StayingHomeIsBetter

^^^ to both of your last posts.

bubbashow

What makes it difficult is the inability to control the message. You don't want a social media presence in which you are being slammed. Afterall, it is a marketing tool. I know where I work, we didn't have the resources to monitor our social media 24/7, so we eliminated the ability to blindly post to our Facebook - for two reasons 1) we didn't want a negative message to hold for any length of time 2) we didn't want uncompensated marketing messages. I am sure Dl doesn't have the human resources to sit and monitor FT when they have their own social media outlets. With the hostility that has been readily displayed on here, I can understand their unwillingness to even embark on communication.

javabytes

That's what is enormously difficult for large companies to let go of. It's a very unnatural feeling. And it is critical to a successful social media strategy. You start on square one and build your influence. Yes, there will be negativity. Yes, it's the internet, there will be trolls. But piece by piece, as you build your reputation for being an expert on what you do, and for adding value to the discussion, you will naturally gain respect and influence.

If SMI had a history of hundred or thousands of engaging, informative, helpful posts, he would have a following. And that following would destroy the trolls themselves. No need for him to control the message, because the community already knows who they're going to trust and who they're going to ignore. Instead, Delta has very little social authority here because their presence is almost exclusively overt marketing. And that doesn't work in social media.

So while social media almost always falls within the domain of the marketing team, this is a whole new game and the old playbook doesn't work so well. Marketers who try too hard to market through social media will fail at it because they become too obvious. And people don't trust you when you have an angle. The other mistake companies make is to build a social media presence they don't have the people to maintain. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Too many companies go out and create Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc. because they think they have to be in social media, and then don't allocate enough resources to actually participate. What almost inevitably happens is that others will become the social authorities. The companies will not. And then they feel out of control. The natural tendency when a company isn't contributing enough to the discussion is to (where possible) control the tone of those who are participating because they are having too much influence, particularly if that influence is negative, and to withdraw from arenas where they can't control the tone. Companies will start to lock things down, require moderator approval for posts, scrub their forums/pages of any negative post, etc. At that point you might as well throw in the towel because your social media effort isn't doing you any good. A negative post is an invitation to convert a customer from a detractor to a promoter, not a reason to censor, ban, or ignore them. (A troll is, well, still just a troll.)

I'm not saying DL has to have a presence here, but they way they are choosing to almost hurts them more than it helps.

GRALISTAIR

and love them or hate them, WN is very good at use of Social Media

DHalltheway

Well mr. Smith, IIRC you are triple or quadruple DM.Taking that into consideration, status matching and shifting half your flying to UA or AA should not be that hard but it is a choice for you to make. I live in Asia, and ST is very limited in its regional reach compared with *A and OW. So me flying ST, and DL is like you flying AA.

Having been in the service industry, there is a fine line between loyalty to your best customers and look out for one's bottom line. You need to service them right to feel special, but you also need to make sure you are making a profit from them. I view DL's move as obviously one to reduce their Long Term Liability on their books by changing the valuation of FFM. Besides look at it from the long term demographic perspective. The US is an aging population, so I won't be surprised if all airlines start devaluing miles so that by the time the majority of the individuals want to use them, which is in retirement, it won't be worth much if not anything.

I used to have a very big FFM bank with another airline, but their constant devaluation has sobered me to the reality of the industry and I always try to keep my FFM bank low by helping family save cost. As far as a movement to stop flying one airline, many don't have the luxury of choice as airlines are merging or going bankrupt left right and center. It is a fact that the airline industry is going from bad to worst and the long term viability is at stake for the industry as a whole. Especially with energy prices being so volatile and many of them are heavily hedged in energy trading.

That would make redeeming miles on SQ F using KF look like a bargain.

Touche!

Took the words right out of my mind,


To be honest, while they 'care', we are ultimately still ham sandwiches.

The best way to speak is to give them empty planes

DHalltheway

Welcome to FT's DL forum.

