Mobile is perhaps a distinctly African opportunity.  The fact is that more people have mobile phones in Africa than they have bank accounts.  Africa has more than 650 million mobile phone subscribers, which is more than the US or the European Union.  And it’s a market that has grown exponentially.  According to the World Bank, since 2000 the mobile phone market in Africa has grown 40-fold, from 16.5 million.

So, what’s the opportunity or the learning?  The fact is that people have confidence in using their phones and companies can tap into this confidence to unlock growth potential in their market.  Be it a child of five years old in South Africa or a 70 year old woman in Accra, Ghana all are familiar with the technology.

Mobility addresses two issues – access and affordability.  The financial services and other industries can capitalise on these and confidence levels to ensure better penetration and adoption of products and services they are rolling out over the continent.

While financial inclusion is a topic that is increasingly coming to fore in the Africa and other emerging economies and was firmly on the agenda for this year’s World Economic Forum on Africa, the use of mobile innovation is not limited to the financial services market.  In attending other sessions during the Forum, it was evident that mobile is creeping into other discussions as well.  And the one that caught my attention was the mobility of education.

Education or access to education remains a massive challenge for our beautiful continent, but we need innovative solutions to fight the rhetoric and move towards action and delivery of education. MOOCs or Massive Open Online Courses which are online courses aimed at large-scale interactive participation and access via the web are rising in popularity.

Online and mobile education could play a large role in addressing the issue of getting into rural areas across the continent.   But in a robust discussion on Higher Learning at the Forum, concerns were raised over the sophistication of handset devices across Africa and their ability to deliver content fit for learning online or in a mobile environment.  Not everyone has a smartphone in Africa and the question raised then is how someone will access educational content on an entry level device.  Perhaps initiatives like the launch of Nokia’s $99 smartphone which seems to be predominately focused on emerging markets could help to address this.

Mobile is without a doubt in the spotlight and its ability to unlock value in many different industries is one worth keeping an eye on. If mobile technologies have made such significant inroads in the past five years in changing how we do things, such as how we make payments or how we learn, the mind boggles at the thought of fast forwarding five years and seeing the potential it has unlocked.

As V Shankar of Standard Chartered said during his address at the Building Africa’s Financial Sector discussion, there is nothing better that captures the opportunity for Africa than Shakira’s hit from the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ – “It’s Time for Africa”.

Vanessa Baard is a Director at FH SA.

Attending the ‘Working Women: from Talent to Leadership’ session at the World Economic Forum on Africa 2013 last week I was struck by two initial thoughts. Firstly, just how few men there were in the audience – the brave few in this session made up about 10%. Secondly, by just how passionate, vibrant and inspiring the women were. There was a diverse grouping of political and business leaders, entrepreneurs and civil society who contributed to a lively discussion.

Although there were many recommendations around frameworks, quotas, mentorship and ultimately the education of African girl child’s, I and ultimately the women of Africa, was left wanting.

According to the World Bank report on gender equality released in 2012, working women are important contributors to their families and communities, and in many cases are in fact better in business than their male counterparts. This is overlaid by the fact that, according to Therese Gearhart President, Southern Africa, Coca-Cola Company, who said research had shown that in Kenya 60% of women were doing the work receiving only 10% of the recognised income, yet giving back 90% of this to their communities.

Another panellist, Birgitta Ohlsson Minister for European Union Affairs for Sweden, painted a far rosier picture stating that in the Swedish Government there were currently more women than men, however, they were yet to have a women Prime Minister.

Ohlsson’s own appointment as Minister was a contentious one as, at the time, she was pregnant which raised questions not only around her ability to perform the job, but also to be a good mother. Her view is that thankfully, she married a feminist so she could go ahead and accept the role.

I am lucky enough to share this good fortune by having a husband who is happy to share the responsibilities at home and support me in my career. However, in Africa women who have the support I do are in the minority. With 49% of children in South Africa growing up without fathers, the ability to share the load is certainly not something most women can look to do.

