The most important information for many companies, is their data base of clients. This is where business comes from, this is where relationships are built and sometimes this is all that remains to be sold when a business closes. Ask the travel industry, leisure and corporate, how important their client profiles are and they will answer with one voice that this data base keeps bread on the table. The bigger the data base the more bread, the bigger the data base the more likely they are, to have an exit strategy.
From a corporate travel perspective, client profiles with as much relevant personal information are seen as gold, as they are the start point to any bookings made via the travel reservation technology. For years there have been battles between travel companies, airlines and tour companies about who owns the customer, focusing on who owned the traveller profile and what they could do with that profile. Large corporate travel companies may have thousands and thousands of traveller profiles guarded and maintained in specific profile software to be downloaded whenever travel arrangements need to be booked.
Global corporations working with global and regional travel companies could provide hundreds of thousands of traveller profiles to be housed within the travel company software. I'm always fascinated by some of the large numbers spewed forth as an indication of strength by travel companies proudly showing off, who they look after and how well they maintain those profiles and relationships.
For one large global entity, a travel company would have to have software capable of handling over 750 million passenger profiles which sounds like a nice earner if you could win that contract. Of course you know which entity I'm talking about, it's Facebook with its millions of friends who all travel and either book online or through the traditional travel agency network. The wrinkle of course, is Facebook could turn the whole system on it's head if it decided travel was an area they could make money in.
So what if all travel was social?
What if Facebook decided to use all those profiles and market travel direct to their members? They already have relevant traveller information and even if it wasn't enough in the beginning, they could build an interactive app to encourage Facebookers to fully flesh out their profiles with the required traveller information. Likes, dislikes, favourite destinations, favourite airlines, groups, events, and friends all make for a perfect storm of Facebook colliding with the travel industry.
No single global company has the opportunity to change the face of travel like Facebook. Using Google as an example with their purchase of the ITA travel software, Facebook could just as easily obtain a system or even build one from scratch to provide their 750,000 million members with alternatives to how they book and interact with the travel industry today. Locally Facebook has 10.5 million members in Australia, which is close to the nearly 11 million Australians holding passports. Scary numbers for international travel that doesn't even take into account domestic travel.
All the things the travel industry talks about, client forums, customer feedback, suggestive travel, common interest groups, loyalty and ease of interaction, along with the advantage of massive buying power could see Facebook take social commerce to new heights with social travel. Yet why stop there, what about Facebook Airlines, Facebook Cruises, Facebook Coach Tours, Facebook Rent A Car etc etc.
What if?
P. S.
Facebook is banned in China and the local version, called Renren ( meaning everyone ) already has over 120 million members.
What if?
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Crackberry.
I have one, some of my colleagues have one but more of my colleagues and friends have smart phones. Let me start out by saying I had an iPhone in my previous role and still long for the caress of finger touch control, so if you detect some bias, it's there. A lot of recent articles in the online communities like Mashable, Techcrunch and other such prophetic forums have come out with stories on the demise of RIM Blackberries. A demise fueled by the increase in demand for smart phones, more intuitive operating systems by Android and Apple and people wanting to enjoy their hand held experience. Quick, get your mind back on the article and out of the gutter.
What I mean about the last point above, refers to the new lifestyle where the lines of work and play are so blurred by technology that if you must play that game, then at least it should be fun, interactive and engaging. None of those adjectives would be used to describe Blackberries. RIM is losing market share to the smart phones for many reasons but most of them collide at the intersection of fun and usability. Phones are less about business applications and more about life applications and RIM is unfortunately, steadfastly holding onto the business side.
Sure the email side was always the support pier for Blackberries but everyone caught up and emails seem the least obvious choice for choosing phones nowadays. Having tens of thousands of apps on a Blackberry is not like having hundreds of thousands of apps on a smart phone and that is likely to be a tipping point for many when it comes to choosing phones. App envy could be the cause of death for an entire company that wasn't as smart as the guys who called themselves smart. If only Blackberry had called themselves a smart phone at the beginning the rest would now have to come up with an even better description for themselves.
Unfortunately that didn't happen and they now find themselves in a marketing death spiral where anything they launch is likely already available via an app. Blackberry BBM has just been supplanted by Apple iMessage, Blackberry stock has fallen by 37% in the last six months and Wall Street analysts are calling for the resignation of the RIM CEO. All three of the above have happened in recent times and such an avalanche of discontent can damage a brand beyond repair.
