Podcasts about celtel

In Nigeria, a common narrative persists: those excelling in academics are destined for the lecture hall, not the boardroom. The "first-class mind" is often seen as ill-equipped for the cutthroat world of business. But is this perception accurate? Today, I want to challenge this stereotype, drawing inspiration from global figures like Mo Ibrahim and Jack Ma, and a remarkable Nigerian NYSC listener who's proving that academic prowess and entrepreneurial spirit can indeed coexist. Recently, I received a message from a listener currently serving in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC). What struck me was her side hustle – a thriving business generating a consistent 100,000 naira in profit each month. Let's emphasize that: profit, not revenue. As I explained on the podcast, profit is what remains after all expenses are paid, a crucial distinction often overlooked. And for a first-time entrepreneur, especially one navigating the challenges of NYSC, 100,000 naira in monthly profit is a significant achievement. What made her story even more compelling? She graduated with a first-class degree. This sparked a deep dive into the perceived chasm between academia and entrepreneurship in Nigeria. Are these two worlds truly mutually exclusive? The answer, emphatically, is no. Look at Jack Ma, the visionary behind Alibaba. Before revolutionizing e-commerce, he was an English lecturer, proving that a passion for education doesn't preclude entrepreneurial brilliance. Then there's Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-British billionaire with a PhD in mobile communications, who founded Celtel, a telecommunications giant. While his name might not be as familiar to many Nigerians, his impact on the African telecom landscape is undeniable. These examples, alongside our NYSC listener's success, demonstrates that academic excellence cultivates transferable skills invaluable in the business world. Let's break it down: * Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: The rigorous demands of academic pursuits hone the ability to analyze complex situations and develop effective solutions. This is the cornerstone of strategic decision-making in business. * Research and Analytical Skills: Whether dissecting academic papers or market trends, the ability to gather and interpret data is essential. * Communication Skills: Articulating ideas clearly and persuasively, a staple of academic life, is crucial for building relationships and closing deals. * Discipline and Perseverance: Earning a first-class degree requires immense dedication and resilience, qualities that are just as vital in navigating the challenges of entrepreneurship. * Adaptability and Learning: The academic environment fosters a growth mindset, encouraging continuous learning and adaptation, which are essential in today's dynamic business landscape. These skills translate directly into strategic thinking, efficient operations, and a competitive edge. However, academic achievement alone doesn't guarantee business success. As I emphasized on the podcast, entrepreneurs from academic backgrounds, especially those with first-class degrees, must prioritize networking and sales skills. These are the bridges that connect ideas to opportunities and turn potential into profit. So, if you're a first-class mind or someone with a strong academic background, don't let anyone tell you that business is beyond your reach. Embrace your skills, build your network, and watch your entrepreneurial dreams take flight.

"It's time to bring the decent story about Africa forward."It's not every day you get to chat to a billionaire. But for today's episode Alan Kasujja speaks with Mo Ibrahim - the Sudanese born businessman who's made it his life's mission to counter corruption. His charitable organisation ‘The Mo Ibrahim Foundation' rewards African leaders for good governance with awards of $5 million. He made his wealth by building a telecommunications company called Celtel which he sold in 2005 for $3.4 billion.In a lively conversation, Alan talks to him about celebrating Africa's heroes, corruption – and how much cash a billionaire carries in his wallet…

Mo Ibrahim talks to Rahul Tandon about the challenges he faced setting up Celtel mobile phone company in Africa. He explains how he used scratchcards to provide people with a pay as you go service, why he sold the business and the development of the mobile phone industry. Mo Ibrahim also talks about setting up his own Foundation to support governance and leadership in Africa and why he thinks the continent needs to develop its own natural resources.

Mohammed "Mo" Ibrahim is a Sudanese-British billionaire businessman. He gained the majority of his wealth in the telecommunications industry after selling his company, Celtel. After selling Celtel in 2005 for $3.4 billion, he set up The Mo Ibrahim Foundation to encourage better governance in Africa. On today's episode we study exactly what a Billionaire can do with their wealth when put to good use.  Reference Materials: - The Mo Ibrahim Foundation is an African foundation, established in 2006 with one focus: the critical importance of governance and leadership for Africa. It is our conviction that governance and leadership lie at the heart of any tangible and shared improvement in the quality of life of African citizens. - https://mo.ibrahim.foundation - Mo Ibrahim: Creating a Governance Index for Africa - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN7Ys98kWw8 - Africa: The next frontier for investors - Mo Ibrahim - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzZyuzn_NfA --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/acquisitions-network/message

An Open Letter from Prison Professors to All Course Participants   Hi, My name is Michael Santos. I'm the founder of Earning Freedom and the Prison Professors nonprofit. If you're working through our course, it's likely that you're going through the criminal justice system at some stage—pretrial, in custody, or on some form of community supervision. Both Bill McGlashan and I can empathize with your plight. For 9,500 days, I lived as federal prisoner number 16377-004. I am intimately familiar with challenges of living in confinement. Despite those challenges, I know the opportunities that open when a person chooses deliberate adjustment strategies. A jail or prison may or may not offer rehabilitative courses. When a person develops a self-directed work ethic, a person can work on personal development regardless of where administrators confine him or her. At Prison Professors, we develop courses that help people that want to help themselves. For that reason, it pleases me to offer our course: Lessons on Leadership: With Bill McGlashan Some may wonder why a person like Bill McGlashan would work with a startup like Prison Professors. Bill is known across the globe as one of the foremost impact investors. Why would such a man volunteer so much of his personal time to help people locked in America's jails and prisons?  To respond to that question, it may help if I offer some context. Participants will learn all about Bill and the way he thinks through the course. Before getting to the course, let me offer the backstory.   Backstory: I made bad decisions as a young man, refusing to heed the advice of teachers or mentors. Excitement of a fast crowd lured me away from productive habits. I began making bad decisions during the recklessness of youth. Those decisions turned worse in 1984, when I was 20. I began participating with a group that sold cocaine. In August of 1987, federal agents arrested me. For the next 30 years, I lived inside prisons of every security level or on some form of community confinement, including:  • High-security US penitentiaries, • Medium-security federal correctional institutions, • Low-security federal correctional institutions, • Minimum-security federal prison camps, • A halfway house, • Home confinement, • Supervised Release. • Special Parole, • Parole As I reveal in Earning Freedom: Conquering a 45-Year Prison Term, leaders taught me many lessons during that lengthy odyssey. With hopes of helping as many people as possible, I accept a responsibility to pass along lessons that transformed my life.  