• Marketing Mag Website

  • COMMUNITYFORUMS

Forum Home -> Media Zone -> Joseph Jaffe, Part V - did Joseph Jaffe blackmail a major airline?

Wags
  • posted Aug 21st 2008...
This discussion is related to the article Joseph Jaffe, Part V - did Joseph Jaffe blackmail a major airline?
“Blackmail [noun]: the use of threats, or the manipulation of someone’s feelings, to force them to do something.”

Let’s summarise what Joseph did: The average person would perceive that he threatened to propagate negative word-of-mouth about Delta, if they didn’t comply with his demand for two first-class, around-the-world tickets. His demand was well beyond what most of us would consider to be fair compensation for the inconvenience that was caused. Sure, Delta stuffed Joseph around, but his demands were excessive, well beyond what would be sustainable for Delta if they were to compensate every one of their upset customers to this extent.

Sorry, Joseph, but I’m not convinced by your argument in this video. You state that you are “just a customer” of Delta. No - you are so much more than that, by the mere fact that you have such a huge voice, beyond that of the average Delta customer. Your “global megaphone” reaches well beyond the voice of others, even that of the average blogger or other user of new media. As such, you have a responsibility to be reasonable in your demands (threats) when you are playing with the “live unfolding case studies” that you encounter. “Bend over, bitch” isn’t playing fair - remember Adam Curry?

Delta’s decision was a sensible one – any parent knows that bad behaviour by a whingeing child shouldn’t be rewarded. Delta are in business to make a profit, and maybe a customer like Joseph is one they shouldn’t waste their time trying to satisfy.

Disclosure: “Wags” is Peter Wagstaff, Monash University marketing lecturer, Marketing Today podcast producer, and proud motivator of current and future successful new media practitioners.
jaffejuice
  • posted Aug 21st 2008...
@wags, and I will respectively choose not to transact with the airline again, thereby steering hundreds of thousands of dollars of my business elsewhere. Plus of course there are those who will do the same based on not only my experience, but similar ones.

Come on Peter, you really think Im a wingeing child who is upset that I couldnt get an extra fluffed pillow or chocolate chip cookie? Are you really saying that what they did is excusable and/or understandable? Perhaps you should check out my original post to walk through the blow by blow description and then reconsider....

fwiw, i think its unfair that you hold me to an unfair standard BECAUSE I have a "global megaphone". Why should I be punished for it? And in any event, youre missing the point because ordinary consumers WITHOUT megaphones are achieving similar and arguably MORE DISPROPORTIONATE results through outlets like The Consumerist etc.

Dont get me wrong, I value your opinion and difference thereof. Im just continuing the dialogue :)
Wags
  • posted Aug 21st 2008...
@jaffejuice: I have been following Delta Skelter since it began. I'm a long-time listener to Jaffe Juice (prev. ATS), and I followed your tweets with interest as it all unfolded. My view hasn't shifted since June, and your comments in the interview with Scott have reinforced those views.

Yes - you are welcome (I suspect "encouraged" by Delta!) to take your business elsewhere. They certainly don't want you sitting on their planes again. That's a business decision that they have made, given the price they'd have to pay to keep you as a customer. A price that any reasonable customer wouldn't have demanded. So accept their decision and shut up. They don't want to talk to you, they don't want to have a conversation, and that is their right. As a customer, you are going too far, acting like the bully-boy one-way screaming marketers prior to the existence of social media. I love the fact that consumers today now have a new powerful voice, but you've gone too far.

I am not suggesting that you should be PUNISHED because of your global reach. But neither should you gain beyond a reasonable level of compensation as a result of it. There is a fair middle-ground here, and I believe that you've over-stepped the line.

As you often tell us, "all other media should be held to the same high standards that we hold ourselves to." Sorry Joseph, but using your position in the social media world for personal gain is lowering those standards, and potentially giving the rest of us in this space a bad name!

My opinion, obviously very different to yours. Thanks for the dialogue! ;-)
zacmartin
  • posted Aug 21st 2008...
Scott, I actually really liked the way this interview was done. Firstly using Plurk to get some really interesting questions then spread the answers across a few weeks. My only criticism would be the lip syncing . ;]

I regard to Josephs comments, I've just posted about it here.
Editor | Scotland
  • posted Aug 21st 2008...
Cheers for the love Zac. Yeah, it was a fun experiment actually, and it was great to have so much input from the Australian marketing community.

ooVoo is a great product, the only bummer being that when you export it to .flv files it seems to lag. Live, the interview was seamless and totally crystal clear, so maybe I'll need to look into that a bit more in the future.

I'm torn on this one.

Wags and Joseph
Peter, I hear what you're saying about Joseph's requests potentially being disproportionate to the perceived injustice. You're right, of course, that no business would be able to compensate all customer service enquiries to the tune of Joseph's request.

Joseph - how many strong positive experiences have you had with Delta in the past? Haven't they built up some brand equity with you? Perhaps they dropped the ball in this instance, but is that reason enough to boycott them?

When NAB spammed a number of AFL blogs, Duncan Riley called for a widespread boycott of the bank. Is this too extreme as well? We have an ongoing relationship with brands and organisations - are they all on a permanent state of probation? When do these brands become beloved enough that they can weather some of these storms?

I'd say that Julian Cole's NAB spamming stunt, despite appearing less rational, is actually a more reasonable form of protest. It raised the issues around NAB's actions (coupled with the accompanying post) and did so in a way that was easily accessible, entertaining and thought provoking, without demanding a widespread boycott.

But I guess I would add to that by suggesting that more and more businesses will have to understand the changing paradigm of customer service that is being fuelled by a more transparent and discursive customer-business relationship.

As a business I don't think it's fair to expect all the positive aspects of social media (word of mouth, talkability, buzzz, conversational empathy, reach, peer recommendation) to come along without any potential risks of playing in this space.

If brands want to have a conversation, they need to accept that the direction and terms of the debate are in constant redefinition - truly dialogic. This means that they may swing between strong positive sentiments and outright hate campaigns. As always, a strong, long-running and positive relationship is dependent on both parties committing to the partnership and not letting each other down too often.

One of the best forms of marketing is great customer service, so if brands want to meet the changing expectations of customers in an age of conversation, they might have to invest more in delivering on their brand promises than they currently do in inflating customer expectations through above-the-line campaigns.

To have your say, login at the top of the page or register free and start commenting.