Rebranding Malaysia Airlines: Substantive Change or Perfuming the Pig?

This week there were reports that Malaysia Airlines is planning to 'rebrand' itself. The efforts are reported to include a possible renaming of the airline.

Renaming? Really?  

Sure, Malaysia Airlines has suffered more than its fair share of tragedy this year, but can renaming really help repair the damage? Or might it just make matters worse?

As noted in its annual report, Malaysia Airlines was investing in an advertising focused brand initiative prior to the tragedies. One of the objectives was to raise brand awareness. While not divulging absolute numbers, the report stated that unaided awareness had increased by 32% as a result of these efforts. 

Ironically, as a result of the recent tragedies, Malaysia has likely earned more global media exposure than their advertising budget could ever deliver. Because of this, Malaysia Airlines brand awareness has probably increased astronomically in the last several months. At this moment, it might very well be one of the best known airline brands in the world...for all the wrong reasons.

And there in lies the rub. If Malaysia Airlines chooses to change its name, this decision will receive unprecedented media coverage. What ever the new name or logo, the new airline will continue to be referred to as 'The airline formerly known as Malaysia' long after the name change. And the image of the former Malaysia Airlines will be forever frozen in time...the worst time of its existence. And the new airline name will likely be regarded by many as a cover up of something sinister. And this will be amplified exponentially in social media.

So what should Malaysia Airlines do? 

First, they should clarify their intent for rebranding. They should ask themselves what they are trying to accomplish, and what they are willing to do to get there. 

The fact is that the reason Malaysia Airlines launched its brand advertising last year is that had problems before MH 370 and MH 17 shone a spotlight on them. Malaysia Airlines lost money in 2011, 2012, and 2013, with a cumulative loss of around 1.3 billion U.S. dollars. 

Malaysia Airlines operates in the geographic growth center of aviation where low cost carriers are making a land grab for the future. In its annual report, Malaysia Airlines states that profit improvements will be driven by attracting more lucrative business travelers. To do so, Malaysia needs to distance itself from the lost cost carriers and be perceived as a top tier airline brand.

But right now, facts suggest that Malaysia might just be stuck in the 'murky middle'...not quite top tier, and not quite low cost: 

• While Malaysia's has an international footprint, the bulk of its flights are regional, mainly serving the same Asia Pacific routes that the low cost carriers serve. 
• While Malaysia has 6 state of the art Airbus 380's, 62% of its 108 aircraft are smaller 737's with few creature comforts. 
• These cramped 737's are frequently used on medium haul international routes, like the 4 hour flight from Kuala Lumpur to Hong Kong.
• The average age of Malaysia Airlines 777's is 14.6, making it one of the oldest fleets of 777's flying today. 
• While some of Malaysia's long haul aircraft's business class seats convert to fully flat sleepers, many have angled sleepers, or worse, old fashioned reclining seats. 

The reality is that sometimes customers get a low cost carrier experience and sometimes they get a top tier experience. But mostly, they are likely to be confused about where Malaysia fits in the market. 

Which Business Class Experience Today?

If Malaysia Airlines is to survive, it needs to consistently solidify its position as a top tier brand. This will not happen if the 'rebrand' is limited to a new logo and a sparkling new advertising campaign. To paraphrase Bill Bernbach, 'Nothing kills a bad brand faster than good advertising.' Instead, Malaysia must focus on creating a consistent and desirable customer experience on every flight. Only then will an advertising campaign help.

And, in fact, by upgrading the inflight experience, Malaysia might actually be able to allay safety concerns as well.  Studies show that there is a correlation between perceived airline cleanliness and perceived safety.  The logic being that if an airline is careless at cabin maintenance, then it will also be careless about routine mechanical maintenance. 

So can Malaysia Airlines be successful at mitigating the brand damage sustained by MH 370 and MH 17?  Only time will tell.  But what Malaysia chooses to do now will have significant impact on the outcome.  Because in the end, brands can't really reposition themselves.  They can only behave.  Customers will do the positioning for them.

Free Lipstick Samples For All!

Why 'Marketing to Women' Initiatives Are a Bad Idea

Yesterday, I cringed as I read an article in Ad Age about how automotive marketing aimed at women has evolved from portraying them as 'soccer moms', to portraying them as 'professionals'.  

I thought...here we go again, talking about 'marketing to women'.  Back in 1992, when I worked for Nissan, there was a big push by some automakers to market to women because they 'under indexed' with their brands. Typically, these brands were known as 'performance' brands. Their solution usually involved 'softening' the message to focus on safety and convenience features.

In defending their lack of targeted women's initiatives, Nissan's then VP of marketing, Jules Clavadetscher said, 'I don't think we need to send out lipstick samples to get women into our showroom'. The quote was picked up by many publications, and portrayed as evidence that Nissan was out of touch with women.

But 22 years later, I think there was much wisdom in Jules' comment. For the fact of the matter is, any marketing that attempts to paint 51% of the population with a single brush will always come across as a patronizing stereotype. 

To illustrate the point, let's look at my next door neighbor Cathy and me.  She and I are exactly the same age.  We both have worked all our lives in professional jobs. Neither of us had children.  Both of us raised step children. So many similar experiences.

But that's where the similarities end.  She drives a gas guzzler, while I favor my electric car.  She loves traditional decor, and purchases elaborate fabrics and draperies for her home.  I'm a modern minimalist, who shuns window coverings.  When we go out to dinner together, she wears flowing pants outfits, while I favor tailored dresses. Her phone is a Samsung, mine, an iPhone. She drinks light Rosés, I prefer big Chardonnays. The fact is that it is quite unlikely that a single brand or associated message would appeal to both of us, just because we are women.

Instead, we choose brands that align with our personal values and tastes.  Some of these align with the values and tastes of other women, some with those of men. 

Realistically speaking, no brand or category is going to appeal to everyone.  There will always be higher and lower indexing groups of people. And because women represent the majority of the population, brands that index low with women still have a sizable number of women buyers.  So brands who try to equalize any inequities, be they demographic or psychographic, may end up doing themselves more harm than good, as they are likely to lose their point of view and core audience in the process.

A classic example is 'New Coke', Coca Cola's 1985 attempt to appeal to younger buyers who were eschewing Coke for Pepsi. But those customers were buying into the youthful appeal of Pepsi, and not necessarily the product attributes. Hardcore Coke loyalists protested vehemently. Thus, New Coke was failure from day one.  Luckily, Coca Cola reacted quickly enough to prevent long term brand damage, but the entire effort was none the less a marketing debacle.

'Pepsi Generation' Appeal?

When Disney opened its 'California Adventure' theme park, it was designed to appeal to teens and adults who were more likely to visit Universal Studios or Magic Mountain than Disneyland.  The park cost $600 million to build. It contained thrill rides, but lacked the 'magic', storytelling and place-making that its core family audience loved and that defined anything Disney.  And the teens and adults who had previously shunned Disney continued to stay away. As a result, California Adventure flopped, and negative word of mouth began to erode Disneyland brand value. Disney also realized the error of its ways, and revamped the park..spending $1.1 billion dollars to 'Disney-fy' it.

Disney or Magic Mountain?

So what's the lesson here? How should brand owners approach women?  The simple answer is, as people. People who may or may not have values and behaviors aligned to their brand values.  So instead of focusing on women as a target market, brand owners might want to  look inside to understand who they are, and behave consistently to demonstrate their truths. Their audience, be they male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, will find them. And brands that do this well usually have fiercely loyal core customers who become evangelists who help spread the word to others who share some of those values. And this is how healthy brands grow...by expanding their audience from 'core to more'.  And, for most categories, close to half of those 'more' are likely to be women.