Even though a person may serve a lengthy term, any of us can choose to work toward reconciling with society. While in prison, I learned from many leaders. People like Bill McGlashan taught me to follow the principles of leadership: Define success, as the best possible outcome. Create a plan and prepare to overcome the challenges ahead. Put priorities in place, knowing that incremental progress would lead to new opportunities. Create tools, tactics, and resources that would help me grow, and Execute the plan every day. That disciplined adjustment strategy could help any person that wanted to prepare for a life of meaning, relevance, and dignity. It could help a person restore confidence. Regardless of what bad decisions we made in the past, at any time, regardless of where we are, we can work toward making better decisions.  I aspired to reconcile with society and to prepare in ways that would allow me to emerge successfully. A willingness to learn from leaders opened my eyes to a new philosophy. Rather than complaining about the challenges wrought by my bad decisions, I could work to make amends. Any person could do the same. In Earning Freedom: Conquering a 45-Year Prison Term, I share the entire story. On August 11, 1987, authorities arrested me. After a jury convicted me, a judge sentenced me to serve a 45-year sentence. While locked in jail, a correctional officer passed me a copy of Plato's book, The Republic, which introduced me to philosophy. I learned about Socrates and his remarkable way of looking at the world.  Reading The Republic changed my life. It helped me to realize and accept the colossal mistakes I had made as a young man. I'd been living by a bad philosophy. Rather than working to help my community, I broke the law.  Socrates (and other leaders) taught me to stop feeling sorry for myself. Leaders suggested that we change if we don't like our situation, or if we're facing a challenge. To start, we must change the way we think. From leaders like Socrates (and Bill McGlashan), I learned the power that comes when we think about other people and our community instead of only thinking about the challenges we face. We can recalibrate. We can work to earn freedom.  That change in thinking influenced a deliberate adjustment strategy. While incarcerated, I made a 100% commitment to: Pursue self-directed learning, Contribute to society in meaningful, measurable ways, and Work toward building a strong support network that would include positive role models. That three-pronged strategy made all the difference. When defining success at that stage in my life, I simply wanted to emerge with my dignity intact. I wanted to pursue a path that would open opportunities to live as a law-abiding, contributing citizen. By preparing well, no one would know that I had served a quarter century when I got out. I wanted to emerge unscathed. That strategy led to my earning a bachelor's degree from Mercer University, a master's degree from Hofstra University, getting married in prison, and opening many income opportunities that I could expand upon after release. By the time I walked out of prison, I had sufficient savings in the bank to launch my career. None of that would have been possible had I not opened my mind, and my heart, to learn from leaders.   Any person that served time alongside me could have done the same. At any time, we can choose to learn from leaders like Bill McGlashan. Sadly, the prison culture conditions people to learn from so-called “shot callers” instead. The leaders I studied taught me to think differently from the way I thought before I went to prison. I encourage others to do the same. Those who choose to pursue self-directed adjustments will find opportunities rather than challenges awaiting them upon release—as I experienced. While still in the halfway house, San Francisco State University hired me to teach as an adjunct professor. Simultaneously, I began building businesses. Together with my partners, we persuaded prison administrators, federal judges, probation officers, and even U.S. Attorneys to purchase our products and services. A successful adjustment inside eased my reentry, allowing me to begin building a career upon release. I didn't need a job. Preparations allowed me to create my own income streams. I am convinced that any person in jail or prison can use the time inside to recalibrate and open opportunities. To succeed, however, those people must accept the reality. As administrators used to tell me:  “We don't care anything about your life after your release. We only care about the security of the institution.” In such an environment, we should expect obstacles. Despite obstacles that contribute to intergenerational cycles of recidivism, we must focus on what we can do to prepare for the journey ahead. We must reject the dubious advice we receive: From the system: You've got nothin' comin'. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. From misguided people inside: The best way to serve time is to forget about the world outside, and to focus on your reputation in prison. Mahatma Gandhi taught us that we should strive to live as the change we want to see in the world. I want to live in a world where people can always work to become better and reach their highest potential. I'm grateful to the many leaders who taught me this message. For that reason, I've devoted my professional career to sharing what I've learned from leaders.   It pleases me to share these lessons from Bill McGlashan, a genuine world-class leader. What qualifies Bill as a world-class leader?  A lot! Bill has impeccable academic credentials, with an undergraduate degree from Yale, and a graduate degree in business from Stanford. While I served decades in prison, Bill distinguished himself as a steward of capital for private equity companies, business leader, and impact investor. He launched startups that he later sold to publicly traded corporations. As a CEO, he saved hundreds of jobs by accepting the responsibility of restructuring a publicly traded company that was on the verge of failure. As a director of TPG Capital, he created stellar returns on more than $12 billion worth of funds that investors entrusted to him and his team.  Bill built a reputation as one of the world's most astute impact investors. He brought coalitions of other world-class activists, philanthropists, and leaders together, including: Bono: Singer for U2, but also founder of RED, ONE, and a cultural leader. Jeff Skoll: Founder of eBay, Participant Media, and the Skoll Foundation. Laurene Powell Jobs, philanthropist, and founder of the Emerson Collective. Mo Ibrahim, founder of Celtel and global philanthropist focused on Africa. Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group. Anand Mahindra, Chairman of Mahindra Group from India. I did not meet Bill until the summer of 2021, eight years after I had finished my obligation to the Bureau of Prisons.  Despite having devoted his professional career to creating solutions in response huge global challenges that included solutions for climate change, extreme poverty, access to healthcare and education, Bill made a catastrophic decision as a parent. He agreed to participate in a ruse. A conman convinced him to pay an unscrupulous testing service to assist prospects for his son's admission to a university. His son didn't need the help, and he didn't know that Bill had participated in the artifice. Bill's decision led to a series of catastrophic event, proving the theorem of Scottish author Sir Walter Scott, who wrote: • Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. Authorities arrested Bill, a grand jury indicted him, and he pleaded guilty to a federal crime.  Bill and I spoke for the first time a few days before he would surrender to serve a three-month sentence in federal prison. During our lengthy conversation, I listened to Bill express his remorse and admired his eagerness to make amends. When he told me that he wanted to use his time inside to help as many people as possible, I offered some observations on what he could expect from the experience. People in jail or prison could learn from his lessons on leadership.  Bill's story was the type that inspired me to want to learn more while I served my sentence.  Knowing that others could benefit from his wisdom, I invited him to volunteer his time to create a new course with Prison Professors. Through the course, I suggested, we would help people learn the importance of pursuing self-directed learning projects. Since the prison system may not always have resources to offer educational courses, I explained, we could fill the gap. As evidenced by the video files that accompany this course, and the personal nature of the lessons, Bill volunteered to spend hundreds of hours working alongside me. Together, we developed the course.  This course offers opportunities for self-directed participants to work toward developing their vocabulary, their writing skills, and their critical-thinking skills. Those building blocks can help anyone grow. By developing those skills, I opened countless opportunities as the months turned into years, and the years turned into decades.  Bill's teachings would have inspired me while I served my sentence. They inspire me now. They make me want to learn more. We hope that you will learn from the video files, the audio files and the lessons that make up our course. Although I didn't appreciate the importance of education when I started the journey, this course would have opened my eyes to the liberty that comes with self-directed learning plans. On behalf of our entire team at Prison Professors, Bill and I encourage you to work toward reaching your highest potential.    Sincerely, Michael Santos      

