AT THE MARKER
The Selling of Aviation
Before I got involved with aviation professionally, I ran a nationally recognized advertising and marketing agency for a living. For more than 20 years I worked to bring new products to market, create a market niche where there was none, and define and refine the definition of the target market.
I have always felt that general aviation manufacturers, and general aviation in particular, has done a poor job of marketing itself. One of the reasons I feel we in GA find ourselves in our current economic dilemma is because the industry has put very little effort into selling its worth, and its products to the buying public. Most of the leadership at the GA manufacturers could fly anything but a desk, and subscribed to the “build it and they will come” school of marketing. From where I sit, good marketing can sell a poor product. Don’t believe me? Guess how many Vegas Chevrolets sold.
This is not a new phenomenon. In the heady days of post WWII many in the industry saw a boom in G.A. as tens of thousands of airmen returned home from the war. Two cars in every garage and an airplane would be the new American dream. By 1949, everyone in the industry knew that wasn’t going to happen; those airmen were busy buying houses. By the late 50s, GA. airframe manufacturers were trying to hitch their wagon to the automobile marketing strategies of the day, but marketing was still an afterthought.
Take a look at the 1957 Cessna 172 ad. The “new for 1957” model C-172 featured “Land-O -Matic” landing gear, “ Para- Lift” flaps and “ Shot-gun tough” construction. They even show a guy firing a shotgun at the plane to prove it. This follows in the footsteps of automobile ads of the times. Remember the “Rocket” V-8, “Power-Glide” transmission or the famous “Interceptor” engine? All of that could be yours in a Cessna 172 for a mere $8,975.00, or about the same price as a new house on Long Island, circa 1957.
Fast forward to 1977. The ads now reflect the concerns of the times. Oh yes, we still have the “Para-lift” flaps, but the main gear are just called maintenance-free steel main landing gear. Even Cessna could not bring themselves to call it “Land –O –Matic”, but along the way we grew “360º Omni-Vision” windows. Still reeling from the oil embargo of 1974, the headline reflects the primary automotive concern of the times, fuel economy.
Now look at the current Cessna ads. Headlines proclaiming the C206 as the “ultimate SUV” are still trying to tie the airplane to automotive mentality. Maybe it is because the powers that make these decisions feel that the general public can relate to the automotive comparison, or maybe it is because those who are making these decisions simply don’t understand general aviation themselves. The reality is we live in a country that builds 15 million cars per year and only 1,500 airplanes. There are only about 600,000 active pilots (pilots with both airmen’s certificates and current medicals) and that number is either shrinking or slightly growing depending on whom you ask. Aircraft are still built one at a time, not mass produced like cars, and still cost about the same as a new home. Cars are considered durable goods, a utility, and a necessity of life similar to a washing machine or a telephone. The average life expectancy of a car is less than 10 years (how many of you are drive cars older than 10 years old?); the average age of the average aircraft in the fleet in 35 years old. Many other industries have done a much better job competing for the discretionary dollar. Personal watercraft, RVs and time-share vacation property all come to mind.
You would think that after close to 50 years of trying to do it that way, the airframe manufacturers (those that are still in business anyway) would think outside the box to grow the market. The proliferation of fractional jet and turbo prop programs proves the money is there, but the traditional product line, piston-powered single engine aircraft, are woefully outdated for today’s sophisticated flying public. Think I’m wrong? You could get air-conditioning in an economy car since 1965, but you couldn’t get one in a new single-engine Cessna ‘till 2003. Would you buy a car without A/C? How about a car that costs $160,000? Some new product is on the horizon. The Eclipse Jet is a good example. For slightly more than the price of a new Baron, you can be in a twin engine, pressurized turbojet. Unfortunately, I project delivery late from its forecasted delivery date and at a price far above its advertised target sale price, and those who have them are reporting operational costs above what was initially promised.
Cessna has recently acquired the Colombia line of aircraft that represents a state of the art design in the hands of the most successful airframe manufacturer in history. It is an aircraft that meets current market expectations. It is my fervent hope that someone at Cessna has the presence of mind not to compare their new aircraft to the current trend in automobile marketing. In fact, I have this reoccurring nightmare. In my nightmare the planes are marketed on billboards along the side of the road, with part of the message on each sign several miles apart….just like, just like, YES! JUST LIKE BURMA-SHAVE!
Michael Leighton is a 4,400+ CFIIMEI-ATP, as well as an A&P mechanic and former F.A.A. Accident Prevention Counselor. He operates an aircraft management, maintenance and crew services company located in South Florida. You can reach him via e-mail at av8tor0414@aol.com, or find him on the web at http://web.mac.com/mkleightion