36 replies to this topic

[Independence76]

03SVTCobra, on 19 January 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

In reference to your add that jusy stirs emotions with no particular motive. Its probably not very successful. The reason that type of marketing is not used is because it doesn't work in the US.

I disagree.

[Chief_Bean]

Independence76, on 19 January 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Wait, what?

Would you not agree? I'd say that a large number of Americans are mostly interested in looking after themselves and their immediate family. It strikes me as very 'every man for himself'.

[Independence76]

Chief_Bean, on 19 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Would you not agree? I'd say that a large number of Americans are mostly interested in looking after themselves and their immediate family. It strikes me as very 'every man for himself'.

No, I bolded part of SVT's post because I didn't understand what he was saying.

[03SVTCobra]

Then we'll agree to disagree I can tell you (with an MBA in marketing and currently studying advertising/marketing law currently at smu) that people in America want to know in the least amount of time possible why your product deserves their investment over others.

[03SVTCobra]

Chief_Bean, on 19 January 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Would you not agree? I'd say that a large number of Americans are mostly interested in looking after themselves and their immediate family. It strikes me as very 'every man for himself'.

Were individualists and ill leave it at that before it turns political

[davie18]

Very good job. I liked the Senna quote you put in there too! Probably one of my favourites of his.

[03SVTCobra]

Indy you may (or may not) enjoy this clip.

[Independence76]

Some of the people in the video I've spoken to already, but I can't help but feel they went too far with "reinvention."

Plenty of visual elements were perfect in the old livery and design, but instead they're spending millions on a few new fonts and logos. I just don't see the sense in that when Chapter 11 Bankruptcy still exists.

[LA_PHX]

Independence76, on 23 January 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Plenty of visual elements were perfect in the old livery and design, but instead they're spending millions on a few new fonts and logos. I just don't see the sense in that when Chapter 11 Bankruptcy still exists.

Many people said that about Delta and, all things considered, they're doing much better and personally, that re-branding seems well worth it. American has to reinvent itself if they want to overcome the stagnancy now surrounding the airline.

[Independence76]

LA_PHX, on 23 January 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Many people said that about Delta and, all things considered, they're doing much better and personally, that re-branding seems well worth it. American has to reinvent itself if they want to overcome the stagnancy now surrounding the airline.

Delta's previous livery, in my opinion, did not have much flexibility or modern appeal. The new designs they chose are excellent and I still think are a little better than what AA came up with last week.

[LA_PHX]

Independence76, on 23 January 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Delta's previous livery, in my opinion, did not have much flexibility or modern appeal. The new designs they chose are excellent and I still think are a little better than what AA came up with last week.

My point wasn't about the design choices, rather the fact that AA going through Chapter 11 has nothing to do with this.

[Independence76]

LA_PHX, on 23 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

My point wasn't about the design choices, rather the fact that AA going through Chapter 11 has nothing to do with this.

Ok, well, my argument still stands that the previous Delta brand did not have much marketing potential. The fonts weren't attractive, the tails were difficult to incorporate with a logo, and it didn't feel like a world-standard in anything. The 2008 livery completely fixed all of that.

The situation at AA is different. This logo and livery has been around since 1968 with little to no difficulty to market. It's classic, traditional, yet easily modern when needed to be and the trademarked Helvetica flexibility is extremely favorable. Now they're rebranding to something that will provide less marketing room and cost millions to implement for little to no reason.

Also, something hit me today: do you think that the tail design chosen will make it difficult for AA aircraft to be allowed to fly into Middle Eastern nations?

[LA_PHX]

Independence76, on 23 January 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

The situation at AA is different. This logo and livery has been around since 1968 with little to no difficulty to market. It's classic, traditional, yet easily modern when needed to be and the trademarked Helvetica flexibility is extremely favorable. Now they're rebranding to something that will provide less marketing room and cost millions to implement for little to no reason.

Something tells me we are going to have to agree to disagree. One of the things I find so intriguing about marketing is that there really are no right answers. There are general ideas that most people tend to agree on, but even when they aren't followed, there will be companies that find great success.

It seems like what you view as a 'pro' (classic, traditional, executive, etc.), I view as a 'con'. Would you say Southwest, Jetblue, and even Delta, are "classic" and "traditional"? I'd certainly argue they are not yet they outperform these legacy ideas.

When I thought of AA (in its now "old" form), my first thoughts were:

-old planes
-same old livery
-crappy services
-sub-par customer service
-lacking excitement

Even if the product doesn't change, the dramatic shift in marketing catches my attention and makes me initially think this is a whole new experience. Obviously, AA has a lot of work to do to change their product; re-branding will almost never be successful without bettering the actual product. But at least they've started to change perceptions with their image.

But like I said, there really are no right answers in marketing. Large companies mine data on customer behavior like crazy but a small little video going viral for a previously unheard of company shows that marketing really isn't a predictable science.

Quote

Also, something hit me today: do you think that the tail design chosen will make it difficult for AA aircraft to be allowed to fly into Middle Eastern nations?

I don't see that as a huge issue - does AA actually intend to establish a large presence in the Middle East with flights or do they plan on just utilizing codeshares and alliances to gain access to that part of the world?

Edited by LA_PHX, 23 January 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[Independence76]

LA_PHX, on 23 January 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Something tells me we are going to have to agree to disagree. One of the things I find so intriguing about marketing is that there really are no right answers. There are general ideas that most people tend to agree on, but even when they aren't followed, there will be companies that find great success.

It seems like what you view as a 'pro' (classic, traditional, executive, etc.), I view as a 'con'. Would you say Southwest, Jetblue, and even Delta, are "classic" and "traditional"? I'd certainly argue they are not yet they outperform these legacy ideas.