A Crowd Science study found that along with Blackberry users losing faith, they are looking for alternatives with 40% indicating they would make the switch to Apple OS and Google Android smart phones. Both giants have customer loyalty usually reserved for football teams, with 92% of Apple customers and 87% of Android customers staying loyal to their phones.
When talking about the last decade of technology change, RIM will have a place among the innovators but the defining label for success will be kept for those that kept innovating. In technology, to stop is to die. RIP RIM.
What I mean about the last point above, refers to the new lifestyle where the lines of work and play are so blurred by technology that if you must play that game, then at least it should be fun, interactive and engaging. None of those adjectives would be used to describe Blackberries. RIM is losing market share to the smart phones for many reasons but most of them collide at the intersection of fun and usability. Phones are less about business applications and more about life applications and RIM is unfortunately, steadfastly holding onto the business side.
Sure the email side was always the support pier for Blackberries but everyone caught up and emails seem the least obvious choice for choosing phones nowadays. Having tens of thousands of apps on a Blackberry is not like having hundreds of thousands of apps on a smart phone and that is likely to be a tipping point for many when it comes to choosing phones. App envy could be the cause of death for an entire company that wasn't as smart as the guys who called themselves smart. If only Blackberry had called themselves a smart phone at the beginning the rest would now have to come up with an even better description for themselves.
Unfortunately that didn't happen and they now find themselves in a marketing death spiral where anything they launch is likely already available via an app. Blackberry BBM has just been supplanted by Apple iMessage, Blackberry stock has fallen by 37% in the last six months and Wall Street analysts are calling for the resignation of the RIM CEO. All three of the above have happened in recent times and such an avalanche of discontent can damage a brand beyond repair.
A Crowd Science study found that along with Blackberry users losing faith, they are looking for alternatives with 40% indicating they would make the switch to Apple OS and Google Android smart phones. Both giants have customer loyalty usually reserved for football teams, with 92% of Apple customers and 87% of Android customers staying loyal to their phones.
When talking about the last decade of technology change, RIM will have a place among the innovators but the defining label for success will be kept for those that kept innovating. In technology, to stop is to die. RIP RIM.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Why Leave Home?
I like nothing better than kicking back on the lounge with a good game on TV ordering in my favourite pizza. After all, I've earned my slice of convenience and not having to leave home if I really don't want to. For the future, home for many people will be more than their current abode and will include sites on the web where they will live their lives and interact with the rest of their community from local to global. For many that home will be called Facebook.
A chat with friends about their kid's perceptions on technology came up with some interesting peeks into the future. When asked what the web was, the general reply was Facebook. For an eight year old without access to a computer, this is an interesting reply. Everyone they know from Mum and Dad to their older siblings and Aunty May are on Facebook daily, so to them it's an easy jump to assume Facebook is the web.
No doubt parents agonise over when they should give their kids access to the net and a lot are trying to figure out how to manage those first tentative net surfing steps their child might take into the rest of the world. When they finally get to surf the web, their first port of call for those kids is likely to be Facebook. In fact there is a thinking around that surfing may end up like ashtrays, only for the addicted, and we will have a small finite number of sites we visit, like Facebook, and all the other interests, product sellers and information providers we would normally search for will find us through sites like Facebook. Just like the pizza man finding me on a Friday night.
There will come a time where, if a business is not finding us, we probably won't care about it. Your preferences, your likes, your friends and all of your favourite net interactions will be housed in the bubble of your personality profile on Facebook. With consumer sites like Copious ( see previous blog ) only working with your Facebook profile likely to increase, the need to surf will become superfluous as B2C sites find you because they have something they know you already like, have shown interest in previously and maybe have purchased something similar before.
Why would companies pay for all the SEO overheads when a Facebook could exposed them to more relevant customers, on a global scale on a 24/7 basis? Why leave the comfy confines of Facebook if all you ever searched for on the web came to you? Online buying communities would spring up where you could buy direct while you have conversations with the seller and the broader community.
Without realising it, we are already programming our needs and wants via our searches, likes and favourites to one day end up at our most popular home site and from there we'll order our pizzas, our entertainment, our groceries and no doubt anything else available, all via the comfy surrounds of Facebook people we know and suppliers we trust.
Facebook, don't leave home without it. Karl Malden would be turning in his grave.
