"Weak brand that is easily forgettable"
Feb 3, 2013, 2:41 pm
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,535
. ^
Feb 3, 2013, 3:45 pm
#62
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
The answer is that a successful brand can actually create value for the Company, its employees and even its customers. Granted in the airline industry you get less bang for your buck since there is not a lot of product innovation (which can be positively influenced by a clear brand). But there is still value for an airline to capture from branding.
Heck, when you read this forum since the merger you might guess that pre-merger CO and UA invested massive amounts in their brands. The passion that customers of both airlines have for the pre-merger airlines would make any brand manager very happy!
Feb 3, 2013, 5:52 pm
#63
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
If you believe branding is worthless/pointless then Apple's products are over-priced. The branding Apple does costs money that gets incorporated into their prices. Why haven't you sought out the next great computer company that doesn't waste money on branding?
The answer is that a successful brand can actually create value for the Company, its employees and even its customers. Granted in the airline industry you get less bang for your buck since there is not a lot of product innovation (which can be positively influenced by a clear brand). But there is still value for an airline to capture from branding.
Heck, when you read this forum since the merger you might guess that pre-merger CO and UA invested massive amounts in their brands. The passion that customers of both airlines have for the pre-merger airlines would make any brand manager very happy!
The answer is that a successful brand can actually create value for the Company, its employees and even its customers. Granted in the airline industry you get less bang for your buck since there is not a lot of product innovation (which can be positively influenced by a clear brand). But there is still value for an airline to capture from branding.
Heck, when you read this forum since the merger you might guess that pre-merger CO and UA invested massive amounts in their brands. The passion that customers of both airlines have for the pre-merger airlines would make any brand manager very happy!
Let me tell you something: If Smisek took over, and kept everything at UA exactly as it was, then he just increased the route network, and if he erased the entire brand and painted the airplanes white and just threw "UAdbaCO" on the side in a 72 point Arial font, I'd be a happy customer. Right now, the fundamentals are so fried that nothing they do with the brand will make any difference.
Feb 3, 2013, 6:02 pm
#64
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now MFE... formerly SEA and DCA
Programs: Now UA free!, AA Ex Plat, AS MVP, Marriott Titanium for life
Posts: 664
Clearly Branding is important in any major organization. The issue here is really with the smisek team not understanding priorities.
He should have focused on bringing the employees together and melding the cultures, and doing the same with the customer base. Then he could grow revenue and build loyalty... instead he focused on making UA into CO, all the way down to their coffee.
If he had properly prioritized, no one would have cared about the logo at this point. Instead he tore down a product (or 2) and made it ugly at the same time.
He should have focused on bringing the employees together and melding the cultures, and doing the same with the customer base. Then he could grow revenue and build loyalty... instead he focused on making UA into CO, all the way down to their coffee.
If he had properly prioritized, no one would have cared about the logo at this point. Instead he tore down a product (or 2) and made it ugly at the same time.
Feb 3, 2013, 6:31 pm
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,535
Originally Posted by Beerman92
Why haven't you sought out the next great computer company that doesn't waste money on branding?
None of my reasons have anything to do with "branding" but everything to do with getting the job done with the least hassle.
When I read people whining about their dear lost "tulip," all I can do is SMH.
Feb 3, 2013, 6:51 pm
#66
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Perhaps because I have thousands of dollars invested in Mac software that wouldn't run on another company's hardware? Perhaps because I have found my Macs to be unfailingly reliable for over 20 years and really don't care to experiment? Perhaps because I've worked as a school IT consultant and prefer to work with my computer rather than on it?
None of my reasons have anything to do with "branding" but everything to do with getting the job done with the least hassle.
When I read people whining about their dear lost "tulip," all I can do is SMH.
None of my reasons have anything to do with "branding" but everything to do with getting the job done with the least hassle.
When I read people whining about their dear lost "tulip," all I can do is SMH.
The tulip was part of a brand that was integrated with the company. As such, it represented something real. When we whine about our lost tulip, what we're wining about at the first level is the loss of a real brand, but what we're whining about more deeply is the loss of what that brand stood for and what that brand delivered. Such is the power of a brand, that the tulip reminds us of a company that cared about its customers and delivered a solid value proposition. That's what we lost. The loss of the tulip symbolizes that.
Feb 3, 2013, 7:09 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,535
I think you are missing something.
The tulip was part of a brand that was integrated with the company. As such, it represented something real. When we whine about our lost tulip, what we're wining about at the first level is the loss of a real brand, but what we're whining about more deeply is the loss of what that brand stood for and what that brand delivered. Such is the power of a brand, that the tulip reminds us of a company that cared about its customers and delivered a solid value proposition. That's what we lost. The loss of the tulip symbolizes that.
The tulip was part of a brand that was integrated with the company. As such, it represented something real. When we whine about our lost tulip, what we're wining about at the first level is the loss of a real brand, but what we're whining about more deeply is the loss of what that brand stood for and what that brand delivered. Such is the power of a brand, that the tulip reminds us of a company that cared about its customers and delivered a solid value proposition. That's what we lost. The loss of the tulip symbolizes that.
The day I have an emotional attachment to an airline is the day I seek help from a psychologist, but that's just me.
Feb 3, 2013, 7:11 pm
#68
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: United 1k ; SW A+ Preferred; Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold
Posts: 634
Feb 3, 2013, 8:09 pm
#70
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now MFE... formerly SEA and DCA
Programs: Now UA free!, AA Ex Plat, AS MVP, Marriott Titanium for life
Posts: 664
Perhaps because I have thousands of dollars invested in Mac software that wouldn't run on another company's hardware? Perhaps because I have found my Macs to be unfailingly reliable for over 20 years and really don't care to experiment? Perhaps because I've worked as a school IT consultant and prefer to work with my computer rather than on it?