George Held is an Executive Vice President of Digital and New Business Development at Beeline Russia. George is a telecom and consumer finance executive with broad international experience. He has been publicly recognized and awarded for driving and implementing several market-leading initiatives in the international telecom sector. He is driven by a commitment and desire to add significant value through the introduction of sustainable, market-relevant, transformational services that impact people's lives, while simultaneously delivering high commercial impact for all stakeholders. Prior to joining PJSC VimpelCom, George held the position of Vice President for Mobile Commerce (Connected Commerce) in the Etisalat group of companies, responsible for the implementation, integration and development of digital products in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Prior to that, he worked in executive positions at Airtel, Zain, Celtel, Tele2. George also has experience in Russia: from 1997 to 2001, he worked as the commercial director of Tele2 in the Urals region. George has won numerous industry awards for product innovation such as GSMA Global Mobile Awards, Global Telecom Innovation Awards, FT / IFC special commendation. He holds an MBA from Northeastern University (Boston, USA), a degree from Harvard Business School, a degree in product development, implementation and management, and a certificate in artificial intelligence from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. FIND GEORGE ON SOCIAL MEDIA LinkedIn ================================ SUPPORT & CONNECT: Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/denofrich Twitter: https://twitter.com/denofrich Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/denofrich YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/denofrich Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/den_of_rich/ Hashtag: #denofrich © Copyright 2022 Den of Rich. All rights reserved.

George Held is an Executive Vice President of Digital and New Business Development at Beeline Russia. George is a telecom and consumer finance executive with broad International experience. He has been publicly recognized and awarded for driving and implementing several market leading initiatives in the international telecom sector. He is driven by a commitment and desire to add significant value through the introduction of sustainable, market relevant, transformational services that impact people's lives, while simultaneously delivering high commercial impact for all stakeholders.Prior to joining PJSC VimpelCom, George held the position of Vice President for Mobile Commerce (Connected Commerce) in the Etisalat group of companies, responsible for the implementation, integration and development of digital products in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Prior to that, he worked in executive positions at Airtel, Zain, Celtel, Tele2. George also has experience in Russia: from 1997 to 2001, he worked as the commercial director of Tele2 in the Urals region.George has won numerous industry awards for product innovation such as GSMA Global Mobile Awards, Global Telecom Innovation Awards, FT / IFC special commendation.He holds an MBA from Northeastern University (Boston, USA), a degree from Harvard Business School, a degree in product development, implementation and management, and a certificate in artificial intelligence from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.FIND GEORGE ON SOCIAL MEDIALinkedIn================================PODCAST INFO:Podcast website: https://www.uhnwidata.com/podcastApple podcast: https://apple.co/3kqOA7QSpotify: https://spoti.fi/2UOtE1AGoogle podcast: https://bit.ly/3jmA7ulSUPPORT & CONNECT:Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/denofrichTwitter: https://www.instagram.com/denofrich/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denofrich/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/denofrich

I had a conversation with Efosa Ojomo of the Clay Christensen Institute. He is the co-author of the book The Prosperity Paradox - along with Karen Dillon and the late Harvard management guru Clayton Christensen. The central argument of the book is that economic development happens when businesses innovate by creating a previously non-existent market. The book has been largely shunned by development scholars and this is where I started my conversation with Efosa. I also go through some other criticisms of the book, and Efosa had interesting answers. The book relies on case studies and might be considered not empirically rigorous by development scholars. Regardless of critics, the argument is powerful and hard to ignore. I read it as changing the overall incentives of all stakeholders in the process of economic development - when bureaucrats, the private sector can all benefit from making the pie bigger, things can move very quickly.TranscriptTL: Hi, and this is Ideas Untrapped. My guest today is Efosa Ojomo. Efosa is a senior research fellow at the Clay Christensen Institute. He has written a book called The Prosperity Paradox. It's a bestseller, and personally, one of the most refreshing books that I have read on the subject in the last couple of years. You're welcome, Efosa.EO: Thank you very much, Tobi. It's a pleasure to be here with you. I can't wait to dive in. Thank you.TL: Okay, so I'll start with the book and the central thesis, which I know as also appeared in your other publications, be it essays and articles. You talked about market-creating innovations as the key to prosperity, to getting the process of development started, to fighting poverty. What is your convincing evidence, so to speak, for this particular paradigm you're advocating? And why is the "Development Establishment", you know, aid agencies and scholars working in that area, why are they missing that point of view?EO: Wow, so that is a great question to start. Unfortunately, it's not a question I can answer with one answer, so let me unpack the question. Because you asked what's the evidence for market-creating innovation? Why do development practitioners approach development and antipoverty programs a certain way? And why haven't they bought into this idea - the notion of market-creating innovation? So let me start with diagnosing the problem. When you want to address any issue you have to make sure you spend a lot of time diagnosing it. Let's go back to the aid industry and when it really began.1949, Harry Truman gave a speech where he actually, unintentionally, I believe, catalyzed the beginning of the modern-day development industry. And in his speech (it was his inaugural address, you know, president of the US at the time), he defined the problem of development as rich versus poor. Developed versus undeveloped. First world versus third world. He didn't use all that language, but that's essentially how he defined it. As, you know, we are developed and we have all these resources, these poor countries are not developed, they don't have these resources, let us transfer resources to them and help them develop.That is the main way the development industry works today. It's this idea that you are not developed, we are developed, we're going to transfer resources to you. So that's number one, right, [on] why the industry operates the way it does. Number two is that the development industry is an industry that attracts certain types of people. And so if you look at big players in the development industry, what you're going to see are people who have gone to school to get typically a PhD or Masters degree in the area of development. And so they study development as a whole as an entire entity and the research they do is often very focused on how