United Breaks Content

by jdn74 on January 3, 2013

Airline Cabin with Emergency Bars on All Screens

[Unedited Image Credit: joseasreyes]

Anyone with their ear to the Intertubes and an eye for viral content already knows that United Breaks Guitars. And anyone who has flown commercially in the past decade knows that United (and every other airline) breaks our wallets with their baggage fees and first-born-child-for-a-bag-of-peanuts pricing. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they break other things as well.

I came across an article this past spring on how United broke check-in when it switched over to using its acquisition, Continental’s, reservation systems. And that in turn reminded me of a flight I took two summers ago where United broke something else…


Taking the Red-Eye

It was around 11pm and I was buckled in at my window seat, ready for my red-eye flight from Seattle to Newark. The television monitors came on, but before the standard safety tutorial played, passengers were treated to a personal message from United’s CEO.

He walked onto a stage with a dark blue curtain in the background and bad lighting overhead. I noted immediately that the production quality on the video was very poor. The full scope of his message escapes me two years later, but at the time, I felt compelled to take notes on the particularly salient discrepancies between the video content, its likely purpose, and its audience.

First, a brief recap of the video as I recall it:

The CEO started out by giving praise to United’s 80,000+ employees.

Next, he told the audience that United and Continental were proceeding with their merger. He noted that as part of this merger many of their planes had already been repainted.

Then he explained that United will be adding its Economy+ standard of seating to many of Continental’s jets.

He closed with the assurance, “We are aligning our products and services to better serve you. We know we have to earn your business. Thank you for choosing United.”

I wish I could embed the full video here, to give you a better sense of just how cringe-worthy it was, but I couldn’t locate it anywhere online. I imagine it was worse for me than for any of the passengers around me (if they were even paying attention) because at the time I was reading Clout by Colleen Jones.



An in-depth, clear approach to creating, publishing, and managing influential content, Clout is far too rich to summarize in full here. But one particular chapter is useful for analyzing the United video.

In Chapter Three, “Context: Where Clout Begins and Ends,” Jones tackles the issue of planning for effective content. She argues that to do so well, one must understand its context (the gestalt around a piece of content) and introduces her version of the 5 W’s to describe that gestalt.

Why are you creating this piece of content (or What outcome do you hope to achieve)?

According to Jones, content planning begins here, asking what result you hope to achieve for your business or cause by creating and publishing a particular piece of content. The answer usually consists in one of two broad outcomes – getting someone to take action or changing their attitude about your brand.

Who is the audience you are targeting?

Who (age, gender, job title, etc…) are you trying to persuade or inform with your content? If you already have personas that detail your target audience(s), the next step is to detail what synergies and gaps currently exist between your brand and them. For example, if you’re a new brand, then a likely major gap is that of awareness and content that introduces you to the consumer should be a goal.

What is your brand identity (or Who are you)?

Of course, to introduce yourself to the consumer, you must know who you are first. Does your organization have a mission statement? Have you conducted a brand audit? Do you know which brand attributes or qualities you want to highlight in your content?

When will this content be delivered?

This is a fairly straight-forward question. Timing can be time of day (e.g. an infomercial airing in the middle of the night), season (summer, Christmas), or special event (the Super Bowl). Timing also covers things like what is happening in the world currently or which market trends are currently prevalent, both of which can also affect the substance and delivery of your content.

Where will this content be delivered?

What is the medium for presentation? Web presentation of text and graphics will differ stylistically from that for print or television, for example. And if content is being shared via a particular forum, say a social media channel, that community will have its own etiquette and expectations for your content and how it is presented.

Asking (and answering) these simple questions prior to creating a piece of content or a series of collateral is essential if you want that content to be influential. Now that we’ve examined Jones’ 5 W’s of effective content, let’s review the United videotape to see why it struck such a note of discord with me.


United’s Broken Content

When, Where, and for Whom was this content delivered?

The when and where for this particular piece of content is pretty clear:

When: Prior to takeoff

Where: In an airline cabin

To Whom: A captive audience of airline passengers.

One could argue whether the time and place is a good choice given the stresses of air travel and the likely interest and attention span of the travelers, but nonetheless that’s what United chose. And while “To Whom?” was easy to answer, “For whom?” is a trickier question and gets to the heart of some of the problems with this video. Three different moments suggest three different audiences.

The video opens by praising all 80,000 of United’s employees. My first thought was “Why do I have to listen to this?” My second thought was that the majority of United employees are probably not flight attendants, but flight attendants were the only ones who would get to see the cabin video. United must have a better method of communicating with its employees.

Then the CEO turned to a second potential audience to talk about how well the merger was going. This could’ve have been customers, but at first seemed aloof and businessey, like he was reassuring shareholders.

Only then did he turn to topics that might interest actual paying customers — the fliers to whom his brand, and this content representing that brand, was being presented.

What aspects of their brand identity were they highlighting?

And right off the bat, he blew that too.

The first thing he highlighted was how many of United’s planes had recently been repainted. My immediate and incredulous reaction was “Why do I care what the outside of a plane looks like?” I fly on the inside. I want a clean, pleasant, and if-at-all-possible comfortable interior of the plane. That is what matters to me as a paying customer.

The CEO proceeded to say that many of Continental’s planes were going to be refitted with United Economy+ seating, which offered wider seats and more legroom. Of course, this seating is a special section near the front of the plane, similar to First Class, and costs more per ticket. So essentially, the CEO was offering some additional seats to those who could afford to pay for them. Not really a broadly appealing brand message.

Finally, he ended his statements by claiming, “We are aligning our products and services to better serve you. We know we have to earn your business. Thank you for choosing United.” Given how off message the rest of the video was, these were just words, mere platitudes and corporate gibberish that did not align with any of the information he had just presented. A fitting, ambiguous ending for a very ambiguous piece of corporate content.

