Why Jet Blue’s Apology Works

by Brian Reich | 23 Feb 2007, 2:00am

I am a JetBlue customer.   I am also a fan.   But, I admit that when the airline initially fumbled the customer service and public relations challenges that followed the snow/ice storm that whacked the East coat on Valentines Day (is it cliche to call it a ‘Valentines Day Massacre?’), I thought the airline was doomed.   You see it all the time — a company screws-up, the press jumps all over them, customers start gravitating to a competitor — and a few months later a little notice appears in the media saying that the company filed for bankrupty.

This won’t kill JetBlue.   In fact,  I think the airline will come back even stronger than before and their response to this communications disaster will drive significant changes in the entire airline  industry.

What worked?   First, the very same  issue that led to JetBlue’s troubles during the storm — their small size, and relatively thin management structure — played a key role in their recovery.   If JetBlue had acted like most companies and issued a press statement or used a PR firm to offer an apology to customers, it would have fallen flat.   When David Neeleman, JetBlue’s Founder and CEO,  went on  a personal apology tour through the media and talked  directly to customers online (through the JetBlue website and even on YouTube) it came across as genuine, sincere, and personal.   Watch the video - it is obvious that Mr. Neeleman hasn’t slept in days, is taking the responsibility and stress of the crisis very personally.   Nobody wants the man to suffer, but it is nice to know that a CEO isn’t shielding himself from tough times when customers are up in arms.

Second, they took swift and decisive action.   Lots of companies promise to fix problems when a crisis hits.   Usually the investigation into what went wrong takes a few months.   Then a few more months pass before any real changes are announced.   The public forgets what really caused the problem and the impact that the changes a company makes are hardly noticeable.   Not at JetBlue — their new Customer Bill of Rights was issued within days of the crisis, while emotions were still high over the delays and inconveniences.   In today’s fast-moving media environment, where news travels very quickly and the attention-span of the average person is very short, JetBlue was able to put into place a plan for real change while their audience was still paying attention.

The way JetBlue responded to this crisis — in the media, to their customers, online, by making the necessary changes to their structure and policies quickly — probably saved the airline.   We all know that weather will always cause problems for airline companies.     But while I think we all gave up on most of the major airlines long ago when it comes to supporting us as customers when these situations hit, JetBlue  has earned itself at least one more chance to prove that its model, and customer-focused philosophy, can and does work.   I think it does work and I look forward to flying JetBlue again (in March, I am heading down to Austin, TX — a direct flight from Boston!) so I can show my support.

TAGS : Commentary Corporate Crisis JetBlue Marketing PR
1 comment

Presidential Announcements v2.0

by Brian Reich | 21 Jan 2007, 2:00am

I had this really long, eloquent post written about how all the candidates are using the web to launch their political campaigns.   I hit the wrong button and the whole thing was lost.   I won’t try to reconstruct the entire thing, but let me try and summarize a couple of the key points.

John Edwards announced his campaign for the Presidency with a web video.   Barack Obama used a web video a few weeks later to do the same.   And now  Hillary Clinton, who announced her intention to run for President on Saturday, has used a video on her Website to break the news.   It seems you can’t be a candidate for President - at least not a Democratic candidate - without launching your campaign on the web.   (Memo to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, who announced their candidacy’s on the Sunday Morning Talk Shows — you might want to check to make sure your announcement registered at all, or consider posting the video of your appearance on YouTube to make sure people take it seriously).

Both the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post used Senator Clinton’s announcement to analyze the role that the web will play in the upcoming campaign.   The LA Times offers a brief history of the highs and lows of internet campaigns over the past decade, writing:

The Internet’s power both to make and break politicians has been vividly demonstrated in recent years.

In 2004, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean jumped from political obscurity to grab the front-runner’s position in the initial stages of the Democratic race largely on the strength of the interest and fundraising he generated online.

Last year, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) watched his reelection campaign — and his hopes of emerging as a prime contender for the GOP presidential nomination — go down in flames after a video clip of him addressing a young man of Indian descent as “macaca” made the rounds on the Web.

Barely a factor in campaigning 11 years ago when Clinton’s husband won reelection as president, the Internet has become an integral part of the political landscape, with every major candidate fielding a website and seeking to create a virtual community around his — or her — campaign.

