Provocation as a Marketing Strategy

Few CEOs take a more active role in the marketing strategies of the companies that they lead than Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary.

For 20 years, the Irishman has made his personal identity synonymous with that of the airline he leads. The company’s brand – it was perhaps the original “no-frills” airline – is that it provides cheap, comfort-free travel across Europe at prices that make optional comforts seem like unaffordable luxuries.

In this cause, O’Leary’s brashness and occasional contempt for convention have served him well. Some years ago he made a splash by suggesting that Ryanair would charge customers to use the toilets. On another occasion, he proposed removing the seats from his planes altogether, meaning that he could squeeze more passengers onto flights if they were left standing for the whole trip.

“Raping their customers”

And then last week, he accused some of his competitors – Lufthansa and British Airways were among those he named – of “raping” their customers.

What O’Leary meant may not have translated well to those for whom English is not a first language or those unfamiliar with Hiberno-English idioms. He was not suggesting organized airborne sex crimes: in fact he was comparing the sexual violation of rape to the experience of being left with an inexplicably lighter wallet after engaging with one of his competitor airlines.

A great many people, now familiar with O’Leary-isms, will have paid little attention, or even smiled, knowing exactly what his strategy was. But happily for O’Leary, use of the word “rape” meant that an array of taxpayer-funded feminist NGOs took the bait. They sat up in their seats, armed their cannons and commenced a barrage of condemnation.

In Ireland, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre accused him of “trivializing” sexual violence: “For many survivors of rape, his words will be deeply hurtful and angering to hear”, pronounced Rachel Morrogh, CEO of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Helpfully, she added that she would “write to Mr O’Leary to offer him training on how the trivialisation of rape is so harmful”.

In England, Katie Kempen, CEO of Victim Support England, called the remarks “appalling”, “offensive” and “completely unacceptable”.

Where the NGOs led, the politicians followed: Irish Finance Minister Jack Chambers called the comment “shocking” and demanded that it be withdrawn and an apology be issued to rape victims. An emergency, though unofficial, debate broke out in the Irish Senate with left-wing politicians taking turns to denounce O’Leary – whose brash criticisms of unions, taxes and left-wing politics generally have never endeared him to social democrats.

O’Leary Doubles Down

It is customary, when such rows erupt, for the offending CEO to quickly retreat, back down and withdraw the comments. But O’Leary did not: asked to comment on the outrage generated by his remarks, he simply repeated them.

It is absolutely fair, he insisted when challenged, to compare his competitor airlines to rapists. When asked to apologize, he simply made a rude noise:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fhXxHxoFgfs

Why the Row Works for Ryanair

For O’Leary, of course, this particular row is a win-win-win. There is almost no way for him – or Ryanair – to lose from it.

First, there is the publicity. The outrage generated by the comments has the helpful impact for Ryanair of drawing attention to the ticket pricing strategies of the company’s competitors – to the extent that every news report must now explain what he was saying: he meant that they were raping customer wallets with high ticket prices. It also forces reporters to mention that Ryanair is a lower-fare airline.

Second, there is limited obvious downside: are those people – who appear to exist – who are genuinely offended by his comments going to punish him, and Ryanair, by … buying more expensive plane tickets from the company’s competitors? Some wealthier customers may do exactly that, to be sure, but it is likely that O’Leary will intuit that these people are a minority and that most customers will still purchase based on price.

Third, there is a reinforcement of O’Leary’s brand. For decades he has carefully cultivated an image as a businessman entirely opposed to political correctness, endless political debate and obfuscation: his brand is based on the notion that he says what he thinks and does not care who he offends or what politicians think. In that sense, his critics have just awarded him more valuable evidence that he is as he appears, complete with rude noises in response to feminist criticism.

You might be interested Monty Python Britain: “Please don’t rape the women”, Migrants Asked

Rivals Have Few Good Options

Finally, he has put his competitors in something of a difficult position. For their part, they have only a limited number of responses. British Airways and Lufthansa could choose to join the chorus of criticism of O’Leary’s language – but to do so would be almost to concede the underlying message: “Our prices are high but should not be described that way, the language is offensive.”

Alternatively, the companies could say that O’Leary’s description of their prices was inaccurate, but it will be impossible to do so without commenting on the language used. In the words of former US President Lyndon Johnson, when they are explaining, they are losing.

So, did O’Leary perhaps deliberately use offensive language, understanding that it would cause a furore that, in the end, would probably benefit rather than harm him? That is not a question that can possibly be answered. But for long-standing watchers of one of Europe’s most colorful business figures, it is assuredly a question that should be asked.