Added to this, is the bizarre fact that senior women in both business and Government are not, in the majority of cases, supported by their female counterparts. This view was supported by President Joyce Banda of Malawi, who shared the fact that in a survey undertaken ahead of the previous election in that country 70% of rural women and 65% of men in senior positions would vote for her but only 35% of senior women would.

The discussion on this point was varied but essentially agreed upon by the audience who felt that senior women in their organisations felt the need to win the support of the men they worked with and potentially felt threatened by the women.

So, the challenges it would seem remain. Has progress been made, in my view absolutely yes. Ten years ago a session of this nature would have been far less robust and much, much smaller. Is there work to be done, once again absolutely yes.

In terms of taking it forward, there are three areas that we as women need to focus on:

1. Learn to let go: of the guilt as well as the need to do and control everything
2. Level the playing field at home: raise your sons to be the men you want to see, encourage your daughters to look beyond the ‘female orientated’ careers and get your partner involved in the household
3. Embrace your femininity: you don’t need to act or think like a man, trust your instincts

Ultimately, each of us as women in senior positions hold the responsibility to ensure that our organisations are inclusive and accountable and that we mentor and promote the women we work with.

Penny Goodwin is a Director at FHSA

A lot has been said in recent times about how Africa is pregnant with possibility, a view influenced largely by the rapid growth the continent has enjoyed over the past decade, fuelled by exploitation of its abundant natural – including gold, platinum, oil and natural gas.

Kofi Annan, former secretary-general of the United Nations, sees the growth trajectory continuing into the next decade. He, however, warns of the need to do things differently henceforth.

“African policymakers have critical choices to make. They can either invest their natural resource revenue in the people to generate jobs and opportunities for future generations; or they can squander the opportunity, allowing jobless growth and inequality to take root,” said Annan.

Speaking at the launch of the Africa Progress Panel’s Africa Progress Report for 2013, at the World Economic Forum on Africa, in Cape Town, today, Annan said the natural resource wealth of many African countries has not improved the lives of their people; but has further widened the gap between the rich and the poor.

He called for bold steps to better manage the continent’s natural resource wealth for the betterment of the lives of its people. These steps required strengthening transparency and accountability in the handling of African nations’ mineral resources.

Annan said although the move towards greater transparency, the rule of law and accountability should be globally driven, pressure to do so should come from Africans themselves – their governments, business and civil society.

It was essential that there be trust: “Wherever there is trust, people (will) believe agreements are fair, that they protect everybody, including investors and country. Only mutually beneficial and fair agreements will stand the test of time.”

He welcomed the growing move by African governments to review existing agreements, to test their fairness.

Similarly bold steps were also needed to improve criminal accountability and tackle the practices of international tax avoidance and evasion, corruption, and weak governance. “The report therefore welcomes the commitment from the G8 presidency, the United Kingdom, and other governments to put tax and transparency at the heart of this year’s dialogue.”

The cost of inaction is too high: “Africa loses twice as much in illicit financial outflows as it receives in international aid. The Africa Progress Panel finds it unconscionable that some companies, often supported by dishonest officials, are using unethical tax avoidance, transfer pricing and anonymous company ownership to maximise their profits, while millions of Africans go without adequate nutrition, health and education,” said Annan.

The report cites the example of the DRC, where between 2010 and 2012, five deals cost the country $1, 3 billion in revenue through the undervaluation of assets and sale to foreign investors.

Another member of the panel, Strive Masiyiwa, chairman and founder of Econet Wireless, said: “While some major companies show outstanding leadership transparency, others show disregard for ethics and human lives. By cheating the system, they make work harder for honest business.”

Linah Mohohlo, fellow Africa Progress Panel member and governor of Botswana’s Central Bank, called for greater transparency on mineral extraction contracts and more equity, with host countries insisting on at least 50 of ownership. Where tax concessions are made, these should be clearly detailed, as should the tenure of contracts as well as their expiration.

