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.

We usually cover more gadget oriented developments.  However, while watching Senate hearings for Treasury Secretary-designate, Timothy Geithner, he mentioned he used TurboTax to prepare his taxes back when he neglected to pay some taxes.

To his credit, Geithner made it clear that the mistake was on his end and not a problem with the software.  So is it a plug for TurboTax and legal and financial software in general? Or is it a plug for using people?  I often hear questions as to good these software packages compared to human help.  While I do value real people (and have an accountant with a beating heart), the  fact that the probably head of all things tax-related felt that a software package was good enough for him lends an enormous amount of credibility to the idea of expertise being built into software.    It will be interesting to see if TurboTax can leverage this given the  context in which the comment was made.  On the other hand, we could see accounting firms putting that video in a commercial and saying “if only had a person helping him…”  I’m sure the marketing folks are discussing it right now.

Here’s the video.  The Turbotax mention is toward the end (and worth watching):

We usually cover more gadget oriented developments.  However, while watching Senate hearings for Treasury Secretary-designate, Timothy Geithner, he mentioned he used TurboTax to prepare his taxes back when he neglected to pay some taxes.

To his credit, Geithner made it clear that the mistake was on his end and not a problem with the software.  So I believe that is quite a plug for TurboTax and legal and financial software in general.  I often here questions as to good these software packages compared to human help.  While I do value real people (and have an accountant with a beating heart), the  fact that the probably head of all things tax-related felt that a software package was good enough for him lends an enormous amount of credibility to the idea of expertise being built into software.    It will be interesting to see if TurboTax can leverage this given the  context in which the comment was made.

We’re in the market to lease a new mini-van.  After request a quote for the basic model and getting what was supposedlyy a very decent price (compared to two months ago), I did some quick math to find we were still paying a above the amount that Toyota advertises as the starting price on their web site (see picture).

I was then informed by the sales person that the basic model with that starting price on the Web site is without any options, and that kind of car isn’t available – they all arrive with some options already installed that drive the basic price for cars actually available up a few thousand.

In other words, Toyota is advertising a very enticing product and price combination…but they are not actually making it available.  Classic bait and switch.

Does every manufacturer do this?  No.  I did buy a car a few years ago where we wanted the absolute basic model…though the dealer did have to go out of state to get it for us.  But it’s not uncommon either.  And for an industry where so much of the purchase decision is based on buyers trusting the brand, it’s an odd way to use one of the most valuable marketing assets.

The other night I was unpleasantly surprised to hear The Gap offer me a new credit card using an automated dial out message.  Hearing this, all I could think was “dear Gap, just how dumb are you?”

Companies often do not put business decisions that impact public perception through the PR ringer.  They should.  Maybe The Gap would have done this anyway but I can’t image The Gap wants it’s brand to be seen as one known for harassing people at home to buy a credit card using automatic messages.  First, these calls come across as very low end.  Second, it’s bad enough to disturb the dinner hour, but to not have the decency to do it with a real person adds insult to injury and sends the message that we have no personal touch.

Next time someone brings up The Gap, this phone is what will illustrate my opinio.

I was explaining the many non-gaming reasons to buy a Playstation 3 to a friend – ability to install another operating system, ability to play different types of media files, ability to upgrade etc – when he says, "I’m surprised.  Isn’t Sony all about closed systems and tight control over content?" 

"Well," I responded thinking out loud, "they are…or, were.   That’s why I swore off their music products.  But perhaps Playstation 3 is a new era of creating the best hardware package for consumers and not letting concerns from their music and movie executives water down a good customer experience. Maybe Playstation 3 is their way of saying ‘we’re back and more user friendly than ever.’"

Using what might be their most iconic product, Sony might be able to rebuild the brand of what was formerly their most iconic product – Walkman – and their general reputation in music hardware.   

It was early adopters (likemyself) that went out, tried products like Minidiscs and Sony CDs only to find they were hobbled by Digital Rights Management software (software that controls what we do with the content).  As a result, they quickly gained a reputation amongst the early adopter community as closed, restrictive systems that saw protection of content as a priority over good consumer design.

But the Playstation 3 has not suffered from this type of technology.  Instead, it is probably the most open gaming console ever.  Sony builds in the ability to install other operating systems on the hard drive with the likeliest systems to be opens source Linux systems.  If Sony pushes this capability as a message that this is a new, more open era, they can quickly gain a reputation as one of the more consumer friendly product producers.  In early adopter circles this may already be catching on, though I have not seen much evidence that Sony is pursuing it aggressively.

Either way, this is a good example of how product design can make, break and potentially make a reputation.  We shall see in the years ahead how this all plays out.

