Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Attitude’

Dan is driving in an inter-city road; on the sideline of the road he notices ahead of him a large ad billboard — he is likely to have about a second, maybe even less, to watch and get any details from the ad. Sharon is sitting in her living room, reading a print magazine; in between articles she may glance at full-page ads — she is dedicating perhaps a couple of seconds to any ad that attracts her attention before moving on. Such short durations are critically limiting the amount of information consumers are able to capture and utilise to make inferences and judgements about an ad.

Research of consumer response to advertising more often deals with the decoding of  messages embedded in ads — how consumers gather (by eye fixations) and process pieces of information from the ad, and how they interpret them to derive key points of the message. This process frequently involves reference by the consumers to text and images in the ad, and any relations between them — these are usually thick slices of information to work with. However, consumers’ exposure durations to ads get shorter, meaning they allow for capturing very few pieces of information (e.g., headline and an image or a portion of it) to make inferences — these are thin slices of information.  A quick exposure may be enforced by the display setting (e.g., rotating online ad banners, road billboards) or being the outcome of shorter attention spans (i.e., consumers choose to view any single print ad only briefly).

In three interesting experiments conducted by Elsen, Pieters and Wedel (2016), the researchers examine the implications of  allowing for short exposure durations (i.e., 100ms up to 2 seconds), compared with longer durations [*]. Shorter durations are likely to enable consumers to capture and use only thin slices of information, and probably  also give too little time to elaborate on them. The researchers suggest that short durations can at least permit consumers to correctly infer the identity of the focal product and brand advertised, and that is not something to be discarded.

Elsen and her colleagues test three different identification types of ads: (1) Upfront — identification is straightforward, with the product and brand presented more explicitly in the ad; the ad is similar to other ads in the same product category and dissimilar from ads in other categories. (2) Mystery — the product in this type of ad could appear in a more sublime way or be implicit within an artful design (visual rhetorical figure); the ad is atypical to its category, dissimilar from ads in the same product category, but also dissimilar from ads in other categories. (3) False Front — the product in this ad format could be disguised by presenting the product in a context of another type of product  (e.g., a metaphor rhetorical figure, such as a bottle of drink presented as if it were a bottle of fragrance); this ad is atypical in being dissimilar from other ads in its product category while being similar to ads in a different category than its own. The brand usually takes a less central place in a mystery or false front ad.

The mystery and false front types of ads are considered more difficult to identify the product than in an upfront ad. An upfront ad is easier to process because it follows a schema familiar to consumers for that category (e.g., including typical perceptual features). The mystery and false front ads are more difficult to interpret but in somewhat different ways. Both types apply a form of artful expressive figure, yet the false front ad could be more confusing (e.g., whereas a mystery ad may include a product of another type positioned in relation to the focal product, the false front would show in front the focal product as if it were another type of product {substitution}). Both ads may build on a relationship between a focal product and another product, yet assuming a different kind of relationship. The implication for the false front ad is that consumers need to switch schemas by which they process and interpret the ad content and identity of the product (i.e., they are likely get at first a wrong impression of what product is upfront, and it takes longer to comprehend what product is actually being advertised).

In a very brief exposure (100msec, less than a typical fixation), consumers can consciously grasp the gist of the ad scene; they can also identify a typical product if it appears centrally and straightforward.  This permits them to hold a more positive attitude towards the upfront ad compared with their attitudes towards mystery or false front ads. The attitude towards the false front ad seems to be somewhat more positive compared with the mystery ad, although not as significantly as the researchers expected — while the focal product may appear obvious in the false front ad, the scene is still not much easier to grasp than in a mystery ad. Yet, as exposure durations extend longer than two seconds, the differences in processing and evaluating the mystery and false front ads become more striking.

An exposure of half a second (500ms) allows for two fixations at two spatially-distinct locations in the ad and processing the information in them; it has been identified as closely the average exposure duration for outdoors ads. A two-second exposure allows already for fixating and processing a few more pieces of information throughout the ad; this is the average duration that consumers have been observed to attend to (fixed) display ads. The findings indicate that from 500ms onwards the attitude towards mystery ads is climbing and the attitude towards false front ads is in decline; it is however at about two seconds of exposure that attitude towards mystery ads closes the gap and becomes more positive than towards false front ads, and further on approaches the level of attitude towards upfront ads (after 10 seconds of exposure).