Mohohlo emphatically denied that insisting on minimum a 50 percent ownership by host countries amounted to nationalisation. “Botswana’s key lesson has been that Africa’s natural resources belong to the people. In this way, diamonds became the country’s relative economic success.”

For more information, go to www.africaprogresspanel.org.

Thabo Leshilo is a Director at FH SA.

Speaking at the launch of the Africa Competitiveness Report 2013, at the World Economic Forum on Africa being held in Cape Town yesterday (9 May), WEF chief economist Jennifer Blanke, and her fellow panellists, had a simple message: Africa must integrate if it is to be competitive, diversify its economic base and create enough jobs for its young population, fast-urbanizing population.

The report says increased intra-Africa and international trade can fuel competitiveness on the continent, lowering costs and result in economies of scale, thus potentially increasing the variety and quality of goods and services produces on the continent.

The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised. For too long now, everybody has been harping on about the need for Africa to produce high quality goods and beneficiate its raw minerals. The time for meaningful action on this front is long overdue.

It is indeed a great pity that, as the report shows, Africa has not reaped the fruits of trade liberalisation to the extent of such places as Asia and some Latin American countries.

Instead, you have the unfortunate situation whereby access to African markets has become easier while inefficient border administration reduces the price competitiveness of African products in global markets, adding to the costs of imports.

Another major problem is Africa’s poor infrastructure, which hampers regional integration. To put this into perspective, it is worth quoting another panellist, Mthuli Ncube, chief economist and vice president of the African Development Bank, at length.

He said: “Sustained high economic growth often occurs in an environment where there is a meaningful infrastructure development. It is therefore imperative that planning for both national and regional infrastructure projects is coupled with the requisite legal and regulatory framework that will allow for increased involvement of the private sector. . .  Improved infrastructure investment in Africa is crucial for the continent’s competitiveness and productivity. . .”

The problem of integration was to be later echoed, perhaps more pointedly, a while later at the plenary session by Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank Group.

He said he was baffled him by the continued need for visas for travel within the continent. This, he said, often made it difficult even for him trying to enter the countries that need his helps with developmental finance. Now, how’s that for shooting yourself in the foot?

How much longer will Africa continue scoring developmental own goals before its leaders really start appreciating the need to bring down the barriers to trade within the continent, thus making it more cost effective to transport goods their countries trade with one another, thus benefiting from their huge market of almost a billion people, for the mutual benefit of their countries?

Surely, working towards the goal of making Africa both prosperous and at peace with itself in the next 50 years starts now?

The good news is that The Africa Competitiveness Report 2013 paints a picture of hope for the continent – one where strife is increasingly being replaced by growing development, surging international investor interest and greater prosperity.

The continent, it says, has experienced an average growth rate of more than 5 percent over the past decade, compared to the developed world still reeling from the effects of the global financial crisis. However, the continent still faces the challenge of using its impressive growth for the benefit of its entire population. The Africa Competitiveness Report 2013 is available at www.weforum.org/acr.

Thabo Leshilo is a Director at FH SA.

On May 8, I was asked to participate in a panel discussion around ‘Shaping Norms and Values of Social Media’, I was to share the World Economic Forum stage with Minister of Communications Dina Pule, the Executive Chairman of MultiChoice, Nolo Letele and two highly regarded representatives from Africa.

To boot, the small (50) hand selected audience consisted of media house owners, senior global journalists, prominent social media folk just to list a few.

The discussion revolved around the symbiotic relationship between social and traditional media, as both need to co-exist, each fuels the other however only one is regulated and is held accountable.

The debate was robust, the group believes that there will be an uncomfortable period where unverified news is broken too early in both channels, with instances where apologies come later.

The audience was a good mix of legislators, media players and citizens, and opinions were many and varied.