But with the recent advent of YouTube and other video-sharing sites, analysts said the most intriguing aspect of the evolving use of the Web may be as part of an immense game of political “gotcha,” in which campaigns seek to catch opposing candidates off-guard and off-message, as happened to Allen.

By contrast, the Washington Post took more of an editorial stance on what makes for good web video in Politics, offering this comparison Clinton, Obama, and Edwards:here) and has posted his announcement video to YouTube and other places.   He has  a MySpace page, a Facebook profile, etc.   He’s following the new media playbook pretty much to all the way.   We will have to wait and see how that works for him.

Unlike other candidates (coughBarack Obamacough), whose videos might have been produced by a guy with a cellphone camera, Clinton’s announcement was a veritable showpiece of Hollywood-style set design, lighting and cinematography. While Clinton, looking radiant in a red jacket and flattering makeup, affected the demeanor of a kaffe-klatching neighbor while speaking about the Iraq war, energy, Social Security and health care, the camera swung with pen dular subtlety between a background tableaux of framed family pictures and a fabulous table lamp exuding a warm glow. In fact, the background is so eye-catching, so crowded with totemic details, so bursting with semiotic potential, that I missed whole passages of Clinton’s statement the first time around. (And yes, I do want that lamp.)

The effect was one of breathtaking political shrewdness and brilliant staging, like a mash-up between “The West Wing” and Diane Keaton’s latest holiday heartwarmer. And for all its studied spontaneity, its air of having been pre-tested, choreographed, and managed to within a microfiber of Clinton’s mascara, it worked, if only to provide a little eye candy within a grainy sea of canned speeches and awkward iChats. The aesthetic sophistication suited Clinton, who, as a former first lady and a U.S. senator, would look hopelessly out of place in most other contexts (rocking the mom jeans in the Ninth Ward? Uh-uh. Maybe an ornate Senate office, but where’s the zazz in yet another wall of law books?), and the look and the script warmed up a woman portrayed as either an amoral ice queen or control-freaky dragon lady by her political opponents.

Three quick points: First, the novelty of launching a campaign on the web should have worn off a long time ago.   The web is not even close to being the most dynamic vehicle for delivering information anymore, politics has just been slow to embrace what virtually every major consumer brand and entertainment company in the world has been doing for the past five years.   A really nice website, a blog, or even a web video announcement is not enough.   Its time you ran a fully funded, fully supported effort online to promote your campaign - and to engage the audience that chooses to get its information there instead of through traditional news or campaign events (which are still important as well).   Second, announcing your campaign online sets all of our expectations very high that you, as a candidate, will remain committed to using the web.   John Edwards, you have already created behind-the-scenes web videos about yourself, recorded  podcast conversations about issues, and similar.   Are you going to keep doing that when you are visiting four states a day - so we can see what really happens to a person when they don’t sleep enough, eat healthy, or have  complete control over their message?   Hillary Clinton, you are taking your web efforts to the next level already,  inviting the audience to create the first guest blog post  to be published on  your site and hosting a series of live video chats with the web audience over the coming week.   Are you going to host live web-chats every week, about any topic?   Are you going to take on the large and vocal segment of the online audience who questions your policies, challenges your positions, and even insults you personally — or will your web campaign, like your offline efforts, be so highly managed and controlled that it fails to really engage people?   Finally, the media needs to find a better way to cover and express the value the web plays in this upcoming cycle than how they are currently doing it.   We have all read, time and time again, what a big impact the web is playing and will continue to play in politics.   Its time  to assign a full time, daily reporter to cover each campaign’s online efforts.   It is time to hold the campaigns accountable for what they say will be an online, grassroots fueled effort and  put the same scrutiny on their web efforts as you do on their fundraising, their television ads, their speeches, and — even in some  cases, their clothing.   Just as you have pushed increasing resources into covering traditional news through the online medium, now its time to recognize that the online efforts of a presidential campaign are also news and cover them accordingly.

It should be an exciting couple of years for those of us who live, work, and love the online medium.   I will definitely be watching to see what happens.   I hope the political world realizes the potential that it has to reach and engage the audience before and lives up to its end of the bargain.