A chat with friends about their kid's perceptions on technology came up with some interesting peeks into the future. When asked what the web was, the general reply was Facebook. For an eight year old without access to a computer, this is an interesting reply. Everyone they know from Mum and Dad to their older siblings and Aunty May are on Facebook daily, so to them it's an easy jump to assume Facebook is the web.
No doubt parents agonise over when they should give their kids access to the net and a lot are trying to figure out how to manage those first tentative net surfing steps their child might take into the rest of the world. When they finally get to surf the web, their first port of call for those kids is likely to be Facebook. In fact there is a thinking around that surfing may end up like ashtrays, only for the addicted, and we will have a small finite number of sites we visit, like Facebook, and all the other interests, product sellers and information providers we would normally search for will find us through sites like Facebook. Just like the pizza man finding me on a Friday night.
There will come a time where, if a business is not finding us, we probably won't care about it. Your preferences, your likes, your friends and all of your favourite net interactions will be housed in the bubble of your personality profile on Facebook. With consumer sites like Copious ( see previous blog ) only working with your Facebook profile likely to increase, the need to surf will become superfluous as B2C sites find you because they have something they know you already like, have shown interest in previously and maybe have purchased something similar before.
Why would companies pay for all the SEO overheads when a Facebook could exposed them to more relevant customers, on a global scale on a 24/7 basis? Why leave the comfy confines of Facebook if all you ever searched for on the web came to you? Online buying communities would spring up where you could buy direct while you have conversations with the seller and the broader community.
Without realising it, we are already programming our needs and wants via our searches, likes and favourites to one day end up at our most popular home site and from there we'll order our pizzas, our entertainment, our groceries and no doubt anything else available, all via the comfy surrounds of Facebook people we know and suppliers we trust.
Facebook, don't leave home without it. Karl Malden would be turning in his grave.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Cheers.
Everyone wants a "Cheers" bar in their neighbourhood, filled with their closest friends and colleagues, to talk about the day's events, make plans over a drink and maybe meet new people. For a lot of people nowadays, Facebook is that place, without the beers, pool tables and Sam Malone behind the bar. So it's interesting when a new social commerce site comes along talking in the same vein. Copious is a new online selling site with a couple of big differences to the eBay style sites, the most important being you have to be a real person with a Facebook profile and not just "seller69" or "Xanadugirl@glitschmail".
Copious is a site where "everyone knows your name" because the only way you can log onto the site is with your Facebook identity. The past decade has been highlighted by anonymous buyers and sellers relying on feedback that no one really believed, on sites like eBay, Craigslist and even Amazon. So now we are coming out of the closets and phone booths in the case of Superman, to reaffirm our true identity, to buy and sell with the integrity of our name attached.
It's the first wave of social commerce sites to address some of the anxieties of the past, like handing over your money to complete strangers who never had to reveal themselves. This is a major shift and could increase the number of people buying online, who have been waiting on the side lines because of the trust anxieties. They were built up over years of face to face buying and selling which until now could not be replicated on the web. The anonymity of the first wave of online commerce is giving way to the openness of Facebook which is being used to address the ability to buy and sell with more comfort.
So Copious is looking, via your required Facebook log on, to reassure people, they really are dealing with a person and not a company or a scurrilous individual and as co founder Jonathan Ehrlich likes to call it "authentic identity". Your selling identity on Copious is no longer linked to how much you sell, how quickly you deliver or what your feedback screen looks like but centres round your social interactions with your clients and their perceptions of service and product delivery. All taking place in the wide open spaces of Facebook, where no one can hide behind monikers and badly spelled addresses.
So real conversations can be had, information and reviews on products will be held in the open and you never know, you may even add to your "Friend List". Sellers can even decide to give discounts to their most loyal customers, especially if they are seen recommending products.
So has web commerce finally come the full circle to a destination where buyers and sellers cohabitate in the comfort of knowing who they are dealing with? Is this what we had in mind when we talked about the global market place? Where everyone really did know your name.
Copious is a site where "everyone knows your name" because the only way you can log onto the site is with your Facebook identity. The past decade has been highlighted by anonymous buyers and sellers relying on feedback that no one really believed, on sites like eBay, Craigslist and even Amazon. So now we are coming out of the closets and phone booths in the case of Superman, to reaffirm our true identity, to buy and sell with the integrity of our name attached.