To illustrate examples, three major case studies were discussed and evaluated ranging from the Kenyan elections, to piracy issues in Nigeria, to online and media privacy in SA, using the recent Oscar Pistorius case as a point of reference.

There were interesting comments about media ‘sources’ and protection of media sources, there was commentary around the validity of Twitter and tweets as sources of media content.   The idea of creating greater responsibility behind ‘Verified Twitter’ accounts was also tabled.

The result was unanimous – we do not want and do not need more regulation / legislation governing the social media channels – the system will continue to self-regulate.

Our Minister went on to say that regulation in this space fundamentally infringes upon our basic right to opinion and freedom of expression.

In closing, one remark stood above the others – Democracy is Messy… you need to stand up for yourself.

 Kevin Welman is FH SA’s Managing Director

ST. LOUIS, May 1, 2013 — FleishmanHillard today unveiled a newly refreshed corporate brand and associated digital media property. The new branding reflects the evolution of the leading public relations firm into a fully integrated communications company that provides clients with the world’s most complete communications solutions. Long recognized around the world for excellence in public relations, public affairs, and digital and social media communications, FleishmanHillard has redefined the boundaries of traditional public relations by becoming channel agnostic.  Able to solve client business problems by working across paid, earned, shared and owned (PESO) media channels.

“Many years ago we recognized the changing communications environment and increasingly heard client demands for integrated solutions,” said Dave Senay, FleishmanHillard president and CEO. “Mostly under the radar, we reimagined and reinvented our business. We invested in nontraditional talent and new capabilities behind four significant growth areas driving our business today: the alignment of brand and reputation; analytics and insights; social enterprise; and strategic integration across paid, earned, shared and owned media channels.”

New Brand Platform, Tagline and Logo

To reintroduce the firm, FleishmanHillard is unveiling a new brand platform, tagline and logo. “Having evolved, and with a new story to tell, we needed our brand – a brand that had not been touched since 1990 – to catch up,” said Stephanie Marchesi, FleishmanHillard chief marketing officer. Believing that brands are revealed and not invented, the firm looked closely at itself, conducting more than 100 one-on-one interviews with employees, clients and industry observers. They found that three significant factors – who the firm is at its core, how the world has changed, and new client demands – intersected at one word: True.

“True speaks to our unique ability to help clients navigate a world demanding unprecedented authenticity and transparency,” said Senay. “True also reflects our firm’s moral compass and commitment to the highest values. It defines who we are as a company, and the direction we are moving ahead.” To capture the meaning and message behind true, FleishmanHIllard is introducing the tagline, The Power of True.

The Power of True defines who FleishmanHillard is and what it believes. It also explains what the firm offers clients, including: The power of true insights; the power of true ideas; the power of true integration; the power of true client service; and the power of true outcomes.

The new logo equally reflects the firm’s transformation. “Our former logo did an excellent job of reflecting the trust and confidence clients have long placed with us,” said Marchesi. “Our new logo maintains those values, but with a fresh, innovative and more contemporary interpretation.”

The logo unites the names of both founders – Fleishman and Hillard – on one line to reflect the heritage of the firm and the originators of modern public relations. FleishmanHillard also added to its logo an iconic mark that complements the logo but also symbolizes the transformation of the firm. The vertical bars tell the story of a firm deeply rooted in the industry sectors and communications capabilities most important to clients. The horizontal bars represent FleishmanHillard’s ability to innovate, integrate and redefine the boundaries of traditional public relations.

This is a question that has been asked many times but at the beginning of the twentieth century it wasn’t too much of a focus, but as technology advances so does our thirst for knowledge.

During the First World War (1914-1918) media reported on the conflict from a distance, the news was days late and very biased based on who was sending the news. The conflict in Vietnam (1965-1973) was the first time that the media was on ‘the front line’ with the troops and were sending ‘live’ images back to the United States as and when it happened. Although this was a dramatic shift in how the media conducted themselves during a conflict it ultimately turned the tide on the war with regards to public sentiment. Instead of the usual propaganda filled rhetoric the public saw countless images of body bags being loaded onto helicopters.  It was images such as these that helped push the public against the war in Vietnam.