After exposures longer than 5-10 seconds it becomes apparent that an early impression about the product identity in a false front ad was illusory, and possibly following the realisation of their mistake, consumers seem to turn their evaluation in disfavour of the ad. On the other hand, mystery ads seem to be more positively intriguing, where demystified viewers who decode the “story” in the ad and figure out the product and brand identity become more in favour of the ad. (Note: Changes in attitude towards the ad transfer to changes in brand attitude though with weaker magnitude.)

Our understanding of these findings can be strengthened by considering the intervening effects of consumer knowledge: the feeling that one knows what product (and brand) the ad is for (subjective knowledge) and the accuracy of the inference or conclusion reached by the viewer (objective knowledge); furthermore important is how well subjective and objective knowledge match or calibrate.  Very quickly (after 100ms exposure) ad viewers have a strong feeling they know what type of product is being advertised, and indeed they are found correct (i.e., their knowledge is calibrated). For mystery ads, viewers are in clear difficulty of identifying correctly the product being advertised after brief exposures of 100ms, yet they seem to be aware of this difficulty as they feel quite uncertain about the product identity (i.e., their knowledge is also calibrated).  Objective knowledge with regard to mystery ads seems to improve sooner (at exposure of 500ms) than subjective knowledge, but in any case after two seconds viewers generally get it right, and feel more confident about it. It means that even in mystery ads, two seconds are likely to be sufficient to correctly identify the product being advertised.

With false front ads the situation is rather different: Ad viewers quickly (as early as 100ms) come to believe they know well what type of product is actually being advertised, while in fact they are as wrong as in the case of mystery ads (i.e., knowledge is not calibrated). After just 500ms the situation already improves, and after two seconds they could be on the right track, knowing better what product the ad is for and feeling confident about their conclusion — only that they likely had to change their course of thinking in order to arrive to a new and different conclusion about the product than they had thought before. The analyses of Elsen, Pieters and Wedel further show that the influence of ad types on viewers’ attitudes towards ads is mediated (‘explained’) by the subjective feeling of knowledge, not the accuracy of knowing the product identity. As consumers have more time to verify their inferences and feel successful in decoding the ad, at least identifying the product and brand, they are more likely to develop a higher favourable attitude towards the ad (and brand). Since in false front ads this verification process is more likely to fail and consumers need to rectify their conclusion, their ad attitude is likely to suffer.

  • Note: Certainty about the brand is low for mystery and false front ads after 100ms, and it is also relatively low for upfront ads vis-à-vis product identity; as exposures get longer the gaps in certainty narrow until conversion at 10 seconds of exposure (accuracy for brands is not measured)  — thinking about the specific brand may occur later than the product, and the brand placement may also be less central in the ad.)

Elsen et al. challenge a claim made by other researchers that longer exposures to ‘standard’ upfront ads would lead to a less favourable attitude because they are perceived as boring and routine. They argue instead that consumers-viewers who feel able to confirm their identification of the product (relatively easily) after a little more time of inspecting the ad might making them really more satisfied and favourable towards the ad. The attitude towards upfront ad remains quite stable at a high level over exposure durations. In Experiment 1 the attitude seems to drop a little as exposures get longer (up to 30 seconds), suggesting that after five seconds and longer, viewers do get bored by straightforward ads, but the estimated trend was not statistically significant. However, Experiment 3 revealed that the attitude towards upfront ads even improves after allowing for exposures of up to about 7 seconds. The results suggest that five seconds could be more than enough to interpret what the ad is about and identify the product advertised in an upfront ad; and if somewhat more time is given, this can only help the consumer to confirm an initial feeling he or she knows what product is advertised, thus contributing to the positive attitude towards the ad.


 

Distinguishing between mystery and false front ads is not clear-cut.  It can take a few seconds to realise what kind of rhetoric figure is being used and to understand the “story” being told in either a mystery or false front ad. The problem is that the identity of the product is often intertwined with the message, so that identifying the product requires at least partly interpreting the message (e.g., in a metaphor where an attribute of another product type or object is projected onto the focal product). I therefore suspect that the recommendation of the researchers that it is somehow possible to separate between tuning the ad identity (“what is promoted”) and tuning the ad message (“how it is promoted”) might be easier said than done. Elsen and her colleagues propose that “combining upfront identification with specific creative message templates might be particularly effective in cluttered media environments in which exposure durations are short” (p. 575). While accepting this recommendation, one should take into consideration that the ad may cease being truly “upfront” to the consumers-viewers, and could take longer to interpret and extract the product identity from the creative message.

