Fellow business blogger Dave Jung at B2Blog alerted me to this tell-tale tempest at American Airlines.

To summarize, blogger Dustin Curtis took American Airlines to task for a terrible website (cluttered front page, poor user interface, etc.). Remember, customer experiences take place at points of contact. Every interface, every encounter, online, in-store or in person, is critical. Curtis received a detailed, if anonymous, e-mail from an AA designer explaining why it is understandably difficult to get good design at large companies. The big issue, he explained, is the sheer number of interventions by competing interests within the company.

My own experience in a large company says this is not necessarily true. Successful design is predicated on a consistent brand message being presented with clarity and creativity. The size of the company and the need to accommodate a range of interests are not predictors of design excellence. But let’s put that aside for the moment.

Mr. X, as he dubbed himself, did say that there were updates on the way that would address some of the problems. So far, so good, though I question the need for anonymity.

In telling the story, Techdirt shows an unfortunate bias. Our intrepid reporter very much appreciated the response given by Mr. X. “It’s human. It explains the situation without PR/marketing speak that a recipient would know was bogus. It is the type of response that makes someone feel good about American Airlines (mostly). So, how did AA respond? It fired the guy.”

Let us begin by looking at the actual response given by the supposedly well-intentioned Mr. X:

“I like to think I’m decent at what I do, and I know the others I work with here are all pretty good. The problem with the design of AA.com, however, lies less in our competency (or lack thereof, as you pointed out in your post) and more with the culture and processes employed here at American Airlines.

“…doing the design isn’t the hard part, and I think that’s what a lot of outsiders don’t really get, probably because many of them actually do belong to small, just-get-it-done organizations. But those of us who work in enterprise-level situations realize the momentum even a simple redesign must overcome…. They know what it’s like.”

So, this is how I interpret what Mr. X said:

- I am a good designer. Any problems with the AA.com design are not my fault, nor the fault of my colleagues. The fault lies with my company which is large and unwieldy (“the group running AA.com consists of at least 200 people spread out amongst many different groups”) and the cumbersome process we are required to work with. Let’s face it: AA is not a “get-it-done” organization.

- Left to my own devices, I could make a really cool site. I could make changes I deem appropriate on a dime. I would not bother with review and approvals with all the revisions such reviews would likely engender. I would say no to new feature requests if they prove difficult to accommodate.

Am I being unfairly selective? Am I being a corporate apologist? Just read Mr. X’s e-mail and judge for yourself.

So, I see things differently from Techdirt:

- Mr. X is certainly human with a number of very human foibles…one of which is an inability to take responsibility. He and his colleagues are clearly unable to neatly marry up the different needs of a complex organization.

- His response does not show loyalty to his employer. He dissed his company publicly. And, in cowardly fashion, did it behind the cloak of anonymity. I wonder if he ever bothered to show Mr. Curtis’ e-mail to his superiors so as to allow the company to come up with an appropriate response. Forget for a moment the highly prejudicial comment about PR/Marketing Speak. The fact is that any company with its head screwed on straight, given a well-intentioned criticism, could easily respond without being bogus. (Whether or not American Airlines is a company with its head screwed on straight is another question and probably a very good one.)

- The response would NOT make someone feel good about American Airlines. On the contrary, it says: if you think the website sucks, you should see what it’s like working here!

Would I have fired Mr. X? No. At least not unless this was one of a series of offenses. But I certainly would have had a chat with him about the appropriate way to approach outside criticism of the company.

This is a case of dumb and dumber. It is not completely obvious which is which.

A few days ago, marketing maven Seth Godin made a wonderful observation: An inbound phone call is the ultimate in short-term permission. The customer or prospect is taking the time to call you. (See Who Answers the Phone?)

Every marketer has been taught about contact points, where stakeholders’ paths, direct or indirect, intersect with those of the company. It can be a trucker asking for directions, or a dealer following up on an order, or a consumer with a complaint, or a shareholder with a query. It can be opening your package or looking you up in the yellow pages. It can be reaching you – or not – on the phone, via e-mail or in person, at the door. For marketers, each point of intersection is vindication, at least, that something is working, and a valuable opportunity to make that something (and the relationship if nothing else) work better.

Too many companies underestimate – and therefore, under-resource (in manpower and funding) customer service in all its various forms. Time is money but, when it concerns customer service, the money is seen as spent rather than earned, outbound rather than inbound.

I once had a bright employee who was asked to coordinate shipments during a period of tight supply. Since we had cleaned out most of our inventory, we were operating on a just-in-time or, as we put it, on an as-needed basis. To keep all this transparent to customers, we had to keep one step ahead of them, knowing what their needs were before they did. This required constant tracking and communications, a maximum of effort and empathy for a minimum of 12 hours a day. It was reputation-making stuff and, precisely for that reason, this employee had a request – that her title did not include the words Customer Service, which would have devalued her role dramatically. When and how, I wondered, did this unfortunate devolution of customer service begin?

Branding is ultimately about how people see your company, its products and/or services. Customer service is what you do at that critical moment when people get to see your company as it really is. The two are inextricably linked. Companies that spend a ton of marketing dollars to build the brand should remember this.