Update: I wasn’t totally fair to Bill Richardson.   He has a very nice website (

TAGS : Barack Obama Blogging Campaign Web Review Clips and Tips Commentary Free Advice Hillary Clinton John Edwards Journalism Los Angeles Times politics Technology Washington Post
leave a comment

Why Candidates Watch What You Buy

by Brian Reich | 31 Oct 2006, 2:00am

AdWeek has an article about micro-targeting - the political strategy of using lifestyle data (magazine subscriptions, shopping habits, etc.) to target and communicate with voters.   I am quoted.

My first quote is about the value of micro-targeting:

“You are now targeting based on behavior,” says Brian Reich, a senior strategic consultant at Mindshare Interactive Campaigns, a Washington public affairs shop that handles lobbying and ballot initiatives. “You understand a lot more about a person based on how they spend their time and money, rather than on how they identify themselves.”

My second quote is about the difference in approach to elections demonstrated by the Republicans and the Democrats:

The Democrats’ data-gathering strategy pales in comparison. Prior to this year, some states lost or discarded voter data between elections, according to the DNC. And unlike Republicans, who handpick candidates early on and develop corresponding campaign messages before the upcoming race, Democrats often find themselves playing catchup — waiting until a candidate gets the party nomination, then figuring out how to sell him or her to the voters.

The disparity between these arrangements is obvious. “If you wait until [a nomination] to tell people you have to mobilize, you have a problem,” argued Reich. The Democrats are now in a scramble —and the stakes are high. Many political observers are predicting that the GOP may lose its lock on both houses of Congress. But for that to happen, the Democrats must win 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

I have never tried hid my frustration with the Democratic Party and its use of technology.   I wrote an article for Personal Democracy after the 2004 cycle about the mistakes I felt the Democrats had made in developing their database for example.   And while the Democrats have made a much larger commitment than many expected over the past two years, I think the Republicans are are still far ahead of the Democrats, and have a more practical approach to the use of technology to support their election activities.  

The Democrats will probably win big next week — take control of the House, maybe the Senate as well.   Still, the Democrats will lose some close seats because the Republican message and turnout machines are using technology in a more focused and efficient way.   They have identified the most important political  activities and found ways to use technology to support their efforts - whether its targeting and message delivery, opposition research, Get-Out-The-Vote or similar.    In other words, technology is not the story.  

If the Democrats  do win big, the message that more needs to be done will likely be lost… the focus will be on the  President’s failures in Iraq or the corrupt practices of the Republican leadership in Congress.    Political experts and the media give credit  to liberal bloggers, or the few candidates who  found a way to  tap MySpace  or YouTube  with changing the face of politics.   And while there is some truth to that, and they all deserve some credit for pushing this discussion forward, there is more to the conversation.

Democrats continue to invest in technology, and I believe they are closing the gap that exists between them and the Republicans in this area.   But, there is still a fundamental difference in the philsophies of the two parties — and until Democrats position technology as an element of the campaign, and not the story itself, the Republicans will continue to have an advantage.

TAGS : Advertising Campaign Web Review Clips and Tips Commentary Free Advice politics Technology
leave a comment

Public Looking for Political Information Online

by Brian Reich | 21 Sep 2006, 2:00am

There is lots of news today to suggest that a growing number of people in the United States  are looking for political news and information online.

The Pew Internet & American Life released  a memo/study  saying the number of people looking online for political information is at its highest point ever, a big deal given we are in a non-presidential year election with voter turnout in many places coming in at depressingly low levels.   They write:

On a typical day in August, 26 million Americans were using the internet for news or information about politics and the upcoming mid-term elections. That corresponds to 19% of adult internet users, or 13% of all Americans over the age of 18.

This is a high-point in the number of internet users turning to cyberspace on the average day for political news or information, exceeding the 21 million figure registered in a Pew Internet Project survey during the November 2004 general election campaign.

In addition, the Wall Street Journal has two articles this morning about new ways that the public can access political information online.   The first article highlights how social networking sites devoted to politics are popping up, focusing on a handful of relatively new projects like HotSoup, Essembly, and MorePerfect.   They also note a shift among the big players in the space towards political topics.   They write:

This month, Facebook, a social networking site with more than 9.5 million members, launched an Election 2006 network, creating stock profiles of around 1,400 candidates with basic information like their name, office, state and party. Facebook, of Palo Alto, Calif., then reached out to the Democratic and Republican National Committees to encourage candidates to expand on them. The site also launched an election “Pulse” feature that ranks candidates in various races according to how many Facebook members who have elected to support at least one politician support that candidate.

And a number of political candidates already have pages on MySpace.com, a unit of News Corp. Len Munsil, the Republican running for Arizona governor, recently asked his 19-year-old son to create a profile for him. “You have to find every way possible to communicate inexpensively with voters, especially younger ones,” says Mr. Munsil, who checks his profile — which features a background photo of supporters waving placards, a head shot and a campaign video — every few days. Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is running for re-election, was pleasantly surprised to find he had a MySpace presence. “We have no idea who put up the MySpace profile,” says a campaign spokesman. “But we would like to be in touch since it is so supportive.” Facebook and MySpace accept political advertising.

The second article discussed how political ads, and other video, are starting to appear on video sharing networks.   They posit this as both an effective way to bypass traditional television (which, in some markets, will compete with the upcoming baseball playoffs, or just may be too expensive for most campaigns) as well as  present a candidate’s case to some different audience groups.   They write:

The technology that’s been flooding the Internet with videos produced by everyone from teenage skateboarders to major entertainment companies also is beginning to affect the political process. Sites like YouTube.com, Google Video and Blinkx.com already are filling up with candidate commercials, news clips, interviews and even amateur satirical videos.

This new medium naturally opens up new possibilities for negative campaigning and for gaffes to be magnified into major campaign issues. For example, an amateur video on YouTube.com about Montana Sen. Conrad Burns shows him falling asleep at a hearing. Numerous Web sites carried footage of Sen. George Allen, of Virginia, calling an aide to his Democratic challenger “macaca,” considered by some to be a racial slur.

But video on the Web is going beyond mudslinging. It’s also beginning to help inform voters. Numerous TV stations that televise debates are for the first time posting them on their Web sites so they can be watched at any time. Some civic groups are putting short video interviews with candidates on the Internet so voters can make side-by-side comparisons. Startup sites like thepeoplechoose2006.org and election.tv are trying to create video-rich sites that provide information on races throughout the country.

The fact that people are looking to the internet for political information should come as no surprise.   There are still not enough campaigns and candidates waging effective campaigns online, but there are some very encouraging signs from both sides of the aisle.   Still,  there is still more work that needs to be done - by candidates and campaigns, technology gurus, and voters/audiences if the online medium is going to truly revolutionize the political process.  

Right now, the net is mostly being used to push existing content — position papers, television ads, etc. — to new audiences.   While important, and in  some cases effective, this is not full utilization of the medium.   Online presents opportunities to make the political process interactive –  candidates and campaigns have to think about new and different ways to present their content, or better yet, create content that exists only online and recognizes the opportunities for  a different interaction.  

Technology gurus, like those building social networks, have to accommodate conversations about serious issues — and embrace the fact that political conversations are different than conversations about music, movies, consumer package goods, or life (dating, etc.)  that typically drive social networks.   Simply putting people in an online space together and suggesting a political interaction does not a productive discussion make.   Social networks dabbling in the political space need to program aggressively, support networking activities with relevant, timely, and compelling information, and tie those conversations to  voting and other actions.   For example — where is the section on YouTube that allows users to search for political videos by category?   Where is the area of MySpace that allows you to find charitable, advocacy, or political organizations to join and become involved with?   There is so much potential out there that is not being realized.

Finally, the audience needs to demand more.    The consensus is that voter turnout and engagement in the political process is low because the campaigns  don’t reflect the voters interests.   Maybe so.   But the public  shouldn’t stand for recycled position papers and empty-headed rhetoric online.   The public shouldn’t  bark at the moon simply because some blogger says that  is what they should do.   If you are looking online for information and you want to  have your issues addressed, demand more from both your candidates and the technology gurus.   Tell them what you want.

I am encouraged by the growth in interest of political spaces online.   I just want more.

