I’ll be taking a look at Southwest’s overall response to the report that they had been flying “unairworthy” planes. This controversy relates to missed or overlooked inspections, small or tiny cracks, a thumbs up by a FAA inspector, and a short period of continued flying violations after the problem was identified.

As usual, in cases like this, the story is hard to follow. That always seems to create initial hysteria and then allows to potential offending party to spin the story to their benefit, often leaving out key concepts.

It seems that in 2004, the FAA issued a ruling that all 737 airplanes must be inspected every 4,500 flights. These inspections were primarily concerned about cracking, a condition which that can lead to very dangerous situations.

On March 15, 2007, Southwest let the FAA that it may have allowed 46 planes to exceed that number of flights as decided by the FAA. Southwest then did and internal investigation and found that, yes, those 46 planes did indeed exceed that limit by a total of 59.791 flights. They reported back this information to the FAA on March 19. However, after disclosing this information to the FAA, they continued to fly those planes for four more days to March 23 for an additional 1,451 flights.

At some point within that March 15-23 time period, an FAA official gave Southwest the thumbs up to continue to fly the planes as long as they were quickly inspected. That official, now being disciplined, is supposedly based out of Dallas, which coincidentally, is where Southwest Airlines is headquartered.

For this transgression, the FAA is proposing a $10.2 million fine.

That’s the story as I see it so far. I’ll be examinging their response as time goes on.

Next, I’ll be taking a look at the way they’re corresponding through their blog.

That’s the story as I see it so far.

I just asked a question via Twitter. And I’ll repeat it here.

Question for social media types…many complain about interference from legal dept. when it comes to social media, especially with UGC…so, are there any conferences, events, seminars, etc. that bring the two groups together to understand one another more?

Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a good question. And it’s one that needs to be answered.

Marketers are essentially in charge of defining, promoting, enhancing, and protecting the brand. Lawyers are essentially in charge of protecting the entity, the business, and, yes, the brand.

I got to thinking about this because social media strategists often, as part of their strategy, enlist, encourage, or allow a brands users to play a role in the branding. I got to thinking of a recent story involving a group of car enthusiasts putting together a picture calendar showing off their cars. They calendars were to be sold on CafePress. But there was some sort of communication screw up and it was halted I believe. Some social media strategists mistakenly blamed the car company.

But then I thought…wait…if the legal department did have reservations in this situation, is that necessarily a bad thing? Think about it….

What if one of the participants of an unsolicited consumer generated media effort has let’s say a problem. Like a police record. I mean, let’s say he’s the type of guy who could get nailed by Chris Hansen of Nightline. You know, a pedophile.

Ridiculous? If you think so, you’re missing the point. The point is that legal department and marketing departments are going to have to understand one another and work together to both reasonably promote and protect the brand through social media. Cutting edge vs. overly cautious won’t do. Lawyer potentially nixing or at least getting in the way of potentially effective programs or frustrated marketing types angrily rolling their eyes at the stupidity and interference of the legal department will only serve to stifle the brand, or, potentially worse, leave it unprotected.

Polling and focus groups are like observing the behavior of the chimpanzee in captivity — you have a living, breathing, chimpanzee, but you have one that is under stress, duress, and has been partially acclimatized to appeasing its handlers — it wants to keep safe, it wants to be fed, and it wants to get out — so observing chimpanzee behavior in captivity is like observing consumer or market behavior in focus groups — you have real-live response, but you have the response of something that is beholden to you, that is wondering what’s in it for me — you have corrupted behavioral data.

Read more…