Marketing

[stattohogg2020]

Wouldn't it make sense to be able to choose a base airport for a general marketing campaign, so that a campaign for around your base airport/city, would be for a specifice base?

[NZelenkova]

So the current smallest marketing area is "my base and nearby cities" because realistically some passengers are going to drive or take public transit even a long way if it's still an overall shorter journey time than air transportation. People might also decide local transportation is inadequate or that your specific base in a large city is too crowded and too delayed. Thus they might choose you in your secondary airport but you are still competing with the overall demand of whichever city and the surrounding area. In some countries there are also feeder airlines that might pick people up in isolated places and funnel them into major airports which could further complicate things.

[knobbygb]

You're totally overthinking it. The names of the campaigns make no difference and they have no effect on what happens with the money you spend on marketing.

It's a simple rule - the more money you spend, the more/faster your COMPANY IMAGE increases. ANY general marketing campaign affects the whole company in the same way, not just one base.  It's all about the TOTAL amount you spend.  It has no effect on specific routes at a specific base - JUST the CI as a whole.

The five types of campaign may as well just be called "Spend a small amount of money", "spend a bit more money" etc...  The names appear to be just to add some interest or 'realism'.

Only route-specific campaigns have a more targeted effect (and they also increase the CI too). I agree it might be good to have some sort of mechanism to advertise ALL the routes at a specific base, or a specific set of routes/types to increase their RI.  The marketing system is very basic and (I think) pretty much unchanged for 15 years.