It's the first wave of social commerce sites to address some of the anxieties of the past, like handing over your money to complete strangers who never had to reveal themselves. This is a major shift and could increase the number of people buying online, who have been waiting on the side lines because of the trust anxieties. They were built up over years of face to face buying and selling which until now could not be replicated on the web. The anonymity of the first wave of online commerce is giving way to the openness of Facebook which is being used to address the ability to buy and sell with more comfort.
So Copious is looking, via your required Facebook log on, to reassure people, they really are dealing with a person and not a company or a scurrilous individual and as co founder Jonathan Ehrlich likes to call it "authentic identity". Your selling identity on Copious is no longer linked to how much you sell, how quickly you deliver or what your feedback screen looks like but centres round your social interactions with your clients and their perceptions of service and product delivery. All taking place in the wide open spaces of Facebook, where no one can hide behind monikers and badly spelled addresses.
So real conversations can be had, information and reviews on products will be held in the open and you never know, you may even add to your "Friend List". Sellers can even decide to give discounts to their most loyal customers, especially if they are seen recommending products.
So has web commerce finally come the full circle to a destination where buyers and sellers cohabitate in the comfort of knowing who they are dealing with? Is this what we had in mind when we talked about the global market place? Where everyone really did know your name.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Bargain Basement.
I love a good bargain, who doesn't? Yet I've learnt over the years, no matter how cheap a product is, if it doesn't fit no amount of "losing a couple of kilos and it'll fit fine" makes the purchase worthwhile in the end. We are so accustomed to hunting for bargains and not paying recommended retail that we have given birth to the "daily deals craze" that fill my inbox every day with discounts from laser hair removal, through teeth whitening all the way through to travel deals hard to believe. From Spreet, through Living Social to Scoopon and other daily hawkers, the deals seem too good to be true as new players hit the web looking to cash in on a Groupon IPO scenario.
Yet as they exist and proliferate, in the end, I wonder who wins out of this process? The sites promise their clients new business and a quick cash injection but how long does this fix last and are all those new customers actually new or are some your old customers? Unfortunately the daily deals sites haven't been around long enough and don't really report on such needed information. This leads many to question the long term viability of such a marketing blitz and what it does for small businesses, who seem the most targetted by the daily sites.
The travel sector is also encountering the daily deal sites and I'm not convinced it won't cause damage to a sector which still has a way to go, to get back to pre GFC conditions. All the daily deal sites show, are companies with financial anxieties, companies fishing for the same fish in the same pond, companies who could be damaging their brand and unsustainable discounts. While the onus on how much the consumer can save seems to be the "hook" and don't we just love a bargain, it often becomes difficult for the company providing the product to continue servicing the discount or worse, recovering from a discount perception and losing any long term customers based on a quality product.
I admit to looking through the daily deals but over the last six months I have not found anything to tempt me to part with my hard earned money. I thought for certain that 90% would not appeal to me and that somewhere in the remaining 10% I would find the bargain of the century. So far that bargain has remained elusive and it probably has as much to do with my self I imposed standard for quality and the stories of companies laboring under the heavy discounts and not being able to supply their product with the professional service and quality they deserve. Do I need a resort holiday with a room over looking the car park in rainy season, a car tune up not available till 2013 or even a whiskey tasting in a part of town where I need police protection?
The Groupon IPO will make a lot of money for the people in charge when it hits the market but it sure sounds and smells a lot like a bubble and the first to cash in on this daily craze will be the only ones to make any money. Grab that hair removal special before they sell out or the company goes bust.
Yet as they exist and proliferate, in the end, I wonder who wins out of this process? The sites promise their clients new business and a quick cash injection but how long does this fix last and are all those new customers actually new or are some your old customers? Unfortunately the daily deals sites haven't been around long enough and don't really report on such needed information. This leads many to question the long term viability of such a marketing blitz and what it does for small businesses, who seem the most targetted by the daily sites.
The travel sector is also encountering the daily deal sites and I'm not convinced it won't cause damage to a sector which still has a way to go, to get back to pre GFC conditions. All the daily deal sites show, are companies with financial anxieties, companies fishing for the same fish in the same pond, companies who could be damaging their brand and unsustainable discounts. While the onus on how much the consumer can save seems to be the "hook" and don't we just love a bargain, it often becomes difficult for the company providing the product to continue servicing the discount or worse, recovering from a discount perception and losing any long term customers based on a quality product.
