Posted by Peter Samardak on Wed, Apr 07, 2010 @ 09:24 PM
US airlines have been complaining about profits and loss of revenue and are thinking about innovative ways to get more money from their customers. The interesting thing is that they are driving their customers away with the petty way they are trying to save their business. We have some advice for the leadership of the major airlines companies and an easy way to increase customer traffic.
If you travel, and I am sure many of you have, you can almost recite the flight attendants messages, "...in the case of an emergency masks will automatically drop from above. Put your mask on first and then help children or others with theirs." The reason you do this is because if "you" are not panicking you will be able to help others later. If you don't, you're out cold and then you add to the amount of victims. This is fairly sound reasoning and logical. So, why not charge for the use of the mask? The major airlines could take the leadership role and charge everyone $5 for potential use and make billions. Then, once they have forced them to pay for the mask...make the oxygen optional and charge for that too. Ok, you're probably thinking, what does this have to do with overall business strategy and being profitable? Actually quite a bit.
First and foremost, think about what airlines have forced their customers to do. First, you get charged for checking your baggage. This results in people packing carry on bags to the hilt and bringing with them on board. The result is less lost baggage, as recently reported by the major airlines, but increase in airline departure delays because of the need of more time for people to shove and push their way around while clobbering you in the head to get their bag into the overhead bin. And, flight attendants have increased their personal claims for back injuries helping to lift those heavy carry on bags. And what does the airline do, charge for carry on bags. Logically, I think, they are charging for a condition they created as well as problems in getting people seated so they can depart. This just doesn't sound fair to me.
Fixing the problem isn't as difficult as it may seem. It takes innovative leadership, an understanding of local culture, specifically US culture, and the presence of mind to think innovatively. Has it dawned on any of the CEOs that Americans will pay for quality service, for being treated with respect, and for comfort?
The plan: Allow for free bag check-in up to 50 lbs, per adult, regardless of the amount of bags. Allow for only one carry on per person and have it be a specific size, no exceptions. Preferably this should have a maximum size of the typical overhead sized carry-on, again no exceptions. Increase the cost of the ticket to a reasonable level that would cover the current add-on charges. Now, add some leg room, and offer a few amenities for free such as soft drinks and water. I can almost guarantee you will fill flights, you will gain customer loyalty, your customers will speak highly of your brand and your customer base will increase. I think it's fairly obvious your ROI will be exceptional. Or, you may want to consider how much airline CEOs are willing to pay for their own oxygen masks.
Posted by Jack Brown on Mon, Nov 16, 2009 @ 03:02 PM
In the current CNBC documentary on the Coca Cola Company entitled: "Coca-Cola: The Real Story Behind the Real Thing," the focus is Coke's urgent campaign to reinvent itself after years of losing ground to arch-rival Pepsi in the race to develop new blockbuster beverages. What makes the documentary particularly compelling is Coke managements' candid admission that they had taken their eye off the ball by becoming complacent and by living on the brand's past glory. With this mea-culpa came admissions of marketing blunders, the most famous of which was the "New Coke" debacle.
The year was 1985. Coke faced an onslaught by its archrival Pepsi, which was threatening to dethrone Coke as the leading cola brand with an effective marketing campaign called "The Pepsi Challenge." The campaign, which was featured on television, showed consumers preferring Pepsi's sweeter taste in blind taste tests to Coke, even among Coke drinkers. As an aside, these blind taste tests had consumers taking only a small mouthful of both Coke and Pepsi, rather than consuming a normal 8 or 12oz serving of each. Subsequent arguments have been made that with small servings, the sweetness level is more pronounced and responded to positively, whereas in larger servings, the aftertaste becomes more important. On this basis, many researchers believe larger serving tests would have resulted in an equal preference.
