I was recently in the offices of one of the telecom giants in the country. At the waiting area of the front office there was this "huge" woman sitting with a baby on her back, ranting and raving about her house having been branded in the colours of the company without her permission.
I engaged her in a chat and she told me she lives in Koforidua in the Eastern Region. She said she travelled to Accra for about a week for business and on her return she saw that one side of her house had been painted in the colours and logo of that telecom company.
She said she managed to trace the painter, who told her that a gentleman, who claimed ownership of that house, contracted him through representatives of the telecom company to do the painting. The woman threatened to make it a police case.
Later on, some of the front office staff of the company narrated that the woman's case was just one of many they have had to content with. People come to that office almost daily to complain about their property (wall or house) being branded without their permission.
My checks with other telecom companies showed that the trend is about the same. In fact, at the rate at which the telecom companies are painting the country, I dare say that in a few years this country will be branded "Telecom Place".
Whereas branding, as a marketing tool, is not a bad thing, a web dictionary vaguely defines it as "stigmatization".
One can therefore understand the frustration of people whose houses are "stigmatized" in the brands of telecom companies without their permission.
Traditionally, branding is defined as the process by which a symbol or ornamental pattern is burned into the skin of a living person or animal for easy identification and to distinguish that person or animal from others.
Cleary, this is "stigmatization", but this time with oil paint, and on people's walls and houses.
If the telecom companies had stuck to "stigmatizing" their own properties, there would not have been any problems. But to the extent that they go round "stigmatizing" other people's properties, there are concerns, particularly when they do not follow due process.
Lately, it does not take much effort to notice the MTN, Vodafone and Zain brands, in particular, on walls, private homes, shops, poles and on every and any roadside stationary structure.
An officer of Vodafone recently passed a comment thus: "If you remain still for too long we will brand you." That is clearly a joke, but that also shows how keen the competition is.
There are at least five active multinational mobile telecom brands in the country - MTN, Tigo, Vodafone, Kasapa and Zain. There is a sixth one, Glo, which is expected to go live later this year.
For a relatively small market like Ghana, with a population of about 22 million, six multinational mobile phone operators is huge, and that is probably why the operators would do anything, fair or foul, to remain competitive. After all they are here for one thing - to make money.
It is no surprise, for instance, that the mobile telecom operators are currently the biggest spenders on media sponsorships and branding in Ghana. Almost every programme on radio and television in Ghana today, including news, talk shows, sports programmes, reality shows, movies, soap operas, documentaries and all, are branded by one mobile phone operator or the other - sometimes together with other non-telecom brands.
It is now difficult to distinguish between commercial time and programming time on television, because every programme has the logo of one or another mobile phone service provider on it, usually at the bottom right or left corner of the screen.
It is important, however, to note that this practice is not true with VIASAT1, the only completely entertainment channel in Ghana. Chief Executive of VIASAT1, Rune Skogeng, told GNA that it is "sub-standard" and "unprofessional" to fuse commercial time and programming time.
But the other stations do not see it that way. Even news time is branded by some telecom operators - Metro News is branded Vodafone, GTV news is branded Zain, TVAfrica news is branded Vodafone, TV3 news is branded Vodafone and more.
While media branding has not generated any rancour between telecom companies and society, because that is strictly between them and the media owners, wall and house branding in particular, seem to be creating some amount of animosity.
On face value, wall and house branding looks like a creative and smart thing to do, because it helps the operators to project their corporate brands for peanuts, and also saves people money they would have used to paint their houses.
But the other side of it is that because the telecom operators usually brand only spaces visible to motorists, they end up creating an untidy scene rather than a beautiful one. Vodafone, for instance, has branded just the ground floor of a storey building off the Osu corridor of the High Street, while the top floor and left wall remain dirty.
Until recently, outdoor branding by telecom companies was limited to billboards, flags and banners strategically positioned along major streets, company vehicles, stores, and street-corner kiosks, tables and umbrellas used by retailers of recharge cards.
But according to Mr Francis Dadzie, Executive Secretary of the Ghana Advertisers Association (GAA), those regular forms of outdoor branding are becoming expensive.
He pointed out that it is, for instance, difficult to get a strategic location to place billboards. Even if you got a good place, you could end up paying up to about GH¢5,400 to a metropolitan, municipal or district assembly before mounting your billboard.
Mr Dadzie believes that wall and house branding, as identified by the advertising agencies working for the telecom companies, are creative and cost effective. He noted that in the advanced countries, there are enough roadside spaces for billboards and other forms of innovative outdoor branding, but in Ghana not many locations are strategic enough.
"But homes, schools and other structures located along good roads are strategic spaces for branding and I think those who came up with the idea of using those spaces are thinking out of the box," Mr Dadzie said.
An official of one of the biggest advertising agencies told GNA on condition of anonymity that they make one-off payments, which could be as low as GH¢50.00 or as high as GH¢1,000 to brand people's walls, homes and other spaces.
He says the fee depends on the size and visibility of the space, and also on the bargaining skills of the space owner. Some could only negotiate for one-time payment and be branded for six months but others are able to negotiate for payments on monthly basis for same period or more.
Occupants of some homes along the Osu corridor of the High Street in Accra, whose houses have been branded either Vodafone, MTN or Zain, say they were paid good money for it, but some of their neighbours think the wall branding has created an untidy scene in the vicinity.
Now, questions are being asked as to whether the manner in which telecom operators are branding structures rampantly is adding to the beauty of the environment or creating an untidy scene; whether they do the same kind of indiscriminate branding in the other jurisdictions they operate in; and whether the manner in which they are branding everywhere is not because of the porous regulatory environment in the country.
District, municipal and metropolitan assemblies have regulatory powers over the mobile network operators. But as to whether those regulatory powers stretch wide enough to cover the branding behaviour of the operators still not clear.
At least the National Communications Authority (NCA) has a mandate to ensure that the operators live up to their licensing requirement to providing quality network service.
The network operators are largely failing on that score yet they are free to physically brand everywhere they want for peanuts. A good brand should be consistent and be associated with a level of quality. (Gallagher J., 2008). But sad to say, as far as network quality is concerned, the telecom operators only stop at wild claims, which contradict the actual experiences of customers. For instance each of the networks claims to have the "best network quality" and the "fastest internet speed".
Meanwhile the experiences of their respective customers contradict those wild claims.
The Code of Ethics of the GAA states thus: "Advertisers (in this case the telecom operators) and their advertising agencies should be prepared to produce evidence to substantiate any description, claim or illustration in their advertisements, (Clause 4.2.5)." Clause 2.3 of the same code also states: "No advertisement should contain any descriptions, claims or illustrations which, directly or by implication, mislead about the product or service advertised or about its suitability for the purpose recommended."
One wonders if even one of the telecom operators will pass if this code is to be strictly enforced. But like many others in Ghana, the GAA code has no teeth to bite so the telecom operators make wild claims about the quality of their services and get away with it.
Besides the untidy outdoor branding, "sub-standard" media programmes branding, and claims to quality service, the network operators are also in the business of organising huge, expensive and juicy promotions pretending to reward their customers, but subtly promoting their corporate brands and attracting some "get-rich-quick" minded people unto their networks.
It is always about the corporate brand and never about the subscriber. In fact, in terms of quality service, it does not matter which network one is on; as we say in Ghana "the value is the same". What makes the difference is how juicy the promotions and freebies are.
Another popular form of corporate branding among telecom operators is the use of terms - taglines.
Unfortunately the claims there too are empty. MTN says 'Everywhere you go'; Vodafone says "It's your time to experience the network that works"; Tigo says, "Express yourself on the network that actually works"; Zain says 'A wonderful world"; Kasapa says "the power of 028". But the least said about those taglines the better.
But it is instructive to say that there is the need for some sanity in the way telecom operators and their advertising agencies are "stigmatizing" any and everything in the country with their corporate brands. Let there be order.