By Andre Griffith

Several weeks ago, I had an interesting encounter with the Chief Financial Officer of GT&T Mr. Yoganand Mahadeo.  Our acquaintance extends back to days when we were colleagues at Guysuco where Mr. Mahadeo’s appointment as chief internal auditor meant that he could expect few friends.  In his typically forthright manner, Mr. Mahadeo accused – and this may perhaps be too strong a word – me of being a reflexive critic of GT&T and challenged me to write something positive about the company.  My first reaction was, naturally enough, that my role is not to provide public relations for GT&T.  With a bit of reflection however, I conceded that a company blowing its own trumpet so to speak has less effect than a disinterested third party making factual observations that may tend to confirm any positive role that the company is playing.  I therefore thought long and hard about the performance of this company with which I have been dealing on behalf of major state-owned corporate clients for just about a decade.

I reflected on GT&T’s argument that it is a significant contributor to the coffers of the state by way of taxes.  Notwithstanding the high level of tax evasion in the country (implying that GT&T like many others can simply evade rather than pay), thanking a company for paying taxes is akin to thanking the post office for delivering your mail.  They are supposed to do it pure and simple.  I then reflected on the nature of the corporate image that GT&T works on projecting and here there was some promise.  Mr. Mahadeo, alluded to an aspect of the corporate ethos reflected in the slogan “Is we own”.  Activities such as the sponsorship of Mashramani bands, the use of local talent in advertising, and partnerships with local companies were all cited as examples of GT&T being an integral and organic component of the Guyanese landscape. My own view is that these initiatives are admirable, and ought to be intensified insofar as they make business sense for GT&T but my distinct impression is that the concept embodied by the slogan “Is we own” was really meant to stimulate comparison to the competition given that telecommunications is no longer a one horse race in Guyana.  At the end of the day however, the effectiveness of the concept surrounding the corporate slogan is going to be limited by the undeniable fact that 80% of the company is owned by a non-Guyanese shareholder, who has no residential or other such ties to this country.  The cynic might be moved to suggest that a more factual slogan could be “Is Prior own” and correspondingly, on the other side of the fence, “Is O’Brien own”.  At an admittedly abstract and philosophical level, it could be argued that the slogan “Is we own” seeks in some way to attempt to obscure the fact of foreign ownership.  To be clear however, none of these arguments negate the fact that GT&T’s linkages with the economy and culture of the country are real, useful and significant.  It is thus a far more plausible proposition to make the eminently sensible argument that foreign ownership is not mutually exclusive to real, tangible and significant benefit to the host country.  In that case, an image may be built around the concept that “We’re good for Guyana” and it is here that all the arguments with respect to tax contributions, support of local talent, charitable giving and the like can really resonate.   With reference to competition, either of the big two, may want to play with this concept of being “Good for Guyana” which may more appropriately evolve to a concept surrounding who is “Better for Guyana”

At the end of the day, in relation to issues surrounding corporate image, it is essentially received wisdom that there must be authenticity underpinning whatever image a company seeks to project.  The credibility of a corporate image cannot be manufactured through propaganda.  To be clear here, I am not equating GT&T’s various marketing campaigns to propaganda but making a general point that should be appreciated by any company seeking to project a particular image.  Just think of CLICO trying to go on a PR blitz aimed at projecting an image of prudence and trustworthiness so essential for financial service providers.

Well thus far, I don’t think I have quite measured up to the challenge issued by Mr. Mahadeo since up to now, whatever I have given with one hand, I have taken away with the other.  There is however, one concept that GT&T seems to have jettisoned in the recent past which I think was somewhat powerful.  This concept is embodied in the tagline “Getting better all the time”.  As I have indicated before, I have been dealing with this company for over a decade.  During this period I have seen tremendous evolution – for the better – in the variety and quality of services offered.  Mr. Mahadeo would be aware that back in the mid-nineties, our old employer Guysuco was forced to make a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure in the face of the unavailability of required services from GT&T.  Over the years, services such as Internet Access, Frame Relay, (now largely superseded by DSL) in addition to cellular and increased landline penetration mean that companies and consumers have a wide array of modern options available for communications.  It is not only variety of services on offer but the quality of service has also improved.  When at Guysuco we first signed up for Internet access via leased line, monthly (and sometimes weekly) service interruptions were par for the course.  These days, one can confidently say that service quality levels are much higher.  Subsequent to the Guysuco experience, I have advised three large state organisations that were considering similar investments in in-house data communications facilities, to forego these investments, stick to their core business and leave provision of communications to a company whose business it is to provide this service, and which has consequently developed a (locally) unparalleled capability to do so.  In the all important area of customer service, in the early days, I found certain influential executives of GT&T to be hostile to the idea of signing a service level agreement something I do not think would have been the position were there alternative authorised service providers.  But even in this area there has been progress.  In 2006, with the active support of Major-General (Ret’d) Singh, former Marketing Director Michael George and other forward-looking executives, GT&T negotiated and signed a ground-breaking service level agreement with Guyana Water Inc.  This was a significant advance for customer service in a company where the traditional attitude was “our way or the highway”.

So to sum it up, much progress has been made, but there remains still much improvement that is desirable and possible.  I am one of those persons who believes that competition covering the fullest feasible spectrum of telecommunications services must come to Guyana whether now, in 2011 (no not elections but the expiration of the first 20 year period of exclusivity), in 2031 or at some time in between.  At that time, GT&T will stand or fall by being the best option for communications which it cannot achieve without “getting better all the time”.  Now its back to being a (constructive) critic.