one element impact entity.So you might write a PhD thesis on how education of girls in this part of Ghana impacts their ability to go to school. Now, that's an interesting paper and you may find out, oh, if we educate girls, more of them will have fewer kids and they'll get advanced degrees, but that will not lead to the development of Ghana as a country. It answers, oftentimes, what I think is an inconsequential question. And so the development industry has a lot of players trying to do good work, unfortunately, they're answering the wrong or I would say inconsequential questions.The third thing I would say with regard to development and why it's practice the way it is [is], in a weird way, we know what the answer is. The answer to development looks like, right, in our minds, whether it's right or wrong, it looks like America. It looks like Japan. It looks like France and England. In other words, you go to these countries that are wealthy, and generally speaking, things work. The roads are good, the electricity does not go out, the law enforcement, for the most part, works. And so you say, "you know what? The problem in our countries that are not yet developed is all these things don't work. So let us make them work." Let us fix the roads. Let us fix the laws. Let us fix the schools.What these three things I just discussed are missing is the fundamental mechanism that helps these things work. Right, the fundamental mechanism that actually provides the resources or creates the value that really enables these things to work. And that fundamental mechanism is market-creating innovations. Which is connected to the initial question you asked: "what's the evidence that this actually worked?" Again, to answer that, we have to go back in time. We have to say, "if we have this hypothesis that market-creating innovations work, how can we show that? We had to go back to a time when these wealthy countries, the United States, countries in Europe, Japan and so on were not wealthy. We had to go back to when they had demographics that are similar to many poor countries today. And we said, what happened? Did these countries simply build the great infrastructure all of a sudden? The government, were they never corrupt and they just woke up one day and began to institute good laws and practices? Or was it a more dynamic nonlinear process of entrepreneurs across the country creating new markets, employing people, generating tax revenues, enabling the government to overtime improve its institutions? What we found was the latter. It was a more dynamic and nonlinear process.And so that kind of finding is really hard to document at scale and what I mean is, you know, when you pass a law, it's in the record books, we know exactly when this law was passed and so we can look at society before the law and we can look at how society evolves after the law. The problem with innovation is it's really hard to say, okay, this is the date - on November 5th, 2006, this is the date this innovation came and created all this impact. It's a process. And so instead of looking at oh, these were the laws that were passed, this is how society evolved, that's how the institution changed the society. What's more important to do is say "what led to the passage of those laws? Who fought for the passage of those laws? Where did they get the resources to fight for the passage of those laws? Where did the government get the resources to enforce the laws?"And so these questions are a lot more difficult to answer, but when you begin to unpack them, it's hard to divorce development from innovation and more specifically market-creating innovation. My hope is that development practitioners begin to ask the tougher questions and begin to engage in what a wise man, once called "intellectual honesty." And really assess - are our programs working? Are they working the way we want them to work? We've been doing development like this for over the past 20 years, over the past 30 years. How has that resulted in prosperity? COVID-19 has come around and all of a sudden development is pushed back 25 years. Uh, was it really pushed back 25 years or were we celebrating a false sense of progress? Because development is not pushed back 25 years in Japan, it's not pushed back 25 years in France, I can tell you that. And so we have to get to the point where we are asking the difficult questions on how to truly do sustainable development.TL: I want to go to your latest article in Project Syndicate where you challenged African entrepreneurs and business people to rethink the way they do business, and invests more in market-creating innovations. My question is why are they not thinking about this already, what are the barriers if the returns are there given some of the examples and evidence you've cited?EO: Well, first of all, market-creating innovations are innovations that transform complicated and expensive products into products that are simple and affordable. Now, these innovations make these products more accessible to many, many more people in society. And so an example would be the proliferation of mobile phones all across Africa, for instance. Or a company in Ghana called mPharma that is making medication drugs more affordable, more accessible to people. Micro Insurer is another example, making insurance more affordable to people who historically would not be able to afford existing insurance products. So examples abound. Now the question you ask about why if these things are so interesting and exciting, why are they not being pursued?A couple of reasons, the first is there is a sense that innovation is something that happens after a society develops and becomes prosperous [because] it's only people with, you know, disposable income, with extra income that can actually afford many products on the market. So that belief is widespread. And unfortunately, it's really hard to go against a belief. One of the things we're trying to do is say no, no, no, innovation is not something that happens after a society develops, innovation is the process by which society develops. So that's one. The second thing is this concept of non-consumption.Now, non-consumption is a phenomenon that happens in every society, but it's more prevalent in emerging economies or poorer countries. It describes how many people in the society would benefit from gaining access to a product or service, but because of the cost of the product, because of the skill necessary to use the product or the time needed to actually purchase and consume the product, or the simple fact that the product is just not available, many people cannot access these products. It doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit, but there are obstacles or barriers.Now, the non-consumption economy as we like to call it contains all these individuals. The problem is when you do market research on opportunities, a lot of times the insights we get from our market research point to what we call the consumption economy. It points to people who already consuming. And so when you look at the market research for televisions in Nigeria or refrigerators in Ghana, what you are measuring is not all the people who would benefit if they had access to these products or services. What the market research data is measuring is all the people who can afford the services. And so? You say oh, refrigerators in Nigeria, only 2 million people have them, as an example - I actually don't know the number off the top of my head. Only 2 million people, that's a very small market. That doesn't warrant our investment especially when you compare it to a hundred million in the US, there's no market in Nigeria.What market research does not take into account is what about nonconsumption? What about all the people who would benefit from gaining access to these refrigerators? [But] because we don't measure and value nonconsumption, it's hard to even see it as an opportunity. And the last reason I would give, you know, I'd be remiss if I didn't say [is] it's really difficult to go after nonconsumption. It's difficult for the first two reasons I described and it's difficult because you are literally creating a market that does not exist.And so in the research that we've done on just studying market-creating innovators, whether the ones in the US, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia it doesn't matter. Before these innovators create the market, there is widespread disbelief, especially from those who are experts these economies. They tell them there's no way that this market exists. These people are too poor. They're not educated enough, they can't afford these products. And so, to go against the grain when there's no market, the people are poor, the environment is difficult to work in, those are obstacles that are really difficult for entrepreneurs and investors. And so part of our work, what we're trying to do is, say, look, many of these demographics we see, many of these characteristics of these economies are very normal. They're not easy, they're simply incredibly normal. You're not doing what has not been done before. And if we can normalize these difficulties and say if you take a more predictable approach to innovation and investment, we can't guarantee success but we can help mitigate failure. We think you can actually do better in these emerging economies.TL: Do you think that there are conflicts of interest in most of the boardrooms of African businesses? I mean, in that piece you challenged Milton Friedman's opinion of the responsibility of a business in society, which he says is solely to the shareholders or the stakeholders. So, do you think that there's a conflict of interest in most boardrooms, where some of the things that entrepreneurs and some business leaders are interested in, in this case, market-creating innovations, are not things that investors really think can give them returns on their capital?EO: Yeah, so I think there's a lot to unpack in that...because of the abundance of data all over the place, unfortunately, we now live in a world of short-termism. There's more short-term thinking going around. What do I mean? Well, you know, if I'm watching the news and I hear about this company, this investor that made a lot of money on some investments, was able to cash out in a few years, that affects the way I think, it affects the way I measure my own performance. And so this abundance of data has created short-term thinking.In addition, what you also have is a lot of the literature on finance, what constitutes a good investment comes from countries that are already prosperous. They come from countries where I would say they are no longer, generally speaking, in the market creation phase. And so they are more in the efficiency phase. So they have roads, they have institutions, they have organization building companies and the question is often, oh, how do we make this more efficient? How do we make better products? When you use those same metrics to analyze projects and organisations in Africa or other emerging regions, you have a mismatch because the continent is still in a market-creating phase. And so to use private equity metrics that I would use in New York to measure projects in Lagos or Abuja or Accra or Nairobi makes absolutely no sense. Literally no sense. It's akin to using the same metrics to analyze the development of a 3-year-old and a 30-year-old. It makes no sense. And so instead of a conflict of interest, I think I would say it's a mismatch of metrics.If, as the CEO of an African company or the board chair of an African company, I had the goal to grow my market size and capture 60 percent of the customers in Africa. Say, I make baby food or something 'cause you know Africa is a growing continent. Well, I'm not going to measure my performance the same way Gerber babies measures its performance in other countries. I'm going to say look, what did baby food companies go through when the US was a poor country? What did they invest in? How long did it take? How did they manage the relationship with government? How did they manage relationship with the community stakeholders? How did they develop their staff? And I'm going to use those metrics. 'Cause if I use the metrics that these companies today are using, I cannot develop. It's not like it'll take time. No no no, like, we will never develop.Now, you know, there will be some wins here and there, there will be some lucky breaks here and there and that's what we see from time to time. But to truly develop in the circumstance we find ourselves, we need to step away from using metrics that are propagated all over the place and develop a core set of metrics that are contextualized to our own circumstance.TL: Do you think that this framework that you describe - [that is] businesses really innovating their business models to target nonconsumption and grow the pie, so to speak. Do you think it's the absolute fundamental thing that has to happen, 'cause the way I read your book and some of your works is like a chicken and egg problem, right? Like, what has to happen first, you know? Some in the development literature would say that you need institutions, you need good institutions first before you can do some of these things that you say. What is your response to that?EO: I mean, I empathize with those who say we need good institutions, but that is not really a value-add statement. The reason I say that is, okay, we need good institutions, what do we do next? We look at the Nigerian government, at least the federal government...in addition to the lack of managerial and technical capabilities, the government has roughly $200 or so to spend per year per Nigerian. Of that, maybe fifty to $75 goes out the door to service its debt. So roughly $125 to a $150. In addition, when you look at where it's starting, I mean, nobody would look at Nigeria and say we practice good governance, so it's starting from the back of the pack, and so it needs even more resources to get to good governance. When you compare where Nigeria is and what it has, the resources to, again, you know, whether it's Norway, Denmark, America. Norway spends twenty to $30,000 per person per year. And so the idea that, oh, Nigeria needs good institutions, that's like saying a homeless person needs more money. If they had more money, they wouldn't be homeless. That's not a value-add statement.The question is, how do we get to good institutions? How did the US get to good institutions when it was poor? And so if somebody comes up and says - you know what Efosa, Nigeria spends $150 per year per person, here's how they can actually get good institutions and it's a realistic model. Then we can start the conversation. But when, you know, these experts throw out blanket statements oh, we need good institutions... I'm like, okay, what am I gonna do with that? What is the police officer who is demanding brides, making $50 a month going to do with you need to have better institutions? What is that politician who has made a bunch of deals before he or she becomes a senator or a governor and they get into office and they have to square all those they made deals with? They have to figure out how to amass as much wealth as they can because there are little to no economic opportunities in the country, what are they going to do with the "you need good institutions?" There are no incentives. Right? To live out that statement. So we do need to move a lot further from the "we need good institutions" argument because it has not done anybody any good.You know, there's a paper we referenced in the book - how not to fix problems that matter? And ultimately what happens is a majority of institutional reform programs funded by big development players do not work. You know, you come to my country, you tell me, oh, I should behave this way, I should do this, I should make sure this is easier for people and many of the public sector participants on the ground just listen, they take the development dollars, they reformed the institutions in a way that makes the donors happy and they keep doing what they're doing. Because it doesn't cut deep. It doesn't fundamentally change how people think about society. The incentive systems, they don't change. So, do we need good institutions? Absolutely. How do we get there? That's a tougher question.TL: Staying with that thought. Now, isn't there a case for, well, maybe it depends on what we mean when we talk about institutions right? And I know that scholars and even people who work in development are guilty of trying to imagine already formed institutions in developed nations and trying to graft a lot of their features in countries that do not have them. But for businesses to take risks, you know, don't you think that institutions like basic property rights protection, contract enforcement and things that create the environment for you to be able to take risk, however minimally, don't you think those should come before market-creating innovations or targeting non-consumption in the way you describe it?EO: It's a good one. I think the better question to ask has to be more specific. Now, I'm not saying investors