One debate sure to spring out of the new KC-46A data finally coming from Boeing and the Pentagon is whether anything goes in terms of marketing for a business capture campaign. At issue is just how conceptual should conceptual art printed in ads and given to the press for publication be?
Enter the case of the missing winglets.
Until this week, Boeing widely distributed artist concepts of its NewGen Tanker, based on the 767, with prominent winglets, sparking discussion among onlookers about why they were needed and how much integration would cost.
One characteristic of the KC-46A in newly released images, however, is the conspicuous absence of the winglets. So, about six weeks after winning the $4.4 billion KC-X development contract, it comes to light that the design is far different than that proposed on the company’s website.
The image posted with this blog is actually a virtual retake of one distributed last year -- just without the winglets.
Boeing opted against revising its so-called NewGen tanker marketing materials in advance of the source selection despite having earlier determined that the winglets would not be needed after conducting design trade studies. “Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” according to a company statement provided as a response about the winglet issue. “We felt comfortable showing winglets on the NewGen tanker because we were considering them through the trade study. Showing available technology and potential airplane configurations in marketing material is a normal practice in the industry.”
In short, Bill Barksdale, Boeing’s KC-46A spokesman, says the winglets did not “earn their way onto the airplane.” But, they apparently earned their way onto concept art renderings and managed to stay there. Barksdale declines to say when the design decision was made to opt for standard wings.
Boeing’s unitedstatestanker.com website still features images of the aircraft with winglets. “I don’t think we are ever going to talk about the timing of when we decided to take them off,” he explains.
This raises some questions that might be worth debate. Just how far is acceptable to go in using concept art to represent – or perhaps misrepresent – a team’s design during a competition? And, if design decisions are made during the course of a campaign, is it ethical to continue to knowingly distribute art that misrepresents your design to the media and the public? When selling to the Pentagon, it is – after all – taxpayer money that a company is chasing.
Boeing’s strategy during the most recent KC-X duel, which it won in February with the KC-46A, can be summed up as a “mum’s the word” approach. Even the company’s 767 design rollout was dubbed as a “virtual” rollout, which took place only on the web and lacked actual presentations from executives or Q&A time for reporters. While many in the press saw this as a lazy man’s rollout owing to the lack of willingness to answer questions, some communications experts in industry found it to be genius because the company got its art and its message out there with none of the messy fallout of executive Q&As.
Of course, that rollout included professional imagery and a video of the tanker – with winglets – and we may never know if by then Boeing had internally opted against them before or after the rollout took place.
The company’s unwillingness to answer even the most basic questions during the yearlong competition about its design was frustrating for a journalist. But, admittedly, that is the company’s prerogative. In the case of KC-X, Boeing has far stronger political pull then EADS. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were willing to fight the company’s battles on matters such as the request for proposals and how many years lifecycle cost should be (that requirement was changed). And, these legislators happily fought the “American jobs” fight on the Hill, as well, even though EADS was slated to assemble its tanker in Alabama. But, the voice of pro-EADS lawmakers was drowned out by the cacophony on Boeing’s side.
So, Boeing really didn’t need the press to fight its fights or deliver its message in this campaign. That is fair enough … but being silent and being misleading are two very different strategies. And, I’m not sure where the case of the missing winglets lands on that spectrum.
If you are silent with the press, you give up your right to influence them with what you say – clearly. You leave your positions open to interpretations that the press may find elsewhere.
But, if you mislead, you try to influence that public discussion with information that is knowingly inaccurate. I wonder if keeping those winglets on the marketing materials goes too far into the territory of misinformation.
And, I fear that other companies may fall in line with forthcoming competitions for the new bomber, an EP-3 replacement or a next-gen UAS. If the public can’t rely on contractors to at least be accurate in discussions – and pictures – about design options, then one wonders what the point is of printing what a contactor says at all. Anything really doesn’t and shouldn’t go in pursing a capture campaign.
Ultimately, you have to wonder if folks in the press will be willing to print Boeing concept art in the future for fear it may be more concept than truth.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment