Spirit Airlines is aiming to charge some of the lowest ticket prices.  I have found them to be consistently low priced compared to other airlines for comparable routes.  The problem is that instead of keeping everyone focused on leadership low ticket prices, they are quickly gaining a reputation for leadership in fees.  The exact opposite.    My advice, don’t fight with a Senator Schumer type complaint directly, but fight the message by changing the conversation.

First, lay the groundwork – Make it clear via editorial (earned) media, social media and paid media that Spirit Airlines core mission is to get people from point A to point B for the cheapest ticket price possible by stripping away all extras.  If you want extras, that’s also an option and the ticket price is then comparable to other airlines (it is, I checked).

Second, change the conversation about fees into one about passengers only paying the part of the flight they use.  Why should I pay for someone else that wants to use more of the airlines space (overhead) and time (staff time for boarding is longer with more overhead luggage).  These aren’t fees for carry on baggage, this is higher ticket price for people that want to use more of the airplane’s (and, annoyingly, my) time and space. 

Third, counterattack and challenge the critics.  Use the above points to make it crystal clear that people trying to kill their model are really trying to kill the cheapest ticket prices.   Challenge the critics to show if they can deliver a business model with the same ticket prices, the same level of service and the same level of fairness in paying only for the airline resources you use.   Let the critics know if they can meet this challenge – complete with technical, financial and proof of maintaining good service (e.g., no annoying carry on baggage), you would happily sit down and see if you can implement their models.

And if this debate goes on, make the challenge more public.  Make the Web site message clear that you are the fairest airline by not only charging the lowest basic ticket price, but by charging for the space and time you use, not what other people use.  After all, what beats both cheap and fair.

The popularity of the iPhone has actually resulted in an ongoing reputation problem for AT&T – that of having an unreliable network that often drops calls.  The typical response I’ve seen in this situation is to listen to the complaint and promise, with an outline plan, to fix the problem.  Then, hopefully, fix it and problem is solved.

As this problem won’t get fixed overnight, how can AT&T do more than just make a promise?  Get customers involved in fixing the problem.  AT&T is doing this by launching an app for the iPhone – iPhone users seem to be the most vocal in complaining about this issue.    The app to the right shows how people can quickly log on to the app and report the problem complain.  AT&T will then use the data to beef up the network and stop dropped calls.

Time will tell if it works but I do think that customers are more forgiving when they truly believe a company is working on a solution.  Involving them in the implementation of the solution itself is a great way to rebuild trust.

Read more at

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/iphone-app-reports-dropped-calls-poor-voice-quality-to-att/

I’ve always believed that reputation can be shaped (and word of mouth driven) by great customer service.  Just look at Jetblue or Zappos as examples of building phenomenal brands selling commodity items but with great customer service. 

To back this claim up a bit more, I took a survey of 60 professionals on LinkedIn.  First I asked them what had the greatest impact on their opinion of a company.    When the choice was “what people say” versus news, search engine results and customer service, then “what people way” was the overwhelming choice.  This makes sense as a bad experience might be chalked up as the exception if ten friends say they love it. But when this option was dropped, then customer service was the overwhelming winner for what impacts the opinion of a company. 

Why is this important?  In the end, companies have a lot more control over their customer service than word of mouth.  So perhaps instead of focusing resource on WoM and other PR related tactics, they should start seeing customer interactions as a primary PR tool.

So, is this good or bad for public relations departments?  If they can quickly develop capabilities and influence in training and measuring (from a reputation perspective), customer service and other customer facing interactions, then I believe it can be a huge boost.

PS NOTE: Unlike previous posts, I’ve chosen to leave out the company name.  I’ve decided that the point of this blog is not to bash companies publicly (there are plenty of others that do that) but to learn lessons from the action of others.