First of all, I’m no lawyer. I’m merely a communications guy. As I see it, FlightPrep‘s patent is in force and they have the right to follow the process they are following… to seek reward for technology deemed as theirs. I have no problem with them having the Patent and I think they should be rewarded for any unique products they created or enabled. Am I defending them? No. It’s just the reality of our system.
That said, I contend that the way Flight Prep is dealing with this situation is detrimental to their current and future business prospects. If FlightPrep doesn’t change their communications tactics, they will quickly find themselves permanent outcasts. I just don’t think FlightPrep understands the image they are creating for themselves by handling things so badly. Image and brand are everything these days and theirs is now tarnished.
Ask yourself… if you were a new company or website looking at ways to do flight or travel planning online, how likely are you to approach FlightPrep to discuss using their technology? I know I wouldn’t want to do business with a group that has raised the ire of the very customer-base I might be targeting. Would you?
FlightPrep needs to remember that they are not the only ones out there who have a way to put a route on a map. To this day, I can’t figure out why their system might be better or even different than anyone else’s way. If FlightPrep wants new companies to pay for their technology and not use someone else’s product, then I need a bit of help beyond “we have a patent.” So what? So do others. Google has great mapping and planning technology. Why is your system better than theirs? What is FlightPrep’s value proposition?
I applaud co-founders Kyle Everson and Roger Stenbock for a long history of great products. I’ve used several of them and, based on that history, have to assume that their controversial patent covers some technology that is somehow unique and useful. Unfortunately, their skills with managing marketing and communications are obviously lacking an ability to sway potential customers into wanting to use FlightPrep’s products. I’m a good example as I started out in their camp but I just can’t watch as they continue down this path.
So what happened? How did they change my mind? Not long after this whole issue first surfaced, I read their 10 Dec blog post “An Open Letter regarding our Online Flight Planning Patent” and was left thinking… these guys are ok and are just doing what they need for their technology. ANN may take issue with a few of the details, but it was a good letter. You should read it if you haven’t already.
Unfortunately, they didn’t stick with this type of positive, open communication for very long. Their very next posting on 13 Dec “FlightPrep grants RunwayFinder temporary license” begins on the attack:
“Although we believe RunwayFinder infringes on our patent…”
I’d bet they intended to announce “look! See! We are willing to work with RunwayFinder. We are good guys!” It’s too bad that the overall message is a legal one which doesn’t resonate with the general public. Plainly: the post backfired and didn’t offer the positive impression they intended.
How did they follow this post? The next day they wrote “Regarding RunwayFinder shutting down” where they outline their position that RunwayFinder shut down on it’s own with no influence from FlightPrep. If I was with RunwayFinder having read the offer of temporary access to their technology, I’d be tempted to shut down as well. Why? Because it’s obvious that Flight Prep will want lots of cash for their technology…. at least, that’s the impression. If I’m a small company or site, I might not have the resources to do much more than run the servers let alone take on software costs and legal fees. Did FlightPrep make them shut down? Not in so many words, but their actions come across as “pay us or get sued” which likely forced a business decision at RunwayFinder of “it isn’t worth it. Good bye.” FlightPrep got what they implied… either pay or stop using their product. RunwayFinder chose the latter which might not have come to be if FlightPrep had approached this differently. Was FlightPrep in the right to want compensation from RunwayFinder? Of course. Is one potential outcome that RunwayFinder shuts down? It is. Somehow, FlightPrep seems surprised by this reaction and, yet, takes a “it not our fault” attitude.
While that post made me wince from a communications standpoint, I still understood where FlightPrep was coming from and I was still sympathetic to their process. They lost my sympathy five days later with their post on 18 Dec “Myth vs. Fact regarding the FlightPrep patent issue.” What changed? This new post was a great post IF you are a lawyer, but I’m not. That post might be great if you are entering evidence into court. How is that helpful to all if us… their customers? Do they really assume that the flying public will wade through all the links and legal language to see if FlightPrep is within the law? I already think they are within the law and it irritated me. I have my doubts anyone got past the fourth paragraph. Strictly quoting me legal positions as to why you are acting the way you are just comes across as arrogance.
