My marketing diary

First, I wanted to write about the fact that Ryanair changed their webpage procedure, when booking a flight. In my last post of Ryanair, about the toilet fee (which reveals in a PR stunt) there is a statement that it is illegal to have presettings, which would lead to higher cost when the details are not changed manually.

So, apparently they react on this.

Whereas on the other hand, people who want to travel with Ryanair now can expect high fees regarding the check-in, luggage and payment since May this year.

Nevertheless, last week I found another newspaper article on Ryanair, which was very interesting.

‘Fat tax’ on fliers gaining momentum at Ryanair

Again, the low-cost airline, which is well known for their aggressive approach to make money or get attention due PR, wants to introduce the ‘fat tax’, like Ryanair called it. ‘Fat’ people would have to pay for a second seat, measured by their body mass index.

As the PR stunt of the toilet fee was revealed, Ryanair goes on with a campaign, where they gather suggestions from customers, about what charges the company can implement next.

As a result of this online survey the ‘fat tax’ comes to light. Approximately 40,000 people supported this idea. Discrepancies about the tax can be seen everywhere in the web. Some people would appreciate it, others see it as

“it would add unnecessary complexity to the boarding procedure and it might also run foul of discrimination laws.”

In the United States, the tax is already introduced by some airlines. They stated that the initiator to implement the ‘fat tax’ was that they got so many complaints about obese people, who can not fit in one seat.

Also Ryanair said that they would like to introduce the ‘fat tax’ in order to react on consumers needs and make them more comfortable, instead of making profit.

Ryanair want their customers to feel more comfortable? I can give a list of things they can do…

Beside this, I am not sure, whether this campaign is again a PR stunt, but in general I think it’s not, because it really seems to come from the consumers, as can be read in loads of comments to concerning articles. But the thing I can’t believe is, that Ryanair would do this for their customers, without thinking of their advantage. The only thing here is that they can shift the blame on others – their customers.

Check it out!

Wow…. isn’t that low? A too low approach of handling customers?

Here some quotes by the chief executive of Ryanair, Michael O’Leary, he said in an interview with BBC:

“One thing we have looked at in the past, and are looking at again, is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door, so that people might actually have to spend a pound to spend a penny in future,”

“I don’t think there is anybody in history that has got on board a Ryanair aircraft with less than a pound.”

“People might have to spend a pound to spend a penny”

I think the question is not whether people have the money or not, it is more a question of customer treatment. Rochelle Turner, head of research at Which? Holiday, a consumer group, said that Ryanair “is putting profit before the comfort of its customers” once again.

In my opinion it is in general a positive point that Ryanair offers it’s customer the choice of being transported somewhere as a basic service and upgrading if necessary. That gives customers the possibility of receiving exactly the service they want to have and not paying for extras, which are not used of.

But on the other hand, Ryanair goes too far. The costs are very low when you select your flight, but in the end it sums up to a fivefold. And now they want to close their airport check-in desks, which as well reminds me of the point, that people are part of the marketing mix and of particular importance.

As well the German consumer organisation “Stiftung Warentest” reported a rank of low cost carrier considering criteria like the price level and price availability, provision of information, booking and consumer relations. They stated that Ryanair and Easyjet are the cheapest airlines, whereas AirBerlin, British Airways and Lufthansa provide the most information. In all of the airline’s general terms and conditions, clauses appeared which can have a negative impact on consumers, when re-booking or canceling their flight. Additionally, the test figured out that certain presettings have to be deactivated by the consumer, when booking online with Ryanair and EasyJet. This is prohibited according to the EU-directive.

Now I’m thinking about whether I want to fly with Ryanair again, excepting my next flight, which is already booked. I would say I don’t feel good flying with Ryanair, but I would, probably because of convenience.

And what about you?

I am now starting my blog concerning marketing issues, which I often think about. Today I prefer writing about the relationship between customers and on the other side, the companies, which provide either good or bad customer service.

Actually I had much experience with bad customer service, and not that often received a remarkable good customer treatment. I think this is such an important point, first for the reason, that it concerns everybody when receiving a kind of service and this happens nearly everyday. The other reason, I think it is an essential part in marketing. The person who provides a certain kind of service is the connection between the company and the consumer. To give an insight in my experience and thinking I will explain my example with McDonald’s . It was approximately one year ago and I have been there and ordered my meal, than it tooks very long until my chips where ready, so I sat down to my friends and still wait. After I had seen that other people got some chips I asked her about my chips. She rolled her eyes and got the chips. I thought, if she had forgotten my chips, it wasn’t a problem, but I expected an excuse.

I think although McDonald’s is not a five-star restaurant, a certain level of friendliness has to be offered anywhere, where service is provided. And I think it is something a customer can expect. The more I thought about this situation, the more I thought that just one person can give a consumer a bad experience with a certain company. And do such people really know what consequences that can have for a firm?

I think, the best offer is nothing when it is served in a bad way. And another point to consider is, as I mentioned before, I had much more bad experiences than good ones. Maybe it is just the bad ones which stay in a consumers mind.