Ok, folks, I usually defend US and some of its decisions. But, for once, I have to criticize US's decision to hire its current ad agency. The ads for Independence Air (and United and others) are FAR SUPERIOR to what US is airing in the Philly market. I hope someone in Marketing also sees this and is rethinking how the precious ad dollars are spent.
Us Vs. Independence Air Tv Ads
- Thread starter USFlyer
- Start date
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
What, you mean yellow billboards with black writing and no company logo (only a small web address) isnt good advertising? <_< Its such a departure from the black billboards with white writing they replaced. 
Can someone please run this airline?
Can someone please run this airline?
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
...................
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
I have not seen the ads. I do however, know the ad agencies for both UAIR and Indy Air, extraordinarily well. And no, I do not work for US Airways.
GreyKirk (Indy Air) used to be the agency of record for Choice Hotels. Low end travel is their greatest area of expertise. They mass market based on cost. The print ads to date are typical of their work. You won't see anything fancy. This type of marketing is usually not beneficial for a mature business that is retrying to remake its' image.
Eisner (UAIR) is very cutting edge. Lots of market segmentation. I like to think of their entire campaign as knowing that 72 of the 120 seats on an airplane are going to be filled based on customers positive historical knowledge/ preference of UAIR. They are marketing to fill seats 73 through 120. Eisner's ads aren't meant to speak to corporate types or over 40s.
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.
GreyKirk (Indy Air) used to be the agency of record for Choice Hotels. Low end travel is their greatest area of expertise. They mass market based on cost. The print ads to date are typical of their work. You won't see anything fancy. This type of marketing is usually not beneficial for a mature business that is retrying to remake its' image.
Eisner (UAIR) is very cutting edge. Lots of market segmentation. I like to think of their entire campaign as knowing that 72 of the 120 seats on an airplane are going to be filled based on customers positive historical knowledge/ preference of UAIR. They are marketing to fill seats 73 through 120. Eisner's ads aren't meant to speak to corporate types or over 40s.
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.
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
I dont think US really needs to rebrand iself as much as it needs to just, well, use its brand.AtlanticBeach said:
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.
networking
Advanced
- Sep 1, 2002
- 120
- 0
I was quite surprised to see one of U's 737's the other day with "USAirways.com...no booking fees...no brainer". This was surprising as it seemed like an adult trying to talk like a teenager, as USAirways has a "mature" reputation.
networking
Advanced
- Sep 1, 2002
- 120
- 0
Let me elaborate...it was written largely across the side of the aircraft against the unpainted silver aircraft.
Hello Newman
Senior
- Aug 23, 2002
- 376
- 0
Downright tacky and low classnetworking said:
More Facts and Less Emotion
Member
- Feb 10, 2004
- 79
- 0
I have not seen the Independence ads, but I have seen United "It's Time To Fly" and US Airways "Gofare" ads. The US Airways advertisements are not only better, they are true direct marketing and it is very clear what their objective is. With United I'm not sure what the objective is.USFlyer said:
Tomorrow when you are watching TV or reading the newspaper evaluate the various advertisements you see and ask yourself these questions:
1. What is the company selling?
2. Why should I buy this product?
3. Where do I buy it?
The Gofare advertisements hit each one of these head on:
1. What is the company selling? GOFARES
2. Why should I buy this product? THE FARES ARE LOW
3. Where do I buy it? USAIRWAYS.COM
Southwest has come to town, everyone knows who US Airways is, but people think Southwest has cheaper fares? US Airways got straight to the point - they need everyone in Philadelphia to know that you can get cheap fares on US Airways too, if not they will lose market share. The Gofare ads address this issue head on. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. US Airways needs to keep doing what they are doing and not follow United. If ad dollars are precious, United should consider hiring the agency US Airways uses.
networking
Advanced
- Sep 1, 2002
- 120
- 0
Sorry, I don't spend all my time behind a computer. Busy trying to help a struggling company bring their head above water.mweiss said:
