An Idea For Marketing

English Boards Suggestions and Ideas
1

Wow. Okay, I had this whole thing typed out and the forum deleted it. Hopefully I can remember and do this all again.

Been thinking about a way to make marketing work without killing the "little guy". The biggest problem, at least as far as I understand it, is marketing is difficult to implement because it would make the big airlines bigger, and make it even easier to squash the smaller airlines. So I came up with an idea that might just work. Below are the highlights of the system, then the formulas that I used to put it together, and then at the end, there's an attachment of a spreadsheet that displays the various information of this marketing system. So, now on with the description.

* Marketing System functions as a part of the ORS formula. This means marketing would have a direct effect on ORS. Keep in mind, the effect isn't actually based on the ORS system. It would be up to the programmer(s) to determine how to scale the effect.

* Airlines would pay for Marketing at individual airports. In this fashion, it is similar to the passenger terminal system that's used. Just as the terminal has an effect on the ORS, so does Marketing, and Marketing also is specific to the airport where flights originate.

* Airlines would pay for Marketing Points, which have a sliding cost scale dependent on the size of the airport the Marketing Points are purchased at.

* Costs and ORS effect are influenced by the number of flights an airline has originating at that particular airport. It is more expensive for an airline with 500 flights from one airport to buy a Marketing Point than it is for an airline that flies 100 flights from the same airport. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you come to think of Marketing Points as advertisements (such as television, radio, and newspaper), a smaller airline would be much more efficient with its marketing budget, and, generally, would have a better grasp of advertising in the local area. Another way to look at it is the larger airline could need a larger advertising team.

Okay, those are the highlights. Here are the formulas and the spreadsheet to illustrate the idea.

MARKETING POINT  =  $2500 * ( AIRPORT SIZE ) * ( WEEKLY FLIGHTS / 10 )

In this formula, the "airport size" is the direct number of passenger demand bars for that particular airport. ORD would be 10. LIT would be 5.

ORS EFFECT  =  ( ( MARKETING POINTS * WEEKLY FLIGHTS ) - ( WEEKLY FLIGHTS^1.2 ) ) / WEEKLY FLIGHTS

It seems convoluted, but it brings everything down to an easily understood ratio between each calculation.

The attachment is just a spreadsheet that shows how the system would calculate out. Don't pay too much attention to the costs -- they aren't something to take literally. The formula that was used is easily adjustable when it comes to the size of the airport, and the actual cost of the Marketing Point.

Note that it actually has a negative effect if marketing is not used. It's not supposed to kill a flight (or an airline) to not use it, but there is drawbacks to not advertising your company.

If you have any comments about this, whether you think it would work, or what kind of gaping holes there are in here for exploitation... feel free to have at it. :)

2

well something is wrong with your system

1. you can't penalty airline if they not use marketing, they must have 0 points not negative

2. its ridiculous that with 1. marketing point I got NEGATIVE points in ORS !!!!!!!????????

With your formula if I fly to JFK, I will must pay only for JFK marketing equal for rental 787 ???????

connect LAX=>JFK=>LHR and your company go bankrupt because marketing :blink: bp0.gif

3

The idea per se is not bad. I think the core of the idea is (an I expressed them myself) - make marketing scale by combination of airline size and quantity of flights. Now caithes also perfectly combines airport size into equation. I don't think the idea is bad, it may need some tuning but it has logic. The basic idea is that f you do not use marketing you should get less pax from the demand pool than if you use marketing. Imagine it this way: in RL if you set up an airline that offers super excellent product at reasonable prices, and do not use marketing, less people will know about you and fly you than if you use marketing. So in-game, if you set up the same airline and even if you have 99 or 100 ORS why should you get same demand pool as an airline that uses marketing? It's not logical. How to tackle that question? Caithe's response was "Negative ORS" (because we only have ONE demand, not multiple types of demand in game). Again, the whole values may need tuning, because with average of 50 flights into 100 (hundred) of 6-bar airports in average, you would need to pay weekly 37.5 million. Maybe the costs should be about half of the $2500.... again the idea is very good, it just needs tuning.

4

well something is wrong with your system

1. you can't penalty airline if they not use marketing, they must have 0 points not negative

2. its ridiculous that with 1. marketing point I got NEGATIVE points in ORS !!!!!!!????????

With your formula if I fly to JFK, I will must pay only for JFK marketing equal for rental 787 ???????

connect LAX=>JFK=>LHR and your company go bankrupt because marketing :blink:

Did you read the part where I said the cost wasn't something I was setting in stone? I said it is completely adjustable and very easy, and that I wasn't trying to fix the costs directly, but come up with a way that makes marketing the same across the board?

I knew someone would just look at the numbers and not the idea itself. You're probably not going to be the only one.

5

The idea per se is not bad. I think the core of the idea is (an I expressed them myself) - make marketing scale by combination of airline size and quantity of flights. Now caithes also perfectly combines airport size into equation. I don't think the idea is bad, it may need some tuning but it has logic. The basic idea is that f you do not use marketing you should get less pax from the demand pool than if you use marketing. Imagine it this way: in RL if you set up an airline that offers super excellent product at reasonable prices, and do not use marketing, less people will know about you and fly you than if you use marketing. So in-game, if you set up the same airline and even if you have 99 or 100 ORS why should you get same demand pool as an airline that uses marketing? It's not logical. How to tackle that question? Caithe's response was "Negative ORS" (because we only have ONE demand, not multiple types of demand in game). Again, the whole values may need tuning, because with average of 50 flights into 100 (hundred) of 6-bar airports in average, you would need to pay weekly 37.5 million. Maybe the costs should be about half of the $2500.... again the idea is very good, it just needs tuning.

Heh. That's what I get for responding to the first post without reading the second.

I know the numbers need a lot of fine tuning, and I used to be a math wizard when I was a kid, but not any longer. I cobbled some equations together that would output (generally) what I was looking for. You are right -- the costs are way high. But the raw numbers aren't supposed to be taken literally. Instead, look at them as ratios to one another.

Instead of seeing 400,000 and 40,000,000, look at them as 1 and 100. Or maybe 100 and 10000.

6

Did you read the part where I said the cost wasn't something I was setting in stone? I said it is completely adjustable and very easy, and that I wasn't trying to fix the costs directly, but come up with a way that makes marketing the same across the board?

I knew someone would just look at the numbers and not the idea itself. You're probably not going to be the only one.

well I look on your spreadsheet and he talks more then your post.

and when I got negative points when spend money on marketing, that means something is wrong with formula

Marketing can gets some extra points for airline or route, but can't give negative

its punish for newcomers who have only 10 mil$ 

how to buy    if you must pay 30% profit for marketing only to stay in game?  

and if I'm correct on some route you have profit margin 12-20% or less if you put in game big airplane like 747

you must back to  

7

I'm going to address your points one by one so I can keep my thoughts straight.

well I look on your spreadsheet and he talks more then your post.

and when I got negative points when spend money on marketing, that means something is wrong with formula

There isn't anything wrong with the formula. It was designed to go negative. Personally, I think if a company doesn't advertise at all, it should suffer a bit. Not a whole lot, but marketing is important. Also, try to understand the numbers on the spreadsheet are there just to give an idea of what the system does and how it works. Numbers are a lot easier for most people to look at and understand the difference between them than using some kind of algebraic or calculus equation.

Also, I have absolutely no idea how the ORS is calculated, so my including how it would affect the ORS would have to be completely redone by the programmers to work in the ORS equations. It might be that -51 ends up being +401,210 in the ORS equations. I have no idea.

Marketing can gets some extra points for airline or route, but can't give negative

its punish for newcomers who have only 10 mil$ 

This is a very good point. I had thought of putting some kind of starting point on the marketing effect on ORS but I couldn't get it to work quite right. This isn't a completed product by any means. This is an idea for the AS team and players to look at and give feedback. They might use it, they might not. I'm just adding my idea to the pile of suggestions and ideas in this forum.

Disregard this part at the bottom.. I have no idea how it happened and I can't remove it.

8

Anyway, there is no going back to the drawing board, really. As I stated before, I have no idea how the ORS is equated. I supplied an idea of a general set of two equations to figure out marketing. It is up to the AS programmers to determine how the modify the basic equations to make it work with their system, and that's only if they decide to use this idea.

9

Hi Caithes,

I like your idea. I don't know how easy/difficult it is to program it into the current ORS system, but I like it  :-)

Paying for each hub means you know where the money is going, and you should be able to see the difference in the final ratings.

Paying per hub also means that big airlines, with several hubs, will probably have to spend more money on marketing than a small airline who operates from one hub only.

Linking the price with the size of the airport also makes it cheaper for a small/beginning airline who starts in a secondary airport.

I don't know if negative points are necessary. Airlines who pay for marketing get a higher rating. And if their rating was 99 to start with, it means they can sell their tickets at a higher price and still keep their 99 rating. But how the whole thing is calculated, is up to the AS-team anyway.

Jan

10

I, too, like the idea. I also think, that a negative rating is acceptable. I believe, we have to adapt the ORS in a way, that it is almost impossible to gain 99 anyhow. Otherwise, at some point and service level, it makes no difference if you charge 10AS more or less but you are still at 99. but that's  different topic.

One thing that should be considered regarding the "per airport" part. Even with a medium sized airline, you operate flights to more than a 100 destinations. So either, marketing should work in a way, where only one end of a route needs to be advertised (thou that sounds strange, if you want full effect), or there should be an - rather expensive - option for a "marketing campaigne" that allows you to advertise your airline nation-wide, continent-wide and world wide (or at least in all cities you have offices)