Facing this onslaught, Coke, under the leadership of its then CEO Roberto Guoizueta, began testing alternate formulas that were higher in sweetness level than the original Coke formula. This produced a formula which, when tested among both Coke and Pepsi drinkers, was preferred in blind taste tests to the existing formulas of either Coke or Pepsi. In a move criticized by many as one done in a state of panic, Mr. Guoizueta announced before a New York media audience that Coke's 99-year-old formula was being replaced by a new, sweeter formula, and it would be named "New Coke." The results were immediate and devastating. Consumers were outraged, and what followed was essentially a consumer rebellion. Three months later, Roberto Guoizueta formally announced the return of the original formula, renamed "Coke Classic."
As a marketer, what are the lessons to be learned from Coke's experience? Is it to never change the "original formula" of an iconic brand? Would Tide detergent, certainly an iconic brand, still be the market leader if Procter & Gamble had not continually updated and improved upon its original formula... and aggressively marketed these improvements? Wouldn't most leading brands have languished if they had not kept constantly improving their consumer experience, and marketing these improvements? Certainly the answers in most cases would be no. One could argue that developing a formula that beats both your current formula and that of your competitor, as Coke did, is a win. Traditional marketing would encourage you to generate trial of this new formula, and watch your brand share grow. So, what makes Coke different?
Coke is a "Me" brand. So is Budweiser. So is Marlboro. These brands, and brands like them, are "Me" brands because they are part of "My" self-image and reinforce who I am, much as a designer label does. If you change these brands, then you're trying to change me ... and I may not want to change. Subsequent research by Coke revealed that they had totally underestimated the emotional bond that consumers had with their brand. They realized you needed consumer permission to make changes to their "Me" brand.
In contrast, Tide and most other packaged goods brands are "Performance" brands. These brands don't require permission to make changes. In fact, consumer demands dictate that changes be made continually to improve performance, or they will seek out other brands that they perceive to perform better. You can establish trust and loyalty with these brands, but very seldom are there the emotional ties associated with "Me" brands. However, whether you are marketing a "Me" brand, or a "Performance" brand, you must view these brands through the eyes of the consumer. You may own the brand, but your consumers are stakeholders, and as stakeholders they have definite expectations. and as we've seen with Coke, they may even have an emotional bond with the brand. Understanding these expectations and the extent to which there is an emotional bond can give you permission to make changes, but in their absence, you run the risk of creating the next Coke debacle.
Posted by Peter Samardak on Tue, Aug 18, 2009 @ 11:45 AM
The beer blast is on, the picnic table is out and the global humble pie is being served. If you are not aware of the current race issues that have recently surfaced, then bypass this article. Our generation has lived through tremendous changes in race relations, and the history of it all is indelibly in our minds.
ABC Video, "The Bottom Line on Beer Diplomacy"
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14821979&ch=4226716&src=news
And whether we want to admit it or not, they exist. The recent slip in regard to race and the police by our President just opens up more dialog in this arena. You can take sides. You can dissect what was said and why. You can listen to the experts and chastise the innocent. You can learn. Yeah, that's it, you can learn. There is an incredible learning point for everyone in this moment of the Presidential Bidenian slip. You know, kind of like Joe Biden, the Vice President when he engages his mouth before his brain...a "Bidenian slip". So there it is in its simplest form. Laid out on the picnic table, with the beer and humble pie. People make mistakes and accuse others of injustices when facts are not gathered or when their personal outlook is biased in one way shape or form. Sometimes people say things out of ignorance, out of an unknown bias, from the position of a naive offender. The important point is, as a Leader, you need to engage in deep thought, do a self exam to see where your head is, think and then speak. You need to know how you will affect your followers and your opponents. There is no room for a Bidenian slip. x7b8ik3ved
href="http://www.superblogdirectory.com/">Super Blog Directory</a>
Posted by Peter Samardak on Fri, Jul 24, 2009 @ 09:02 AM
Suddenly, the leader of the United States of America, the President, stated that, in spite of not having all the facts, he thought his friend was treated very harshly and unfairly. Per Associated Press Writer Melissa Trujillo, "Many police officers across the country have a message for President Barack Obama: Get all the facts before criticizing one of our own. Obama's public criticism that Cambridge officers 'acted stupidly' when they arrested black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. could make it harder for police to work with people of color, some officers said Thursday." As leaders and especially at the Presidential level, words carry a heavier weight and bear more meaning and implication. Care should be taken.