Public relations plans are often a list of the approaches we think will work (the strategy) and the tactics to be used to drive the program.  But why not create a model that shows how the market will receive the message?  After all, an experienced media relations person can give a fairly good picture of how a particular reporter might cover a product.  Why can a public relations strategist provide a picture of the overall market and reputation impact of public relations initiative around business moves such as a new CEO or a new product?

Business reputation planning and results modeling is an approach I’ve been working on that aims to provide this picture.  The following is a brief outline. 

Business Reputation Planning and Results Modeling
The modeling aligns reputation measurement with business planning by first understanding the reputation impact of any business decision.  This means forecasting how the market will receive a particular business message (from product to strategy) based on the communications program around that decision.   This may also include presenting alternative business moves and their likely impact.   The result is not only a more effective communications and measurement program, but a better understanding by senior management as to how communications can directly impact the success of a business decision.

Results modeling
Results modeling is forecasting expected tactical and strategic results based on an understanding of the market.  A results model consists of an influencer and audience research component as well as a company audit.  The process is as follows:

1. Determine a company’s strategic business and aligned reputation objectives.
2. Determine what a company is ready to do to achieve those objectives (time, proof points etc)
3. Conduct market research on influencers to project program output (what articles will be written, speeches secured)
4. Conduct market research to determine the opinion impact of these results (opinion surveys)
5. Identify potential holes and return to business and resource planning process to plug them.

Once we have laid out the model, we then track results and opinions to determine the accuracy of our forecast and the market reception of the business decision we are communicating.  In the coming months I will present examples of where we created a model and the result of that planning approach. 

This is more of a shift of focus than a switch.  Since the Web exploded, communications professionals – from PR to advertising – have been focused on driving to traffic to destinations.  This was true whether it was for informational purposes (such as in PR or branding programs) or for sales.   This is like focusing marketing on getting people to go to a store just to learn about the product instead of teaching them through the magazines they read and the TV shows they watch.  It can be a lot of effort for relatively little return. 

Now efforts are shifting to distributing branded or messaging carrying content.  The focus is moving to getting information to all the appropriate places where consumers congregate.  Go where the consumers are, put information in the context that they, and the community in which they congregate, naturally appreciate. 

The three main drivers of this shift – social networking, Web video video and personal portals like Netvibes of My Yahoo that are driven by RSS feed – have gained an enormous amount of momentum the last few years.  However, marketers have only experimented with these sites and remained focus on driving traffic to proprietary sites. 

Ad budgets will focus on driving traffic to third part sites.  We already see micro-versions of this with Facebook ads driving users to branded Facebook pages.  Next we might see a Yahoo based ad driving a user to a branded video channel on Heavy.com or section of Dailymotion (disclosure: a client).

But a careful balance will have to be sought.  Advertisers will still want to capture that traffic and not simply invest to build up traffic to someone else site.  I would not be surprised to see some third party sites make it easier for advertisers to register users on those sites.

Go online and search for baby safety products and what will you see?  A lot of ads for the sale of baby good products and a few for information on those products.  According to the data, people are more likely to 1) search when they are about to purchase products; and 2) click on the information links as opposed to the sales oriented links.

Marketing and public relations teams interested in leveraging this behavior should be conducting a few checks on their search engine strategy:

1. Is information oriented content being optimized in a way that complements the sales oriented information (good)? Or is the sales oriented information taking the priority (bad)?
2. Are keyword advertisements being placed for both information as well as sales oriented literature?  The Comscore information indicates people may be more likely to click on the information ad over the sales ad.
3. Is the information content being looked at from purely a marketing point of view (usually meaning mostly company literature)?  Or is it being looked at from a public relations point of view (third party testimony, links to other third party blogs, discussion groups etc)?
4. Are media results being leveraged in terms of reprints and links appearing on the site?  This can raise the value of media results exponentially over the value of the initial placement (as more people can view it through your site than might have seen it on the publication date).

This is just a few starting points but asking these questions should highlight if and how a company is either capturing or missing those many eyeballs (and lucrative ones, according to Comscore) looking for pre-purchase product information.

I’ve already been testing Facebook Flyers, and found it a great way to target specific groups by sending a specific message to a specific type or community of people at a specific time.  This is a valuable companion to keyword search advertising which allows me to send specific messages to specific people, based on their search criteria, but only when they come looking for that message.

My only complaint, or hope, for this beta service was that the targeting could be even more specific.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook and Myspace (through a new HyperTargeting ad program) are about to launch tools to provide more specific targeting.    Public relations, corporate communications and public affairs executives should all take note and follow this development closely.  These advertising tools have the potential to be the center piece of direct to consumer public relations.  I’ll be testing them over the next several months and reporting results.