When I thought of AA (in its now "old" form), my first thoughts were:

-old planes
-same old livery
-crappy services
-sub-par customer service
-lacking excitement

Even if the product doesn't change, the dramatic shift in marketing catches my attention and makes me initially think this is a whole new experience. Obviously, AA has a lot of work to do to change their product; re-branding will almost never be successful without bettering the actual product. But at least they've started to change perceptions with their image.

But like I said, there really are no right answers in marketing. Large companies mine data on customer behavior like crazy but a small little video going viral for a previously unheard of company shows that marketing really isn't a predictable science.

The record shows that the 1968 + Helvetica look has been more successful, and marketing consultants are calling the change "completely unnecessary."

No, I would not argue that jetBlue and other carriers followed "traditional" standards because they have found newer marketing techniques that work better for them. AA's original branding (as shown in my documents above) has plenty of room for further potential which I find much more realistic and viable in bankruptcy.

I understand that your list contains a lot of what some others may complain about, but like multiple other people are saying: a new livery and logo will not solve these problems on the inside. The seating and cabin designs they went with are just as uninspiring and excitement-lacking as the ones introduced in 1998. It's as if they learned nothing about the evolution of cabin design and how effective it could be.

I think most employees will be happy with the new brand for a year before they start feeling sour again. A new brand and image came out the door and people are optimistic. Starting January 31, 2013, we may slowly see if any lasting core changes have been made.

Quote

I don't see that as a huge issue - does AA actually intend to establish a large presence in the Middle East with flights or do they plan on just utilizing codeshares and alliances to gain access to that part of the world?

Doubtful. But you need a livery that can be ready for almost any location worldwide when the opportunity strikes up. I feel the tail design potentially may add greater security concern for the airline.

My reasoning behind this is hardly an excuse - in 2001, when Swissair was looking at viable options to save the airline, a takeover by Crossair was considered. However, the CEO of Swissair argued that the combination of "Crossair" and the Swiss cross on the tail may cause increased security concerns for their aircraft when flying into Arab nations.

Edited by Independence76, 23 January 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[LA_PHX]

Independence76, on 23 January 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

The record shows that the 1968 + Helvetica look has been more successful, and marketing consultants are calling the change "completely unnecessary."

What "record"? Marketing consultants can comment all they want but it does not mean they are correct. Marketing is a very difficult field for the very fact that proven techniques don't really exist because you can tackle marketing problems in endless ways.

Quote

AA's original branding (as shown in my documents above) has plenty of room for further potential which I find much more realistic and viable in bankruptcy.

Again, leave the bankruptcy out of it. Delta has proven you can spend money on brand redesign in a bankruptcy and it won't automatically mean it was a poor use of cash.

Quote

I understand that your list contains a lot of what some others may complain about, but like multiple other people are saying: a new livery and logo will not solve these problems on the inside. The seating and cabin designs they went with are just as uninspiring and excitement-lacking as the ones introduced in 1998. It's as if they learned nothing about the evolution of cabin design and how effective it could be.

I think most employees will be happy with the new brand for a year before they start feeling sour again. A new brand and image came out the door and people are optimistic. Starting January 31, 2013, we may slowly see if any lasting core changes have been made.

And I noted exactly that. The change in branding has to go hand-in-hand with an improved product. But that new, refreshed, and modern branding can be almost as important as the actual product itself.

Quote

Doubtful. But you need a livery that can be ready for almost any location worldwide when the opportunity strikes up. I feel the tail design potentially may add greater security concern for the airline.

My reasoning behind this is hardly an excuse - in 2001, when Swissair was looking at viable options to save the airline, a takeover by Crossair was considered. However, the CEO of Swissair argued that the combination of "Crossair" and the Swiss cross on the tail may cause increased security concerns for their aircraft when flying into Arab nations.

I don't buy into the security concern aspect of it. The way an aircraft is painted will not all of a sudden mean it is under greater threat. Something tells me a terrorist with those intentions would be just as happy attacking a Delta or United aircraft that doesn't have a giant American flag on it, simply because it is an American aircraft.

Just because a CEO said that doesn't mean there is a legitimate concern/threat.

Edited by LA_PHX, 23 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[Cactus]

The DHL plane departing Baghdad wasn't painted offensively, and they still managed to get hit by an RPG. If a certain extremist group hates the American or "western" ideology, they will consider targeting an interest regardless of its outward physical appearance. Considering that American does not fly to any Middle Eastern destinations, it really is a moot point.

[Independence76]

Cactus, on 23 January 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

The DHL plane departing Baghdad wasn't painted offensively, and they still managed to get hit by an RPG. If a certain extremist group hates the American or "western" ideology, they will consider targeting an interest regardless of its outward physical appearance. Considering that American does not fly to any Middle Eastern destinations, it really is a moot point.

They couldn't see it was DHL plane, so it's a rather poor counter-argument. I don't know all the specifics of the event (I could be wrong on a few points, so I acknowledge that ahead of time), but from where my current knowledge stands was that it was already high-altitude and it was more of a demonstration to British journalists present at the time.

It's obvious AA does not fly into the Middle East. However, my point is that the idea of AA planning to expand to a Middle Eastern destination is not an impossible thing.

Also, different organizations have different motives behind attacking things. Some care about attacking something symbolic, some only care about making people scared or sending threats. It's a big variable. Pan Am was a target in the 1980's because it was a symbol of American pride, economics, and beliefs. The Air France flight in 1994 was hijacked partially due to French involvement in northern Africa (as far as I know, could be wrong).