It is not suggested to avoid false front ads but to acknowledge that they are more risky. If they apply a metaphor, it may take closer to ten seconds rather than two seconds to understand the situation and identify the product correctly; actually there is no guarantee that the viewer will “get it” even after ten seconds. The viewer might leave the ad happy after a brief exposure but associating it with a wrong product. The risk additionally is that the viewer may feel being fooled after realising the true product identity or frustrated of not being able to realise it after a few seconds, and that is manifested in the results about the ad attitude in all three experiments.

The important lesson is to evaluate in what conditions it is most suitable and effective to use each of these ad types. A duration of two seconds appears to be a significant threshold. There is little point in being too clever and showing mystery or false front ads neither on road billboards nor in digital display environments (e.g., Internet, apps) when the ad display rotates and every ad is replaced after a brief period (e.g., 1-2 seconds). Mobile devices in use, particularly smartphones, and screen displays that exhibit a strong competition between content and advertising can be especially challenging environments for the more creative and clever ads. Achieving product and brand identity through simple upfront ads would be a justified and reasonable goal in those circumstances. In other conditions, print and digital, and specifically when the ad is static, there should be greater flexibility for the advertiser to choose from the full spectrum of upfront, mystery, and false front ads (e.g., a mystery ad type could succeed if at least 3-4 seconds of showing an ad between webpages pass before the target page loads or the viewer is given an option to proceed to the target page after that duration). Moreover, grades of creativity may be applied to captivate attention in more cluttered and competitive media environments (consider also pedestrian areas in cities).

Gaining consumer identification of the product and brand in ads is vital and important. But it would be a loss and spoil if advertisers and advertising professionals stop aspiring for higher goals with more creative and clever rhetorical figures and designs. The research of Elsen, Pieters and Wedel highlights the need to choose wisely when and where it would be more suitable and effective to employ a straightforward or a more creative and clever ad design.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Note:

[*] Thin Slice Impressions: How Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure Duration; Millie Else, Rik Pieters, & Michel Wedel, 2016; Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (August), pp. 563-579 (DOI: 10.1509/jmr.13.0398).

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

The concept of brand attachment has become a frequent, almost integral component of attitudinal models of brand equity in commercial studies since the late 1990s. It has been introduced to represent an emotional bond that is expected to build between a brand and consumers to allow for their sustainable loyalty to the brand. Perceived quality and other assessments of a rational nature about branded products and services are generally not regarded as sufficient to connect a consumer with a brand. In addition, brand attachment is meant to represent a disposition towards a brand that is more solid and enduring regarding consumer-brand relations than brand attitude. However, what signifies and distinguishes that construct has not been properly and agreeably defined.  In a recent seminal article (2010), Park and MacInnis of the University of Southern California and their colleagues (*) offer an approach to fill this caveat coherently. The researchers define the construct of brand attachment, test and demonstrate how it differs from brand attitude strength.

We may find a spectrum of relationships between consumers and brands at different levels of depth and strength. What creates, for example, the deep attraction, to an extent of passion, of consumers to brands like Nike or Apple? On the contrary, the brand Nokia of mobile phones has for the past few years lost its favour with consumers. Last month it was revealed that Microsoft, which had acquired the mobile division from the Finnish mother company, intends to abolish the Nokia brand name but retain the “Lumia” name for new models of smart-mobile devices (e.g., phones, tablets, and whatever comes next); if indeed brand attachment by consumers to Nokia has diminished, no one would shed a tear. Coca Cola almost ruined its brand equity in 1985 due to its New Coke ordeal — apparently consumers were insistent on their attachment to the brand and what it represented to them to force the company to step back and save the brand. Brand attachment captures the affective linkage that is created between a brand and its customers.

A brand equity model may start from awareness of and basic familiarity with the brand of interest at its ground. On top of which should come associations of product attributes and functional benefits (tangible product assets) next to “softer” associations of feelings or personality traits assigned to the brand (intangible assets). After accounting for these building blocs, a bridge of attachment can be erected between the consumers and the brand, leading to commitment (a manifest of attitudinal loyalty). Several facets can be proposed based on pervious academic and applied research in the field to represent brand attachment: (a) respect for the brand and its leadership; (b) personal identification with the brand; (c) favourability of brand legacy and values; and possibly also (d) appreciation of how the brand treats its customers.

