Stephen,

Great post. In an era when many Americans believe big business has too much influence in Washington, this kind of story confounds me. How do smart people running businesses lose touch with their core purpose and so misunderstand those of us who, in reference to the airline industry, just want our plane to leave on time and deliver us to our destination?

I recommend another ammendment: separation of corporation and state.

Really interesting - I hadn't heard about this JetBlue situation until I read about it here.

One slightly off-topic note though: Your use of the phrase "this political tar baby" gave me pause.

You may not realize this, but in addition to meaning "sticky situation," the phrase "tar baby" has also been used as a derogatory term against African-Americans:
http://tinyurl.com/5mshp

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Press Secretary Tony Snow have both been publicly criticized for using the term.

Just wanted to let you know. It might be better to use an alternate phrase in the future.

I've found this story so very interesting and yes, a cautionary tale indeed. The feedback on the DKos site (the link you pointed us to is quite amazing). It's not uncommon for big brands to get boycotts on the right or left for supporting various political agenda...which has resulted in pulling out support from either side -- just best to leave it well enough alone. Unless...well unless the political leanings are core--absolutely core--to the brand's DNA.

Last year I was working on an account that was a very liberally backed property. Left was just the culture. It was/is their belief, their speak and a large reason for their going into business. So for that client it was consistent and, moreover, remained true to their brand (and they sponsored DailyKos events). My first concern was that they were not speaking to everyone (both right and left) but in this case it was absolutely audience targeting. My point being there is the rule (like with JetBlue being a cautionary tale) and then there is the exception (when it's core to a brand's DNA). It really depends upon the brand.

Lewis: I'm all for taking a stand when it's your intention to take a stand. If it's not, you've got to ask how they got in this situation in the first place. I'll wager that this was a case of one hand not quite knowing what the other was doing. Call it a "Citizen Marketer Wake-Up Call" for Jet Blue -- when a company does something funny (not to mention offensive), the vulgate will speak.

Carmen: I retract the word, phrase, perceived intent, and apologize to anyone and everyone who may or may not have been offended and will look into all posts that may have used this... wait a second, that's what Jet Blue would have done... tell you what: this is a wonderfully descriptive phrase that, used in its correct context, describes the embracing of an entity from which it is then hard to extricate one's self. Many who often use derrogatory language hijack perfectly wonderful parts of our language for their own purposes. My intent is pretty clear, I love the phrase for what it says, and I'm sticking with it. (I appreciate your note, too).

CK: agreed all around. If it's truly your core message, then embrace it (almost did the T**baby phrase again). It really helps if your product or service leans in that direction, too -- if Anita Roddick and Body Shop are 100% about Free Trade and human dignity, it helps that their stuff comes from those places. Jet Blue couldn't really play that game. As we just found out.

A cautionary tale indeed, Stephen. I completely agree with you key takeaways, esp. #4: "If you make a decision for good reasons, stick with it."

I think it was the infamous Cam Beck, who over at your site said, "Sitting on the fence just ensures you get a picket up your rear." Love that line.

"My point being there is the rule (like with JetBlue being a cautionary tale) and then there is the exception (when it's core to a brand's DNA)."

Absolutely right.

An interesting comment came in a few moments ago (offline) as follows:

"I wonder how far up this decision went for the "green light"? I cannot determine if this was a top down approach from CEO/COO maybe someone's "pet project" or cause, or some SVP of Marketing's idea to connect with liberal new media bloggers. Any insight?"

My opinion? This was probably sold half-way to senior management without everyone fully understanding the ramifications. If I tell my boss that "we need to connect with grass-roots organizations and bloggers" in general terms, who would argue? If I say I'm spending a rounding error of our budget on a blogger convention that is hosted by one of the top 5 blogs in the world, it sounds -- on paper -- to be a good, low risk activity.

The problem is that no one apparently dug one foot deeper and really looked into *who* the blog served and what its content was all about.

If you want to protect the rainforests, that's a noble cause -- on paper. Connect with Conservation International, who is in the business of "debt for land swaps" and sustainable economic development, and you've done a good thing for the world. Connect with any one of a thousand eco-terrorist organizations, and expect your CEO to be waylaid outside his or her home on their way to work.