I admit to looking through the daily deals but over the last six months I have not found anything to tempt me to part with my hard earned money. I thought for certain that 90% would not appeal to me and that somewhere in the remaining 10% I would find the bargain of the century. So far that bargain has remained elusive and it probably has as much to do with my self I imposed standard for quality and the stories of companies laboring under the heavy discounts and not being able to supply their product with the professional service and quality they deserve. Do I need a resort holiday with a room over looking the car park in rainy season, a car tune up not available till 2013 or even a whiskey tasting in a part of town where I need police protection?
The Groupon IPO will make a lot of money for the people in charge when it hits the market but it sure sounds and smells a lot like a bubble and the first to cash in on this daily craze will be the only ones to make any money. Grab that hair removal special before they sell out or the company goes bust.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Ashes to Ashes.
Another volcano, another ash cloud, another reason to question if we learn from past history when it comes to communication. Chaos at the airport. Some flights going, some flights not and no one seems to know. All that technology, probably enough to send a man to Mars and back and we still blame Mother Nature when it comes to our lack of communication.
So having spent hours on the phone waiting for any clear direction as to what the airline will do, I wonder what happened to all that mobile technology that was going to help with communication? Sure everyone gets the plane cancelled SMS but then the airline decides to go to the phones and that ends any communication stream as it now becomes an individual phone marathon to find out relevant information on your travelling future. The biggest problem with getting the cancelled flight information via SMS is that it's only bad news and nothing else comes down that particular pipeline.
We've had so many incidents disrupting air travel over the last couple of years that all ended up causing the same chaos with the same consumer feedback, I wonder how airlines and their airport cohorts haven't learnt from those lessons. Communication is the essence of man and what he has achieved, yes very deep, so why do we stop when it matters the most? Volcanoes and earthquakes have now plagued the aviation industry for a while and at the end of every episode someone stands in front of the TV camera talking about how they will resolve issues for future incidents and the communication constrict won't happen again.
Common sense doesn't seem to enter into the thinking of the airlines especially, when all they need to do, is continue a stream of information as they get it, and then send it to their customers. After all those customers want to on source that information for the benefit of their families and colleagues.
The airlines have an opportunity to use communication technology and change the perception of being the last ones to tell anything to anyone. Information gets out in the end and it's not like state secrets are being traded. So the first airline that grabs mobile technology to actually communicate with its clients will be seen as the leader and will no doubt take a considerable market lead.
So by the third day of communication not, I'm left left wondering if I should stay with my airline or jump to a different queue and try and find an airline more communicative? I'm not sure how I do that as the lines of communication seem stuck at the phone. Seems all the iPads in the world and all the smart phones in the world won't get me any closer to an airline or closer to home.
When it comes to a major disruption the airlines take back all control and cede nothing to the net. The only things on the net about the airlines are disgruntled tweeters and bloggers who have not been treated with respect. Each incident drives customers further away from the legacy airlines and towards the Online Low Cost Carriers who only live in the moment on the web.
I wait with bated breath for the phone to ring.
So having spent hours on the phone waiting for any clear direction as to what the airline will do, I wonder what happened to all that mobile technology that was going to help with communication? Sure everyone gets the plane cancelled SMS but then the airline decides to go to the phones and that ends any communication stream as it now becomes an individual phone marathon to find out relevant information on your travelling future. The biggest problem with getting the cancelled flight information via SMS is that it's only bad news and nothing else comes down that particular pipeline.
We've had so many incidents disrupting air travel over the last couple of years that all ended up causing the same chaos with the same consumer feedback, I wonder how airlines and their airport cohorts haven't learnt from those lessons. Communication is the essence of man and what he has achieved, yes very deep, so why do we stop when it matters the most? Volcanoes and earthquakes have now plagued the aviation industry for a while and at the end of every episode someone stands in front of the TV camera talking about how they will resolve issues for future incidents and the communication constrict won't happen again.
Common sense doesn't seem to enter into the thinking of the airlines especially, when all they need to do, is continue a stream of information as they get it, and then send it to their customers. After all those customers want to on source that information for the benefit of their families and colleagues.
The airlines have an opportunity to use communication technology and change the perception of being the last ones to tell anything to anyone. Information gets out in the end and it's not like state secrets are being traded. So the first airline that grabs mobile technology to actually communicate with its clients will be seen as the leader and will no doubt take a considerable market lead.
So by the third day of communication not, I'm left left wondering if I should stay with my airline or jump to a different queue and try and find an airline more communicative? I'm not sure how I do that as the lines of communication seem stuck at the phone. Seems all the iPads in the world and all the smart phones in the world won't get me any closer to an airline or closer to home.
