Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No More Ryanair Logojets?  
User currently offlineendair2000 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 21 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7172 times:

I am sure you are aware Ryanair once had a good few jets painted in special colours advertising various companies. I wonder why they no longer do this, I recall MOL stating in an interview that this brought in a good bit of extra income? Is this no longer viable or are companies being more frugal with their advertising budgets?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6974 times:

When you think about it, logo jets don't really fit in with the idea of keeping fleet costs down, which is something that is a key element of Ryanair's business model. If a part like an engine nacelle, a nose cone or a rudder has to be replaced, the a/c has to operate with a mismatched part until they can remove the a/c from service again to repaint that part to match the logo jet livery. An aircraft does not make money sitting in a hangar waiting for the paint to dry.....

With the exception of the Dreamliner liveried 738 that was delivered in that paint, Ryanair has gotten away from logo jets and any special additions to a livery has been stickers that can be easily put on and replaced and doesn't keep an a/c out of service for an extended period of time. One thing to note is that the logo jets were all 737-200s, which seated less passengers than the 738s and also were not as fuel efficient and the extra income generated by these logo jet deals probably helped to offset the higher operating costs and then some.

I remember Skybus, a US airline that was basing itself on the Ryanair business model, was going to have a logo jet program to generate additional revenue for the airline, and in the short time they were in business, they only had one logo jet:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Rust



I think many companies shy away from such promotions, as it has the potential to turn into bad publicity for them. Imagine your company has a logo jet with an airline and that a/c is involved in an incident. Your company's name is splashed all over the news when showing images of the incident. That's the sort of publicity you don't want, as would you want your company's name associated with a plane crash?


User currently offlinejamesontheroad From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 551 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6952 times:

I think given the economic slowdown that is affecting all of Europe, logojets are an extremely discretionary form of advertising. There are much more cost-effective ways of getting your name or message to your consumers. Besides, of all airlines, Ryanair keep their aircraft in the air (or stored through the winter) the most, so there's very little time for potential customers to catch sight of them at airports.

Additionally, I think many advertisers have realised that an FR logo-jet can end up just about anywhere in Europe, and therefore not necessarily within the limits of your client's market. I seem to remember there was a Hertz logojet a few years ago, perhaps a multinational telco like Vodafone might be interested, but there aren't that many companies who are active in every country Ryanair serves. Plus, perhaps as the Comunitat Valenciana has no doubt realised, once you've ponied up to see your name on FR planes, there's no guarantee they'll end up serving routes to and from your region. FR has gradually been shifting its focus eastwards anyway; just look at how few UK/RoI routes there are compared to a few years ago and look at how the airline is growing in east and central Europe.

[Edited 2012-03-24 07:23:23]

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6940 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 1):
That's the sort of publicity you don't want, as would you want your company's name associated with a plane crash?

I'm thinking companies don't want to be associated with Ryanair in general!



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineeicvd From Ireland, joined Mar 2008, 2171 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6892 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
I'm thinking companies don't want to be associated with Ryanair in general

Yes having your company name over Europe's biggest airline would be a complete waste of time, they only carry what 70m pax a year, yeah sure what would be the point in advertising to that many people........


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6819 times:

I just think logo jets in general are not the preferred means for a company to advertise, regardless of the airline involved. Here in the US, other than Southwest's Sea World logo jets (which has been a long-running partnership for the airline), most logo jets are for sports teams (or are airline-related). The last airline in the US to really do a logo jet fleet was Western Pacific, which had nearly every a/c in their fleet in some sort of sponsored livery (some were logo jets for the airline itself).

User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 908 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6521 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 1):
One thing to note is that the logo jets were all 737-200s

No rule without exceptions:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fride Jansson




 


User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6467 times:

Interesting to note that, while not logojets, about one third of Ryanair's fleet carry the Comunitat Valenciana branding. Presumably these are just stickers and not incorporated as part of the aircraft livery.


Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting eicvd (Reply 4):
Yes having your company name over Europe's biggest airline would be a complete waste of time

It might not have been quite as obvious as intended, but I was saying it as a joke. I know a lot of brands would not care at all that they were being plastered onto FR planes.

However, keep in mind, FR flies their planes into random ports (the plane could be flying in and out of Dublin one day, and then in Eastern Europe the next). Secondly, they fly often into secondary ports, which means less passengers will see the plane, with most of the passengers that do would be FR passengers themselves. I'm not saying there isn't a market for this, but it is reduced.

So perfect sponsors would be ones that covered all of Europe and catered for budget passengers predominantly.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5721 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Quoting jamesontheroad (Reply 2):
perhaps a multinational telco like Vodafone might be interested

There used to be a Vodafone 732. IIRC it was one of the last to be retired.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4489 times:

Given MOL's suggestion that passengers pay to use the toilets, a good potential advertiser might be Metamucil.

