In a follow-up to my post from yesterday, here is what I think Southwest should have announced yesterday. That is, if the marketing foot had been in gear with the hand holding the excel charts.
Instead of the new “Business Select” and “Business” class monikers, Southwest should have gone with two main fare classes — “Gotta Get Away,” as they have done for the lower fares, but “Gotta Go Now” for their fully refundable price fares. Or “Gotta Get There Now” if the previous suggestion sounds too much like one of those commercials for an overactive bladder.
Anyway, there are a couple of potentials that could have been used.
My point is — Gotta Go Now, Gotta Get Away? Simple. Ties into the airline’s established marketing mindset. Makes the point. And no crappy “Business” fare tag for a product that is not any different from the product sold as a “Gotta Get Away” fare — except that it is more expensive and refundable.
Then, they should have created the “A+ Boarding” option. A simple flat add-on fee for guaranteed “A” group boarding.
“Flying on a Gotta Go Now fare? Upgrade to the “A+” boarding option for (fill in the blank) and be assured of an “A” Group boarding pass.”
Marketing could have had a field day with this. Given out special little buttons. T-shirts. Given “A+” purchasers more drink coupons. I can see the commercials now.
In other words, the airline should have taken that “exclusive” group feeling that is there now and run with it. Taken advantage of it. It would have fed right in with the exclusive “clubby” “A” boarding group mentality that we “A” group boarders like to think we possess.
But does the term, “Business Select” lend itself to any of this? Not hardly. In addition, note to Southwest. Not all “A” group boarding nuts consider themselves to be “business travelers.” And you shouldn’t have made that assumption, or hung that moniker on them. It’s a mistake.
I have a lot of friends at Southwest Airlines. Some very dear friends. And the airline has done more positive things over the years than most. There is no question about that.
But the more I think about this announcement from yesterday, the more my head hurts. It makes things way too complicated and it takes the very guts out of their existing core marketing strength. It really makes me wonder if any of this decision was run by the great folks at GSD&M in Austin (they handle the airline’s advertising) beforehand. If it was, shame on GSD&M. If it wasn’t, shame on Southwest.
“Business Select?” Arrrrgh.
Technorati Tags: airline industry news, airlines, Southwest Airlines
I think this is a great point. I like the A+ idea a lot, because it stays closer to the airline’s egalitarian roots. Everyone gets the option. I’m personally taking the wait and see approach here. If I check in 24 hours early and constantly end up with a B, then I’ll fly someone else.
Ah, the esteemed Cranky Flier himself! Hey there Brett. Well, there are two issues here. Putting on the financial hat, the question is — will the change result in a revenue boost for the airline. Then there is the passenger angle. Will the changes, as you say, make regular “A” group fanatics like us not be so enthusiastic if we know the chances at scoring an “A” group boarding pass have been substantially reduced?
The initials for Business Select has other connotations!
Thanks Roundo. I hadn’t even thought of that!
Howdy, Holly. I think the big question really is what made them decide that biz travelers should be able to pay $15 more for an A boarding pass but leisure travelers can’t? You have a leisure traveler who is willing to pay $99 for a ticket and a biz traveler who will pay $299. Do you care which one of those people pays the extra $15 for the A+? You shouldn’t. And then it’s more egalitarian.
Is it a systems issue?
Yep. I think you’re right. It goes to the heart of my complaint about the monikers in the first place. The fare classes shouldn’t be tied to business or leisure, i.e., Business Select, and anyone who wants to get an assured “A” pass should simply be able to pay a surcharge and get one. Period. First come, first served. When they are gone, they’re gone.
I agree that the concept of egalitarianism that has been a major part of the Southwest brand, and set it apart from the rest of the pack, should have been preserved, as part of the package.
Is it a systems problem? If I were betting, I’d bet yes.
Well, Southwest had a pretty hefty presence at BlogWorld this week, so I asked the corp comm people about it. They didn’t have an answer but promised to get me one.