None of my reasons have anything to do with "branding" but everything to do with getting the job done with the least hassle.
When I read people whining about their dear lost "tulip," all I can do is SMH.
None of my reasons have anything to do with "branding" but everything to do with getting the job done with the least hassle.
When I read people whining about their dear lost "tulip," all I can do is SMH.
It's not about the Tulip per se, it is about the brand.
Feb 3, 2013, 8:24 pm
#71
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IAD
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Rewards - LTPP
Posts: 4,240
The company really only cared about HVTs, and treated them as much. pmCO differentiated less between elite levels and each passenger in a premium cabin. Consistency and reliability (from the airplane to the website) were common. The new brand is still in its infancy. It's going to take many more years before a true brand emerges.
Feb 3, 2013, 8:39 pm
#72
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA GS, AA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 444
+1
I enjoyed collecting the occasional Hemispheres, for the cover, but stopped doing that after they switched to generic pictures. The same can be said for advertisements.
E+ & Premier Travel for example:
PMUA
COdbaUA
Everything from PMUA was elegant, while CO just chose to go with the cheapest stock photos out there. They were, and continue to lack creativity.
I enjoyed collecting the occasional Hemispheres, for the cover, but stopped doing that after they switched to generic pictures. The same can be said for advertisements.
E+ & Premier Travel for example:
PMUA
COdbaUA
Everything from PMUA was elegant, while CO just chose to go with the cheapest stock photos out there. They were, and continue to lack creativity.
Feb 3, 2013, 8:40 pm
#73
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,535
I started flying "frequently" when I moved to Arizona about 5-1/2 years ago. My choice of carriers was based on three factors:
1) the airline must fly to ABQ and BTR;
2) the connecting hub should not be too far out of the way; and
3) price.
At the time, there were three contenders that met condition 1: AA, CO, and DL. Of those, AA (DFW) and CO (IAH) met condition 2. CO consistently beat AA on price. "Branding" was never a consideration.
1) the airline must fly to ABQ and BTR;
2) the connecting hub should not be too far out of the way; and
3) price.
At the time, there were three contenders that met condition 1: AA, CO, and DL. Of those, AA (DFW) and CO (IAH) met condition 2. CO consistently beat AA on price. "Branding" was never a consideration.
Feb 3, 2013, 8:42 pm
#74
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: UA 1K, HH Diamond, Bonvoy Plat
Posts: 110
The thing is legacy airlines have been having a tough time. The old United was doing everything they could to be "different" and "expand a certain client base". (To me that seemed to be frequent flyers who appreciate a good brand). They cut corners that the "old" guys still insisted on keeping (i.e. free booze in the lounge) But they kept adding benefits to elites... THAT DID NOT COST THEM ANYTHING but good will and a few branding $$. The new UA is an "old" airline that has gone back to the inefficient/un-cost effective way that legacy airlines used to run. I admired the way the old UA did this. It was a little annoying, but all-in-all it was best for the airline and ok with most customers, even elites.
Last edited by gayste; Feb 3, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Feb 3, 2013, 9:45 pm
#75
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Frozen in Carbonite
Programs: UA Aluminum 0.6MM, Bonvoy Life Sentence, Hyatt Eliteist, AA Super Plutonium
Posts: 2,878
Frankly, I don't know why anyone gets so fired up about the livery. Who cares. Okay, I agree their marketing approach sucks and that they lack creativity. Brand image more of a reflection of who you are as a company, not how slick your advertising is. And as a company, they suck.
At the end of the day though, I don't think they are all as stupid as we make them out to be. They know exactly what they are doing. FF programs have cost the industry WAY too much over the years, and they are rapidly trying to turn air travel back into the priced-based commodity that it should be.
Do we like it? No. Of course not. We've gotten used to feeling that our loyalty actually counted for something, some people (and you know who you are) have even pinned a degree of personal worth on the color of the frequent flyer card in their wallet. Those days are rapidly going away. This industry is changing and we are just going to have to deal with it. The future of aviation is going to be that a fare gets you from point A to point B and you have to bolt on everything else. Nothing will be given away for "loyalty's sake"
Continued industry consolidation will ensure that there is no need for frequent flyer programs in the future. How many other oligopolies out there have similar rewards programs?
For those of you MM out there, enjoy your benefits while you have them, because I'm willing to bet that the "lifetime" of the program will end long before your lifetime.
At the end of the day though, I don't think they are all as stupid as we make them out to be. They know exactly what they are doing. FF programs have cost the industry WAY too much over the years, and they are rapidly trying to turn air travel back into the priced-based commodity that it should be.
Do we like it? No. Of course not. We've gotten used to feeling that our loyalty actually counted for something, some people (and you know who you are) have even pinned a degree of personal worth on the color of the frequent flyer card in their wallet. Those days are rapidly going away. This industry is changing and we are just going to have to deal with it. The future of aviation is going to be that a fare gets you from point A to point B and you have to bolt on everything else. Nothing will be given away for "loyalty's sake"
Continued industry consolidation will ensure that there is no need for frequent flyer programs in the future. How many other oligopolies out there have similar rewards programs?
For those of you MM out there, enjoy your benefits while you have them, because I'm willing to bet that the "lifetime" of the program will end long before your lifetime.
Last edited by TommyC80; Feb 3, 2013 at 9:52 pm