Park and MacInnis et al. develop a scale of brand attachment that formally specifies aspects of brand-self connection — it emphasises identification of the consumer with the brand; yet to this factor they add a second factor of brand prominence in memory. Thus, they suggest a scale constructed from two factors; they show that treating the scale as a composition of the two components has better validity than a single-unified scale. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate the effect of brand attachment on behavioural intentions as well as actual behaviour (self-reported and as registered in customer database records).  They cover a range of activities or actions that differ in their level of difficulty.  It is shown that brand attachment is able to predict the intention to perform the more difficult types of behaviour that brand attitude strength cannot.

Brand attitude strength is measured by the valence of an attitude (positive-negative) weighted by the confidence with which the consumer holds that attitude. However, research repeatedly has shown that attitudes get to impact behaviour when the valence is more extreme in either direction and confidence is strong. Attitudes do have an affective basis but it is generally sublime and concerned primarily with valence. That is, brand attitude alone does not contain a scope of emotions people may exhibit; it is very limited in its emotional capacity. Brand attachment, on the other hand, is more emotionally charged and can tell a better story about the relation of the consumer to the brand. Park and MacInnis et al. conceptually define brand attachment as “the strength of the bond connecting the brand with the self” (p. 2). This bond materializes when it is supported by a rich and accessible network of positive thoughts and feelings about the brand in the consumer’s memory.  A brand-self connection ascribes to the extent to which a consumer identifies with a brand as if they could merge together. In other words, the self (concept) of the consumer is extended so as to absorb the brand and make it part of his or her own self (image or goals). While the representation is cognitive, the researchers note, the brand-self linkage is inherently emotional. Brand prominence indicates in addition the ease and frequency with which  thoughts and feelings (underlying the connection) are brought to the consumer’s mind. The brand-self connection can “come to life” more readily when brand prominence is greater, hence the consumer experiences a stronger brand attachment.

  • The researchers first constructed a scale with five items for each of the two components. However, they sought to make the scale more parsimonious and practical to implement, and proposed a reduced scale of two items for brand-self connection and two items for brand prominence. Looking at the factor loadings suggests that it would be justified to keep four items for the first component and three items for the second. But in the researchers’  judgement parsimony should win over. For example, the item “feel emotionally bonded” could be discarded in favour of “feel personally connected”.

In their analyses, Park and MacInnis and their colleagues confirm that brand attachment and brand attitude strength are related yet empirically distinct constructs — while correlation between them is moderate-high they cannot be confounded. This supports the convergent and discriminant validity of brand attachment. The authors provide further support for the validity of attachment by showing an interesting relation to separation distress, a negative emotional state that may occur when losing a relationship with an entity people felt close to (e.g., feelings of depression, anxiety and loss of self). Brand-self connection and prominence each independently “contribute to the prediction of separation distress as indicators of brand attachment” (p. 8). The research additionally substantiates that brand attachment is distinct from attitude strength, the former being more strongly associated with separation distress.

Eventually, marketers would want to know how brand attachment is linked to behaviour. Three categories of difficulty are distinguished: (1) Among the most difficult forms of behaviour are buying always the new model of brand X, waiting to buy brand X versus an alternative brand, and spending money, time and energy to promote brand X (e.g., in pages and forums of social media and in blogs). (2) Moderately difficult forms of behaviour include paying a price premium for brand X and defending it when others speak bad of it. (3) The least difficult modes of behaviour include, for example, recommending brand X to others and buying the brand for others. Notably, recommending a brand to relatives or friends involves a certain personal risk for the endorser because one puts his or her own reputation or credibility on-line by suggesting to others to buy and use the particular brand. Yet, this alone is not considered hereby as a major cause of difficulty vis-á-vis the investment of time, money or energy to promote the brand (e.g., tell a story in a blog post, add photos).

With respect to intention to behave in ways that favour a brand (reflecting brand commitment) it is found that brand attachment predicts the intention to engage in behaviours regarded as the most difficult remarkably better than brand attitude strength. Brand attachment also better predicts intention to behave in moderately difficult ways but the difference from attitude strength, although also statistically significant, is rather small. There is no significant difference between attachment and attitude strength in predicting intention of performing the least difficult behaviours — they do equally well.  These findings bolster the importance of addressing brand attachment as a driver of brand commitment, particularly via more demanding modes of behaviour.

