As I move from tactical marketing work into more strategic work, my former CEO recommended several books. The first one I read is The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding by Al Ries and Laura Ries. This 2002 update of the original by Al Ries and Jack Trout includes The 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding.
I immediately liked the book for its easy readability and the fact that I agreed with what it said. But it’s a little bit dated. The world was different in 2002, particularly when it comes to the brands that dominate their fields. That doesn’t change the messages. After all, it’s the laws that are immutable, not the brand.
The passage of fifteen years is more evident and meaningful in the Internet section. The authors spend most of a chapter decrying the “vanity” of Jeff Bezos. Amazon, they say, should stick to books. Branching out into other markets will damage the brand in the long term. Yeah, about that…
Now the rule may be generally correct and Amazon is just a lucky exception. Certainly many other brands have outreached their grasps. But in a later chapter, they rail against the notion of convergence. Nobody would want a combination of a phone, camera, and music player. Strike two.
The future is hard to predict, so I don’t hold it against them for missing the mark. But if you repeatedly insist with great authority, you need to be proven right. The authors failed pretty miserably in that regard. This forces the skeptical reader to wonder if the rest of the authoritative statements are similarly wrong.
I’m inclined to think that the bulk of the advice is correct, but I would certainly caution the reader to not accept everything blindly.
This book is definitely focused on building a brand, not maintaining one. But if that’s what you’re after, I’d give The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding a read.
A race to the bottom is rarely an attractive concept, particularly in a submarine or an airplane. And yet the airline industry seems to be dead set on racing to the bottom. Case in point: United announced the addition of a new “Basic Economy” fare tier. This tier does not permit use of the overhead bins and does not assign seats until the day of departure.
The cynical (and perhaps correct) view is that this is an opportunity to raise prices on tickets people would actually want to buy while keeping the “as low as!” price the same. But it’s also an attempt to compete with budget airlines like Spirit and Frontier, according to an industry source. Being able to match the low fares is “absolutely non-negotiable.”
I don’t have the benefits of seeing the financial models for this, but from an outside perspective, this seems like a bad move. Not all customers are created equal and it damages your brand to go after the wrong market. Some customers will buy based solely on price, and if that’s who you want to go after, do it. But someone buying solely on price probably won’t be that loyal, so the minute your competitor drops prices, you’ve lost them.
Itemizing everything enables the customer to pay for exactly what they want. It also gives the impression they’re being nickeled and dimed. It’s much easier to just have the price than to add up all the line items. I find it amusing that no-frills carrier Southwest is the holdout for free checked luggage. (As an aside, I’ll probably never fly Frontier again because the notion of paying $40 to check a single bag insulting.)
I’m also curious to see how this affects behavior. By adopting checked bag fees, airlines incentivize passengers to push the limits of carry-ons. This slows down the boarding and deplaning process. Will this Basic Economy tier get people to shove everything into their personal item that’s just barely wedged under the seat in front of them? Will it lead to upset customers who didn’t pay attention trying to use an overhead bin they’re not entitled to?
Most likely, we’ll grumble about it and then end up buying the cheapest ticket anyway. That seems to be the pattern, so I suppose it makes sense for airlines to follow the customer. But maybe there’s room for one or two airlines to buck that trend.