This is a guess on my part -- I have no idea what made this mess transpire -- so if anyone has a Jet Blue contact, ask them to weigh in!

A very nicely written piece Stephen. Thanks! A third strategy, and one I'd have advised JetBlue in these spin-averse times, is take the high road.

Elevate the conversation to a new, more substantive level. For an example, take a look at John Edwards' YouTube video addressing his expensive haircuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI

They should have bought a few ads on the NO SPIN ZONE and left it there. I like Yearly Kos and attended last year. The sponsorship can work as long as it is consistent with your brand strategy, audience targeting and you're ready to defend it. Sounds like JetBlue blew it on all counts. Boo!

American Airlines is a big supporter of LGBT causes, events and magazines. Nobody seems to mind. Double boo at JetBlue!!!

Anyway, let's spin this and change the issue to: "It's time for Bill O'Reilly to retire and write another book."

Tom: thanks for your note -- re your 'high road' idea, I think they need to pick which direction first. Then, by all means, take the high road to wherever they think they're going.

If "Left", then "we're going left, thanks, and special thanks to Bill O for providing us with so much additional marketing support."

If "Right", then "we believe in delivering a great travel experience at a great price and will seat customers on whatever side of the aisle they want -- left or right."

The waffle didn't do them much good.

Agreed on the high road! Just pick which one!

Neil:

If you looked at the Yearly Kos website's listing of sponsors, Jet Blue really looked out of place -- this may be an indication of the disconnect that must have taken place internally.

I can't speak to AA sponsorships -- does their presence look out of place? My preconception is that advertising on or sponsoring LGBT properties must appear less polarizing than Yearly Kos, in all honesty.

And as for Bill O, you might not like him or agree with him, but he's authentic as the day is long. (And he has a long list of sponsors, too -- doesn't Joseph Abboud provide his wardrobe? It's been a while since I last caught the show...).

Do you get the feeling that this is the beginning of a not very good trend?

* * *

NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos...

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

* * *

Any happy thoughts about this development?

FWIW, I think these people are marginalizing themselves. My goodness... Now it's verboten to even *question* global warming? Much less, it's verboten to market environmentally friendly products to people who *question* global warming?

I think I understand what they're trying to accomplish, but the crazier and more ...what's a good word to use without saying "fascist"?... they seem, they are just going to turn people off from their message, and they'll get far less done.

I'm waiting for Ryan Turner's comment. His absence from this convo is palpable.

(Quick thoughts before meeting friends at airport)

Definitely should be called "Fly Right" instead...

Given the simple fact that a mere annoyance can cause a disruption, travel and transportation are among the most sensitive industries in existence when it comes to politics. That's why any smart corporation takes care to hedge bets by separating its political interests from actual political activity, and further subdividing those pursuits such that leadership and management don't appear to coerce the staff.

Worth noting: In the most recent campaign cycle, former JetBlue CEO David Neeleman is noted as a NY Republican (he supported Giuliani and even ponied up when asked to support an out of state campaign for HI Republican gubernatorial candidate)-- yet he gave Democratically as an individual. Current CEO David Barger gave Democratically as an individual during the same campaign cycle as well... *except* for one race. The Democrats in question both gave to represent the Congressional district in which JetBlue is headquartered. The Republican in question both gave to-- a Florida Congressman (key point)-- serves as ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

At any time, executives and staff may work or give resources on their own; through interest groups, trade associations, or political action funds; or directly as a company seeking to assert concerns more directly to decisionmakers or the public. When playing with this stuff, the basics always matter-- who and what are you responding to and why?-- more so when a political element is concerned.

For JetBlue, I really do have to wonder what they were thinking-- not for the obvious reasons, but for something more basic: because the general public started to trust them again, and they've focused more attention on themselves instead of the customer.

Given the loss of customer confidence this past Valentine;s Day, as well as customer trust (recall they also sold their flight lists to defense contractors in the past as well), they cannot afford anything that serves to drive wedges in the broader traveling public-- no matter how edgy/hip/clever.

For the same reason political consultants can do dangerous things to harmless product marketing, you don't want product marketers developing political strategy (at least without careful supervision) as there are campaign finance and corporate accountability watchdogs waiting for an opportunity to exploit missteps along the way from either camp.

