AtlanticBeach said:
But as we all know, there is a component of the population that has a negative or neutral perception of UAIR. Rebranding is very difficult.
When they have had clients that are competitors, Eisner's usually have fared better than GreyKirk's. Please give them time.
I dont think US really needs to rebrand iself as much as it needs to just, well, use its brand.
The late 90s makeover as US Airways was a brilliant move. It put the airline on a global scale, making it the snazzy business airline rather than the snoozy airline from "the burgh."
Paint jobs and ticket jackets aside, they havent used it much... We all know everything (including, apparently, running the place) was pretty much suspended when the merger was annoumced. No real effort was made to bring US Airways into the conciousness of the nation. Very little marketing was done even in the hubs, which may not have seemed neccesary at the time, but that sure came back to haunt them in PHL. Most startlingly in my opinion was the lack of marketing in the 'focus cities' at New York, Washington, and Boston, some of the largest O&D markets in the country and even the world. Aside from some advertising for the Shuttle, there was not very much, especially compared to what you'd see from the other major carriers with much smaller presence in those markets.
I've said it before, but US trying to market themselves in a similar fashion to alot of the LCCs is crazy. You cant just try to convince the public that all of a sudden US is one of those craaazzzzy, trendy, funny airlines. Its like your aging aunt getting up at karaoke to do a Britney Spears tune. It just looks sad.
The low fares need to be publicized, but for the most part will speak for themselves. Spring Breakers heading to Cancun have no loyalty whatsoever or interest beyond the fare that pops up on Travelocity. Many probably couldnt even tell you what airline they flew a few days later. Its all about the fare for them, and if its US offering it, its US they'll take. If someone else has a cheaper fare they'll take them, regardless of how kooky the TV ads are.
What US does need to advertize is its difference from the LCCs (assuming of course that they can offer the following). A consistent, professional, and efficient network carrier that works hard to deserve your loyalty. A simple but classy product. Easy to use technology and facilities. Simple, fair fare structure. Quality products for the frequent customer and high end traveler. Service to primary airports, international destinations, and unparallelled coverage of the eastern United States. Sharp, crisp, proud, patriotic... isnt that the image we want to portray? I just dont think that a low fare has to mean low-class, or immature marketing and a tacky image.