I’d put money on it that Mr. Stenbock wrote that post. Why? Besides being a CFII, he is also a lawyer. It completely misses the point of the problem they face and sounds like a legal brief to boot. So what if what they are doing is legal? If the public is reacting negatively to your actions, then listen and find ways to appeal to the public before moving on down the legal path. Tell us THAT position rather than take us to law school.
I have to assume that FlightPrep isn’t looking for the same amount of money from a little site as they are from a big one. I’d assume what they want is to gather a few small companies who have licensed their technologies…even if it’s a $1 in a secret deal. Why? So that when FlightPrep talks to the big companies, they can get bigger dollars since there is a cadre of companies that have already licensed the technology. Unfortunately, all the communications from FlightPrep takes a hard line and strong tone implying simple greed and inflexibility.
As I read several stories, I kept thinking things like “isn’t there some metric that they could apply that, if not met, would allow them to grant an inexpensive license that grandfathers existing sites and protects them from further legal action?” I bet FlightPrep would (and does) consider these options… but there is not one communication that hints at flexibility other than a paternalistic stance of the technology being free during negotiations. That lack of flexibility combined with their aggressive and broad legal notifications, the public is left with an impression of greed.
As an example, using a blog to announce you are granting a “temporary free-pass at our technology” gives the reader the impression that “free” is forever off the table. Even if the company does think its off the table, putting this out in a blog post makes you look like all you want is cash. If a free license IS part of a “mutually beneficial long-term solution,” then say so! If you don’t say it, then readers will only think you are giving RunwayFinders a temporary deal … before you soon overcharge them for the license and legal fees.
In the 14 Dec post, FlightPrep said:
“Mr. Parsons response was to elect to try this case in the court of public opinion instead of employing professional and good faith business practices”
I contend that FlightPrep is the one who fails to understand that managing public communications IS part of good faith business. How you represent yourself and your company to the public is how the public perceives and attaches value to your brand. How did they represent themselves? through their blog posts and interviews which are part of the court of public opinion. They are responsible for their own words and actions.
In the “Myth vs. Fact” post, they stated:
“We urge those wanting to form an informed opinion to seek the advice of a qualified professional prior to making final judgement”
FlightPrep had better learn that this statement applies to them as well as to the public. I think most lawyers are well prepared for court documents but few are good at managing public opinion. FlightPrep would do well to hire a communications/marketing professional to defend them in the public court where they are so obviously floundering under the leadership of their resident JD.
To help them out if they don’t hire someone, here are some hints for those looking at managing public opinion…
- don’t post your position so strongly with legal phrases like “…we have offered to grant a free-license to RunwayFinder to operate its website during this negotiation phase our legal dispute.” If you are trying to show your compassion and express your understanding that this is a difficult situation, then don’t write a post from an assumed winning position. That position changes your compassion to something between condescension and outright arrogance.
- Even if you internally assume a company must pay handsomely for your technology, tone it down in public posts during times of contentious coverage. Give the impression of flexibility and understanding. What the public hears and what happens at a negotiation table do not have to be worded the same way
- Deleting negative comments, even if they have no basis in legal reality is tantamount to saying “your comment doesn’t matter because I am right and you are wrong.” Again… arrogance and condescension will make you look, at best, heartless in the eyes of your customers.
- If you do delete posts, at least be smart enough to edit your own posts to remove references to the removed comments.
- Help the public understand how your technology is worth all this fuss. A page outlining “here is what we make and why we think it is worth defending in court” would have helped this situation quite a bit.
- Consider outlining potential options beyond the implied “you will pay us or else” position. If you would consider a tiered price structure based on company revenue… say so! You don’t have to say what the costs are. Just imply that you know there is a need for tiers. This way you come across with compassion and understanding.
- Take a step back and see what your actions are doing to your customer base. Rather than put up legally-worded defenses, decide if your actions are considered too aggressive to appeal to your customer base.
- Start small rather than attack everyone all at once.
- If you accept feedback and don’t like it, you still have to protect it so that it isn’t used by someone who turns around and attacks those who provided the feedback. By the way, news sources are a great place to hear feedback. Even if you don’t like what they say, don’t attack them either.
- Learn that sometimes not saying anything is the right thing to do