If Roger were here channeling Heraclitus, I'd say that the current political/societal/economic climate is starting to resemble the warring factions of Blues and Greens in Justinian's day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots). Will we have Democratic and Republican brands in the future? (It's happened before in more dramatic fashion than what the above AP pick-up suggests).

All this being said, I'd bet the proverbial fly on the wall at Jet Blue probably would tell us that this was all a few people not doing enough due diligence in picking a very cheap sponsorship, coupled with the absolutely worst case scenario unfolding with Bill O launching his cable-based scud and outing what was probably intended as a margin footnote in Jet Blue's quarterly marketing budget.

Coming off their recent failures, this is just more bad news for a snake-bit company. First, you don't have much confidence that they'll get you there, and now you're not quite sure whether they have any real judgement either. Great. Shareholders and customers alike must be wondering what their encore will be.

[Scipio Africanus: Give the enemy not only a road for flight, but also a means of defending it.]

Tom and Neil both hint an interesting direction that needs more emphasis here.

JetBlue also had the option to sponsor this, and all other"tech-centered lifestyle" events and/or major events in key hubs. Other airlines do the same (hence "travel and leisure").

It would've fit their image as a forward-thinking airline, and with enough advanced planning, allowed them to see what events might send mixed messages to their customers and the public.

[Hannibal: I have met, in my time, many an old fool; but this one tops them all.]

Fair points Stephen. Whether it's partisan purchasing or xenophobic sourcing, I see the spectre of "freedom fries" looming again (though without the trans fat, thanks to 100% domestically-produced safflower or canola oil-- federally subsidized through bipartisan support-- that could be reused as processed fuel, but likely won't).

Also spot on regarding the "hit list/boycott" mentality that can enter such discussions.

Any firm can be a target ultimately, as groups seek links between sponsorship, individual giving by leadership, political activities of workers (heck, even the presence of a union!), or marketing tactics as evidence of political bias..

[Scipio Africanus: It is the part of a fool to say, I should not have thought.]

Take care to always distinguish the corporate social responsibility agenda of interests groups, the political agenda of partisan and affiliated groups, the interests of advertisers, and those enablers and individual intermediaries who provide a forum for it all.

Connections may abound, philosophies may intersect, boundaries may be crossed-- but they are not the same thing.

I had no idea about the phrase which shall not be repeated for fear of causing offence.

For non-US PC cognoscenti check it out at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

ChrisB

The idea of increasingly radicalized brands and media self-segregating into their respective political camps dovetails well with the 'politically correct' sub-plot in the comments, don't you think?

First, we have the major theme of a brand making the mistake of aligning with a political entity, only to be driven to apostacy by a media-fueled consumer backlash; followed by a growing awareness of the 'backlash to the backlash', with MoveOn.org trying incredulously to organize an anti-Fox crusade against local advertisers. Cam brought up the point that those who don't completely embrace the idea of the causal role of humanity in 'global warming' are now being threatened (reported in Drudge, as well). And now, there's a tar baby comment sub-thread.

I'd call 60 Minutes if I trusted them (I don't, of course). Where's Walter Cronkite when we need him most?

Bill OReilly busted this fiasco. His reporter confronted this chump about DKos and the guy couldn't believe anyone would actually question this. Well, many in America do question this type of corporate behavior and they listened.
Now, if all the Demoncratic presidential candidates would only refuse to show up? But of course, the DemoDefeatist camp swoons to this type of nonsense...

Sounds like Jet Blue isn't the only 'no show' at Yearly Kos, with Pelosi, Reid and Emanuel all abruptly canceling today.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/03/meltdown-at-the-yearlykos/

The significant publicity that has been shed on this event has made a lot of people very skittish about associating themselves with it -- including those who are ideologically aligned with it. Sounds like a Tipping Point, doesn't it?

Jet Blue is at it again. They are promoting the New York Times on each seat back (This appeared to offend the two people sitting next to me; as per the "move on.org", etc).

This is really stupid behavior
and, with Jet Blue's stock price sinking every day, I'm surprised that the Board of Directors is not embroiled in a law suit.

They must be purposely trying to cause the stock price to fall further (I wonder if they are selling "short").