  • An additional test suggests that brand prominence is less essential than the brand-self connection component in predicting intentions. (Intentions were tested with respect to Nike.)
  • In a different set of analyses of actual behaviour (banking-investments), the researchers found furthermore that brand attachment is a better predictor of past purchases than brand attitude strength. In this case, however, brand attachment represented by both brand-self connection and brand prominence is predicting behaviour better than the former alone. That is, with regard to actual behaviour, brand prominence is an essential component.

Many brand owners would find utility in applying this scale of brand attachment (in a full or reduced form): from food (e.g., Nestlé) or toys (e.g., Lego) to banking (e.g., Royal Bank of Scotland) or carmakers (e.g., Peugeot). Take for instance Microsoft that now holds four brand names they may apply for marketing mobile devices: their own corporate name, Surface, Nokia or Lumia. Microsoft could use the aid of such a scale to decide which brand proves as better ground to build upon and which name is better eliminated. It may be a major factor in the contest of brand equity for mobile-smart devices of Microsoft versus Apple, Samsung Electronics, and Lenovo (Motorola).

Although the brand strength construct may capture a brand’s mind share of a consumer, attachment is uniquely positioned to capture both heart and mind share (p. 14).

The scale of brand attachment constructed by Park and MacInnis and their colleagues emphasises consumer identification with a brand, representing an emotional connection, and actualised through its prominence in memory. It does not cover other possible sources of attachment, but the approach taken is focused, concrete and well-substantiated. The researchers provide a valid scale for practitioners in brand management and research for measuring brand attachment, stand-alone or as part of a brand equity model.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

(*) Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers; C. Whan Park, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, & Dawn Iacobucci, 2010; Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), pp. 1-17.

Read Full Post »

On Friday evening of 13th January the cruise ship Costa Concordia smashed against the rocks of Isola Giglio in Italian waters, tilted to its side and capsized. Suspicions were soon raised rather unexpectedly blaming this tragic accident on grave misconduct of the captain of the ship. The recording of conversations between the officer of the Italian Coast Guard and  captain Francesco Schettino, fleeing from the ship, are most disturbing. Allegations running against the captain are highly discomforting, ranging from negligence, poor judgement, and to outright disregard for the lives of his passengers and crew.

The Costa Concordia carried about 3,200 passengers and a thousand (1,000) crew members. Seventeen (17) victims who lost their lives are confirmed at the time of writing this post, and there are still 15 people missing. Fortunately enough, since the massive cruise ship landed in a spot where water is not so deep, the ship did not sink completely and the vast majority of people on board could escape by swimming or be evacuated safely to the shores of Toscana. Giving full tribute to Concordia’s victims, we should be thankful that this disaster did not end worse and that so many of the people on board are survivors.

The cruise ship belonged to the company Costa Cruises, an Italian subsidiary of British-American Carnival Corporation.  It was built together with six ship-sisters in the previous decade in the same shipyard in Italy. Concordia, inaugurated in 2006, was the largest and most glamorous of them all. It was Costa’s flag-ship, literally.  At first the company faced fears that the cause of accident could be a technical or physical failure of some sort. This would mean that all sisters of Concordia would have to be grounded. If the failure could not be repaired, it was speculated, financial losses would be immense. Seniors at the company may be relieved now that this is not the case, but instead they will have to bear the shame and embarrassment from the alleged behaviour of their ship captain and the public anger targeted against them, with all their potential negative consequences.

According to a statement issued by the company on 15th January and posted on their website (1), Schettino joined Costa Cruises in 2002 as a safety officer and was appointed captain in 2006. It is not yet clear what has led captain Schettino to manoeuver the ship so irresponsibly: was it to impress one of his officers, to “show-off” to a female friend, or just being negligent? However, it is already difficult to comprehend the captain’s behaviour after the accident had occurred. Apparently the captain understood he has done wrong and became more concerned about not being caught by the Italian authorities than helping in safeguarding the lives of his passengers and crew. Another account by an officer on bridge suggests Schettino was merely panicking (2). Most bizarre are the excuses ‘il capitano’ has given the Coast Guard’s officer about his whereabouts, suggesting for instance that he “fell off” from the ship’s deck and right into a lifeboat below the ship. According to the transcript of the conversation, it is implied that at some point he was actually already some distance away from the ship nearing the coast and was ordered to return to the site of accident. This conduct of Schettino after the accident may have an even stronger negative impact on travelers’ attitudes than his conduct leading to the accident.

There is an aspect in the chain of events on the night of the accident that passengers were not prepared for; while many passengers were probably not aware of the behaviour of the captain in a situation that was hard already for them, this was revealled soon in the aftermath of the accident. Thereby it created much rage among passengers and the public. Let us look more closely at this aspect.

