Tag Archives: Volkswagen

Boeing 737 Max – end of a brand?

Posted on

One year ago Boeing’s 737 Max was one of the most successful launches in company history.

Boeing_737_MAX_7-1120

A re-imagining of the venerable 737 design, it used updated aerodynamics, materials and engines to achieve 14% greater fuel efficiency vs the base 737, to compete with the Airbus A320neo (and it competed quite well).  It was granted FAA approval in March 2017 and the first copy was delivered shortly thereafter.  The product strategy expanded to include 4 variants.

WEB-Boeing-737-max-960x640

Now, after 2 mass-fatality crashes, production is on hold, the global fleet is on an expanding grounding with no firm restart date, and the entire line’s future is in doubt, taking with it the fortunes of a host of related entities including GE, the FAA, and the town of Renton, WA, where the planes were built, among many others.

Is this the end of what we know as the 737 MAX? 

Surviving a crisis seems to be some combination of:

  1. severity of an ‘event’
  2. how likely are negative consequences to occur in the future
  3. A third key factor is management’s action to swiftly and effectively mitigate future risk

Some very well-known brands have survived severe crises.  All are very healthy today.

Tylenolproduct-recall-tread-separation

  • Tylenol – while the fatalities were low, the Tylenol poisonings of the early 1980s were a huge public threat
  • Perrier – – in 1990, a crisis emerged when a toxic substance, benzene, was found in some bottles of Perrier
  • Firestone – – in the late 1990s and early 2000s, hundreds of people died related to accidents attributed to tread separation of Firestone tires, particularly on Ford products
  • There are others: Volkswagen (Dieselgate), BP (Deepwater Horizon), SeaWorld (orcas)

In all of these cases, Management worked to swiftly remove any affected (or associated) product from circulation, provided consumer hotlines, publicized the recalls, and provided clear ongoing updates to the public.

In all of these cases, there was a clear explanation given for what caused the issues, and the solution was directly linked to the cause.

aydsvalujetVioxx

Other brands did not fare as well:

  • AYDS was a very popular diet-suppressant candy in the 1970s and 1980s, but could not survive the mid-80s emergence of the disease AIDS. Because this association was not likely to end, the candy fairly rapidly was withdrawn from the market.
  • ValuJet – a budget airline, its Flight 592 crashed in 1996, killing all 110 aboard. The severity of the crash brought the airline’s poor safety record to light, thus raising doubt about future safety.  A rebrand was attempted but the airline eventually was discontinued.
  • Vioxx – -an anti-inflammatory marketed by Merck, this brand had over 80 million users. It was withdrawn in 2004 following reports that it could accelerate heart attack and stroke, exacerbated by the fact that evidence was known for about 5 years prior to action being taken.

In two of these cases, the severity of consequences was high, and there was low confidence that a long-term solution was possible.  In the third, the brand was associated with a disease with severe consequences – – just bad luck.

So will Boeing’s 737 Max survive?

  • High consequences from failure
  • No definitive cause or solution identified
  • Indecisive management reaction pushes resolution into the hazy future

The longer the lack of clarity lasts, the more doubt will grow around the 737 Max.  (As they said of the moon shot: “a million things have to go right.  Only one thing has to go wrong”.)

collage737Max

After a quick check of the headlines, put me down for a no.

Advertisements

First Ever Battle of the Super Bowl Ad Reviewers!

Ever wonder why you never totally agree with Super Bowl ad reviewers?
Well, other than for a few good ads* they mostly don’t agree with each other either.  

Doberhuahua

The Armchair MBA has selflessly taken on what is certainly is a vast unfulfilled need and compiled a comparison of 9 disparate SB ad reviewers just for you!   Wow!   Almost as much fun as being a Broncos fan!

Just click on the chart below to see that while there is some consistency, in the end advertising is still an art and everyone’s got their opinion.  (You can click on the chart twice to make it even more readable.)

(*Generally universally liked:  Budweiser, Cheerios, Radio Shack, Microsoft – – although I’m not in the bag for all of them)

The reviewers:

Kellogg Graduate School of Management
Advertising Age
Wall Street Journal
Chicago Tribune
Entertainment Weekly
Variety
Slate
Yahoo Sports
New Yorker

I’ve provided my own opinion, to make it an even 10.

SuperBowl2014

Green/Yellow/Red ratings were my best interpretations of what the reviewers meant.   White means they didn’t review this particular ad –  – which in itself tells you something.  They are grouped based on my ratings, on an alphabetical basis by brand within ranking.

My evaluations are generally based on the Kellogg ADPLAN approach, which is becoming the standard:
Attention
Distinction
Positioning
Linkage
Amplification
Net Equity

However, I also incorporated a liberal dose of my visceral reaction during the game.

Quick commentary:  The Super Bowl is a unique marketing environment where stakes and expectations are high, and the bar for breakthrough is considerably higher than any other day.
Advertisers use the SB for much more than the eyeballs – – as a way to make a corporate statement, introduce something new, reposition themselves, set up other promotional activity, and many other things.
So these spots can be seen through many different lenses, which is why reviews often differ dramatically.

Having said that, sometimes an ad just sucks any way you look at it.

Not included in my ratings (but increasingly important) is how long of a tail these ads might have – – what their viral reach, impact and duration becomes.

Maybe next year.