TAGS : Campaign Web Review Commentary Free Advice Marketing politics Research Technology
leave a comment

Don’t Forget My So Called Life

by Brian Reich | 19 Jun 2006, 2:00am

The Mr. TV  Column in the May 8, 2006 issue of Media Week  featured a listing of the top ten great TV shows that should never have been cancelled.   I felt at least one great show was left off the list, so I wrote a letter.   It was published in the June 12, 2006 issue, and is posted below:

Don’t Forget My So Called Life

Mr. Television, you left a show out of your top ten ["Sad Finales," May 8]: My So Called Life. It was the ABC teen-angst drama that launched Claire Danes into the public consciousness. It was critically acclaimed and yet still underperformed, only to be cancelled well before its time. It deserved better and we deserved more.

Brian Reich
Senior Strategic Consultant
MindShare Interactive Campaigns, L.L.C.
Boston

TAGS : Commentary Free Advice From the Trenches Shameless Self Promotion
leave a comment

JWT = Just Doesn’t Get It

by Brian Reich | 16 Jun 2006, 2:00am

Today’s Advertising column in The New York Times  calls attention to  a new self-promotion strategy from JWT (formerly J. Walter Thompson), the nation’s oldest advertising agency.   They write:

Old school, meet new.

JWT, the oldest advertising agency in the United States, has purchased all the ad space on The Huffington Post home page for one week, starting tomorrow. The Web site will showcase nine of JWT’s best television commercials with links, so that visitors can send the spots via e-mail or instant message.

JWT is hoping that the year-old Huffington Post can deliver that elusive phenomenon: a viral marketing sensation, in which consumers spread marketing messages to each other over the Internet.

Let me stop right there.   JWT doesn’t get it.  

First, they have purchased all the ad space on a left-leaning political blog to promote their own capabilities.   Does JWT do political work?   No.   Are any of the advertisements they have posted related to the issues being discussed on the blog this week?   Probably not.   Advertising on blogs works because it is related to the topics being discussed.   Heck I could argue that was true for all online advertising.   There may be a lot of hollywood and other media types reading Huffington Post, but they are doing so for the content, not the exposure to the advertising.   JWT has missed the boat on context.  

Second, JWT is re-purposing old television advertising online.   That is a fundamental mis-use of the medium.   They should have created something new, and web-specific, to highlight their capabilities and creativity.   Where is the interactivity?   Where is the two way conversation?   Instead, they have reminded us all that their expertise is in an old medium, and that they don’t have the insight or creativity to leverage the online space the way it deserves to be leveraged.

Third, it shouldn’t be about about you JWT.   If you goal was to get written up in the advertising column of the New York Times, then mission accomplished.   But you could have done that without the big spend online.   If your goal was to demonstrate your  capabilities and creativity in the online space,  you should have put a campaign together that really caught people’s attention, not just promoted yourself.  Pick an issue or topic.   Use online as a tool to get that message across.   Don’t just put something up online for the sake of doing it.  Its the content that gets people talking online, not the placement.  

Meanwhile, Huffington Post is brilliant.    Why?   Because they got paid $120-$140k for a week’s worth of ads that they know will fail from the start.

TAGS : Advertising Commentary Free Advice Marketing
leave a comment

Online Integrity

by Brian Reich | 2 May 2006, 2:00am

A bi-partisan group of bloggers and other online thinkers have come together to craft an “Online Integrity Statement of Principles.”   It is online at http://onlineintegrity.org/.

TAGS : Blogging Commentary Free Advice politics
leave a comment

The Political Internet

by Brian Reich | 25 Apr 2006, 2:00am

Jeff Jarvis, media consultant and blogger, wrote a column for this London Guardian this week about the political nature of the Internet.  

Here is an excerpt:  

The internet is only doing to politics what it has done to other industries: it disaggregates elements and then enables these free atoms to reaggregate into new molecules; it fragments the old and unifies the new. So in the end, the internet gives us the opportunity to make more nuanced expressions of our political worldview, which makes obsolete old orthodoxies and old definitions of left and right.

and another:

The surest sign of this new world order will come if a blogger without party favours wins an election with the support of his online tribe (one blogger has just launched a campaign against a controversial US congresswoman). If that happens, it will show that the internet lowers the barrier to entry not only in media and commerce but also in politics. So the internet doesn’t favour right, left or libertarian. The internet is revolutionary.

