Song of Ike and Fire

Opening rant:

So... came upon two different advertising campaigns in class: one which was done by the marketing team at Delta airlines to promote their offshoot "Song Airlines", and the other done by Rosser Reeves trying to get Eisenhower elected. One was successful, the other was not... now I'll tell you why.

Sing Song:

Delta Airlines wanted to expand their business to the smaller market - people flying on charted aircraft from one city to another. Through market research they found out that there was no airline that marketed itself to Women, and they decided to fill this gap. Their campaign focused on building an idea of what Song is - a vibrant, fulfilling emotional experience. In terms of the classic appeals, the campaign used a lot of pathos but almost no logos or ethos.

We like Ike:

After World War Two, people were looking for a different kind of candidate than Roosevelt had been - someone who was good on taxes and would prevent the U.S. from being unprepared for another war. Their pitch for Eisenhower focused on pathos (in giving a good name to Eisenhower) but also included ample appeals to logos (lower taxes, better defense), with a bit of ethos thrown in (average people trust Ike, and he will answer their questions).

The point:

Who was better at getting the point across you might ask? Let me put it this way: there's a reason we've all heard of Eisenhower but not of Song airlines. Before I get in to detail, I will pause to admit that marketing a person and an airline are two radically different things - no one is suggesting that it is as easy to sell a new airline as it is to sell a war hero. That being said...

Ike:

Looking at the types of appeals each campaign made, Reeves knew his target audience and delivered. After WWII people were concerned about the possibility of another war and wanted the U.S. to be prepared militarily, and at the same time people wanted to have lower taxes - with the war over, why should people still be paying high taxes?

As I mentioned above, the use of pathos (in memorializing Eisenhower), logos (in appealing to intelligence), and ethos (in showing that the man on the street will get answers from Ike) were effective. Eisenhower comes out looking like a larger than life character who is concerned with the little guy - a good president.

Song:

Fuzzy... that's the most apt word I can use to describe Song's campaign. While they were good at appealing to the emotions (pathos) they didn't have enough information (logos) to let potential customers know that THEY WERE AN AIRLINE. This was huge, and it showed a lack of foresight on the part of the marketing team.

As I mentioned above, Song's target audience was Women - who their research indicated felt like they had no airline tailored to their needs. Taking this information and failing to capitalize was (in my opinion) due to one key factor: They treated Women as if they had no brain. You cannot sell an airline to anyone unless they are convinced that it is a good idea (either through price, shorter flight durations, no baggage fees, etc...).

Song = Wrong

The marketing team at Song took an entirely emotional marketing strategy because they were trying to create a cult-like following among Women flyers. This push should have been limited to on board the plane - "the experience of flying was amazingly tailored to my needs" - anything else is confusing and/or is treating the target audience as if they have no capacity for rational thought.

If they had focused on building the cult-like following to the on board experience, Women would have been drawn to the airline for rational concerns (price, etc) and would have stayed with Song because of the positive experience.

Response to "5 Bad ideas..."

The blog:

So, while browsing through the blogosphere went to Cracked.com a class mate came upon the article "5 Bad ideas for Dealing With Bullies You Learned in Movies", another post in a column about Hollywood and Main street's bad ideas. It seems that Hollywood and the rest of life is full of bad ideas... not a big shocker.

The column highlights everything from why Hollywood doesn't understand technology to why web designers don't understand the internet, to things people get wrong about everyday life. The column always focuses on (about five) things people get wrong about "X".

The dilemma:

My classmate was reading other articles on Cracked, which describes itself as a humor site., when he came upon the article in question. The articles before had been lighthearted and very funny. When he started reading "Dealing With Bullies" he was shocked at how real and personal the author got about bullying.

The author talked about his childhood and difficulties that he had with bullies, difficulties ranging from getting beat up every day to having to move away because his life was threatened. For someone who was expecting another humor filled, uplifting article, this didn't deliver.

My classmate asked the question: should a humor site should have a warning if the topic is going to get to serious?

My take:

After hearing about this situation in class, I decided to investigate for myself. True enough, Cracked.com is very funny and uplifting for the most part. Comparing it to the article however, I saw the disconnect. The article makes dozens of pop-culture references and gives pretty decent advice in the end. But it is a downer.

That being said, I found the post to be very compelling, and interesting. After reviewing the site and the post in question, I feel that the author was not really out of line. The article was not dissimilar from most of his other list of things people get wrong - it was clearly the same column.

The difference is that this subject is more somber than his usual fare. While this was off putting at first, I read the article again and noticed that he was asked to talk about bullying and give his advice. Considering that he runs a humor/advice column, it is not unfair that he respond to a request for advice even if it is not very humorous.

I think that for someone who was bullied, the article would not be a downer: he talked about what really happens and how people are confused about the subject and build up a mythology about nerd revenge. You can find the humor there, with plenty of zingers and movie references it was a good read.

Final word:

In my opinion, if your readers ask you to talk about something that is normally out of context with your writing, as the writer you should have the option to respond. Just be courteous and give warning.