Re-establishing the ttt brand

It takes a lot to establish a brand and it would have been a big and difficult decision to cast off ttt in favour of CNMG that never tripped off the tongue, that few ever came to know the meaning of and which struggled hard to be trusted.

I am assuming the intention in abandoning the brand was to establish an umbrella organisation (Caribbean New Media Group) under which television and radio would sit side by side as equal partners and in which new digital media platforms would be developed as quintessential elements of a future-focused broadcasting landscape.

Again, I am guessing the thinking was that ttt had a certain amount of unwanted baggage that it was best to jettison with the creation of a whole new set of distinct broadcasting entities in one stable.

CNMG was a great investment on the part of the then government.

Overall, the creation of a forward-looking, public-owned media group in the early part of this new century that could deal with the move away from analogue to digital broadcasting was a very good idea.

It was strategically correct and could have worked, but it fell flat on its face because of the lack of expert and visionary leadership, of experienced management at the required level and finally because of the shortage of financial resources.

The human resources were fine and CNMG enjoyed nearly adequate staffing levels when I first came across it in its early stages.

They were a good group of people with experience, passion and eagerness to take broadcasting forward, but with no hesitation I can say that the problem lay at the most senior levels of the organisation and the inadequate structure at the very top. It would also be safe to surmise that there would have been the inevitable pressure from government. No quasi-state organisation is free of downward pressure and often the interests of the organisation are not completely in sync with government’s.

Therefore, in public service broadcasting, there needs to be a clear line drawn between the broadcaster and the government about the entity’s remit and its independence and a charter set out that cannot be reneged upon on either side.

For that to happen a lot of groundwork needs to be put in and a proper in-house senior management structure must exist that can at once represent the interests of the broadcaster, its staff and those who use its channels and, most importantly, with the CEO deliver the remit.

This management board, led by the CEO, should be answerable to a board of trustees selected to represent society in its broadest sense.

The role of trustees would be to safeguard the interests of both the broadcaster and society and be the buffer between the broadcaster and the government. No CEO should ever be called into a meeting by any minister and instructed what to do or who to hire.

It is not a popular opinion to express but I doubt the expertise required to head the new organisation exists here, not for what is really possible, which makes the structure of the organisation, the appointment of a very able senior management team and the agreed reporting lines even more important; and I fear for radio as the poor cousin within a broadcasting organisation dominated by the more expensive demands of television.

It has been reported that only radio was making money within the CNMG group, which leads to another pertinent matter better agreed upon in advance, ie, what is the purpose of a public service broadcaster, to make money or serve the public, and are they ever compatible?