Why did United create this piece of content?

So why did United make this video and play it to a captive audience of its flying customers? The short answer is “Who Knows?” One could surmise that it was meant as some sort of progress report on its merger with Continental — that would be a safe bet. There was likely also some intent to reassure its customers that the merger would not affect the standard of service they were used to (whatever that standard might be), though this was never clearly stated.

Even if they had a clear intention at the outset, by the time they finished, what was left was a Frankenstein monster of mangled W’s stitched together into a shambling wreck of a video. But perhaps the content was mangled because United has no clue what its customers actually want, and therefore, no idea how to talk to them.

I was so dumbfounded by the statement about the planes being painted that I did a little research. I dug up an article in the Houston Chronicle that discussed how the United merger was bringing in lots of business to local plane painters. A brief excerpt:

Getting the airplanes repainted quickly is part of the merged company’s branding efforts. One of the things passengers notice is the name and logo emblazoned on a plane.

“’I’m sure that they want to have the new brand out there. They want the customers to see it’s the new United Airlines,’ said [a consultant].”

So mentioning the paint jobs really was a sincere branding effort. United believes its fliers care what the outside of the plane looks like. If they are that out of touch, it’s no wonder their content sucks.


More Than Words

Ultimately, content needs to be more than just words. Whether on the page or on the screen, it must align with how your brand manifests in the real world. And to be effective, it must align with the true needs and desires of your customers.

After the video ended and the safety protocols were finished, I started to feel a little drowsy. It was a red-eye after all. So I flagged down an attendant and requested a pillow. She informed me that the plane didn’t carry any.

I couldn’t help but wonder how many pillows the money wasted on that video could have purchased and how much more tangible a brand statement that would have been.

***If you found this post useful, consider signing up to receive notice when fresh blog content is published, or use the buttons below to Pass It On to others who might find it valuable as well.  And as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.***



In the scene above, from the end of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Spock is dying from a lethal dose of radiation that he absorbed while repairing the warp drive of the U.S.S. Enterprise. He sacrificed himself so the ship is capable of escaping the imminent explosion of the deadly Genesis Device. Spock tells Captain Kirk, “Don’t grieve. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh … the needs of the few … or the one.” In other words, he will die, but the ship and crew will survive.

It is rare in the non-profit world that an organization is founded to serve the needs of a single individual. Even those inspired by a single tragedy usually expend their efforts to help many others who are suffering in a similar way. But marketing messages that focus on the needs of the many can actually work against an organization trying to raise their profile or increase their donations

An article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy brought to my attention a series of scientific studies that explore factors that determine how an individual responds to non-profit requests. There were some fascinating findings and I’d like to discuss the results from one of those studies in more depth below:

A group of Swedish students were paid a small sum of money for filling out a survey on their use of various technologies. After being paid, they were asked if they would like to donate a portion of their earnings toward Save the Children. Some of the students received a picture of a young girl, Rokia, and a description of her plight suffering from hunger. Some were shown a picture of a young boy, Moussa, with a similar description. A third group were shown both pictures and descriptions. In each case, the students were told that their donations would go directly to help Rokia, Moussa, or both Rokia and Moussa. Afterwards, the students rated their feelings about donating on a scale from 1 to 5.

Results from the study showed that when viewing a picture of only one needy child, students donated similar amounts to each and felt good about their donations. But both donations and positive feelings decreased for the group that saw both pictures. This is an effect that one author of the study, Paul Slovic, refers to as “psychic numbing.”

As the graph below illustrates, psychic numbing describes a decrease in the perceived value of saving lives the more lives there are to save. One person is easy to relate to and feel compassion toward – compassion that motivates us to act. We can make a difference when it is an individual in need. But as the size of the need grows – to groups of people and then to faceless statistics – our ability to empathize decreases.

This effect has been documented again and again. And while there are multiple explanations for why we naturally react this way, non-profits who are at the forefront of trying to help disadvantaged populations need only concern themselves with one take-away. The way to reach your supporters is through the power of story-telling.

Statistics may seem convincing (e.g. “1.5 million children in America are homeless”), but how many of us can wrap our minds, let alone our hearts, around that number? How many of us have ever seen or touched 1.5 million of anything? Yet the story and struggles of one homeless child, or one homeless family, will move us to act.

When it comes to the biology of giving, you could say that the purse-strings are connected to the heart-strings. As powerful, or even stunning, as some statistics may be, moving supporters emotionally is often much more important than convincing them rationally. And stories of specific people in need are the way to do that.

Let’s revisit Spock’s death scene in light of this research and ask a question: What touches us in this scene? If we are moved, what moves us?

On the surface, we have Spock’s words — that the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” “It is logical,” as he puts it.

Yet few of us sitting in the audience are watching this scene thinking about the “many” people on the U.S.S. Enterprise that Spock has saved. We aren’t cheering that the crew will survive. Instead, we are saddened at Spock’s suffering; moved by his sacrifice; and perhaps even grieving for the loss of this “one.” Our reaction is not logical, it is emotional.

By harnessing the emotional power of story-telling – profiles of the “ones” your organization has helped or hopes to help – you can generate goodwill and financial support that allows you to help “many” more to Live Long and Prosper!

**Client stories are a powerful marketing tool and once you have one, don’t just slap it up on your website and forget about it.  Download the Tip Sheet below to learn 10 different ways to use these stories to promote your cause.

Tip Sheet: 10 Ways for Non-Profits to Use Case Studies to Promote their Cause

If you found this post helpful, please Pass It On using the share buttons below, or share your thoughts with us in the comments.


^Slovic, Paul. “If I look at the mass, I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 79–95. (See especially Section 6).