Top >> Opinion__Comment Losing one brand is bad enough.  Taking another one with you is just careless PR lessons from Air New Zealand & Ansett published October 01 What contributed to the debacle that has seen one Australian heritage brand - Ansett - forced out of business and another - Air New Zealand - almost completely devalued in the eyes of Australian consumers? One would have to say a complete lack of thought in the communication process. No credible local spokesperson Ansett, the second biggest airline brand in Australia, didn’t have an Australian-based CEO who could speak for Ansett, manage its grounding crisis at Easter and contain it to a largely Ansett issue. No timely response The lack of a proper management structure in Australia delayed the ability of the airline to respond to the groundings and show concern for consumers impacted. This started the whole downward spiral for Ansett. The spokesman represented the wrong brand Parent Air New Zealand’s CEO Gary Toomey involvement as spokesman on behalf of Ansett immediately linked the two brands in the consumers mind.  It was the beginning of a brand tangle that was to be very costly to Air New Zealand. The advertising accentuated the brand issue A $20m+ advertising campaign fronted by Toomey and portraying Air New Zealand and Ansett as one entity accentuated the brand issue. It appears to have been a short-term expediency with no apparent thought for longer-term issues and implications. It did nothing for Ansett and potentially exposed Air New Zealand to huge collateral brand damage from its subsidiary airline that was already close to death. Advertising can’t be run in isolation An advertising campaign to rebuild confidence was essential. But in 2001, media are more critical and consumers more savvy than they were a decade ago. The campaign was a jingoistic throwback to the 1980s.  Today’s public knows stars have to be paid to appear, therefore credibility is not high.  The advertising was saying one thing - ‘absolutely’, while the media was saying something else entirely.  Communication can’t be static in a fluid situation The advertising campaign was slick and glossy, and employed top Aussie icons as spokespeople.  But it was a campaign that couldn’t change with the issue.  And that was the problem, this was a very fluid issue with news, facts, comment and perceptions constantly changing.  When Ansett fell, it took Air New Zealand with it The combination of these occurrences so undermined Air New Zealand’s corporate and brand reputation and credibility that when it was forced to let Ansett go it lost its own brand in Australian as well. Such was the damage, and the mess, that Air New Zealand made a corporate decision that it had no option but to simply walk away from Australia making no real effort to defend or explain its actions. What are the lessons? Pared-down group structures might look fine from an accounting perspective, but the subsidiary of any foreign company of size in Australia (especially a consumer brand the size of Ansett) needs a fully functioning corporate structure and a CEO with authority, stature and autonomy. Don’t allow short-term issues  - and your overseas head office - to override the most important asset of the business - the brand. You meddle with your brand at your peril.  If you have a problem in a corporation, ‘ring fence’ it.  Don’t allow it to contaminate anything else.   Certainly don’t link another brand with it. Never forget that every major company has to operate in the ‘court of public opinion’.  That can’t be controlled by slick advertising and smart deals. When led and influenced by the media, it can destroy a company once the momentum and ground-swell picks up. Co-ordinate your communications.  Don’t have your advertising run out of one country or ‘silo’ and your PR out of another.  Have everyone part of the one team.

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: Information Content: Case Study: PR lessons from Air New Zealand & Ansett. Opinion & Comment, Managing PR, Crisis & Issues Management