should just go and put their money in any country. And there no, at least, limited guarantees, that's not what I mean. I mean, after all, businesses are operating in Nigeria as we speak. I mean you are speaking to me through an Internet service connection. So the idea that somehow institutions don't work and we need better institutions, I mean, it's not too mature. We have to mature that idea. So we have to be specific. We have to say, if you are going to invest in this space, in this country, in this region, you have to ensure the specific fundamental requirements that as best as you can, no investment is ever secure or ever guaranteed... But you have to ensure there are fundamental, sort of legitimate, base-level institutions exist.And I think if we went in with those sorts of questions, not ways Nigeria on the ease of doing business index, how is Nigeria's corruption perception ranking? That's too broad, generic, and that's not helpful to anybody. If the folks who are providing us with this Internet connection went into Nigeria with that thinking they would not have gone in. And so, somehow, that question forces an answer that is not helpful. The question has to be, look, I'm a transportation investor, I wanna go and make transportation more affordable for people in Malawi. Alright, let me look at who the transportation players are. Let me understand that sector. Let me understand who the government players are. Let me understand what the regulations are, how have they changed it over the last five years. How might they change it over the next year?You have to do your homework. And, no offence, many investors are not willing to do the homework. And so of course, you're gonna not find Nigeria attractive when you go in with the oh, don't we need the baseline this and that? No, no, no, no, that's a lazy way to think about investing and more specifically, development. We go in more targeted. And if we do that, again, no guarantees we will be successful but that's a much better problem-solving exercise than oh, yeah, let Nigeria move up some rankings. Let's improve. What does a good institution look like? I mean, like you know, in the broad sense, what does that really even look like?I mean, I think I would be more targeted than looking at Nigeria or, really, any country from a high level, like, how are the institutions? Don't we need this base level?TL: That's a good point, but here is another way to look at this from my perspective. Some of the examples you cite like Mo Ibrahim, Celtel; Tolaram in Nigeria, don't you think that there's a bit of a survivorship bias in some of those examples? Like, for example, if we look at the case of Tolaram, yes, it has done really well. Well, "well" is relative here, so, but it has survived.EO: It has.TL: Yes, and it's become a household name and it may well be a replicable model for investing and doing business in this environment. But you can also argue that over those decades, a lot of businesses have also tried and failed.EO: Yes.TL: And aren't you picking winners? And in that sense, not really robust with your sample set in that sense. Because a lot of entrepreneurs who are trying to do things differently would tell you how hard it is. Some of them are losing money, some of them are losing their skin, some are highly demotivated and these are people that really, really want to do bold and innovative things. But the general, again, institutional environment, and in this case, specific policies that worked against them are serious barriers. So aren't you effectively simply picking winners and just ignoring the other side?EO: It's a good question. I think I would answer, yes, if there was something anomalous about Tolaram in the context it finds itself. And so if I did not see similarities between Tolaram and Isaac Singer, who we wrote about, or Henry Ford who we wrote about, if I did not see similarities in how they had to engage with government, how they had to raise capital, how they had to almost lose their skin (in your language), then I would say, oh, yeah, we're just picking winners. But there's nothing anomalous about what they've done. In fact, I expect winners to look like Tolaram, Mo Ibrahim and several other companies that we talk about.If they don't look like them, then the chances that they will win, at least market-creating, are very very slim. The other way I would respond to that is, I have never once and I will never say this is the easy path. This is incredibly difficult. It's so difficult that I am convinced this is the critical missing piece. It's paradoxical, but that is why we are not developing. Because there is this incredibly difficult thing we have to do, but we believe the only way we can do it is if the environment allows us do it and so we have to fix the environment. Now we believe that so strongly that we are willing to invest billions of dollars to try and fix the environment, with no connection to this mechanism that's gonna make the environment thrive. That's how strongly we believe in educating the public, in institutional reform, in fixing infrastructure whether or not it makes sense.We're trying to do all that and we're paying little attention to empowering entrepreneurs. And so if I, for instance, were Mo Ibrahim, after I sell my Celtel and I become a billionaire, I would say okay, what's the next industry I want to democratize? And I go, and I do the hard work of building that I will not do governance. Nobody is winning the prizes. It's incredibly difficult to do any meaningful reform because the equation, we have the backwards. Development is difficult. There are no easy answers here. What we have to do is ask, what gives us the best chance? Does wishful thinking in light of poorly paid civil servants who have little to no incentive to improve the system give us the best shot at success? Or does figuring out a way to empower and create new markets where some of the revenues from those markets can be pumped into the institution and overtime maybe it gets better. Does that give us a better shot? I think I'm gonna put myself in that camp.The last thing I would say on this is, there's a professor out of [the] University of Michigan. Yuen Yuen Ang who just published a book called China's Gilded Age - The paradox of economic boom and vast corruption.TL: I know her.EO: Yes, and so she talks a little bit more about the public sector side of things. I mean, no two countries are alike or identical, but she does a really good job of explaining how even in light of China's vast corruption, there was an economic development push that prioritized investors, markets and as a result, China, for all its problems, has been able to lift a billion people out of poverty, grow 10 percent over the last four decades, and improve. So, there no easy answers here, it's just we have to pick the camp we think makes the most sense, and I don't think the camp where a monopoly entity with little to no incentive to change, trying to incentivize them to change by giving them more resources and empowering them when the incentive system in society hasn't changed, like, somehow, that makes no sense to me.TL: I like the Ang Yuen Yuen example. It's a great example and I've read both her books, I think what she's doing is fantastic. So here is my question on that. You gave the example of Mo Ibrahim. Now, don't you think that people like Mo Ibrahim - and of course this is not really about him - or people like him who focus on the issue of governance... now we may critique or find some fault in how we've been going about this. But don't you think they focus on the issue of governance because it is through governance, again, I reiterate, that you can get a hundred Mo Ibrahims?Because, Tolaram may have adapted well, it may have really found a way to survive through thick and thin in Nigeria, however difficult others may say it is, by doing its homework and making targeted informed investments like you said. But, in the end, Tolaram doing well may not necessarily raise the GDP per capita of Nigeria.EO: Yeah.TL: Which in terms of poverty and prosperity that is what really matters at the end of the day, income for people. So don't think governance may not be the only way, but it's an easier, faster way for the kind of entrepreneurship that you are advocating to scale, really, really fast, you know. I mean, in America, yeah, Ford had an innovative business model that changed its generation and maybe the way business was done in America after. But also, there was an environment that did not entrench Ford, but that allowed others, Dodge, GM