Too Fat to Fly

Kevin Smith

Photo Credit: people.com

Photo Credit: swamedia.com

 

 

vs.

 

 

 

 

 

I really enjoyed the case study that described Kevin Smith‘s experience with Southwest Airlines.  Having worked in the travel industry for many years and dealing with airlines on a daily basis, considering a situation like this from a PR perspective was an interesting change.

As a travel consultant, I was very familiar with the “passengers of size” policies as they began to be implemented by the airlines.  As the front line contact between the passenger and the airline, responsibility was left to the agent to make the determination of whether to suggest they purchase a second seat to account for their size.  Talk about an awkward conversation!  Nobody goes to the travel agent to hear: “Hi!  Thank you for coming in today.  Thank you for offering me your business and trusting me to make your travel arrangements.  Oh, and by the way…You’re fat.  You need to pay for two seats”.  Nope…nobody goes to hear that.  So no travel agent ever said those words.  Which, admittedly, was maybe not the correct action.  Perhaps if people were aware of the policy in advance of travel, these situations would not have become so heated with the airlines directly?  Or maybe it would have made no difference at all, and would have only served to damage relationships with travel agents as well as the airlines?

Either way, having a bit of insider knowledge about the sensitivity of this policy made the Kevin Smith case that much more interesting to me.  I can see the argument from both sides.  I completely agree that Mr. Smith was not treated fairly by Southwest Airlines.  Considering they were aware that he usually purchased two seats on this route, he should not have been given the option to fly in a single seat and most certainly should not have been allowed to board and be seated comfortably only to be embarrassingly removed in front of a full plane of passengers.  To add insult to injury, he was then directed to a later flight…in which he was seated in a single seat!!!  #fail #southwestairlines

Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 7.23.10 PM

On the other hand, I have also had the experience of flying next to a passenger of size and, truth be told, I was not happy about being squished like a sardine into 1/2 of my seat because my neighbour could not comfortably fit into hers.  I paid my money for a full seat (such as that is on today’s airlines) and why should I lose out on any precious inches and be forced to fly in horrible discomfort for the length of my journey?  #insensitive?maybebutwhyshouldisuffer?

It’s a difficult call and one I’m not sure there is an easy answer to.  Certainly, the airlines have not been able to come up with any real answer for it yet.  From a PR perspective, I think Southwest made an effort to be proactive, take Mr. Smith offline, and deal with the issue in the best way they knew how.

Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 7.23.23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately for them, they were dealing with a person who had legions of followers, a loud (and relentless) virtual voice, and a great deal of celebrity.  I’m not sure anything they could have done would have been sufficient.  Having said that, I also believe that there is a need for an airline to have a policy like this.  A need that Mr. Smith clearly believes in and understands – seeing as he regularly purchased two seats for himself on other flights.  The true PR challenge is finding a way of communicating this to the public in a way that will make them cooperate instead of attack.  The jury is out on whether this will ever be accomplished successfully!

Advertisements

Was Occupy Wall Street a PR Failure?

While there is no doubt that the Occupy Wall Street movement created a huge worldwide buzz with tonnes of media attention, it was very short lived.  Those who were engaged with the Occupy movement became emphatically engaged.  While it was happening, there didn’t seem to be any middle ground.  People were either all in (either for or against), or didn’t know anything about it.  There didn’t seem to be a whole lot of neutral thought on the issues.  The slogan they decided on: “We are the 99%”, was very persuasive and concise and really served to deliver their message in a real and meaningful way.  On the surface, it seems as if the movement had everything going for it.  So why did it fizzle?

Ultimately, for any type of social cause, there needs to be a very detailed plan in place to ensure the efficient organization and execution.  Very similar to any other public relations plan, the RACE formula must be followed.  For an organized event such as Occupy Wall Street, the fundamentals of event planning must be considered and executed meticulously.  Any experienced event planner will tell you that there must be somebody in charge.  Someone who has his or her fingers in all the pies and is able to make decisions and modifications on the spot.  Someone to trouble shoot.  Someone to lead.

This is why Occupy Wall Street failed.  They operated under a communal decision making process which slowed their progress and diluted their message.  There was nobody to lead the initiative.  Because of this, it became more of a “hippy vs police” game of tug-of-war, as opposed to the powerful socio-political statement it was originally intended to be.

In order to re-gain that lost ground, someone needs to step up to become the voice of the movement.   Occupy Wall Street must develop consistent and strong key messages and tactics that will make their objectives clear.  Camping in a public park and carrying signs with a hand-written slogan is not going to cut it any longer.  They need strong messaging with a clear call to action.  That is the only way they will be able to get public support again and actually implement political change.

Persuasion & Public Opinion

I’m the first to admit that I have not been a devoted follower of Canadian politics. I tend to watch the debates prior to an election and hope that it a fairly representative view of the candidates so that I can make my election decisions.  It is something that I feel is my biggest challenge as I embark on a career in public relations.  Because of this, I didn’t have any strong knowledge of Justin Trudeau in the time leading up to his election as the leader of the Liberal party. Truth be told, my initial perception of him was that he was a young, inexperienced politician who would most likely win the leadership race by riding on the coattails of his much beloved father.  I didn’t have a lot of faith in his ability to lead our country.

Once he became the Liberal leader, my first real exposure to Justin Trudeau was as a result of his response to the attack ads launched against him by the Conservative party.

I watched in horror as our current government blatantly ridiculed and attacked this man in the name of politics.  Still, I had to admit that the comments about his inexperience still rang true for me.

It wasn’t until I viewed his response to these ads that my opinion of Mr. Trudeau changed.  And changed, it did…immediately and permanently.

I was so impressed with the approach that he took to respond to the attack ads.  He was never defensive, he addressed the attacks directly, and he was believable in his delivery.  Is Justin Trudeau inexperienced?  Yes, absolutely.  But does this mean that he can’t be a good leader of this country?  I don’t believe so.  In fact, I think Canada needs a change and Mr. Trudeau might be just the one to offer it.

 

There are many factors that influence my decision-making process.  These factors vary dependent on the type of decision that is being made and the importance and/or repercussions of my actions.  One example I can provide is related to giving blood to Canadian Blood Services.  Donating blood is not something I think about on a regular basis.  I am fortunate that I have never been in a situation to require a blood donation, nor has anybody close to me.  However, I am drawn to donate any time I see a clear and concise message which appeals to my self-interest.

If an advertisement for Canadian Blood Services resonates with me, I will immediately contact them and set up an appointment.  Sadly, this doesn’t usually last.  I have never just contacted them out of the blue to make a donation.  It is always spurred by a persuasive message that draws me in.  From another perspective, I suppose Canadian Blood Services can be proud of their skill at persuasive communication!

 

For me, thinking differently about an issue is usually fostered by a sense of credibility of the deliverer of the message.  Maple Leaf Foods drew wide-spread criticism immediately after the listeriosis outbreak in 2008.  Like many people, I was shocked at the deaths that occurred and was quick to blame Maple Leaf for poor quality control and an assumed priority for profit over consumer safety.  After watching the apology of President/CEO, Michael McCain, my perception of Maple Leaf Foods and their culpability in this tragedy changed dramatically.

Because of the heartfelt and very credible message delivered to the Canadian public, I believed that this was a company that deeply regretted the incident and was willing to take full responsibility for the deaths, even despite the very real possibility that the company had done everything it could to avoid such an occurrence.  This credibility made me think about Maple Leaf Foods and the entire listeriosis outbreak very differently.  The strongest proof of this is the fact that I continue to purchase meat products made by Maple Leaf.