When it comes to a major disruption the airlines take back all control and cede nothing to the net. The only things on the net about the airlines are disgruntled tweeters and bloggers who have not been treated with respect. Each incident drives customers further away from the legacy airlines and towards the Online Low Cost Carriers who only live in the moment on the web.
I wait with bated breath for the phone to ring.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Expectations.
As you know, I love a good Ryan Air story and if needs be told I could probably write two or three blogs a week about an airline that seems totally devoid of feelings for its customers. Here is an airline that long ago decided to be a market leader in providing the absolute minimum required for air travel. Where most companies strive to produce products and services of quality, at least within their monetary and skill set, Ryan Air has decided to occupy the other end of the spectrum. If nothing else it gives them an inordinate amount of free publicity. Publicity that most companies would shy away from but publicity that Ryan Air gravitates to with a blinkered view of bottom line results.
And what bottom line results they are if you look at last Year's 204% increase in profits, 13% fall in ticket prices, 14% increase in passenger numbers, 51 new aircraft and 284 new routes. It seems the airline is impervious to all the barbs and arrows directed at it from travellers and companies who find multiple things array with the thinking of a driven man in Michael O'Leary.
So this week's latest celebrity tangle with Ryan Air by singer Lily Allen who was charged £40 to print her boarding pass must have seemed like a godsend to the airline. Lily tweeted to her 3 million followers about being outraged at the charge for a piece of paper she held in her hand for seven minutes before giving it back at the boarding gate. This made headlines throughout Europe and gained an extra 15 minutes of fame because the airline made no reply and in fact it was pointed out the airline did not even have a social strategy, even if they wanted to reply. So without Twitter, Facebook and all the other players seemingly so important nowadays how is Ryan Air coping in the world of tweets and likes? See second paragraph above.
Seems all the conditions relating to the £40 reprint can be found in the airline's terms and conditions and along with the famous line about not wanting to engage "lunatic bloggers", Ryan Air is sticking to its model. It's a model based on very clear expectations with price lines to match. They want their passengers arriving at the airport with all the necessary paperwork and they are told in no uncertain words what they can expect if this doesn't happen.
Poor Lily, no doubt suffering time restraints, why didn't my PA do this and don't you know who I am syndrome ended up being the perfect marketing foil for an airline that has successfully inherited a part of the industry spectrum where only the brave survive. Even Southwest, considered a cousin of Ryan Air, pushed resources at the Kevin Smith, "you're too fat to fit into our airline seat" debacle last year.
So like Apple standing alone atop the technology mountain along with Zappos on top of the service mountain, Ryan Air happy sits in a coal mine under the mountain busily printing money.
No doubt Lily made it onto the aircraft because Ryan Air does have one important service mantle to protect. Last year they were the number one, on time major carrier within Europe. For a £1 fare that's the least you would expect.
And what bottom line results they are if you look at last Year's 204% increase in profits, 13% fall in ticket prices, 14% increase in passenger numbers, 51 new aircraft and 284 new routes. It seems the airline is impervious to all the barbs and arrows directed at it from travellers and companies who find multiple things array with the thinking of a driven man in Michael O'Leary.
So this week's latest celebrity tangle with Ryan Air by singer Lily Allen who was charged £40 to print her boarding pass must have seemed like a godsend to the airline. Lily tweeted to her 3 million followers about being outraged at the charge for a piece of paper she held in her hand for seven minutes before giving it back at the boarding gate. This made headlines throughout Europe and gained an extra 15 minutes of fame because the airline made no reply and in fact it was pointed out the airline did not even have a social strategy, even if they wanted to reply. So without Twitter, Facebook and all the other players seemingly so important nowadays how is Ryan Air coping in the world of tweets and likes? See second paragraph above.
Seems all the conditions relating to the £40 reprint can be found in the airline's terms and conditions and along with the famous line about not wanting to engage "lunatic bloggers", Ryan Air is sticking to its model. It's a model based on very clear expectations with price lines to match. They want their passengers arriving at the airport with all the necessary paperwork and they are told in no uncertain words what they can expect if this doesn't happen.
Poor Lily, no doubt suffering time restraints, why didn't my PA do this and don't you know who I am syndrome ended up being the perfect marketing foil for an airline that has successfully inherited a part of the industry spectrum where only the brave survive. Even Southwest, considered a cousin of Ryan Air, pushed resources at the Kevin Smith, "you're too fat to fit into our airline seat" debacle last year.