Have there been any studies into how effective branded aircraft are? How may passengers actually look at the logo on a plane that they are about to board? How may products are actually suitable for advertising in this way? I mean, you wouldn't necessarily want to advertise what might be seen as a premium product on a low cost carrier that may be seen as attracting the bottom end of the market.

The only companies that I am surprised at not having a higher presence are Coca Cola and McDonalds - low cost mass foods for a low cost mass market.


User currently offlinenipoel123 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 10):
Coca Cola and McDonalds

Those two are huge companies known around the world. I can't imagine a European (or any other citizen, for that matter) that does not know McDonalds or Coca Cola.



one mile of road leads to nowhere, one mile of runway leads to anywhere
User currently offlinegrimey From Ireland, joined Jun 2005, 456 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

There is the weight issue aswell, white paint on the aircraft is lighter while the darker the colour the more it weighs. Isn't the NZ B777 all black restricted to certain routes due to the weight of the paint.

FR had an Eircell (this later became Vodafone in Ireland) B737-200 but that is still stored in DUB and is used as a fire training aircraft.

Grimey


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 18 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 10):
Have there been any studies into how effective branded aircraft are? How may passengers actually look at the logo on a plane that they are about to board? How may products are actually suitable for advertising in this way? I mean, you wouldn't necessarily want to advertise what might be seen as a premium product on a low cost carrier that may be seen as attracting the bottom end of the market.

The TuiFly Haribo logojets are extremely popular and recognized. And commercials/advertisements don't only work the ''this is my product, I want a customer to know it, after he's seen my ad, I need him to buy it'' way. The Deutsche Bahn for example also advertizes on TuiFly airplanes but surely no one is going to buy a train ticket right after getting off the plane. It's more of a psychological tool; people will notice an airline associated with the German railway company and the next time they're not offered a transit flight, but a 'Zug zum Flug' connection (rail to flight), they'll feel reassured about booking such an offer. It creates the idea that the airline and the railway company are partners and that work together, and that rail to flight connections will therefore work out just as seamless as air-to-air connections.

The birds are so popular in fact, that their schedules are up on their website. They are eye catchers though..
http://www.tuifly.com/theme/show



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinegabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3311 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 17 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 10):
The only companies that I am surprised at not having a higher presence are Coca Cola and McDonalds - low cost mass foods for a low cost mass market.
Quoting nipoel123 (Reply 11):
Those two are huge companies known around the world. I can't imagine a European (or any other citizen, for that matter) that does not know McDonalds or Coca Cola.

Exactly - why advertise when +99% know your product anyway



http://my.flightmemory.com/shefgab Upcoming flights:LCY-ARN-AMS-LGW,STN-OTP-AMS-YUL,YQB-JFK-LAX-DUS-STN,LGW-DXB-BKK-HKG-
User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12516 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):

I'm thinking companies don't want to be associated with Ryanair in general!

This is my thinking; I think that in recent years, with FR constantly being among the least popular travel companies, with regular complaints, general inflexibiltiy (and hubris to go with it as well), it's not a brand most companies would like to be associated with.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 16 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 14):
Exactly - why advertise when +99% know your product anyway

Because that's not the only purpose of advertisements. Even recognized companies bring out new products every now and then. Besides, omnipresent advertisement does reinforce brand recognition and surprisingly creates trust in said enterprises.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 15):
Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):

I'm thinking companies don't want to be associated with Ryanair in general!

This is my thinking; I think that in recent years, with FR constantly being among the least popular travel companies, with regular complaints, general inflexibiltiy (and hubris to go with it as well), it's not a brand most companies would like to be associated with.

There is a market for everything and the overhead bins are already used for advertising space.

A full paint job would be really expensive and since Ryanair uses airports in the middle of nowhere, often as the only carrier around, the exposure you'd get out of such a vast investment would be very, very little.

Lower price segment companies usually don't run a high PR budget and not every business model is suitable to be promoted on aircraft. Discount supermarkets for example would create the impression of Ryanair being 'inferior quality' which is generally associated with 'inferior safety' and would hurt Ryanair more, than the ad revenue would help.

On top of that, Ryanair targets budget travellers who - for the most part - live a budgeted lifestyle. If you want to target low income groups with ads, you have to be very specific and advertise a product, rather than your company as a whole (a product Ryanair travellers can afford).

A low budget car rental, low budget hotels or the tourism boards of cities come to mind as potential clients. Or car makers, of cars that Ryanair passengers are likely to buy (Fiat Panda, VW Polo and VW Up, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa, etc.) But then again, if I were them, I'd much rather advertise on EasyJet, or Vueling, or Norwegian, or TuiFly for the greater market exposure.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinedazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 14):
Exactly - why advertise when +99% know your product anyway

Well, considering both companies spend tens of millions on advertising in Germany alone each year, I guess you need to tell them the news...