You can read the whole column here.

Jeff is right, the Internet isn’t partisan and does lower the barrier for entry to the political process.   However, easy access  is not an invitation to  lower the standards of the debate.   If you are going to run for office you should have something to say.   You should be able to present a coherent argument for why you should be elected.   You should have ideas, or solutions, or in some way be able to contribute to the effort to address critical issues.   I welcome dissent - its a key ingredient in our Democracy.   But dissent alone is not enough to sustain a candidacy and it is not a qualification for election.   You can’t just be against something;  You have to be for something as well.

Politics is not governing.   A vocal blogger with support from his/her ‘tribe’ is absolutely qualified and welcome to enter the political arena.   But voters - online or offline - should be smarter than to elect that person because they like how they write, or rant, or whatever.   I won’t claim that all of the people elected to office today, or seeking office this November, have the qualifications to govern either.   In fact, I would argue that it is  the lack of a clear position on issues, a failure to make a substantive contribution to the policy making process, that is keeping  the Democrats from seizing power (or at least momentum) right now (John Halpin and Ruy Texera take that very subject up this week in The American Prospect).

Jeff is right - a blogger getting elected to office solely on the merits of what they write online will signal a major shift in the way our society is managed.   I’m just not sure that is the direction we should want to shift.

TAGS : Blogging Commentary Free Advice politics
leave a comment

Hanging Out In TheLobby.com

by Brian Reich | 18 Apr 2006, 2:00am

Starwood Hotels & Resorts has launched a blog — The Lobby.

The Wall Street Journal says that the company’s  ”initial approach to the genre has as much in common with advertising as it does with the wide-open world of blogging.”

The effort is a professionally written and frequently updated Web log open to the public but aimed specifically at members of the “Starwood Preferred Guest” loyalty program. Many of the blog’s posts advertise happenings at specific hotels in the company’s portfolio of brands that include Westin, Sheraton, St. Regis and W. It also promotes ways that travelers can earn loyalty points through special promotions, for example.

Mixed in are posts meant to be informative for the frequent traveler. Recent items include links to blogs like Gizmodo.com and articles in mainstream publications. TheLobby.com currently links to items about self-weighing luggage; boxer shorts that have tiny pockets for iPods; and an item on National Public Radio about the use of Segway devices at the golf course of a Westin resort in Arizona.

I say it all the time, blogging is both a tool (a piece of technology that allows people with little/no technological skills to post information to the internet) and a world view (in my mind, if you blog, you make a commitment to talking openly and honestly about a subject - transparency is key).   Beyond that, there are many different forms of blogging that are appropriate.   What does that mean in practice?  

Comments: You don’t need to have open, unmoderated comments to qualify as a blog.   I think you should  welcome comments and that its important to have a feedback loop, but  its not a deal breaker.   But you moderate your comments,  require people to submit verifiable contact information before posting a comment, or even just use the blog to promote your view.   Whatever you choose though, post your rules in advance so that its clear what your policy is.

On a side note, the WSJ claims that TheLobby.com blog doesn’t allow feedback from users.   They do.   There is a comments option in every post (complete with a lengthy disclaimer outlining Starwood’s policies and procedures).

Personality: Authentic voices can come from all over.   I don’t see a problem with hiring a professional writer - or in the case of TheLobby, a PR firm -  to post and promote content on your blog as long  as you are transparent about it.   The Starwood blog identifies their editors and writers (Philip, thomas, and Nick L.) but does little to introduce them.   I’d like to see a bit more detail, even if they have to admit that the three are PR flaks.

Subject Matter:    Let me get this straight.   The Lobby blog is linking to information that helps people interested in traveling to Starwoods brand hotels to get information that improves their travel?   No political commentary?   No objective commentary about the hotel industry as a whole?   Call the blogging police!   Don’t be silly - blogs have long been used to promote certain products or personalities (isn’t that what every blog really is deep down, a mini PR machine for something or something?).   I think Starwood has set the expectation that you aren’t likely to find negative information about their hotels on this blog, and that’s fine.   Readers, adjust your filters accordingly.

Welcome to the blogosphere Starwood.    I’ll be reading.

TAGS : Blogging Commentary Free Advice Marketing
leave a comment