So like Apple standing alone atop the technology mountain along with Zappos on top of the service mountain, Ryan Air happy sits in a coal mine under the mountain busily printing money.
No doubt Lily made it onto the aircraft because Ryan Air does have one important service mantle to protect. Last year they were the number one, on time major carrier within Europe. For a £1 fare that's the least you would expect.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
No Bananas Today.
I love bananas. They really are nature's little potassium pill, along with being packaged just right in a beautiful yellow wrapping that tells you how old the product is inside. Fantastic marketing on nature's behalf. So recently paying $8.99 a kilo which amounted to 6 bananas at $1.50 each I wondered how much more I would pay to access this product? The price has been driven up by cyclones and floods damaging the banana crops and I wonder if this is nature's way of creating exclusivity?
Exclusivity brought about by a rareness of product and exclusivity brought about by the cost of the product. So is nature copying some of the great brands of the world? From a dictionary view exclusivity means "having the power of preventing entrance; debarring from participation or enjoyment; possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others" as in private clubs, excessively expensive products and items only available to those with specific knowledge and access to those items.
Reading a motoring review of the latest Lamborghini at $750,000.00, I wondered how many they would sell in Australia? In reality that isn't the question I should be asking, it's about who is buying the product and why? Sure price gives a level of exclusivity especially if it is out of the range of most people but there are other cars with similar attributes that do the same thing as the Lamborghini at 240 kilometers per hour.
So why buy that car over a lower priced hotted up Holden, Ford or even BMW, after all they all get you from A to B? People have always strived to be the first to own and sample objects and services with exclusivity attached for reasons ranging from ego through recognition. Exclusivity is about association of objects only you have access to. Exclusivity is about competition and about people's need to rise above where they see themselves and how others see them.
Does exclusivity come at different levels, is it relative? After all there seems to be a continuing game of one upmanship for many products going on at every level, where for instance the Lamborghini seems cheap next to the Astom Martin super car at $2.4 million. Then to throw in true exclusivity by only making 8 worldwide you have levels hard to reach. So where do you and your product fit in and do you have access to creating exclusivity in any way?
What about your services? Are you important enough in your clients view of knowledge and delivery to gain a level of exclusivity from them? How could you create this level? Surely it comes about through the way you operate and deliver to your clients. Sure everyone could use more clients but at the cost of your service and delivery becoming compromised, and your level of exclusivity disappearing into the mediocrity of sameness. Exclusivity is not easy but then as a great Texan raconteur once noted, "the middle of the road only has yellow lines and dead armadillos. Where would you rather be?
Back to the fruit and veg department and my bananas compared to the exclusive and expensive matsutake mushrooms at $1000.00 per pound, seem a good deal no matter how exclusive Mother Nature wants to get with them.
Exclusivity brought about by a rareness of product and exclusivity brought about by the cost of the product. So is nature copying some of the great brands of the world? From a dictionary view exclusivity means "having the power of preventing entrance; debarring from participation or enjoyment; possessed and enjoyed to the exclusion of others" as in private clubs, excessively expensive products and items only available to those with specific knowledge and access to those items.
Reading a motoring review of the latest Lamborghini at $750,000.00, I wondered how many they would sell in Australia? In reality that isn't the question I should be asking, it's about who is buying the product and why? Sure price gives a level of exclusivity especially if it is out of the range of most people but there are other cars with similar attributes that do the same thing as the Lamborghini at 240 kilometers per hour.
So why buy that car over a lower priced hotted up Holden, Ford or even BMW, after all they all get you from A to B? People have always strived to be the first to own and sample objects and services with exclusivity attached for reasons ranging from ego through recognition. Exclusivity is about association of objects only you have access to. Exclusivity is about competition and about people's need to rise above where they see themselves and how others see them.
Does exclusivity come at different levels, is it relative? After all there seems to be a continuing game of one upmanship for many products going on at every level, where for instance the Lamborghini seems cheap next to the Astom Martin super car at $2.4 million. Then to throw in true exclusivity by only making 8 worldwide you have levels hard to reach. So where do you and your product fit in and do you have access to creating exclusivity in any way?
