Originally Posted by mitchmu

Honestly, then, all sarcasm aside, what is COdbaUA's brand, by this definition?

What I think of when I see the name now: cheap, hostile, unreliable, untrustworthy, uncomfortable, low class, greedy, condescending, patronizing, and short-sighted.

I guess what they want us to think of: route network, route network, route network, 787, 787, 787?

What's interesting is - what they want us to think about - these are all facts or features (well, the 787 was a fact until it got grounded) - but not feelings. UA executed on a feeling: friendly skies. And, it was powerful. CO, by contrast, says, we'll get you there safely and reliably, and we'll take you to lots of places, and maybe some of them on the 787 from time to time.

Even if that's what I thought of when I saw the logo, it's not very engaging. Anyone in first year business school could come up with a list of features like that. Uninspired.

Did they just fire all the branding people and decide it's not necessary to have a brand?