isn’t just a social issue, it is an economic one, a business risk and a moral reckoning.
So when brands find themselves caught in the crossfire of public outrage, such as this one, tough questions should arise in boardrooms like those at 144 Bram Fischer:
- Where do we draw the moral line? Does audience size or social media traction justify association with individuals who degrade women and insult for laughs?
- Was the partnership forged with full awareness of his track records, or was it a calculated risk, betting on the allure of controversy over the principles of dignity and inclusion
- How do we deal with the value of controversial voices like MacG against the wellbeing of society and existing talent?
These questions are not just rhetorical, they demand clear, transparent answers. This was the Multichoice integrity test.
But it is also a wider lesson for brands navigating influence in an age when values and visibility collide.
What will you choose? Highly shareable advice?
- Don’t conflate virality for value. Audience size is not a substitute for character
- Develop clear ethical frameworks for partnerships and vet public figures with the same rigour used for financial decisions'
- Build internal muscle (capacity, discipline and governance) to withstands the temptation of quick wins in favour of long-term brand equity
- Diverse decision-making tables where the voices women, youth, and underrepresented communities are not only included but influential
In the end it’s not enough for the brand to be loud. It must be clear. And clarity in times like these is not only a strategy, but also a stance.