People tend to underestimate the probability of negative events like fires or fatal car accidents that might occur to them. When going on a cruise, passengers may take into consideration that the ship could be caught in a gusty storm or strike a rock but they try to weigh down these scenarios. But just in case, most travellers take a travel insurance. This human approach generally allows us to take actions like going on vacation without worrying too much about negative contingencies. However, tourists who are over-confident in their skills (e.g., swimming, skiing) or their judgement (i.e., assessing certain events so unlikely that they can be ignored, strongly holding a belief that “it will not happen to me”), they are susceptible of behaving recklessly or foolishly, and they may also choose not to take a travel insurance.

Yet, passengers of the Costa Concordia have found out that someting happened on the night of accident that their usual mechanisms of self-protection could not help them in this case — a breach of trust by the captain responsible for their safety in sea. The alleged role of the captain in causing the accident by acting unprofessionally and with disrespect to his usual duties as captain of a cruise ship means that this accident was completely avoidable. It is hardly conceivable by passengers that the captain will be directly involved in causing an accident on a ship of the scale of Concordia. Primarily, the conduct of captain Schettino abandoning the ship, leaving behind his passengers and crew, stands against the norm and commonplace belief that the captain always stays last on board to orchestrate rescue operations even at the risk of his own life, as famously did Edward John Smith, of the Titanic in 1912.

The Greater the Unpleasant Surprise, the Stronger Negative Impact on Travellers Expected

The surprise evoked by the circumstances surrounding the accident, shaking-up of strong beliefs about the responsibility of the captain and his senior officers for the well-being of passengers, and the eventual breach of trust are the kind of factors likely to have a specially strong effect on travelers’ attitudes and behaviour. Tourists are likely to feel more vulnerable. They will start questioning the confidence they have put in this cruising company and its senior officers, which may easily spill to other cruisers. The stressing situation may further evoke emotions of frustration and anger. It is difficult to predict for how long these negative effects will prevail but they can very well hurt the tourist industry, particularly in leisure cruises, for the next couple of years.

Was it actually a freak incident in the behaviour of Schettino? Was his conduct on this occasion in complete contradiction to his previous behaviour as captain that the company’s management could not suspect him to fail so badly in his last cruise? These are heavy-weight questions that investigators of the accident will probably address. It is yet pre-mature to doubt the decision of Costa Cruises to hire him in the first place or appoint him to be captain. It also is too easy to find signs of misconduct in hindsight (e.g., “the captain was partying”), because “early signs” receive greater attention, appearing more obvious after the event. Nevertheless, investigators will have to enquire if there were any signs ignored by Schettino’s superiors which should have increased their scrutiny regarding his performance as captain. Prosecuters in Italy intend to charge captain Schettino with multiple manslaughter, causing a shipwreck, and abandoning the ship before all passengers and crew evacuated (2).

The Costa Cruises company (and the mother-company Carnival Corp.) already has to bear the loss of its ship Costa Concordia, and in the short to mid-term it can expect to face multiple law suits and pay compensation to passengers and their families and cover the cost of removing the ship wreck from water. Last Friday (30th January) the company reached an agreement with a coalition of consumer groups that it will pay €11,000 to each passenger on top of refund for the cruise cost, medical and transportation expenses (3); but nothing is final as some passenger groups already express discontent. Furthermore, concerns have been raised of environmental damages to the sea and coast that the company will have to help and fix or compensate Italy for them. After that, the company is likely to face economic losses in the mid- to long-term because of tourists’ reluctance to travel with them again. Costa Cruises is going to remember captain Schettino for a very long time.

Italians are also going to remember their native Schettino for many years as an infamous captain. It looks like the last thing Italy needed at this time. He has potentially caused a blast to their tourist industry when their economy needs mostly a boost. The Italians have every reason to be angry with him. Most surely, he will not be forgiven for a very long time for embarrassing Italy so badly.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) Statements issued by Costa Cruises associated with the Concordia’s accident: http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/Info/concordia_statement.htm

(2) “Costa Concordia Captain ‘Distracted by Guests on Bridge’,” The Guardian Online, 23 January 2012  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/23/costa-concordia-captain-distracted-guests

(3) “Costa Concordia Company Offers Passengers Compensation,” BBC News Online, 29 January 2012.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16754771

Read Full Post »