Consistency in communication – what can be learned from the Southwest/Kevin Smith debacle

The Twitter-storm set off against Southwest Airlines by Kevin Smith (film director and disgruntled customer) — exposing a problem with Southwest’s policy enforcement/communication consistency — is a cautionary tale that other companies should take note of.

If you haven’t been paying attention to this customer service debacle, in a nutshell it’s this: Kevin Smith, a film director, was kicked off a recent Southwest flight because he was deemed to be too large to safely occupy a single seat even though he said he met their criteria for safety (being able to raise the arm rests). He then told his story via Twitter which resulted in an unflattering media spectacle for Southwest.

But the truly interesting aspect of this story is the reaction and shared stories of other passengers who complained of the uneven enforcement and communication of the Southwest policy. For example, here is a comment posted on the Wall Street Journal web site:

Peg wrote:
The problem is with the randomness sw uses on this policy. Listen to the people complaining about the obese passengers sitting next to them that did not get kicked off the flights- why not? If this is policy why not use it every time. Before I lost weight I flew sw and was asked twice to buy an extra seat, ( I had flown at least 5 times that year without being asked) which I did – even though I was sitting with my mother. One time they then promptly sold my extra seat to a stand by and sat him in the open seat. I did not get a refund because according to SW it was my responsibility to kick the guy off the plane (seriously- read their policy on this).

When you have formally communicated policies related to customers, employees, suppliers, media, investors, etc., for those policies to be adhered to, you must enforce “walking the talk” . Consistently. If the enforcement in sporadic (or non-existent), not only will the policy in question be disregarded but the credibility of all of the other policies issued by the company are lessened (not to mention the image of the company itself). And there could be legal trouble in some cases, as well (e.g. spotty enforcement of a “zero tolerance” harassment policy.)

What apparently set Kevin Smith off was not the policy itself (which is nothing new and fairly consistent with other airlines), but the uneven enforcement of it (the waffling on the “arm rest test”, larger customers than Smith occupying a single seat on the same flight, etc.) Southwest could have prevented this publicity nightmare by simply adhering to their stated policy — strictly and consistently.

Obviously, this is easier said than done. However, by clearly and broadly communicating policies, effectively training those who need to enforce them, and consistently adhering to them, mishaps like the one that Southwest suffered can be prevented.

RELATED POSTS:

Do you know who you’re talking to? The value destruction of corporate mixed messages

- A.B.

Context in business comparison charts – how much is enough?

McKinsey Quarterly example

We recently received this “Chart Focus” email from McKinsey Quarterly and found it a bit perplexing. We generally love McKinsey charts for their clarity of message, unbiased presentation, and clean design — but this one missed the mark by leaving the viewer with more questions than answers because of the lack of context.

It’s a complex chart, to be sure. The author is trying to make the case that companies should make bold strategic moves like acquisitions during (or shortly after) the market “trough” of a recession by showing the historical, rapid bounceback of total returns to shareholders after recent recessions. The article from which this chart was taken, was published in April 2009, seemingly at the market trough of the recent global recession. But, in anticipating the bounceback of the market, did this chart provide enough context?

As a rule of thumb, the level of context needed in comparison charts should be determined by how similar the “apples” are. The greater the difference of “apples”, the more context is needed. Obviously, you should avoid “apples-to-oranges” comparison charts (since there really is no underlying foundation for comparison), but even “apples-to-apples” comparisons present problems.

In this chart from McKinsey, it treats historical recessions equally (a key issue when evaluating the point the article is trying to make). Clearly, that is not the case. The recession (or Depression) of 1929-1932 was vastly different than the recession of 1990-1991 on a number of levels, most notably on the severity of the market downturn. Even the outcomes represented in this chart are vastly different by recession, with some achieving 100%+ returns while others not hitting the 100% mark (even at Year 3).

If this chart included the percentage downturn (simply as a value next to each line chart), the reader would be much better off. [The underlying assumption being that the greater the downturn, the greater the bounceback.] They then could assess the magnitude of the current downturn (from it’s peak to the trough), and see which historical post-recessionary environment may be the better gauge.

Obviously, even this improvement may be too simplistic (given other factors like swiftness of downturn/recovery, effects on the global market, access to credit, etc.), but it might help give the reader better context in assessing possible outcomes (and strategic actions that can/should be taken).

So, when preparing comparison charts, evaluate how similar (or different) your variables are, and adjust the level of context appropriately.

RELATED POSTS:

How 3D charts distort business information

The problem with pie charts – Part 1

The problem with pie charts – Part 2

- A.B.

Weekend desk clearing: Recommended posts/articles on business communication

Here are a few articles and blog posts that we think are worth reading (mostly on data visualization with an intriguing post on communication processes at NASA). Have a terrific weekend!

• What you can learn about communication from NASA. “Say what you want about the bureaucracy and waste in a large institution such as NASA; these folks know how to communicate well in a complicated deployment (launch), and there seems to be much we can learn from them in managing large IT programs.” Not just IT project management, but business communication in general. Great post on communication during NASA launch process by Scott Booher at CIOpedia.
• Free data visualization tools from Tableau. We rarely do product endorsements, but this one is definitely worth it. Tableau Software just released Tableau Public, a free application that allows you to develop sophisticated charts and graphs for your web site, blog, twitter feed, etc. Most data visualization professionals use the enterprise version of Tableau, and we think it’s terrific that a free version is now available to a wider audience. Check it out!
• Google also launches new web-based chartware. Not sure if it’s a coincidence (probably not), but Google also launched free data visualization tools so users can create, embed, and share charts and graphs with others. To be honest, we haven’t downloaded or evaluated the Google application, but it may be something worth considering.
• Bill Gates vs. Steve Ballmer: Who is the better communicator? Surprise! It’s Bill Gates according to Nancy Duarte, the presentation guru. She skewers Steve Ballmer’s launch presentation for Windows 7 and heralds the TED 2010 presentation by Bill Gates. Although Bill Gates’s presentation is not yet available on the TED site (as of this posting), Nancy includes several pictures of the slides he used in her blog post.
• The annual report of your life. There was a recent blog post from the New York Times on Nicholas Felton and his unique, internal spin on the annual report. Edward Tufte furthered this discussion by asking others how they use data analysis and data visualization as path to self-discovery — the comments submitted by others are thought-provoking. Not exactly within our scope of business communication but it’s interesting to look at annual reports as an assessment tool as opposed to a marketing vehicle.

- A.B.