the art of conversation

Ryanair pull in the pounds

Is Ryanair's controversial move to increase revenue streams by charging overweight passengers extra, a good use of research or a poor PR/marketing decision?

Following a recent competition and survey involving 100,000 Ryanair customers, one in three Ryanair customers voted for a 'fat tax' on passengers who overspill their largesse onto neighbouring passengers. As a result, 'fat' passengers may now be charged extra for using the airline. (But what 'fat' person will want to suffer the humiliation of rows of fellow passengers wondering whether they've been 'fat' taxed?)

It seems Ryanair have justified this extra tax by using research to cover their own corporate behinds. Should it all go big belly up, they can always blame the research. It wasn't our idea!

But if the idea takes off, what will the next extra tax be? If Ryanair customers vote to pay by the mile for fuel tax, will those who choose to pay only part of the distance simply be thrown out middair (hopefully having bought a €200 for a Ryanair branded parachute)?

On top of charging for the use of toilets, scrapping check-in desks, adding a £30 charge for duty free that won't fit into hand luggage, and now a 'fat tax', Ryanair may be going beyond a 'no-frills' positioning to a 'hidden-extras' one, to the extent that they become unappealing to travel with. Why travel Ryanair when you can fly British Airways or Easyjet (perhaps a more easy-going buget airline option) for the same money but with more respect?

It will be interesting to see what happens to Ryanair's profit wasteline. Let's hope they don't start charging for in-flight oxygen.

Simon

QI: Neologisms

Following our Quite Interesting post on Toponomy, a post on newly coined words and phrases, known as neologisms.

Courtesy of Paul at Fonda, we know of two competitions on neologism run by the Washington Post.

The 'Mensa Invitational Contest' asks readers to add, change or delete one letter from a word in the dictionary and then it provide with a new meaning. A few of our favourites are:

 - Cashtration: The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
 - Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realise it was your money to start with.
 - Bozone: The  substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating.
 - Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
- Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
 - Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
- Beelzebug: Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

Beginning of the end, or end of the beginning?

If innocent drinks got a pound every time someone proclaimed the 'end of (the age of) innocence', maybe they wouldn’t have had to sell a “10–20%” stake to Coca Cola, as announced last week.

You could almost smell the singed wool of little woolen hats being ceremonially burned in back gardens the length and breadth of Crouch End and Stoke Newington, in protest at the news.

A quick study of more than 300 comments on innocent's blog to date reveals that:

• about 80% of the comments are negative
• only about 10% are positive and about the same % neutral
• the main sentiment is disappointment, tinged with anger and indignation 

Some excerpts from the comments:  

• you have killed your brand forever
• so long, and thanks for all the fruit
• you have blood on your hands
• never trust a hippy
• I'm hopeful that … some of your ideals will rub off on (Coca Cola) .
• right now, I just feel a little bit heartbroken.
• love your products. Used to admire your ethics. I'd have sent you a tenner if you'd asked!
• as my old granny (never actually) said: "If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas."

Innocent seem to have been quite open about their motivations and transparent in how they have reported the comments quoted above. They have previously courted controversy among fans by trialling innocent Smoothies for Kids in some McDonald's outlets. 

And now they are getting a right kicking from the same previously loyal innocent fans. Did they see this coming? Did they know what Coca Cola meant to this (presumably) vocal but influential minority of their customer base? Did their initial press release strike the right note?