Everyone loves to poke at the big boys, and especially when they get to do it online. Hellkom is probably one of the more outstanding examples of this, and thanks to Justin, there’s a new one on the scene.
Personally, I agree with the concept behind SAAsucks - a central forum for users to vent their issues, start discussions about, and alert those with the power to change things that if they don’t change things soon, they’re going to lose out.
That’s how it works in normal cases. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’ll won’t work for SAA. Mainly because they’re so tied in to the government (they’re operating at a year-on-year loss, kept afloat with constant government subsidies).
The government is known for not being bright about things like social media: A post about an ID member resulted in De Lille immediately calling for the banning of all blogs.
Ok, so that never happened. That was a poke at one of the members of a party with no say in the government. Trouble is, though, that several things have changed since then.
Major: We won the bid to host 2010.
Major: We’re bringing in major guns to pull it off.
Major: People use Google for comparison shopping (thanks to recession, etc)
All good, all fair. Right up until this appeared on Muti:
Now, there’s something I don’t agree with. For a start, “active” sites like blogs make new keywords relevant in a very short space of time. Secondly, that blog will be spidered, and terms like “purchase ticket” and “book flight” will be indexed as secondary keywords.
When international searchers start looking for “purchase airline ticket to SA”, SAAsucks is going to start ranking. People are going to come across what is essentially a hate site. And they’re going to ask questions.
We know the government is irrational about technology. We know that they’ll do just about anything to bend the game to their own agenda. We know that they’ll spare no expense in seeing their ideals enforced.
Is it really wise to provoke them like this? Social Media in SA is still in its infancy, and if all we use is for is fighting and moaning, it won’t exactly gain a very good rep going forward.
Even if nothing happens, 2010 goes off without a hitch, and we all walk away happy, all we’ll have done is poisoned the pool even more.
Maybe I’m wrong, talking through my nose, whatever. I just think that using the local blogosphere for something like this is immature and shortsighted. Rather get focused on finding solutions, than on magnifying problems.
All I’m calling for here is a little level-headedness. Let’s just think things though before we rush off making noise - especially noise that could potentially bite us in the ass down the line.
So Wogan - You’d rather have Justin and everyone else who’s been robbed by SAA keep their mouths shut so that other’s (foreigners and tourists) can come here and experience the same thing and leave SA with a bitter taste in their mouths thanks to an airline with ties to a government that can’t get it’s ducks in a row!
I’d rather us make a noise now, get the problem fixed or have tourists fly another airline (of which there are plenty flying in to SA). I might be the SA Rocks pundit but forget it if I’m going to blindly support a company because it might look bad if we expose their rubbish.
What Nic said.
No amount of pre-2010 window dressing is going to help if the world arrives and we’re not up to the job.
@Nic All I’m calling for here is a little level-headedness.. I’m not saying “let’s shut up”. Hell no - I’m fully in support of a venture like SAAsucks. But I remember Afrigator vs Regator, and I remember how carried away we got, and now, we’re playing with a major local brand, screwup or not.
This is where our little corner of the social media universe gets put to the test. Do we hammer mercilessly, try to cause brand damage, or do we try to offer solutions/workarounds?
@Dolce Fully, dude. I’d also hate it for the foreigners to pitch and we have shoddy stadiums, trains, bad internet, poor service delivery, a high crime rate and all those things, and I’ll do whatever I can to stem the tide, but you have to remember that there is a world beyond 2010. People are sitting up and taking notice of this blogosphere thing, and like it or not, we’re the frontline. If we screw it up, abuse it for personal gain, do you really think it’ll gain the major traction that it’s supposed to gain?
Again - level-headedness. Let’s not get overheated.
Hmm. A little misdirected this post I think but you’re fully allowed your opinion. I’ll repeat what I said on Muti only moments ago:-
“Yes Wogan on some level I agree with you. But should government try something as stupid as banning blogs because of this site then we all have a major problem. This would constitute nothing less than censorship and we’d be no different to the great China Firewall.
If this happens then we have a constitutional battle on our hands.”
Personally I feel SAA has gotten away with way too much at the tax payers expense. So what if the world sees their poor lack of service or fact that the bigwigs make millions in bonuses each year while the tax payer fits the bill.
And, to clarify, SAA Sucks is NOT a hate site. Hate is a serious word and I will not be associated with a hate site. All SAA Sucks is, is a place for people to vent their frustrations in the hope that SAA will either change their attitude towards consumers or even better - deal with the consumer issues faced on the site.
@Justin I was under the impression we already had a constitutional battle on our hands … lol
I guess we’ll see how it all pans out. Yes, SAA has gotten away with a lot, and for many people, they have a lot to answer for.
I’m just hoping this turns into a victory for social media, rather than a smear campaign…
Agree with Justin’s approach and in actual fact it seems as though Wogan and Justin are saying the same thing. That if this site provides a constructive answer and real issues that SAA takes SERIOUSLY then this site will be a success. Simple. It’s now in SAA’s hands to do the right thing. Simple. Let’s have them step up in to the 21st Century and take our criticisms head on. Not shy away and try and slap a law suit on us and shut us up.
@Nic Yeah, it’s a good thing that we’re not at total perpendiculars here ;)
Now let’s just see some results…
Yes in essence we are saying the same thing. I guess Wogan’s problem is the way in which it’s being executed and he’s not alone in that either.
From my side (and to my defense) we understand social media and while it may be small it is still very much powerful.
If this campaign highlights that then we’ve achieved our goals in showing just how Consumer 2.0 can change perceptions.
Maybe the URL could’ve been done differently. A company like getclosure is doing its best to sort out bad service, looks professional and aims at getting the job done.
In essence I have no problem with what Justin is doing and considering the power of social media, his message will certainly carry some substance…but to the average consumer this appears very similar to Hellkom, DellHell and that scathing episode with DHL a couple of moons ago.
In the end, an open minded SAA (oxymoron??) will have to fork out thousands to rectify their online reputation where that money and time could’ve been spent on something constructive, like better service delivery and customer care.
I also think if it was done more effectively, that is in a professional manner, an open minded SAA could also have used the site in future to address online agony…instead, they now see bloggers as the enemy.
What it boils down to is that a shift in intent could well have opened up a business model for some innovative blogger as opposed to adding fuel to an already flamed blogosphere.
“see bloggers as the enemy” <– that’s what I was afraid of. In any flock of sheep, it just takes one loud one to throw the masses into a frenzy - a lesson I was hoping we’d learn at Afrigator vs. Regator. Apparently not.
“Business model”? There ain’t no news like bad news, I guess ;)
Thanks for your input!