[Orchids & Onions] Emirates scores, FlySafair takes a flyer

First, the Orchid goes to Emirates, which is the official airline sponsor of the Rugby World Cup, for its TV ad punting itself and the tournament.

It starts off in what looks like the lovely green valleys of Wales, as a horse back-kicks a rugby ball into a waiting chauffeur-driven black Mercedes-Benz. The door closes and off the car goes, while a gent (presumably a famous rugby player - but I am stumped, so help me out if you can) watches.

Next, we see the ball being addressed by a chic cabin attendant on Emirates (in first class, of course): "Welcome back, Mr Gilbert..."

Mr Gilbert? The official ballmaker for the tournament, geddit?

Then the ball is addressed by another rugby luminary (again the name eludes me - I will have to hand in my Rugby Fan badge, I'm afraid) and we then see the ball having a shower, something first-class passengers on the Emirates Airbus A380 can do.

After that, it is all about the tournament. It's a good plug for the airline and the tournament, done with just the right amount of humour, so it gets Emirates an Orchid, the second one in almost as many months.

What I like about the airline's overall advertising pitches is that they have universal resonance, which is important if you are a global carrier.

Now that may sound strange, given my oft-stated aversion to things "global", but Emirates also puts its money into regional advertising and sponsorship - as it does with the Emirates Lions rugby team in Gauteng. I may be a little biased, but I think Emirates has made a shrewd decision because the Lions are one of the most entertaining rugby teams to watch anywhere at the moment.

© Nisanga – 123RF.com

The other airline worth commenting on this week is FlySafair.

It gets no Orchid, but no Onion either, for its talking-point R1-a-ticket give-away this week.

Much has been written about how the airline's server network collapsed under the pressure. I don't buy the excuse that they doubled their capacity in anticipation, but they got 30 times the traffic they normally do.

I would have thought good strategic marketing planning would have erred more towards the 30 times line than the double mark.

What on earth did you expect when you offered that price? What does interest me is the airline's explanation for this amazing offer, which in effect means they are paying passengers to fly, because they pay the airport taxes.

Let's assume this little exercise will have cost it a conservative R700 a ticket - in other words, the difference between revenue and expenses to fill (by its own admission) more than 180 Boeing 737s.

This means the campaign would have cost at least R20 million.

FlySafair is arguing that it decided on this "loss leader" strategy instead of using conventional advertising. It could have bought a lot of advertising - TV, print, radio and digital - for that sort of money.

I would guess the amount is more than its annual advertising budget. If that is the case, what is left in the kitty for the rest of this year - and the next 12 months?

Once the dust and media hype have settled, it will be business as usual for the airline.

It is true the stunt generated a huge amount of free publicity, but not all of it was positive, because of the server crash. I guarantee there are many frustrated people out there who couldn't get tickets and who will not darken FlySafair's door again.

But the bottom line is, well, the bottom line.

How long is it going to take the airline to recoup what is effectively a loss? And how much should one pay to buy market share?

Never mind that the offer will have stretched the airline's cashflow situation to breaking point, That R20m will have to be found somewhere. In increased fares, perhaps?

We will watch that space with interest, particularly given that most promising low-cost start-up airlines in this country have crashed and burned...

*Note that Bizcommunity staff and management do not necessarily share the views of its contributors - the opinions and statements expressed herein are solely those of the author.*