But, how long does a leader wait until action is taken? Or, how long a wait to ensure the correct action is taken? Although this clearly will be in the limelight because of the level of attention it received, it was not surprising for me. I have facilitated very intensive diversity sessions and, once people discuss and discover biases they didn't even know they had, it's quite surprising what happens.
In one particular session I had two people who were the best of friends. They both lived and worked in the Washington D.C. area and were professionals in similar fields. They even decided to build new homes in the same development. The difference between them was their race. One was Black, the other White. As we spent time together learning about each other and finally getting to the real issues, the hidden issues, the young Black professional told a story about how he used to go into this new development, like his friend, to check on the progress of his new home. He told of driving his new car, like his friend, and stopping along side the curb, like his friend, to walk around and check it all out. He told the story of being tailed by the police, questioned about why he was there and what he was doing, as well as having to always show the license and registration for his car, very unlike his friend. Interestingly, this Black man's very close White friend looked on in amazement as the story unfolded and simply stated, "I had now idea."
Well, many people have no idea of some of the things that happen everyday. Because they are in a personal comfort zone, they feel as if everything is progressing very smoothly. You must be asking yourselves, what does this have to do with Leadership. It has everything to do with it. Leaders are responsible for ensuring correct actions are taken and, in cases where the appearance seems to be a bit unusual, ensuring at least a message that processes are not being overlooked. The unfortunate piece is the bit of a leap with a caveat of not knowing all the facts. As the President, 
a bit more care needs to be taken to ensure the facts are complete.
Video -> Obama stands by Police Remarks - ABC News
Leadership should be inspirational as well as complete and unbiased. As a leader, you should be fully prepared, have the facts, have used the resources at your disposal and communicate clearly. Are you doing that? Are you fulfilling your leadership responsibilites? Do you have your cultural radar operating? As a leader, you need to be sure you do.
Posted by Peter Samardak on Tue, Jul 21, 2009 @ 11:10 AM
I recently read an article by Richard Stengel, Managing Editor of Time Magazine, about Sarah Palin's leadership style. He describes her style as "the textbook example of Weber's charismatic leader, who uses personal appeal and magnetism and a disdain for traditional structures as a route to power. Hers is the opposite of the legal-bureaucratic style and seems based on intuition, emotion and frontier values." Richard also states that "we don't write about leadership in a theoretical way - every week we write about leadership in real time involving real events."
Inspirational leadership is what most people remember. You only need to think about the leaders you would follow. It would be for your personal reasons based on how they made you feel. Did you become angry and eager to make/force a change? Did you become more educated and ready to jump in and do some research to inspire others to take action. Did you feel safer? Did you feel less secure? What was that feeling stirring in you veins making your heart pound a bit harder and your senses become more attuned to your surroundings. It wasn't theory. It was an inspirational leader that you took the time to listen to. Someone with conviction, commitment and a drive that, perhaps, instilled in you a sense of well being and of progress. Or maybe they made your blood boil and your sense of patriotism (Air Force One
image via Wikipedia)rise to heights you never thought you had. I can think of leaders that did that for me and I can think of the times of my life when that happened. We all are at a point in time where the essence of leadership will be dissected in the future,and through hindsight we'll make course corrections. We all are at a point where we all will move forward. We all are at a point where there is no backward...never was, ever, at any time.
So the real question is, what type of leader will you follow or even more importantly, what type of leader will you be. Will you reach out and grab the brass ring? Will you dedicate your life to taking steps to improve? Will you learn, mentor, coach, act and be accountable for your actions. What are your values? What will you do and how do you want to be envisioned? What do you want people to say about you? There are a plethora of questions to answer, personal blocks to overcome, steps to take, and opportunities to lead. I leave you with this thought...many leaders have come and gone, many have been taken apart by the press or their adversaries, but a very small number of the population can say they actually ran for the President of the United States of America, or for the Vice Presidency of this great country of ours. Think about it...what will your legacy be as a leader?