User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

It is a risk that every time there is a negative press article about Ryanair (and there are quite a few), you could have a photo of an aircraft featuring your brand on it.

User currently offlineHarmonium From Denmark, joined Feb 2012, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

If I am the CEO of a company, do I want my company's colors on an FR jet? No way I do in 99% of the cases. There are several reasons, some of them mentioned earlier.

First and foremost, you'd need the perfect fit between FR's profile and your company's profile. You'd have to have a company that ditches every form of luxury(IIRC MOL wanted his pax to stand up while flying, in order to stow more people in those birds, paying for toilets etc.) Now, I can't think of a lot of companies that would benefit from being associated with that kind of approach to customer care. Remember now, a lot of people that do not know FR and the way they do business often get dissapointed when they travel with FR. They literally think that FR has found some magic way to send you all around Europe for the likes of 25 euro. Also, you'd have your company associated with, to a certain degree, people would think that you actually support underpaying staff, fighting local authorities everywhere etc. You're really talking about a controversial airline with a highly controversial CEO. I simply cannot think of a company that would benefit from such a match. But maybe it's just my imagination that lacks at this time of the morning (04.25 am) 


User currently offlinePezySPU From Croatia, joined Dec 2011, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2425 times:

Quoting Harmonium (Reply 19):
First and foremost, you'd need the perfect fit between FR's profile and your company's profile. You'd have to have a company that ditches every form of luxury(IIRC MOL wanted his pax to stand up while flying, in order to stow more people in those birds, paying for toilets etc.) Now, I can't think of a lot of companies that would benefit from being associated with that kind of approach to customer care. Remember now, a lot of people that do not know FR and the way they do business often get dissapointed when they travel with FR. They literally think that FR has found some magic way to send you all around Europe for the likes of 25 euro. Also, you'd have your company associated with, to a certain degree, people would think that you actually support underpaying staff, fighting local authorities everywhere etc. You're really talking about a controversial airline with a highly controversial CEO. I simply cannot think of a company that would benefit from such a match. But maybe it's just my imagination that lacks at this time of the morning (04.25 am)

I think it might be your lack of imagination. How is this any different from advertisements in public transport? Here in Split, there is only one bus company for public transport, subsidised by the city. Their buses are in bad shape, dirty and there are chewing gums everywhere. They have some newer buses, but there are also very old wreckages totally amortized still driving around. Bus drivers are always arrogant and very unfriendly, as if it was in their job description.
Yet somehow, all sorts of companies pay to put their adverts on their buses. I'd say only around 30% of all their buses don't have a huge advertisement on them. Advertisements range from beer, fast-food, small business and retailers to major banks, supermarkets and latest shopping centers. Do I associate all those brands with the bus company's poor treatment? Hell no! Do I think those brand are supporting the bus company and enjoy seeing me and others treated badly? No! Will I associate those brands when there is a photo in the newspapers saying something negative about the bus company and there is a photo of the bus painted in one of those brands' colors? Again, no, I'm not that stupid...

Sorry, but I just don't see your point.  
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 18):

It is a risk that every time there is a negative press article about Ryanair (and there are quite a few), you could have a photo of an aircraft featuring your brand on it.

I disagree with this argument as well. If you purchase a logojet, it will most often be completely painted in the colors of your brand, FR titles will be hardly visible. In most cases, journalists (or anybody else for that matter, except A.netters) won't notice it is FR's plane. Tell me, what was the lest time you read about an aircraft incident and there was a photo of that very same aircraft? From my experience, it's usually diametrically opposed; so if 747 was involved, they put photo of a Cessna 172.

[Edited 2012-03-26 01:51:47]

User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12118 posts, RR: 49
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another thing to consider is the sheer cost of it. I am sure there is better and cheaper means to get your message accross.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineCabincrewifly From Ireland, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Just thought i'd throw this in, Ryanair are now covering the traytables in advertisments. Good idea when you think about it but the cabin is too clutterd as it is!


EI FR RE EIR IWD MA FUA
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No More RWY 30 At YVR? posted Sun Jan 29 2012 16:01:03 by Boeingorbust
Why No More Life For UA 757? posted Sun Nov 8 2009 22:34:10 by VC10er
Why No More Premium Economy? And Why So Difficult? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 11:03:51 by EUROBUS
Why No More Beriev Be-200? posted Mon Aug 27 2007 13:51:17 by SIBILLE
Why No More Intl First On US posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:58:02 by Boeing 747-311
El Al:why No More 777s And 744s To CDG? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 15:56:51 by LY777
Why No More Tu-154 Freighter Conversions? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:54:56 by A342
Why No More Large Twin-jets? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:24:57 by TopJet001
Why No More Lowcost Turboprops? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 20:34:17 by Airevents
More Ryanair Logojets Are On The Way! posted Thu Sep 22 2005 14:40:36 by EI321