Dear CMO:
There are many ways to think through last week’s events surrounding Jet Blue’s “Yearly Kos” problem. This could be a case of the disconnect between management and marketing. Conversely, this could be a case of aligning sponsorships with brand attributes. One could look at this as a case study in a brand’s foray into politics, whether purposefully or accidentally. Perhaps the power of the media to activate a grass-roots, switchboard crashing flash mob is the real story here.
Or maybe it’s just a cautionary tale about how a management team managed to take a bad situation and make it much worse.
It may be all of the above, but let’s focus on the last, because it hurts the most. Let’s recount the facts:
Jet Blue sponsors the Yearly Kos convention. This offends people who find the Daily Kos offensive, or roughly 49% of the American population.
Jet Blue publicly renounces their sponsorship of Yearly Kos after Bill O’Reilly fingers them on national television. This offends everyone who does not find the Daily Kos offensive, or roughly another 49% of the American population.
As for the last 2%, Jet Blue’s CEO then bravely states that “some members of our marketing department” made the call to sponsor the event, gallantly throwing his employees under the shuttle bus.
This is a rare case study. Jet Blue has shown us all how to systematically offend everyone. Considering the previous problems the airline has had, you’d think the management bar would be set pretty low. No longer.
John Mackey must be thrilled. He and Gary Condit must be trading inside jokes, probably using pseudonyms on a message board somewhere.
What should Jet Blue have done? Here are two high-level options:
Go Left: emphatically state that Jet Blue believes in the ability of grass roots movements to affect change in society, that being a champion of the vulgate is near and dear to their core brand heritage, and that free speech and open debate embody the Jet Blue Way. There’s a reason we aren’t named “Jet Red,” bubba. And let the chips fall where they may.
Go Right: take action as soon as it became apparent that their logo had appeared on a website associated with a virulent left-wing institution. Retire those responsible for the sponsorship with extreme prejudice, demand their logo be removed from the Yearly Kos website, and tell them that the convention organizers mistook a few Jet Blue travel vouchers supplied by private individuals for a “sponsorship” – weird, huh? – followed by a general statement that Jet Blue doesn’t pick sides when it comes to politics. Then, put your fingers in your ears and hope that everything just goes away. And let the chips fall where they may.
Waffling through the Middle Path isn’t a great strategy. I think that’s clear by now.
What should any brand do after watching this corporate tragedy unfold?
There are many ways to think through last week’s events surrounding Jet Blue’s “Yearly Kos” problem. This could be a case of the disconnect between management and marketing. Conversely, this could be a case of aligning sponsorships with brand attributes. One could look at this as a case study in a brand’s foray into politics, whether purposefully or accidentally. Perhaps the power of the media to activate a grass-roots, switchboard crashing flash mob is the real story here.
Or maybe it’s just a cautionary tale about how a management team managed to take a bad situation and make it much worse.
It may be all of the above, but let’s focus on the last, because it hurts the most. Let’s recount the facts:
Jet Blue sponsors the Yearly Kos convention. This offends people who find the Daily Kos offensive, or roughly 49% of the American population.
Jet Blue publicly renounces their sponsorship of Yearly Kos after Bill O’Reilly fingers them on national television. This offends everyone who does not find the Daily Kos offensive, or roughly another 49% of the American population.
As for the last 2%, Jet Blue’s CEO then bravely states that “some members of our marketing department” made the call to sponsor the event, gallantly throwing his employees under the shuttle bus.
This is a rare case study. Jet Blue has shown us all how to systematically offend everyone. Considering the previous problems the airline has had, you’d think the management bar would be set pretty low. No longer.
John Mackey must be thrilled. He and Gary Condit must be trading inside jokes, probably using pseudonyms on a message board somewhere.
What should Jet Blue have done? Here are two high-level options:
Go Left: emphatically state that Jet Blue believes in the ability of grass roots movements to affect change in society, that being a champion of the vulgate is near and dear to their core brand heritage, and that free speech and open debate embody the Jet Blue Way. There’s a reason we aren’t named “Jet Red,” bubba. And let the chips fall where they may.
Go Right: take action as soon as it became apparent that their logo had appeared on a website associated with a virulent left-wing institution. Retire those responsible for the sponsorship with extreme prejudice, demand their logo be removed from the Yearly Kos website, and tell them that the convention organizers mistook a few Jet Blue travel vouchers supplied by private individuals for a “sponsorship” – weird, huh? – followed by a general statement that Jet Blue doesn’t pick sides when it comes to politics. Then, put your fingers in your ears and hope that everything just goes away. And let the chips fall where they may.
Waffling through the Middle Path isn’t a great strategy. I think that’s clear by now.
What should any brand do after watching this corporate tragedy unfold?
* * *
Key Takeaways:
Key Takeaways:
> Understand what happens when you mix business with politics. When you act on behalf of your company, different things happen than when you act on your own behalf. The CEO of Jet Blue could be a huge sponsor of the Democratic National Committee and his flying public wouldn’t care. But once a “brand” becomes affiliated with a political party, things get personal.
> Make sure your people understand this, too. Signing up the company to represent a non-profit is a big enough deal. This type of undertaking needs consensus building from C suite through the board. Hooking your brand to a political party? If you’re not the founder and sole stockholder, you’re not authorized to do this. If you’re Anita Roddick and your brand is about Free Trade, fine. If you’re an airline and you’re about left wing politics, many would wonder why.
> Make sure your people understand this, too. Signing up the company to represent a non-profit is a big enough deal. This type of undertaking needs consensus building from C suite through the board. Hooking your brand to a political party? If you’re not the founder and sole stockholder, you’re not authorized to do this. If you’re Anita Roddick and your brand is about Free Trade, fine. If you’re an airline and you’re about left wing politics, many would wonder why.
* * *
Unfortunately, by choosing no side and by standing for absolutely nothing, Jet Blue has offended absolutely everyone.
Regards.
5 comments:
The whole episode could easily be one of the early chapters in "What Were They Thinking?"
I think your "Go Right" strategy would work significantly better than the "Go Left" strategy.
(Blogger sucks. There, I feel better. I've just written my comment, and I want to check a fact in the main post. Where is the main post? I'm afraid to navigate to it without losing my comment.)
Roger: the "Go Right" strategy would have been a better way to deal with "the problem" once it had been discovered. If the CEO is a big left wing supporter and he truly believes in the cause, then "Go Left" would be fine (falling chips notwithstanding).
Frankly, I don't think anyone will really change their flying plans because of this, but it sure speaks volumes about a lack of backbone. And a backbone is something I look for in a leader.
And yes, Blogger isn't the best platform out there. Try writing a post, dropping an image onto the top, and then having to re-format the whole thing several (random) times -- spacing, font size all tend to go randomly crazy. I'll save it for another post.
Talk soon -- thanks for the comment --
I like the clarity of this piece. Sitting on the fence just ensures you get a picket up your rear.
This is a great post, SD. As Roger said, it could be from a page in "What Were They Thinking?".. subtitled, "What happens when you don't think things through!"
Amazing that the CEO threw marketing under the bus... isn't it? Poor leadership move.
p.s. I cracked up at your "We aren't called Jet Red" concept...LOL!
Cam: delicately put, my friend. And very accurate.
Ann: blaming your own people is usually a sign of weak leadership, isn't it?
This really comes down to basic decision making, doesn't it? First, is it a good idea. Second, are we willing to stand behind our decision even if it isn't popular with everyone? Note sure how JB fares on either of these points.
Post a Comment