Since the Vietnam conflict governments have tried to censor the media’s actions under the banner of national security. But where do you draw the line? As a democratic country you, as a citizen, have the right to access information, information that you deem critical. But with the rapidly advancing technology the so called ‘enemy’ of your armed forces could be picking up the same information that you are demanding.

Communications during a time of conflict can be very tricky. When is it in the public interest and when isn’t it and who makes that decision? Broad access to information has the potential to change the way governments negotiate (in the case of WikiLeaks) and the way that armed forces conduct battles.

It is in my opinion that access to information needs to happen before a conflict arises. The public has a right to know why their sons and daughters are being sent to countries such as the CAR but once on the ground the information needs to be carefully managed for the sole purpose of protecting the lives on the ground.

Part of belonging to a democratic society is the ability to ask questions and be openly critical of our government’s choices but this right should not come at the expense of our soldier’s lives. The critical part is for governments to be clear on the reasons for silence. The reasons for conflict should, and can be, clearly communicated to the public, but let’s leave the battle strategies to the experts.

Written by Caryl Kolk

Recently we saw a crisis explode on Twitter pertaining to a large global brand. The legal team took too long to approve the recommended responses to those defaming the brand on this most public of forums. The result was that the issue escalated, with key influencers weighing in on the conversation while the brand remained silent at the crucial time when they could have filled the void with facts and an authentic message.

The silence was not the only issue. The crux of my blog post is the need for a brand, or better yet a spokesperson, to communicate in a relatable and authentic manner. It’s a known fact that social media users do not frequently engage with brand names on the likes of Twitter, as users want to trust and believe in whom they follow. A person is a lot more credible than the blank face of a local or international brand.

Whilst researching this piece, I decided to do a little exercise that explored authentic versus non-authentic words.  After all, we’re in the business of story-telling, which is essentially the stringing together of a variety of words to communicate and connect with the broader public.  My exercise yielded the following result and I believe communications people would do well to bear these in mind when next writing a statement or response to a crisis situation.

My interest was piqued a few weeks ago when reading Fleishman-Hillard’s internal newsletter for the EMEA region, IMPACT.

FH London launched an ‘Authenticity Gap’ study earlier this month that analyses what consumers expect from companies and how their actual experience differs from those expectations.

The research offers a new framework with unique insights in 20 different industry categories.  It steps beyond traditional reputation research to ask not just want consumers are experiencing with companies today, but also what they expect from them.

The research also identifies behaviors consumers most associate with authentic companies, providing insights and understanding companies’ reputation and perception in the public sphere.  Lastly, the research also identifies actionable steps that companies can take to bridge this gap for consumers.

I’ll be sure to update you on the key findings relevant to crisis communications in my next post so watch this space!

The main objective of the bill, according to State Security Minister Siyabonga Cwele, is to protect state security. He says it is needed to enable government to better regulate the handling of sensitive state information, combat the peddling of such information and counter espionage.

Although the bill is much improved from the original, crudely authoritarian version that gave sweeping powers to all state organs – including water utilities and state-funded bus companies – to classify information, it still has major flaws with serious implications for transparency, the free flow of information and participatory government.

According to The Star, Cwele told Parliament yesterday: “The main objective of the bill remains to protect vulnerable state information against alteration, loss or destruction, which will ensure that our citizens are not denied their rights. For example, (it will ensure) people are not married to people they do not know or their companies are (not) hijacked.”

Cwele’s inclusion of information in the marriage register as well as the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission within the scope of sensitive state information supports the view that the bill still defines state security too broadly.

Also, although the amended bill provides that only the cabinet and the government security cluster can classify information, other organs of state – and junior officials – can still request access to such powers from the minister, opening the door to abuse.