This is a regular occurrence, that is why some posters here prefer MP

bubbashow

The best way to speak is to give them empty planes

When you buy elsewhere...send them the receipt, your SM info, and the reason why.

For those of you that are true HVC, it won't take many of you to make a difference.

ADLFO

I actually hope DL does go through with an all revenue scheme. Not because it would benefit me, but because if it failed miserably, and I think such a program would, there may be some house cleaning. In that house cleaning, I would hope that the customer unfriendlies inside DL would be shown the door. A good point earlier that DL management works for the shareholders. However, if the stakeholder customers are not happy, ain't nobody happy.

nsx

A couple of quick thoughts from someone extremely familiar with Southwest's transition 1 year ago to a fare-based program:

1. A revenue-based program is fundamentally different from traditional programs. We can use that difference to our advantage by maintaining diversity in our program memberships. We can redeem for cheap short-haul tickets on cash-based programs and we can keep redeeming for expensive long-haul tickets on the traditional programs.

2. One hidden benefit of Southwest's cash-based program: When you redeem points for a flight, the point cost is based on the nonrefundable fare. Yet the ticket is fully refundable, for free, back into your points account. You get refundability and the nonrefundable price. DL will probably add obstacles and fees to make this refund option less valuable than it is on Southwest.

3. The biggest worry I have about this change is the transition. Typically companies attempt to increase breakage by forcing you to top off awards under the old program within a limited time frame. That would suck, but it would be par for the course.

4. Redemption for premium class awards would need to use a hybrid approach, not based solely on cash ticket price. The current 2:1 to 3:1 award price ratio of premium class to coach class would need to be maintained.

5. There will be some pleasant aspects to the change. About 10% of posters on the Southwest forum report that they prefer the new program because they regularly pay high fares. The general rule is that winners under the old program become losers under the new program and vice versa. Which brings me back to point 1, diversity. Use the new program when it makes you a winner. Use another airline when the new program would make you a loser.

mother-

There is one user that is the locus of at least a plurality (if not majority) of the uncivil behavior here.

And I agree, it's a shame you have to see people on the ignore lists posts when they're replied to... Picturing him as a Mike Savage wannabee PERFECTLY fits my mental model of that particular user.

javabytes

Interesting perspective...

MikeMpls

Actually, SMI had that kind of following & that kind of respect when he was Northwest's original NW Scoop. At Delta it seems he's just been sucked into the void.

Other major airlines (esp. WN & CO/UA & formerly NW) have a history of taking FT seriously and dealing opening with FT members. Delta's problem is uniquely Delta's and goes back years.

+1, although I'm not sure that it would fail at this point. Like it or not (most of you would prefer not to admit it), DL's #1 domestic competitor is WN, which enplanes more passengers than Delta, and WN has moved to a revenue-based system.

DL could also take some lessons from WN in candor -- we didn't have to like the changes, but they sure were open & up front about it.

I expect they would lose enough customers to UA & AA that it would hurt, but that's not as sure a bet as it was ~11 years ago when they pulled the sLUT debacles out of a hat & gave birth to SaveSkyMiles.

DHalltheway

The problem for doing that with DL is that it is an international program and it flies overseas.

But more or less I agree with your point. That is why I am taking a wait and see approach.

+1.

WAS

1. I disagree. Short-haul tickets are a bargain in programs like Avios, BMI Diamond Club, etc. If Delta changes the redemption to something similar to "Pay-With-Miles", then there is no difference in redeeming short-haul or long-haul. It's just a cashback program.
4. I wish you were right. But sadly, nowhere does it say that there "needs" to be a hybrid approach. DL can do whatever it wants and I find it hard to believe that DL would go through all the trouble of changing the system for domestic coach redemptions, but would keep allowing people to leverage the program for int'l J.

I appreciate your insights from the WN program, which I am not very familiar with. I am just not as optimistic as you are.

houflier

I guess we can make a decision to switch/not once we understand full implications on roll-out