7.2.1 Description
Incorporation of the services provided by distinct yet complementary operators under the umbrella of a single brand, marketing strategy and information channel. Although individual operators may retain their individual brand and most of their marketing functions, it is envisaged that the collective brand is given more prominence (see Solution 7.1 for a less ambitious variant which simply ensures a common approach to information provision).
77 ATOC (2009) “Good Practice Guide for providing information to passengers”, Association of Train Operating
Companies, London, UK.
78 Lyons, G., Harman, R., Austin, J., Duff, A. (2001). Traveller Information Systems Research: A
Review and Recommendations for Transport Direct. Prepared for the UK Department for Transport,
Local Government and the Regions, London,
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/245385/249577/tisr (last opened 1/02/11)
7.2.2 Problems Addressed
Additional anxiety and cognitive effort expended while obtaining and processing unfamiliar information is heightened by the use of distinct marketing tools by complementary operators.
7.2.3 Applicability
Because of the very nature of intermodal long distance travel passengers may be exposed to a multiplicity of brands and marketing messages even when travelling on what are perceived to be essentially complementary services (e.g. local and high speed rail services, rail and air services, local and long haul flights). However, operators may see each other as competitors and give significant priority to developing their own individual brand and marketing strategy. As a result they are unlikely to be willing to compromise their own brand image by allowing it to be diluted by association with a joint venture with another provider or providers. As a result passengers are exposed to inconsistent or incomplete information and marketing messages as each operator strives to differentiate its service and promote a distinctive brand. Since intermodal traffic typically represents only a small proportion of each individual operator’s demand their marketing will be tailored to their core market, their particular priorities and operating practices. To persuade operators to implement this type of measure it is critical to demonstrate that the benefits from more uniform marketing outweigh any potential disadvantages from brand dilution.
7.2.4 Performance
Cost Assuming that individual operators have already established large, well known brands, this measure may actually be relatively costly in order to be effective (€1-10 million) as it will be necessary to invest in a whole new branding exercise and marketing strategy. There may also be additional costs associated to the provision of joint information and ticketing services. Part of the initial investment can be divided between operators and so the amount required from each operator depends on the number involved.
Technical feasibility No significant hurdles.
Financial feasibility Likely to generate profit through increases in demand. However, it is a significant challenge to put a number to the valuation of such soft factors. A conservative estimate of the potential long term increase in demand would be in the range 3% - 8%.
Organisational feasibility There is likely to be some opposition from individual operators as they see their own marketing strategy and brand as a key asset and a way to differentiate themselves against potential competitors. This type of measure is likely to face least opposition when operators are clearly perceived to provide complementary services.
Acceptance by users The main purpose of this measure is to remove unnecessary complexity in order to make journeys simpler for users so it is likely to be popular.
Other aspects of political acceptance No problems are foreseen – except perhaps if well known national brands are at stake.
Impact on users’ door to door travel time No impact is envisaged.
Impact on users’ door to door travel cost No significant effect is envisaged.
Comfort and convenience The purpose of this measure is to remove unnecessary complexity in order to make journeys simpler for users.
Users’ Safety No impact is envisaged. Personal security No impact is envisaged.
Access for people with reduced mobility Any measure that reduces the cognitive and affective effort required for information acquisition is likely to have a positive impact on travellers with disabilities.
7.2.5 Other Impacts
Small positive environmental impact may be expected if passengers are encouraged to switch from car or taxi to public transport.
More uniform marketing and information is likely to increase the passengers’ perception of the region and might thus enhance its prestige.
7.2.6 Examples
The issues faced by UK rail passengers in terms of inconsistent marketing and information provision (see Solution 7.1) can also be found on the European high speed rail network where each operator (e.g.: TGV, Thalys, Eurostar, Eurostar Italia, AVE, TAV, ICE, Fyra) prides itself on its distinctive brand, therefore passing on to the passenger an idea of fragmentation as opposed to integration. A number of these operators have identified the multiplicity of brands and fragmented information sources as a potential barrier to greater system usage and, in response, have formed the Railteam consortium. One of its main stated objectives is to improve travel information through: “Easier access to schedules, availability and purchase information; multi-lingual services on board, before and after [the] journey; and Railteam Information Points and services in major stations”. This example suggests that successful partnership working can lead to significant improvements in the provision of intermodal information and marketing even in complex and fragmented institutional environments. Lyons et al. (2001)79 suggest that flexible and voluntary partnerships of this sort can allow institutional and jurisdictional barriers to be overcome more easily than more formal agreements involving industry regulators. However, it would appear that for individual operators to agree to concessions with respect to their individual brand there needs to be a clear underlying business case.
Another good example is the AIRail service connecting Cologne and Stuttgart with Frankfurt-Main Airport. Although this relies on the ICE high speed rail service run by DB, it is marketed by Lufthansa as a fully integrated component of its service creating the concept of a ‘single journey’. Neither the ICE nor the DB logos are used on the Lufthansa website, the service can be booked together with flights (rail stations have their own three letter code similar to airports), check-in can be done at the rail station or the airport and frequent travelers can earn air miles on the surface portion of the journey. Lufthansa also advertises dedicated airport bus services on its website under the Lufthansa Airport Bus brand. Tickets can be purchased together with flights and routing information is also available. Although most of these services are actually operated by different companies Lufthansa’s marketing strategy gives the passenger the sense and security of a single journey.