What about your services? Are you important enough in your clients view of knowledge and delivery to gain a level of exclusivity from them? How could you create this level? Surely it comes about through the way you operate and deliver to your clients. Sure everyone could use more clients but at the cost of your service and delivery becoming compromised, and your level of exclusivity disappearing into the mediocrity of sameness. Exclusivity is not easy but then as a great Texan raconteur once noted, "the middle of the road only has yellow lines and dead armadillos. Where would you rather be?
Back to the fruit and veg department and my bananas compared to the exclusive and expensive matsutake mushrooms at $1000.00 per pound, seem a good deal no matter how exclusive Mother Nature wants to get with them.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Gift That Keeps On ....
I have a draw full of gift cards that I appreciated getting and mostly used to great effect at bookstores to online retailers. Why am I holding onto the cards, because they all have varying amounts left on them that didn't quite get spent. From $3.50 to $8.20 it probably amounts to a worthwhile spend if only I could consolidate the revenue into one card. Of course that isn't possible and is not an agenda item for the gift card providers because they make most of their money on the "breakage", ie the bits left on the card that never get spent and eventually expire and fall back into the hands of the financial institutions behind the card providers.
In the US there are literally thousands of gift cards available for fast food outlets, retail stores, online players to fashion and music houses. It is now estimated to be a $100 billion industry with a very particular concern as the industry continues to grow. That concern revolves around the "breakage" issue but also around the not spending the card at all issue and letting them expire. Nearly $5 billion of cards goes unclaimed every year by people just not spending them because they are for brands or merchandise they are not interested in accumulating or consuming.
Pottery Barn, Applebees, Ikea and others end up unspent because their product may not appeal to the recipient or worse still, like a $25 gift card for Southwest Airlines, will never get spent if the impetus to travel is not there or the feeling that the amount is too small to motive the cardholder to spend even more on an airfare. So nearly 10% of gift cards end up back in the hands of the providers for doing nothing but producing a small piece of plastic. It almost feels like a scam.
In Australia it is a relatively new trend but if you go into Coles or Woolies the end of one of their aisles has at least a 100 gift cards of assorted varieties hanging there, tempting your Aunt or Uncle who don't understand what you really want for your Birthday. So aside from the relatives and acquaintances who don't really know you, the gift card industry targets the mindset of a quick resolution to an age old problem of what to get people on short notice or what fits into a card without having to buy wrapping paper.
What is really lacking in Australia are companies such as Cardpool, Plastic Jungle and Gift Card Rescue who have the capacity to buy back unwanted and unused gift cards within a buy and sell platform for consumers. It won't take long for large amounts of money to go unspent in Australia when it comes to gift cards and before we classify the system "broken" as in the US there is an opportunity for someone simplifying this financial system.
So before you consider giving that piece of plastic with all the thought behind it, consider where that card might end up, in the draw or in the bin. Either way you end up buying a Birthday present for the financial institutions.
In the US there are literally thousands of gift cards available for fast food outlets, retail stores, online players to fashion and music houses. It is now estimated to be a $100 billion industry with a very particular concern as the industry continues to grow. That concern revolves around the "breakage" issue but also around the not spending the card at all issue and letting them expire. Nearly $5 billion of cards goes unclaimed every year by people just not spending them because they are for brands or merchandise they are not interested in accumulating or consuming.
Pottery Barn, Applebees, Ikea and others end up unspent because their product may not appeal to the recipient or worse still, like a $25 gift card for Southwest Airlines, will never get spent if the impetus to travel is not there or the feeling that the amount is too small to motive the cardholder to spend even more on an airfare. So nearly 10% of gift cards end up back in the hands of the providers for doing nothing but producing a small piece of plastic. It almost feels like a scam.
In Australia it is a relatively new trend but if you go into Coles or Woolies the end of one of their aisles has at least a 100 gift cards of assorted varieties hanging there, tempting your Aunt or Uncle who don't understand what you really want for your Birthday. So aside from the relatives and acquaintances who don't really know you, the gift card industry targets the mindset of a quick resolution to an age old problem of what to get people on short notice or what fits into a card without having to buy wrapping paper.
What is really lacking in Australia are companies such as Cardpool, Plastic Jungle and Gift Card Rescue who have the capacity to buy back unwanted and unused gift cards within a buy and sell platform for consumers. It won't take long for large amounts of money to go unspent in Australia when it comes to gift cards and before we classify the system "broken" as in the US there is an opportunity for someone simplifying this financial system.
So before you consider giving that piece of plastic with all the thought behind it, consider where that card might end up, in the draw or in the bin. Either way you end up buying a Birthday present for the financial institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
