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.

In discussing public relations counsel, I often hear discussions focus on reputation over understanding the public.   However, some of the best reputations are earned by taking a PR approach that relies first on understanding the public, then by making business decisions around that understanding, and, finally, communicating those decisions and related actions.   An article on M&T Bank Corp in Fortune focuses in on this approach:

In the article, M&T Bank Corp. Chairman and CEO Robert Wilmers is quoted with the following take on public relations:

Bankers should do what he calls "public relations" – not burnishing an image but actually relating to the public and its needs. At M&T, regional banking heads live in their communities (vice chairman Michael Pinto is based in Baltimore, New York Metro head Kevin Pearson in New York City), and their employees get involved in everything from volunteering at a bake sale to schmoozing the local pols. Every area has its own advisory board made up of merchants who weigh in on key loans. President Mark Czarnecki, who started as a bank manager in 1977, says the bank has learned that the closer a customer lives to a retail branch, the better he performs on his loans and the more bank services he is likely to use.

There are a few very notable points about M&T Bank Corp’s approach to public relations:

1. Mr. Wilmers takes the time to understand his business’ audience in order to make the best decisions for his company and customers.  The result is a positive consumer reputation.  One could look at their local approach to management (placing senior executives in the markets they oversee) as a business move driven by both business and PR considerations as management understands that just locating executives near customers drives a reputation that results in more business.
2. Business decisions drive reputations.  This is a redundant point but it needs to be hammered home.  If you read the whole article, you’ll find that the result of a key business decision is, in fact, the desired image (a local bank that understands customers) and reputation (a solid business approach that others should consider emulating).   This is not a bank that makes business decisions then  wonders how to achieve a certain reputation and image. 
3. Research research research.  Understanding an audience takes research.  It can be a in-depth survey or having executives meet and talk to the public/audience (I tend to recommend both but, if only one, do the latter).

So if 2009 is the year of doom and gloom, how does a business put on a positive, confident face without seeming out of touch with reality?

One fantastic, and fun, example comes from First Round Capital.  Their message is simple, effective and to the point – do your best to have a good year in 2009 and stay on your toes.  They are not saying have a good year or that they will do well.  They are saying you should focus your energy that way but be vigilant (it reminds me of a favorite Ronald Reagan phrase – Trust, But Verify).

Here’s their terrific holiday video, with their portfolio companies, that sums it up.  Watch to the end.

http://holiday.firstround.com/

Thank you to Fred Destin who’s blog brought this to my attention: http://www.freddestin.com/blog/2008/12/from-firstroundcapital—finally-a-2009-cheer-that-makes-we-want-to-post.html

Last week’s BusinessWeek had a column by Frank Lunch on what terms executives should use when communicating.  I think the same column should be read by PR executives to understand what language works with executives.  A few choice quotes from the article lay out some good general rules for effective language

Focusing on "impact" also makes a listener pay attention. This one word causes people to assume they will see a measurable difference.

Another word with increasing resonance is "reliability." Reliability is now even more important among customers than price.

The last two words to make a part of your business vocabulary are "mission" and "commitment." …Commitment means a speaker is willing to put his or her credibility on the line to achieve a successful outcome.

Mission, meanwhile, should not be confused with "mission statements,"…a mission explains in more compassionate terminology what you do, why you do it, and above all, why you care.

Beyond this, PR counsel needs to be communicated in technical business terms as opposed to PR terms.  For example, instead of reputation impact it might be about impacting audience opinion.  

Second, and of particular importance to agencies, is the need to understand a particular company’s culture and language.  A creative company may communicate using qualitative language while a financial firm may be more interested in hearing quantitative language.

I’ll post the full article from the PR Strategist shortly.

I’ve always stated that everyone spins – journalists, PR people, marketers and people in everyday conversation.  What’s important as a professional is that the spin, or context, in which you present a story or fact be completely backed up by verifiable facts.  I don’t expect dinner partner conversations to keep this in mind, but I do expect public relations professionals to do so (which is why we are always pushing research so hard).

The problem with the WSJ article, according to the CJR, was that it presented buy and bail real estate as a phenomenon but then presented no facts to back it up.  It only cited several pieces of anecdotal evidence.  If that’s all there was, either it should not have been published or should have been written as a potential problem that the system currently allows (even then I think it’s shaky as what is not a potential problem).

