This is a re-post of a post I made in the members forum. It was requested that I post this here so that non-members could see the depths that some Spam-can sellers can/will/are going to.
I just got this e-mail from a Cessna rep:
Would you be interested in getting out of your aircraft or position?
I can help get you into a new Cessna 172 or 182.
We have 0% financing on 182’s and cash back programs that you can still take advantage of .
Please contact me for further information.
Thank you,
David Kay
Future Aviation
New Cessna Sales
(800) 929-2359
Attached was a PDF file of the Aviation Consumer article from their September report called “A Bad Start”.
Cessna must really be feeling the heat to drop to this level!
Casey,
Thanks for re-posting this. As I mentioned on the Members site, it’s not a good sign for Cessna if they feel that they must sink to negative advertising. Surely they must be able to find plenty of customers who want a tried and true airframe. There ought not to be a need for them to bash the innovators… I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
I agree, this new marketing approach is very telling–Cessna must have lots and lots of unsold inventory while Cirrus, Lancair (hope they get back on their financial feet), and Diamond are laboring mightily to fill order backlogs. No wonder 182LK got such a good deal on his turbo 182T!
Drop to what level? What unforgiveable slander did the Cessna rep utter? This poor fellow is guilty of only trying to sell airplanes. May there be more like him! We need more GA sales. Give him a break. It’s clean, fair competition.
Cirrus makes two splendid airplanes, beyond question. This owner’s forum, moreover, is by far the best one going.
However, it must be said that you “Church of Cirrus” congregates are THE MOST SENSITIVE WEENIES on earth . . . or in the sky. Lighten up, ladies.
What’s wrong with someone trying to sell a product to a group of people who might be in the market? How is trying to do that somehow akin to dropping to some new level?
Is it your argument that it is somehow immoral to sell a Cessna because it’s not a Cirrus?
For the students in the group who are having trouble with this one:
Here is the point about the Cessna dealerÂ’s mailing. ItÂ’s not that it was immoral or unsportsmanlike or super-sneaky or beyond the pale. ItÂ’s not that it was illegal, setting aside the mailing of the Aviation Consumer proprietary material. It’s not that it’s heresy for dealers to promote their own products.
What made it interesting is what it revealed about the Cessna dealerÂ’s outlook. Let me illustrate by analogy.
Suppose there is a university that has for years been dominant in its area. Harvard, letÂ’s say. Or West Point. Or CalTech or Notre Dame. Choose your example: the point is, a power so strong that its name alone conveys a certain tradition and heft.
Suppose a number of students have applied to a smaller college that seems to be on the rise. Reed, letÂ’s say. Or Williams or Wesleyan. The problem for this small college is that last year it had a rash of drug overdoses among its students, which were written about in the Chronicle of Higher Education. (Note: a publication that does not offer its contents free on the web.)
Now suppose that students applying to Reed/Williams/Wesleyan get a mailing from Harvard. It includes an (unauthorized) copy of the Chronicle clip, and says: nervous about your choice? Consider Harvard! (Or West Point / Notre Dame).
That would mainly make you think: what is going on at Harvard? How bad is it, really, at West Point? ThatÂ’s whatÂ’s interesting about this mailing.
Always a bad sign when some company feels the need to bash the competition in order to promote its product. Cirrus has been the most written about aircraft for the past 4-5 years and both the successes and failures have been meticulously documented. None of this is news to anyone who is actively shopping for a new aircraft.
One of the real turnoffs with Lancair was the constant Cirrus bashing. They make(made) a wonderful airplane which had many features that were superior to the Cirrus. But rather than acknowledge that there was a segment of the airplane buying market that wanted BRS, they chose to insult this group of aviation enthusiasts by treating them as lesser pilots. In spite of that, most of the Cirrus owners still wanted Lancair to be successful and if Cessna buyers were honest with themselves, they would want a certain amount of success from Cirrus. Competition breeds innovation and Cessna certainly isn’t going to be pushed by Piper or Beechcraft.
Cessna must really be feeling the heat to drop to this level!
And how nice of you to drop with them.
I don’t think that Casey “dropped” to their level… If Cirrus themselves had made a big deal out of the email, then maybe you could accuse them of something along those lines.
But for a prospective customer of presumably both Cessna and Cirrus to discuss some marketing techniques he doesn’t agree with, I don’t see what could possibly, even remotely, be considered as “dropping to that level”.
Art, for the record, if there is any “dropping” here – and I submit there’s not – I’m responsible for it. I sent a note to the original poster, suggesting that he re-post the information here. The reason I did so is that I know the public part of this board, while far less informative than the members section, is routinely surveyed by people from other companies, other user groups, aviation publications, and so on. (How do I know this? Because I’ve gotten notes from many of them saying, “I saw on the Cirrus board that…”) The Cessna email is actually illustrative of larger trends or pressures in the industry. Therefore it was something that properly belonged in the public section. Also for the record: to the best of my knowledge, Cirrus has always tried to sell its product by talking up its own product. Lancair made wonderful airplanes, but a distressing share of its sales approach consisted of running Cirrus down. It can’t be a healthy sign for at least this part of Cessna’s distributor chain to be trying the same thing. Cessna also makes wonderful airplanes, which we’ve all flown, and they should talk them up.
So while I’m still grateful for the ride you gave me to Lancaster, I totally disagree with you about this.
Art,
Of all the people that participate in this forum, you are the last person I would view as qualified to jump up on the moral high ground and send a zinger like that one. I have read enough exaggerated, uninformed, argumentative posts penned by you that now, I generally skip them altogether. You caught me in an unguarded moment on this one. Did you think it was so clever you just couldn’t pass it up?
What Cessna sent out was an invitation to buy. When any sales or marketing organization sends out an invitation to buy to multiple prospects, they do so with the knowledge it will become public. They should be sending materials and offers that do not disparage competitors. They should sell their product on its merits. If it has none, then they should bring a product to market that does. If they don’t want to invest the capital, then they should get out of the market and quit whining.
I run a sales company. The one thing I have always taught my salesmen to avoid at all costs is negative selling. When I see a deficiency in my competition I tell my salesmen to emphasize our own strength that will allow the customer to come to their own conclusion. Hopefully, if we do our job right they will conclude that what we offer is better.
The reason I like to stay away from being negative about my competition is that, 1) I might be wrong, and if I am my customer can rightly question anything I said about my own product. 2) I might insult my customersÂ’ intelligence, by making him/her believe that I think they are too stupid to come to intelligent conclusions by themselves.
Jim,
I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with all of your comments. Thanks to you for encouraging Casey to re-post this information on the public side of the Forum. Res ipsa loquitor!
Art, for the record, if there is any “dropping” here – and I submit there’s not – I’m responsible for it. I sent a note to the original poster, suggesting that he re-post the information here.
Since it was the repost that set me off, I apologize to Wynn.
Well, before we get too critical of Cessna for actually advertising an attractive financing option for their planes, there’s one thing we can be sure of: Cessna has been around a LOT longer than Cirrus, surviving on its OWN profits, rather than huge cash infusions from foreigners. Further, as I recall, there were over 600 Cirrus contracts before there was any reliable data base on Cirrus accidents, machine reliability, etc (and frankly, the preliminary numbers I’ve seen are not too comforting). I think the majority of Cirrus’ customers bought the sizzle…not the steak. In fact, it’s still too early to know how well this plane will perform over the long run. In aviation, I believe it’s staying power that counts. And the only thing that factors into staying power is safety and reliability, not glitz and leather seats.
(already waiting for more than 2 years)