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.

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. 

Wize provides product scores based on a formula that combines professional reviews, consumer reviews and buzz.  I’m not sure what buzz is though I suspect it’s how much a product is being discussed online.  While they don’t publish the algorithm, it seems to be a combination of the quantity and quality of reviews and discussion.  So, simply put, if your product positive professional reviews  + positive consumer reviews + volume (how I think Wize defines buzz as per their formula below, then you’ll have a nice high ranking showing reflecting awareness and a positive image amongs the professional and consumer influentials:

Now, would someone build something similar for enterprise products?

Sponsors should not push around editorial, but if editorial slamming your company is litterlly being sponsored by your company, pull the sponsorship or sponsor a different section until the on/offline publication moves on…I’m sure the sales executive will understand.  

It also makes me wonder how many companies track their sponorships – be it media, conferences or other types – to make sure the content being sponsored is truly appropriate.  Beyond amusing (well, maybe not for Microsoft) situations like this one, are you always checkign to make sure the content or activity being sponsored is a strategic fit with your message and audience?  Based on the number of companies where I’ve done an analysis of the sponsorship to find otherwise, and they’ve agreed with my findings, I’d say no.

In case you missed it, here’s a screen shot:

So why do industries and companies seem to focus on messaging around technology?  Selfish messaging.

Selfish messaging is when companies create messages to feel better about what they are doing rather than what is of concern to consumers.  I’m sure VoIP companies feel pride when they see more awareness of VoIP in the consumer base, but what makes money is pitching benefits such as cheap phone services (voice, voicemail etc) and taking phone numbers wherever you go.

What about doing a study on how many consumers are aware that some telephone service providers (i.e., VoIP providers) let you take your phone number wherever you go?  Raise awareness of this benefit, push consumers to request it from the old phone providers (no, they don’t care that they’re called ILECs) and watch them look for new providers that provide this service.

The companies that take this focus on what consumers want – that is, use selfless messaging – will likely be the winners.  In the end, all voice services will be some relation to VoIP.  It’s the services that speak to consumers (including businesses) in consumer speak that will be the likely market share winners.