Thankfully, the bill no longer overrules the Promotion of Access to Information Act and provides for the establishment of a classification review panel, rather than giving such enormous powers to the minister of state security alone. However, he still influences who sits on the panel.

Other improvements include that the Human Rights Commission and other statutory bodies with a mandate of promoting the public interest, can now access such classified information – but only after being cleared by the minister.

The South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) and the Right2Know Campaign (R2K), which marshalled opposition to the bill, bemoan the absence of a full public interest defence clause  to fully protect investigative journalists and whistle-blowers using classified information to expose corruption, improper government appointments and shady tendering.

They and others have slammed the possible 25 year jail term for such journalists and whistle-blowers as draconian. It’s disconcerting that such people could be prosecuted under a law aimed at spies and foreign enemies of the state when their intentions are to promote clean governance and expose the abuse of power.

Also, the bill criminalises the possession and use of information that is already in the public domain, “effectively criminalising the population at large when classified information becomes public, rather than holding those responsible for keeping secrets accountable,” says R2K.

The bill’s opponents are now hoping to persuade President Zuma not to sign it in its current form but rather have the Constitutional Court review it and pronounce on its constitutionality. The opposition parties and civil society have already declared their intentions to challenge the proposed new law in the highest court in the land in case the president ignores their pleas.

Whatever the outcome, there is no doubt that the protracted and acrimonious battle over this bill will go down in history as one of the most important defining moments of South Africa’s democratic experiment. Hopefully, we can come out of it having further affirmed the supremacy of the rule of law and better being prepared to govern and be governed by the rules we set for ourselves in our much-admired constitution – one in which commitment to human dignity and open government rule supreme.

• Fleishman-Hillard South Africa will continue to monitor developments around the bill and bring you important updates as they occur 

How times have changed. Radically. Irrevocably.  Suddenly, people buy stuff based on what they think of a company as much as the product itself – and those perceptions are being shaped by a vast network of fellow-consumers, partners and communities.

Try saying some of these phrases for size: “Our customers don’t understand us or what we do.” “We’re battling to connect with some of our key audiences.” “We have a great range of products and services, but people keep going to our competitors.” “We do great work in social investment/marketing/social media, but we never get recognised for it.”

If any of these phrases sound familiar to you, I have two words for you: Reputation Management.

Let’s first swiftly deal with what Reputation Management is NOT. It’s NOT spin-doctoring, or putting the best possible light on things. It’s NOT relentless smoke and mirrors and flash. It’s NOT doing a social responsibility project, and thinking you’re a hero who deserves accolades for changing the world. In fact, it has nothing to do with creating hugely inflated reputations that have little grounding in reality.

Here’s what Reputation Management IS. In a nutshell, it’s all about defining your corporate character – your identity, your purpose, your mission and values, your culture. Then living it. As Fleishman-Hillard’s global CEO, Dave Senay, likes to say: How you are is who you are. Then you have to share your stories and purpose and thoughts beyond your organisation.

For those of you familiar with TED talks, I’d suggest you take a look at this great talk by author and corporate leadership guru Simon Sinek. Basically, what he’s saying is this: people want to know who you are, not what you do or make or sell. And if they like who you are, they’ll do business with you. If they don’t, they’ll go elsewhere.

But Reputation Management goes further than that. Yes, it’s vital to have a great culture and to live it out through your behaviour. But there are two other critical pieces of the puzzle: performance, and communications.

Performance is all about having products and services that add value to your customers. Complying with corporate governance rules. Being innovative and flexible in your products and strategies. Being a good business.

Communications is all about telling the world about who you are and what you do, and most importantly, why you do it. It’s about telling great stories, rather than talking about products. It’s about talking to your customers, media and stakeholders in an open and authentic way.

Three things: Know who you are and what you stand for. Have products and services that talk to your audiences. And then tell great stories about yourself and your people in a real and consistent way. Suddenly, you’re managing your reputation. Feels good, doesn’t it?