In fact, the article addresses this by saying (down low) the practice does not appear to be widespread.  But if so, they just admitted they overspun when referring to it as a new phenomenon.  It’s a potential one, not a new one.  This is lesson two for professionals, pick your facts and then pick the right words to present them.

Spinning is, according to my definition, for presenting a biased view of a situation and facts.  This is in fact a part of every day conversation (ever talked politics in a social setting)?   The problem with spin is that is easily leads to facts being misrepresented or potentially made up.

This isn’t about gloating over journalists spinning as much if not more than public relations professionals.  It’s an example of what not to do and a reminder that whatever your position is in the marketplace, be prepared to back it up.

Today’s New York Times covers Kohlberg’s partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund to improve the performance of the companies in which the private equity firm invests.  The move shows that being environmentally friendly is not simply a reputation issue but a bottom line business issue.  How the value of being an eco-friendly company may differ depending on the business – more sales for a consumer company, sustainable energy plans for a manufacturer – but the move by Kohlberg shows that there is real financial value to be found in being eco-friendly.  The result, first for Kohlberg and potential for their companies, a greener reputation.

This is the cart and horse lesson for companies.  Kohlberg and the Environmental Defense Fund did not first do a PR push to say how they will become green.  They announced a specific business move the commits the private equity firm to pushing its companies to be environmentally friendly in a way that has  positive business impact.  The PR driven reputation can then come from the business moves being made.

Hopefully, we will soon see examples from this partnership that provide additional lessons from corporate America.  Reputation does not simply result from a strong public relations and reputation management strategy, but from a strategy that is wrapped around real, substantial business moves.  If you’re in corporate communications the question you should be asking yourself is "would my company have me suggest a similar move or do a reputation evaluation of such a move that would be considered by senior management."  If the answer is yes, then you’re a business executive with PR expertise that sits at the table.  If the answer is no, then your are  PR executive waiting to execute what those at the table decide.

When you own the name of something so embedded in the culture of a country there is terrific opportunity to leverage the brand value.  The official Little League could simply seek non-paid permissions that enhance the value of the brand and present revenue opportunities.  For example, it could allow leagues to use the phrase providing commission is paid on any goods being charged and provided they meet certain guidelines to ensure both quality and fairness (e.g., abide by certain rules, etiquette etc).  The result would be stronger positive feelings toward the brand, new revenue opportunities and as American as apple pie.  Instead, the association will look petty, selfish and as American as petty lawsuits. 

(disclosure: I am a coach in a baseball league for children that was asked to stop using the phrase – we have as our lawyers have other work to do).

That said, the only candidate I don’t think has a bitterness problem is McCain.  Clinton’s complaints about media and right wing conspiracies may show she has a similar bitterness problem.   McCain, on the other hand, has not given out such cues…or at least they haven’t been reported on as heavily (and if the media – including bloggers – are silent , it can be as if it hasn’t happened as far as the public is concerned).

Regardless, I’m still an Obama-Clinton-McCain supporter (in other words, I can live with all three of them) and  I still think the debate is a huge waste of air time as compared to less sexy but far more important issues to voters (how about a little more on the specifics of health care?). 

So why write about this?  Any senior executive that is consistently in the public eye should pay close attention.  Your words, attitude and stories give out cues on an ongoing basis.  Those cues can be as powerful, and sometimes more powerful, than the messages the communications team so carefully crafted.  So mind your Qs.

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.

Richard Edelman raises a  similar point in the section of his post from Davos about what consumers will pay for green products.   Professor Ariely of MIT explained why consumers won’t spend more than they are (which isn’t much) to buy a green product because they don’t have “an identifiable victim.”  In other words, like pictures of single starving children driving more donations  than the fact that many are starting, the emotion of seeing one person that is a victim of environmental damage can do more to drive consumer action than the numbers that quantify how much damage is done.

Both numbers and human stories have a place. A number is the fact that proves a story true (x acres of rainforest have been destroyed and displaced X people).  But it is the single person’s story or picture that provide the emotional impact which allows people to absorb that number and understand it’s significance.  With a number, people don’t have the emotion impact needed to act.  With the story or picture, people don’t have the quantitative impact needed to know how much they should act.  With both, you can see substantial action.