Are your partners tarnishing your brand? Do you even know?
This story concerns a good brand that risks dilution and negative word-of-mouth, due to poorly trained partners who interact directly with the brand’s consumers.
Alaska Airlines: Great Brand, But Partners Need Training
Last week I flew home from Boston’s Logan Airport via Alaska Airlines. The flight was fine, but the check-in process raised questions about the airline’s operational competence. Or at the very least, its investment in training and agent-support systems. I’ve flown the Boston-Seattle route numerous times since Alaska started serving the Boston community, but last week marked a new low point.
As a marketer, the experience left me wondering if Alaska is paying enough attention to all its brand touch points, especially front-line agents with direct passenger contact — away from the airline’s home base. Last week’s impressions were formed by people not employed by Alaska Airlines, but few passengers were aware of that distinction.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m a big fan of Alaska, but the check-in experience at Logan reflects badly on their brand. It’s a huge contrast to how well they’ve streamlined the check-in process at SeaTac, their home base. Night and day, you might say…
Fortunately, we arrived at Logan Airport 2 hours before our flight. We hoped to have oodles of extra time: enough for a quick bite at Legal Seafood before boarding our flight.
I’d completed the web check-in process 24 hours earlier, so I just needed someone to handle the baggage logistics, security, and validate my preprinted boarding pass. My friend’s status was more risky. The web check-in service refused to assign her seat, so she needed an agent’s help with the boarding pass and seat assignment.
Unfortunately for us and the Portland passengers in line behind us, the ticketing agents representing Alaska in Boston were poorly trained. This meant that each passenger’s check-in experience was time consuming, frustrating, and potentially incomplete. (The agent was unable to complete my friend’s seat assignment process, so had to send her to the gate with a stand-by status. Goodbye, Legal Seafood…)
All 3 agents appeared uncomfortable with Alaska’s systems and procedures for routine activities: charging for overweight bags, assigning seats, or identifying passengers with prepaid bag fees versus those who still owed money. My agent erroneously stuck Portland tags on my luggage, rather than SEA. Good thing I noticed her mistake before my bags disappeared down the conveyor belt!
Worst of all, the agent serving passengers in the First Class and MVP queue was a newbie. Her first day on the job (or at least, her first day with Alaska’s systems and processes). Her transactions took about 15 minutes to complete. She often sought help from one or both of the other agents to complete a transaction. Which meant that no one else was served while all 3 agents tried to complete a single passenger’s check-in transaction.
In the span of 15–20 minutes we watched those 3 agents check in (with varying degrees of success) just a handful of parties. Needless to say, passenger frustration mounted with every minute that passed. As all could see, the nearby security queue was nerve-wrackingly long. Add in transit time to the gate: another 10–15 minutes… Heaven help the passengers who didn’t leave enough time for all the airport clearance procedures.
Not Alaska’s Fault?
In Alaska’s defense the Boston-based agents handling the check-in process were not Alaska employees; they worked for Alaska’s local partner airline. But most of the passengers did not recognize that difference, and could have cared less. As a result I’m sure everyone simply assumed that Alaska’s gate agents are poorly trained, or that the rush to cut costs comes at the expense of passenger experience.
Until a year ago or so, Alaska partnered with a different airline in Boston for the ticketing and check-in process. Their former partner’s check-in process was competent, albeit less friendly and less speedy than what you generally experience in Seattle.
Why has it taken so long to train the new partner’s gate ticketing agents in Alaska’s processes and systems? Is the issue a lack of in-service training, a union gotcha – or is there a big usability and UX challenge that Alaska needs to tackle on behalf of its customer-facing representatives?
Yes, Alaska’s pilots and flight attendants are warm and friendly as always. But in the context of brand touch points, they’re having to work extra hard to overcome the poor impressions created by ill-trained partners who deliver sub-par check-in experiences.
Net net: if you rely on partners for key customer-facing touch points, make sure to equip your partners with everything they need to reinforce your brand’s value prop and key principles. And pay attention to the impressions they create in the minds of your customers.
Revised on June 4, 2010