and most of these other companies to emerge and improve on those things and create tons of jobs.So don't you think that governance is vital in a way that it allows businesses that really want to innovate to scale their business model really fast and for other businesses to look at their success and be encouraged to enter that space and do even better things?EO: Absolutely governance is important. We say it in the book. Entrepreneurs ignite the fire, the government fans the flame. You can not have a developed prosperous society without ultimately getting governance involved, it's a matter of sequencing and incentives. Now, I would agree governance is important insofar as we're talking about the same thing. Again, I don't want us to limit our conversation to oh, good institutions are important, you know, that's a non-value-add statement. Governance is important if what we mean by that is working with economic development stakeholders to make sure the incentive systems in society benefit those who work in government. I, right now, can give you not one reason why a poorly paid civil servant who exists in a system that is steeped in corruption to go to work every day, do a great job, do as much as he or she can for the society that already thinks he or she is stealing money, not have enough money for rent, for health care needs, education need and go home because Mo Ibrahim Index says you need to have good institutions. No, No, No. That makes, again, no sense. I would not do that. You would not do that, I don't think.Now if what we mean by governance is vital is, look, let us sit down here and let's do it the way the Chinese did. Let us align your incentives with how much investment dollars are coming into your state. Let us make sure that, you know, yeah, you get paid $100 a month, but if you are able to attract this much investment, if you are able to make sure these entrepreneurs thrive, then you get a 50 percent bonus. You get a 100 percent bonus. You develop the incentives to help the government do the job that we're asking them to do. Because it is a thankless job. It is a terrible job. It is a job where everybody thinks you're stealing money, whether or not you are. And we know this. So the idea that we should just keep measuring, saying, "what's wrong with these guys? Why we need to fix it" without sitting down and saying, how can we realistically fix this so we limit the incentive for government officials to steal? We're going to be spinning our wheels for years to come, right? That is what I think we can do from a governance standpoint. Align incentives, make sure, me as a public servant, I benefit if my society benefits.If my society benefits, and I don't benefit, well, forget about it. It's not going to happen.TL: I agree with you, we need to move away from some of these useless indices, to be honest. So do you think that changing incentives the way you analyzed, do you think that there are some, I don't want to say natural disadvantages or barriers that are specific to certain societies. For example Nigeria, there is oil and the so-called resource curse.EO: Yeah.TL: How do you think that can work with incentive problem? You know, because you have bureaucrats and public servants who have no incentive in the success of the private sector. They can simply sell oil licenses and drilling rights and keep collecting taxes from that same sector and borrow to plug the other fiscal holes and live like that for decades.EO: Yeah. So, that's a tough question, right? And, again, I want to be as practical ask as possible. If you had a trust fund baby, you had a really wealthy person who didn't manage their money well, allowed their kids to do whatever they wanted, the question you're asking is, how can we incentivize this trust fund baby to actually care about self-improvement and development? I mean, that's difficult, right? What I would do is try and find the officials who will be open to a different way of creating value and wealth. I can guarantee you not all 36 governors in Nigeria are extremely corrupt, or at least corrupt at the same level. Not all of them will be uninterested or disinterested in an idea to create a new industry in their region.TL: Certainly not.EO: So it's not to say this is an easy road or, you know, you're just going to find people willy nilly. But you go to the first governor... I'm simplifying because we're on the podcast, right? I know people in government right now, and I can give names of people I trust. People who are trying their best to do well by the community. So the idea that oh, everybody 'cause I think that is what we imply when we say the government has access to oil and you're right, they do. But there are still going to be people in government who we take interesting ideas to and in communicating those ideas, we help them see if this works out, you would have generated this much income for this state. You would have created this much value if you allow this to work out. These many constituents would get jobs. You can talk about this in your next campaign.Now, if you take that message to every governor in Nigeria, maybe they will all say get out of here, I am not buying it. If that happens, then go to Ghana. Go to Cameroon. Go to Rwanda. Go somewhere until you find a country where it will work. Again, I'm not advocating this because I think it's easy. In fact, I'm advocating it precisely because I think it's difficult. But, unfortunately, I do not see another way we can develop. I just do not. And once I do, I will start promoting that because before we started the podcast, you and I discussed the idea of intellectual honesty and I suppose I just do not see how we get out of the rut we're in if we don't start to think differently.TL: One final area I'll like us to explore is culture. I mean, one of the books you cited in the book, which I like very much, is Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Dignity, and she talked about how the social embrace, so to speak, of the culture of Commerce, sort of laid the groundwork for some of the things that happened in the West, you know?EO: Yeah.TL: So what role do you see for culture here? I mean, it's easy to talk about hard metrics and talk about governance and you know, but we know that culture is the software of society. So what role do you see for culture in this?EO: You are absolutely right, culture is key. Culture is the software. But culture runs on hardware. And culture is connected to hard metrics. And so if I use your analogy of software and hardware, there is no software I know that runs on software like every piece of software runs on hardware and depending on the makeup of the hardware, if you have a really fast processor hardware, then your software will run faster if it has the capabilities to. And so culture might seem like software that's malleable, and it is valuable, but it is not malleable without hard metrics.What do I mean? Well, let's think about why we may not value commerce as much as we should or why we value corruption as much as we do. Well, look at the hard metrics. If you're fortunate to get into a position of power in many of our countries, there are hard metrics in your life that increase - your access to the elites in society, certainly your bank account, your homes, your car, your children access to better education. Those are hard metrics. So the idea that somehow our culture values that practice makes complete sense. The idea that we value entrepreneurship and innovation in the US is connected to hard metrics as well, right? Look at the richest people here. It's all these innovators.So for me, the two are sort of one and the same. What we know is that you can't change the software if it has no bearing on the hardware, if you don't change the hardware. In other words, if we don't figure out how to increase or improve those hard metrics, it's gonna be very difficult for us to change the software, sustainably. We might for a little while, right, we might for a political term or two. But what we're talking about here is long term development, decades-long. And if we don't figure out how to help people in society make progress in a way that they lead better lives, their kids lead better lives, they have access to better healthcare and so on... Unfortunately, the software is not going to change, the culture is not gonna change. And so I do think we can connect the two better.TL: One final questions before I let you go, which is also a tradition on the podcast is, what is the one big idea right now that... it may be something you're working on or something you'll like to see. So what's that one big idea that you're thinking about right now that you will like to see spread and see the world adopt and see people believe more?EO: Yeah, so I think for me, in the context of my work, it is this - innovation and entrepreneurship are not things that happen after a society fixes itself. They are actually the process by which society fixes itself. If more people can believe that then we can begin to talk about the “how”. We can begin to say okay, Efosa I get that, but this is my circumstance, this is my context. How can that hold true in my circumstance? There are things like political innovation. When I talk about incentivising the government, that is an innovation. When I talk about entrepreneurs figuring out how to manage the governance issue, that's part of their innovation. So, I think, for me, it would be innovation is something that happens not after society fixes itself, but it's the process by which society fixes itself.TL: We'll do our best to help that idea spread.EO: Thank you.TL: Thank you so much. My guest today has been the author and prosperity researcher, Efosa Ejomo. Thank you very much for being with us, Efosa.EO: Absolutely, it's my pleasure. Thank you. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Overview: Today we’re going to talk about Orange - The 2nd largest telco in Africa, we’ll discuss its French founding, global expansion, success in Africa, non-telco businesses & end with our views on its future outlook. This episode was recorded on Nov 1, 2020. Companies discussed: Orange S.A. (France Telecom), Orange Africa, Airtel Africa, Bharti Airtel Group, Celtel, Zain, MTN, Reliance Jio, Safaricom, Sonatel, Orascom, Mobinil, Ivoiris & Meditel Business concepts discussed: Telco developing markets growth strategy, mobile money, telco M&A strategy & developing markets growth strategy. Conversation highlights: (01:22) - Why we’re talking about Orange and why it’s important to African tech (05:19) - History of Orange Group and France Telecom (10:22) - History of Orange Africa (17:56) - Europe's historical influence in Africa tech (vs Indian and Chinese influence today) (29:10) - Orange Africa’s non-telco businesses (primarily Orange Money) (41:58) - Orange Africa today and growth opportunities (47:18) - Orange expanding to South Africa and Nigeria? (53:55) - Bankole’s thoughts and overall outlook (1:01:27) - Olumide’s thoughts and overall outlook (1:05:59) - Recommendations, small wins and open questions Olumide’s recommendations, small wins & open questions: Recommendation: Millionaires unveiled podcast Small win: Standing during all meetings experiment (going well so far) Other content: “Cell C is not an MVNO” article Open question: What other non-telco businesses should Orange consider? Bankole’s recommendations, small wins & open questions: Recommendation: Hey Email Small win: Spent the weekend visiting White Salmon, Washington Other content: Minitel, the open network before the Internet - The Atlantic Other content: Signal v Noise - Blog by the founders of Basecamp Open question: What other companies that are dominant in North Africa or French West Africa should more people be aware of? We’d love to hear from you. If you have feedback, topics you’d like to hear, or just want to say hello, please email info@afrobility.com Join our insider mailing list where we get feedback on new episodes & find all episodes at Afrobility.com

Overview: Today we’re going to talk about Airtel - The third largest telco in Africa (& second largest telco in the world), we’ll discuss its founding, early history, success in India, expansion into Africa, non-telco businesses & end with our views on its future outlook. This episode was recorded on October 4, 2020 Companies discussed: Airtel Africa, Bharti Airtel Group, Celtel, Zain, MTN, Reliance Jio, Safaricom, Econet Wireless & Vmobile Business concepts discussed: Telco diversification (voice vs data vs emerging businesses), VOD (video on demand), mobile money, telco M&A strategy & developing markets growth strategy. Conversation highlights: (02:10) - Why we are talking about Airtel today (04:47) - Bharti Airtel founding, Sunil Mittal and early history (14:45) - Airtel Africa - early origins from Celtel and then Zain (21:00) - Zain acquisition of Celtel (22:54) - Nigeria naming journey - from Econet to Airtel (27:02) - Airtel Africa + MTN attempted merger / acquisition (36:31) - Airtel Africa IPO in 2019 (39:50) - Airtel Africa’s non-telco businesses (48:45) - What Airtel Africa looks like in 2020 (59:56) - Bankole’s overall thoughts and outlook (1:05:32) - Olumide’s overall thoughts and outlook (1:10:23) - Recommendations and small wins (1:16:05) - Open questions Olumide’s recommendations, small wins & open questions: Recommendation: Hotel Sweet Home (by Libby Rome) - Fun book about living in a hotel. For travel & point nerds Recommendation: The Treasury of Quotes by Jim Rohn - Amazing book of various smart & insightful quotes from one of my favorite personal development coaches Small win: I listened to Owl City - Unbelievable (ft Hanson) while I wrote script for Health Tech episode Small win: I used background ambient sounds from Mynoise.net to focus while I prepared for this episode Open question: What can entrepreneurs today learn from Mo Ibrahim or Sunil Mittal? Bankole’s recommendations, small wins & open questions: Recommendations: Trick Mirror by Jia Tolentino Small win: FIFA 21 released! A veritable time sink has a new installment! [YouTube trailer] Other content mentioned: Chillhop jazzy lofi - YouTube live channel with good background music to work Other content mentioned: Opomulero by Ruggedman feat 9ice [YouTube] - entry music by UFC athlete Israel Adesanya Open question: What other examples can you think of where events outside Africa dictate an African company’s strategy or market outcomes? We’d love to hear from you. If you have feedback, topics you’d like to hear, or just want to say hello, please email info@afrobility.com Join our insider mailing list where we get feedback on new episodes & find all episodes at Afrobility.com

Congolese Jean-Claude Tshipama is the CEO of Eutelsat's Konnect Africa subsidiary which delivers satellite broadband connectivity services in Africa. Jean-Claude has over 16 years’ experience in telecommunications, computer and Pay TV industries’. He holds an MBA from HEC-Montreal in Canada and a Master’s degree in Economics from the Protestant University in Congo. Jean-Claude was formerly the Commercial Director at Celtel in DR Congo, and also previously served as Director of Sales and Distribution at both the Digicel Group and at the Microsoft Corporation's Africa business. Prior to joining Eutelsat, he was notably CEO of Canal+ in DR Congo, and he currently serves on the board of Equity Bank in Kenya. In this conversation with Andile Masuku and Musa Kalenga - taped at Afrobytes Tech Marketplace 2018 - Jean-Claude discusses his new role at Eutelsat and shares some of the values that inform his personal and professional mission. Listen in to hear him respond to questions about his organisation's ability to remain competitive in the world's increasingly crowded satellite and broadband marketplace.

Mo Ibrahim est l’un des entrepreneurs africains les plus célèbres au monde. C’est le fondateur de Celtel, une société de téléphonie mobile avec laquelle il a conquis le marché africain. Mais c’est aussi un philanthrope.

Denzel Washington spoke at the University of Pennsylvania's 2011 Commencement on May 16, 2011. Before the ceremony, he greeted and congratulated students with Penn's President, Dr. Amy Gutmann. Washington emphasized the importance of taking risks: "Taking risks is not about going for a job; it's also about knowing what you know and what you don't know. It's about being open to people and to ideas." Other 2011 Penn honorary degree recipients included Renée C. Fox, the Annenberg Professor Emerita of the Social Sciences at Penn and a pioneer in the field of medical sociology; Mo Ibrahim, the mobile communications entrepreneur who founded Celtel; Nicholas D. Kristof, columnist at The New York Times, and Sheryl WuDunn, senior managing director, Mid-Market Securities, and president of the social investing consultancy, TripleEdge; Ei-ichi Negishi, the recipient of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; and Joyce Carol Oates, award-winning author, poet and playwright.

Terry Rhodes, Co-Founder of CelTel, looks at the interesting and new opportunities which might be overlooked during this downturn